6 ms·

1. While I agree with most developers that Apple has room for improvement, I think we should take a step back and realize how much of an improvement the iPhone

1. While I agree with most developers that Apple has room for improvement, I think we should take a step back and realize how much of an improvement the iPhone has made mobile developers from a couple of years ago when the carriers were in charge of mobile applications. 2. I think the solution to the iPhone fiasco should be for Apple to hire more reviewers and allow developers to pay more money so that they can buy a faster turnaround time. It doesn't make sense for me to wait 2-3 weeks for another shot at the review process because I placed a bad keyword in the description.

jgrahamc 17y ago
I strongly disagree with your conclusion. Both smack of 'religious' thinking. Your point 1 is essentially 'be thankful to the merciful god who has ended the drought'. Your point 2 doesn't solve the problem, it just throws more priests at it. The solution is to open the platform to all developers. Imagine if Microsoft had vetted every DOS and Windows app, or if we had to submit Linux apps to Linus for review.
- dasil003 17y ago
  Yes, PG makes the point very well. Apple thinks of themselves as ensuring quality, when in reality they are having the exact opposite effect. What they need to do is just let all apps through, and make it easy for customers to report problems, and then Apple can proactively pull apps that have too many problems. They could do that at half the cost and have much better overall quality, to say nothing of the developer good will.
  - jcl 17y ago
    Of course, then Apple couldn't screen for the things that they care about but that users won't report. For example, applications that use Apple/iPhone imagery wouldn't get reported because users don't care about the dilution of Apple's brand. Likewise, applications that encourage the user to do things that might damage the device (swinging, throwing, or dropping) wouldn't be reported because the device is broken -- and the user will probably try to get it replaced under warranty rather than admitting that they did something stupid with their phone.
    - astine 17y ago
      I'd add to that that it's probably best that Apple catch malware before it enters the app store, not after.
    - dasil003 17y ago
      Fair point, but they can do that anyway. Also, it would give them an incentive to actually review things in a timely manner. The other thing is they could keep the existing process for everyone's first app, but once you are a trusted developer things should be smoother. That would eliminate most of the pain.
    - cma 17y ago
      If I create a website that tells you that you should play the (already existant) Super Monkey Ball app by wildly swinging it around like a monkey, should Apple blacklist my site from all iphone users? (Bonus points: if not, why, and how is it different from your example?)
      - forensic 17y ago
        Apple is a private company, not a government. The question you should ask is do Apple customers want Apple to protect them from those sites? I work with non-hacker computer users all day long and the answer is emphatically that they do want Apple to hold their hand and protect them so they can get their work done without having to fight with their machine. They want a padded room where they don't have to constantly worry about bandaging themselves up from being accidentally impaled on some spike around the corner. Users definitely want a controlled ecosystem that is somewhat sanitized and they are willing to take it at the expense of having the latest greatest features, and also at the expense of paying more.
      - jcl 17y ago
        It's not a question of whether they should reject certain apps, but whether they can. Under the current system, Apple can reject applications that encourage you to throw your iPhone. And the ability to do this is definitely something Apple wants, as they currently use this criteria to reject such apps. This ability would be diminished under dasil003's proposal, so it would be harder to convince Apple that such a system is a net win.
- pohl 17y ago
  Imagine if Microsoft had vetted every DOS and Windows app Or, hold constant that Microsoft didn't vet DOS/Windows apps and imagine that every DOS/Windows machine had access to a cellular network owned by a some other company. I agree that the review process is completely broken, but I don't think the solution is as easy as having no controls whatsoever.
  - chollida1 17y ago
    > , hold constant that Microsoft didn't vet DOS/Windows apps and imagine that every DOS/Windows machine had access to a cellular network owned by a some other company. Well most windows machines do have access to a network controlled by someone else. And with the proliferation of cellular usb accessories more and more windows machines do have access to a cellular network owned by some other company.
    - pohl 17y ago
      True, and about ten million of them are estimated to be in the Conficker botnet, another half a million in the Kraken botnet, etc, etc... I'm definitely not saying that Microsoft should have been vetting programs. I'm saying that cellular platforms may not yet be to the point where unfettered access is safe. The software on cell phones tends to favor being small at the expense of all else - probably including safety.
      - deleted 17y ago
        [deleted]
    - elblanco 17y ago
      They don't? I don't know about how you connect to the internet, but my ISPs owns the networks I tend to connect to.
      - chollida1 17y ago
        > They don't? I don't think you correctly read my post:) No worries
- allenp 17y ago
  I keep seeing this notion of opening the platform brought up here. I'm having a hard time visualizing how this works out. Does Apple continue the overhead/cost of the app store? Do they have a giant disclaimer that they do not support or condone the applications, take no responsibility for any damages, etc? Do they still act as the payment gateway? How does this impact Apple's brand and the consumer trust of the product? Why is it that mobile phones with open app development have not taken off even with years and years of head start? What is Apple's incentive to do this? Can they make money on a phone that allows this sort of development? I really think there is a lot more to it than just "open it up the world deserves to be free" and we're not talking about it. Why is that?
  - willwagner 17y ago
    I think the App Store would do just fine if the platform were opened up. Look at the original App Store for music; people had the option to get music from other vendors (or public domain or pirated) as MP3's yet it's convenience and simplicity made it compelling for many users. I would think the same thing would be true for apps. Many users would continue to use the App Store because of the convenience and the added trust that their verication process provides.
  - jsankey 17y ago
    Opening the platform doesn't necessarily imply opening the app store. Just let other people run stores (or simply host apps for download). Re: the impact on Apple's brand, see the original article for reasons why the current model doesn't ensure quality. Apple's incentive is long term viability of the platform. Can they make money indefinitely while alienating developers?
  - mindstab 17y ago
    their insentive is that they are purveying a platform. What made dos and windows great was anyone could write for it so everyone did and they had all the apps. Windows and dos suck, but if you wanted to work or play games, you bought the platform anyway because all the app were for it. Customers are like sheep and go where the best apps are, not the best platform. Apple sells a platform. We create the apps. They want the best apps they must open it up so we create the best apps for them. If its easier to develop my app for another platform, I will. They make money off selling the phone. That apps sells the phone, not the other way around.
- janm 17y ago
  > Imagine if Microsoft had vetted every DOS and Windows app We associate the BSOD with Microsoft software. However, in the majority of cases, the bug is in someone else's code or is a hardware problem. These days it drivers, but in early Windows (pre-NT), applications could cause the system to die. I suspect that Apple are vetting to avoid bad apps from tainting the perception of the platform. The platform is what they care about, "like Google cares about search". If an app is buggy and fixes or new features don't turn up the end-user blames the app vendor. If the device crashes, the end-user blames the platform vendor. Those things can stick; witness how the BSOD has influenced perception of the Microsoft platform. Avoiding that is a reasonable thing for Apple to want to do. However, I agree that the way they are doing it is probably counterproductive.
Zak 17y ago
Your first point is a bit like saying we should take a step back and be glad we're only being imprisoned instead of being imprisoned and beaten. Perhaps we should be happy about any improvements, but the situation still isn't very good. Android and Maemo both treat developers much better, and while I suspect Maemo will remain a niche platform, Android most certainly will not.
antirez 17y ago
1. I'eve mixed feelings about that. The idea of a store was great because it was a great marketplace without tricks to get inside, as it's just a simple as paying 100$ (and lose two weeks understanding how the whole process works...). But the review process is not the part of the App Store that made it successful, nor the fact the applications are so limited and can't use APIs outside a strict list. 2. This is not something you can fix with more reviewers... it's not just a matter of time, but there no way to create an objective review system, at least if you don't limit the review process to macroscopic stuff like "the app does not work" or "there is a huge disney logo", but in big companies you can't do things like this. If you have got the review process then even a 3 pixel logo of something remotely copyrighted will stop the process. Also, the more reviewers you need, the less qualified you get, and it requires to be very sensible to handle well the review process. I don't think this can work. Jeff FooBar will simply read all the rules and apply them without the ability to figure if it's really applicable in this particular case. So like it happened recently if there is a program to connect to your mac, and it shows an icon accordingly to the model of mac detected, and there is a 10x20 pixel mac os x default aurora background, he will stop the application.
wvenable 17y ago
1. A couple of years ago, I had a Windows Mobile phone and tonnes of applications. While it wasn't a great phone, it was a still a pretty good computing platform. A couple of years before that, I had an SE smartphone running Symbian which had fewer apps but was still open (I even developed a few). For smartphones, carriers were no more in charge of mobile applications then as they are now. In fact, in Apple's case, the carrier (AT&T) has more control than they do on blackberries or WinMo phones. 2. The review process is almost exponential, every week you have more apps and updates to all the existing apps. Maybe Apple is hiring more reviewers; they might have to just to keep up. Having a paid review tier just means that big developers get a 1 day turn around and indy developers get the left overs.

jgrahamc 17y ago

I strongly disagree with your conclusion. Both smack of 'religious' thinking. Your point 1 is essentially 'be thankful to the merciful god who has ended the drought'. Your point 2 doesn't solve the problem, it just throws more priests at it. The solution is to open the platform to all developers. Imagine if Microsoft had vetted every DOS and Windows app, or if we had to submit Linux apps to Linus for review.

dasil003 17y ago
Yes, PG makes the point very well. Apple thinks of themselves as ensuring quality, when in reality they are having the exact opposite effect. What they need to do is just let all apps through, and make it easy for customers to report problems, and then Apple can proactively pull apps that have too many problems. They could do that at half the cost and have much better overall quality, to say nothing of the developer good will.
- jcl 17y ago
  Of course, then Apple couldn't screen for the things that they care about but that users won't report. For example, applications that use Apple/iPhone imagery wouldn't get reported because users don't care about the dilution of Apple's brand. Likewise, applications that encourage the user to do things that might damage the device (swinging, throwing, or dropping) wouldn't be reported because the device is broken -- and the user will probably try to get it replaced under warranty rather than admitting that they did something stupid with their phone.
  - astine 17y ago
    I'd add to that that it's probably best that Apple catch malware before it enters the app store, not after.
  - dasil003 17y ago
    Fair point, but they can do that anyway. Also, it would give them an incentive to actually review things in a timely manner. The other thing is they could keep the existing process for everyone's first app, but once you are a trusted developer things should be smoother. That would eliminate most of the pain.
  - cma 17y ago
    If I create a website that tells you that you should play the (already existant) Super Monkey Ball app by wildly swinging it around like a monkey, should Apple blacklist my site from all iphone users? (Bonus points: if not, why, and how is it different from your example?)
    - forensic 17y ago
      Apple is a private company, not a government. The question you should ask is do Apple customers want Apple to protect them from those sites? I work with non-hacker computer users all day long and the answer is emphatically that they do want Apple to hold their hand and protect them so they can get their work done without having to fight with their machine. They want a padded room where they don't have to constantly worry about bandaging themselves up from being accidentally impaled on some spike around the corner. Users definitely want a controlled ecosystem that is somewhat sanitized and they are willing to take it at the expense of having the latest greatest features, and also at the expense of paying more.
    - jcl 17y ago
      It's not a question of whether they should reject certain apps, but whether they can. Under the current system, Apple can reject applications that encourage you to throw your iPhone. And the ability to do this is definitely something Apple wants, as they currently use this criteria to reject such apps. This ability would be diminished under dasil003's proposal, so it would be harder to convince Apple that such a system is a net win.
pohl 17y ago
Imagine if Microsoft had vetted every DOS and Windows app Or, hold constant that Microsoft didn't vet DOS/Windows apps and imagine that every DOS/Windows machine had access to a cellular network owned by a some other company. I agree that the review process is completely broken, but I don't think the solution is as easy as having no controls whatsoever.
- chollida1 17y ago
  > , hold constant that Microsoft didn't vet DOS/Windows apps and imagine that every DOS/Windows machine had access to a cellular network owned by a some other company. Well most windows machines do have access to a network controlled by someone else. And with the proliferation of cellular usb accessories more and more windows machines do have access to a cellular network owned by some other company.
  - pohl 17y ago
    True, and about ten million of them are estimated to be in the Conficker botnet, another half a million in the Kraken botnet, etc, etc... I'm definitely not saying that Microsoft should have been vetting programs. I'm saying that cellular platforms may not yet be to the point where unfettered access is safe. The software on cell phones tends to favor being small at the expense of all else - probably including safety.
    - deleted 17y ago
      [deleted]
  - elblanco 17y ago
    They don't? I don't know about how you connect to the internet, but my ISPs owns the networks I tend to connect to.
    - chollida1 17y ago
      > They don't? I don't think you correctly read my post:) No worries
allenp 17y ago
I keep seeing this notion of opening the platform brought up here. I'm having a hard time visualizing how this works out. Does Apple continue the overhead/cost of the app store? Do they have a giant disclaimer that they do not support or condone the applications, take no responsibility for any damages, etc? Do they still act as the payment gateway? How does this impact Apple's brand and the consumer trust of the product? Why is it that mobile phones with open app development have not taken off even with years and years of head start? What is Apple's incentive to do this? Can they make money on a phone that allows this sort of development? I really think there is a lot more to it than just "open it up the world deserves to be free" and we're not talking about it. Why is that?
- willwagner 17y ago
  I think the App Store would do just fine if the platform were opened up. Look at the original App Store for music; people had the option to get music from other vendors (or public domain or pirated) as MP3's yet it's convenience and simplicity made it compelling for many users. I would think the same thing would be true for apps. Many users would continue to use the App Store because of the convenience and the added trust that their verication process provides.
- jsankey 17y ago
  Opening the platform doesn't necessarily imply opening the app store. Just let other people run stores (or simply host apps for download). Re: the impact on Apple's brand, see the original article for reasons why the current model doesn't ensure quality. Apple's incentive is long term viability of the platform. Can they make money indefinitely while alienating developers?
- mindstab 17y ago
  their insentive is that they are purveying a platform. What made dos and windows great was anyone could write for it so everyone did and they had all the apps. Windows and dos suck, but if you wanted to work or play games, you bought the platform anyway because all the app were for it. Customers are like sheep and go where the best apps are, not the best platform. Apple sells a platform. We create the apps. They want the best apps they must open it up so we create the best apps for them. If its easier to develop my app for another platform, I will. They make money off selling the phone. That apps sells the phone, not the other way around.
janm 17y ago
> Imagine if Microsoft had vetted every DOS and Windows app We associate the BSOD with Microsoft software. However, in the majority of cases, the bug is in someone else's code or is a hardware problem. These days it drivers, but in early Windows (pre-NT), applications could cause the system to die. I suspect that Apple are vetting to avoid bad apps from tainting the perception of the platform. The platform is what they care about, "like Google cares about search". If an app is buggy and fixes or new features don't turn up the end-user blames the app vendor. If the device crashes, the end-user blames the platform vendor. Those things can stick; witness how the BSOD has influenced perception of the Microsoft platform. Avoiding that is a reasonable thing for Apple to want to do. However, I agree that the way they are doing it is probably counterproductive.

Zak 17y ago

Your first point is a bit like saying we should take a step back and be glad we're only being imprisoned instead of being imprisoned and beaten. Perhaps we should be happy about any improvements, but the situation still isn't very good. Android and Maemo both treat developers much better, and while I suspect Maemo will remain a niche platform, Android most certainly will not.

antirez 17y ago

1. I'eve mixed feelings about that. The idea of a store was great because it was a great marketplace without tricks to get inside, as it's just a simple as paying 100$ (and lose two weeks understanding how the whole process works...). But the review process is not the part of the App Store that made it successful, nor the fact the applications are so limited and can't use APIs outside a strict list. 2. This is not something you can fix with more reviewers... it's not just a matter of time, but there no way to create an objective review system, at least if you don't limit the review process to macroscopic stuff like "the app does not work" or "there is a huge disney logo", but in big companies you can't do things like this. If you have got the review process then even a 3 pixel logo of something remotely copyrighted will stop the process. Also, the more reviewers you need, the less qualified you get, and it requires to be very sensible to handle well the review process. I don't think this can work. Jeff FooBar will simply read all the rules and apply them without the ability to figure if it's really applicable in this particular case. So like it happened recently if there is a program to connect to your mac, and it shows an icon accordingly to the model of mac detected, and there is a 10x20 pixel mac os x default aurora background, he will stop the application.

wvenable 17y ago

1. A couple of years ago, I had a Windows Mobile phone and tonnes of applications. While it wasn't a great phone, it was a still a pretty good computing platform. A couple of years before that, I had an SE smartphone running Symbian which had fewer apps but was still open (I even developed a few). For smartphones, carriers were no more in charge of mobile applications then as they are now. In fact, in Apple's case, the carrier (AT&T) has more control than they do on blackberries or WinMo phones. 2. The review process is almost exponential, every week you have more apps and updates to all the existing apps. Maybe Apple is hiring more reviewers; they might have to just to keep up. Having a paid review tier just means that big developers get a 1 day turn around and indy developers get the left overs.