On the App Store | Hacker News Reader

On the App Store

stevenf.com

33 pointsbouncingsoul30 comments

I think this is really interesting.

The core point seems to be because Apple force app distribution through the App Store they decide what's appropriate rather than a free-market economy.

While the "I Am Rich" app is stupid, I agree with Steve that's it's valid and if dumb people buy it, give them a refund.

I agree. What's really bothering me is the lack of guidelines. Its fine if you clearly delineate what won't be allowed, and developers just have to live with that. But making it up as you go along is just bad business. "I am Rich" might have been a very simple app, but a developer who spends a lot of time on their app only to have it removed as a "judgement call" doesn't deserve that type of treatment.

Apple needs to start speaking out about what criteria they're using. Developers don't like risk, and they'll start looking elsewhere if Apple doesn't start putting down the rules in writing (whatever they might be).

And where is this "elsewhere" of which you speak?

With no comparable alternative, at least for the time being, Apple has iPhone developers by the short hairs.

I mean shops that develop professionally for the iPhone, or developers that want to port something else that they've done. If you put all this time into something only to have it banned, well, thats too big a risk when you need a return to keep yourself in business. Selling something on another platform, like Palm, BB, Android or Symbian is better than selling nothing on the iPhone. The "I am Rich" guy didn't lose a lot of time over his app, but some companies put months or years into development. You just can't do that unless you know your app will be accepted.

I understand your point about risk. My point is that most mobile developers will accept that risk in exchange for the marketing, distribution, and payment processing platform that the iPhone App Store provides. Until the other platforms you mention provide similar turnkey solutions, "looking elsewhere" is, to Apple, an idle threat.

If you have more refund requests than legitimate purchases, then it's more trouble than it's worth.

Imagine the "user experience" of accidentally buying a $999 app, then returning it. Feeling stupid, even if it's well deserved, just tends to distract from the user experience.

And for the onlookers not buying the app, it's bad PR for Apple as well. Yes, it's a restrictive gated community. Yes, the lack of freedom sucks. But some people are willing to play along to be taken care of by Steve & co.

I'm unsure what that I said that you're responding to.

I'm commenting in context of the thread as a whole and the article, not your comment in particular.

So are you saying that companies in general should never give refunds, because there is a faint chance that there will be more refunds than purchases (which seems logically impossible, btw.)?

You misunderstood me. If you're giving more refunds for a product than actual sales, it's probably better to pull the product.

I see. Still, "I am rich" was sold 5 times and one person was a candidate for a refund. I would be happy with those sales (4000$ after the refund), given the short amount of time.

Well there could be more refunds than legitimate purchases if you sold 3, refunded 2 and got to keep the money for 1.

More evidence of Apple's amazing ability to distort reality. Even when they break almost every rule, folks still love them to death. Definitely an enviable position.

The funniest bit is the store's just a bastardized repository. These are problems that have been solved in OSS for probably decades now. In a perverse sort of way, i'm wishing it would wildly succed in its current form.

"The App Store puts my product directly in front of EVERY SINGLE person who is capable of using it. Let's not understate the value of that."

Isn't the internet doing that already, anyway? How is Apple advertising my app to everybody with an iPhone? I don't think they can do that in the long run. Sure, as long as there are only 100 apps, it looks like that, but if there are several thousand, I don't think every iPhone user will see them all.

Currently, it's possible to go to the App Store every day and peruse all of the new apps as they come out. I can go to the App Store and click on "New" then "See All" sorted by recent. If Apple's smart, they'd make this even more convenient for users.

But does every iPhone user visit the App Store every day? What does it look like if you have missed a month?

At the current rate, you could probably go through all the App Store pages of the new apps for a couple of months in a couple of hours. This would be the purview of reviewers.

"Apple's approval process ensures at least a basic adherence to expected UI behaviors and acts as an effective filter for malicious software."

It's not a very effective filter, since several apps on the store have been taken down because they violated ToS and nobody at Apple caught it until users did.

TOS isn't the same as malicious.

You're right, it's much easier to detect TOS violations and yet they are still failing to do so. If the description of an app is in clear violation and it still gets posted, what are the odds that they will catch an app that sends the developer everyone's contact list?

I agree with everything Steve wrote. It's a sad but a reality we have come to accept. As a co-founder for a startup with two apps on the store, it's always a little sad and frustrating to deal with the rules and restrictions set out (even the ones that are). Then there is also the lingering fear that they may just remove the app all of a sudden if they don't like it.

But having such a distribution channel, the potential for huge quick growth is unprecedented. The sheer number of potential and current users really helps keep the spirit up.

"There has never really been a true equivalent to this in the traditional distribution model. "

Yes there has. Package repositories on Linux include proprietary software, including demonstration versions, to everyone who can use them.

I think the instant single click payment acceptance and processing makes it a little different from most Linux package repositories.

Also, a dude who is running Linux and browsing a repository of software to try/install on his machine is also not doing anything "traditional," in terms of everyday average person computing, and especially retail, which are what I think the author was referring to when mentioning a "traditional distribution model."

Click-n-Run. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNR_(software)

iPhone and App store is a platform owned by apple. They have all the rights to it and they can change the system to how they desire. Now you may or may not agree with their ways but they have the full right to do it. Just the way hardware is not open, why should they open the software? Why doesn't anyone argue about hardware and only software.

He’s not arguing about whether they have the right to do it (indeed he’s not really arguing at all). He is merely explaining that the whole thing leaves a bad taste in his mouth.

Anyway, what exactly would you expect this “anyone” to argue about hardware?

my old boss said '' tell me the rules and i'll play your game'' ... apple has told the rules, they aren't forcing you to play. i'm not saying its fair... but such is life

Except they don't tell all the rules. They are making judgement calls and removing apps that adhere to the TOS.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com