Hacker News Reader

Comment by martythemaniak | Hacker News Reader

At the risk of sounding like an asshole, it's nice to see one's views validated. Some of us have been getting downmodded for bad-mouthing Apple's App Store and warning against this kind of stuff since its launch.

It's important to note that none of Apple's written or implicit policies have changed - it is only people's perceptions that are now changing.

The good part is of this debacle is that, either they will change their horrible attitude and policies, or people will abandon them for greener pastures.

View on HN

>> "people will abandon them for greener pastures."

Developers, maybe some. Customers? not until there is a comparable phone on the market. Which there isn't.

And there won't be, until... developers start developing for something else.

If just ten independent developers with interesting apps ported to another platform (doesn't have to be to Android, but of course I'd prefer that) in a coordinated fashion, they'd get immense press and have some real impact.

I don't buy the "People buy the iPhone because it has the app store".

The app store is a nice value add, but it's hardly instrumental in the iPhone success story.

I disagree. I know LOT's of people with an iPod touch that want an iPhone just because they want their apps to access the 'net everywhere, not just wi-fi spots. The iPhone is a game changer, and the app store is absolutely instrumental in the story of it's success.

If it isn't, why is the iPhone tagline "there's an app for that?"

I think the people you're talking about are nonrepresentative. There is a vast number of people who have not installed any apps, and even more who have apps but don't use them. Very few people see the iPod touch as an economical substitute for the iPhone.

No. You are wrong. Anecdotally, my older father is a way heavier user of apps than me. He listens to a lot of radio (NPR and even Pandora!) and loves the tip calculator and about a million other apps.

Kids loving playing games so much on their parents phones that Nintendo actually acknowledged the iPhone as a competitive threat on their earnings call.

Statistically, 75% of iPhone users use apps, which is 5x more than other phone users. Nielsen: http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/online_mobile/iphone-use... .

Be careful about assuming things. Apple's iPhone is important because for the first time ever there is an incredibly simple, usable interface to a full-powered computer.

>> "No. You are wrong."

How successful was the iPhone before the app store existed? I'd say very.

>> "Apple's iPhone is important because for the first time ever there is an incredibly simple, usable interface to a full-powered computer."

Apples iPhone is important, because it's the first usable portable interface to the web.

First off, comparing iPhone users to the overall mobile phone market is misleading at best. And while I don't doubt that 75% of iPhone users use apps,

"For free applications, only about 20 percent of users return to use the app the first day after they download it, and then it quickly drops off from there. By 30 days out, less than 5 percent are using the app. The chart for paid apps shows a slightly steeper fall-off rate."

The iPhone isn't effectively utilized by the vast majority of its users, who value its cachet more then its applications ecosystem. As sibling points out, all the evidence you need is in the overwhelming success of the device before the app store existed.

http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/02/19/pinch-media-data-shows-...

The iPhone was a success before the app store. It succeeded because it looks sexy, it leveraged off the iPod, it's got an awesome UI, and the best mobile browser by far. The app store doesn't even come into the equation.

>> "because they want their apps to access the 'net everywhere, not just wi-fi spots."

This may be true more in the US, if you don't have many wifi spots. Here in the UK, you get free data (3G and wifi spots). The wifi spots cover most towns and cities, restaurants etc.

In 5 years we'll probably have wifi everywhere, so the whole thing will be a little redundant.

> they want their apps to access the 'net everywhere, not just wi-fi spots.

Well, isn't it the connectivity they want then, and not the App Store specifically?

people buy an iphone because it is a sexy gizmo, because they want to be part of the hip crowd. If they could they would wear it on a chain on their chest instead of in their pocket. It's a status symbol first, phone second.

Translation: "I've never used an iPhone."

Actually, I have. But I figured if I'm going to have a computer in my pocket then I want to be able to program the thing the way I see fit.

Also, I have noticed that the people that do have Iphones use every opportunity to 'flash' them.

Probably a big part of the appeal of the Ipod touch is that it looks like an Iphone...

Admittedly it costs $100/year to get the signing key, but with that, I can program my own iPhone any way I see fit. I just can't count on Apple agreeing to distribute what I write.

That does suck, but it has little overall effect on the usefulness of the phone to me as a portable computer. When I bought my first iPhone, there was no App Store at all, and Apple was actively stating that there was not going to be any such thing. The value proposition was OK then, and it's OK now.

As far as people flashing their iPhones around conspicuously, I really wouldn't know anything about that. I use mine in public all the time, and one of the things I don't like about the experience is the way I completely lose awareness of my surroundings and people nearby.

> and one of the things I don't like about the experience is the way I completely lose awareness of my surroundings and people nearby.

That's a new one, never even thought that that might be the case. Interesting!

I've had it while on the phone and driving 'on autopilot', and since then I've become a lot more careful about using the phone in the car. (headset only anyway of course, but still). One day I missed my exit completely, and wasn't aware that it had happened until 20 minutes later (still in the same conversation). Quite a good lesson.

<I>Also, I have noticed that the people that do have Iphones use every opportunity to 'flash' them.</I>

or maybe they just take every opportunity to use them

<I>Also, I have noticed that the people that do have Iphones use every opportunity to 'flash' them.</I>

or maybe they just take every opportunity to use them

"Also, I have noticed that the people that do have Iphones use every opportunity to 'flash' them."

or maybe they just take every opportunity to use them

People went crazy about iphones before there was even such a thing as an appstore on the horizon.

I really don't understand why no other manufacturer is capable of producing something that gets close to the iphone. Even less since android is available as a platform. Sure, there still is the lack of multitouch, but I really don't get why nobody can come up with a serious device.

I really don't understand why no other manufacturer is capable of producing something that gets close to the iphone.

Because they're idiots who won't stand up to the tin-pot dictators at the mobile carriers.

The secret to Apple's success is actually quite similar to the secret to Microsoft's success: they've been fortunate at having incompetent competition.

It certainly has been a strange phenomena, seeing otherwise intelligent geeks arguing the virtues of such a closed and locked down system. I frankly started to wonder whether Apple had a team of paid voters. Hopefully all this results in a freeing up of US mobile networks.

Benevolent dictator syndrome. Apple/Jobs have produced a lot of cool and good products out of the 'my way is always the best way, and I need 100% micromanagement control to make things my way' attitude. Apple has always had this philosophy -- at least under Jobs -- but people tend dismiss it because up to now it's served Apple and Apple fans well.

Though I'm sure if you popped over to someplace like the AppleInsider.net forums there would still be a ton of people trying to defend Apple here. My feelings are the entire 'App Store Approval Process' issue boils down to this:

If Apple feels that they are so right _and_ justified to pull such stunts with the App Store, then why are they in many cases hiding behind some 'iron curtain' of corporate bureaucracy? Why not just come out and say, "These Google Voice apps duplicate 'x' functionality. Sorry, but we won't allow it." If their approval process is anything but blindly throwing darts at the wall, then why not _publish_ their standards so that iphone application developers _know_ what the do's and dont's are so they can navigate the minefield successfully? If those standards miss something, just amend them and apologize to the developer community for overlooking that aspect. But Apple is not doing _any_ of these things.

The developers for the AppStore are Apple's business partners on some level. They are obviously making Apps as part of their own business plans, but they are providing utility and functionality to Apple's product. Apple's product is _more valuable_ as a result of all of the various AppStore applications out there. Yet Apple seems to want to treat their business partners with disdain.

Personally, I would have a hard time trying to justify why I would want to do business with Apple after seeing the way it treats other companies that are doing business with it.

"These Google Voice apps duplicate 'x' functionality. Sorry, but we won't allow it."

That's almost word-for-word what they did say. The problem is inconsistency -- there are tons of apps that could be, but have not been, rejected on the same grounds.

No. They didn't say what 'x' functionality was. Just that it 'duplicated something, but we won't tell you what.'

The thing about the App Store is that it allows small developers to reach huge audiences without a lot of logistical headaches. Little things to brick and mortar stores, like charging the right amount of tax to a customer, are huge problems on the web when you're trying to reach customers across the world. On the other hand, there are definite risks associated with using the App Store and this is one of them. You're absolutely right that people will abandon the App Store for greener pastures. Let's just wait to see where those greener pastures are.

Also, as you said, nothing has changed. Developers trying to make money are businesses first and foremost. They should leave their fanboy-ism at home when they set up shop. The people that are complaining the most about getting screwed by the App Store, as jws points out in another comment in this thread, are the ones that probably didn't even bother reading the contract between Apple and them, let alone getting a lawyer to give them specific legal advice about it for them.

I know that the barrier of entry for starting a business is quite low these days, but that doesn't mean that standards for professionalism should drop correspondingly. Part of being a professional is understanding what your obligations are. These obligations are outlined in contracts. Contracts are the emergency manuals that get pulled out in case something goes wrong. They dictate what you agreed to do in those situations. You wouldn't haphazardly sign an emergency evacuation plan. You'd probably read it over and try to understand if it all made sense. Treat your contracts the same way. They're all about corner cases, so they're a big deal.

The problem here is that you're confusing "legally wrong" with "morally wrong". I don't think anyone here is questioning the fact that Apple has completely covered their ass with the developer agreement. In fact they’ve essentially made it so they can do just about anything with impunity.

But that doesn’t make it right or fair. I’m not one of those “everything should be open” types but Apple should at least be required to publicly spell out its terms. In the example given in the article a developer had their app approved and it was actually in the store for months. Apple then pulled it months later and refused to even give the reason why (which in turn prevented the developer from remedying the situation). Then turned around and said the developer was responsible for dealing with the disgruntled customers even if it meant refunding their money (which they'd have to do since they had no way to remedy the situation).

Further I'd suggest these discussions have a precedent in our society. Society recognizes the fact that some things are simply too morally wrong to be allowed. Even by contract. If I sign a contract saying I allow you to do anything you want to me you still can't beat me to death with a baseball bat. Though this is obviously not in the same realm of heinousness as that the precedent is the same. You can't legally indemnify yourself against that which society won't tolerate.

Well we're at risk of defining what is right or fair. I loved my first year philosophy course just as much as the other guy but that's a damn slippery slope to go down :) I will say one thing on this matter though. Companies are amoral. The App Store may prove to be unpalatable, but don't think that some other company is more moral than another because when it comes down to it, morals are irrelevant to companies. It's why I believe in a strong regulatory government to keep companies in check, but again I'm at risk of getting this thread off on a tangent :)

Additionally, Apple has always remained consistent on their position on both revocation and refunds. It is public in that developers are told about this and must agree to the terms before joining. That's about as public as is necessary in my books.

So this should not be news to the developer. Let me bring up the relevant parts of the contract. I've skipped most of the examples because the last one is so broad as to cover the rest.

iPhone Developer Program License Agreement

8. Revocation

You understand and agree that Apple may cease distribution of Your Licensed Application(s) and/or Licensed Application information or revoke the digital certificate of any of Your Applications at any time. By way of example only, Apple might choose to do this if at any time:

(l) Apple has reason to believe that such action is prudent or necessary.

Also, Schedule 1, and 2 (which I believe is unique on a per-country basis) outlines the legal obligations for refunds.

EXHIBIT A (to Schedule 1)

4. Warranty: You must be solely responsible for any product warranties, whether express or implied by law, to the extent not effectively disclaimed. The EULA must provide that, in the event of any failure of the Licensed Application to conform to any applicable warranty, the end-user may notify Apple, and Apple will refund the purchase price for the Licensed Application to that end-user: and that, to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, Apple will have no other warranty obligation whatsoever with respect to the Licensed Application, and any other claims, losses, liabilities, damages, costs or expenses attributable to any failure to conform to any warranty will be Your sole responsibility.

You seem to be trying to have it both ways here. If you believe in a strong regulatory government than you believe companies do need to have some morality. Because the very intention of laws is to uphold the moral standard society has set. In other words a company should ideally not break the law meaning if you believe there should be strong regulations you in turn believe companies should have to operate within the bounds of some kind of moral standard.

Moreover, I’m very libertarian leaning. I DON’T believe in a strong regulatory government. All I’m asking for is the most basic of protections. I don’t have a problem with Apple setting whatever terms they want but they have to (a) lay out the terms and (b) enforce them consistently.

Also, on the warranty, I'd argue the quote you used doesn't apply to the situation in the article. The language specifically says...

"The EULA must provide that, in the event of any failure of the Licensed Application to conform to any applicable warranty, the end-user may notify Apple, and Apple will refund the purchase price for the Licensed Application to that end-user"

But this wasn't a "failure of the Licensed Application" in that the application continued to work fine and had met Apple's requirements to the best of the developers ability to do so.

But again, the question is not “what is legal now” it’s “now that this new concept exists what should we as a society require of it”. That’s the discussion being had. Is what Apple’s doing right and should society allow it and if not what standards should be set so that our future isn’t bogged down by companies acting in the same way Apple does.

Society recognizes the fact that some things are simply too morally wrong to be allowed.

I don't know what society you live in. But my society has Wal-Mart in it.

You think those Wal-Mart folks would hesitate to drop your product from their shelves without giving you a reason? You think they are shy about making their suppliers sign a scary one-sided contract and then holding them to it?

And the App Store is not made from Soylent Green. In the grand list of potentially unfair business practices I doubt this even rates. Compared to what the music industry does to bands every single day, this contract is sunshine and birdsong.

Alas, if you don't like Apple's contract terms you're stuck doing business with their competitors. Fortunately, they're easy to find. One of them is probably clinging to your leg right now.

Are you a John Mayer fan? I ask because that “Waiting for the World To Change” song has always bugged the heck out of me. I mean, DUDE, you’re a 30 year old millionaire celebrity whining about how you’re powerless to do anything? Come on.

Society is what we make of it and the worst possible excuse for letting an injustice go is because “it’s not like there aren’t other injustices in the world” Also, I think you are unfair to Walmart. I’ve heard of Walmart making almost unreal requirements of their vendors (include little tools with things that need to be assembled, adopt RFID without a price increase, etc…) But in each of those cases they actually MADE A DEMAND. Apple’s not even making demands here they’re just kicking apps to the curb with no explanation.

(You’re probably also being a little unfair to the record companies but that would lead to a debate of what they actually provide to artists and this really isn’t the place)

I'm not trying to excuse Apple. I'm just suggesting that the standards of "morality" in American business certainly encompass tying people to one-sided contracts and then taking advantage of them. That happens all the time.

So if your plan of action involves convincing anyone but a diehard geek that Apple's actions rise to the level of moral injustice... we've got a lot of work to do. There are a lot of people crying "moral injustice". We'll have to stand in line.

The Wal-Mart analogy is perfect. Works on so many levels.

Actually, yes I do hesitate. WalMart makes its demands up front. You know exactly what you're getting into when you sign with Walmart. It doesn't change its behavior after you've signed the contract, or make capricious decisions. If something needs to change, Walmart lets the supplier know, and why it needs to change, and how it needs to change. Apple doesn't even give you an email.

Not sure if your comment was updated or I was just too quick to reply the first time, but as to the points you made in your final paragraph, I'm on the same page. I think the right courses of action here are:

1. Call Apple out on the contract clauses. See how they will respond. This specific case points out a derivative scenario they may not have accounted for. When they revoke an app because they feel it is "prudent" to do so, and the developer is left footing the bill.

2. Small iPhone developers should band together and form a guild or union. This guild, like the Writer's Guild, can yield considerable clout. Right now the problem is that most developers cannot afford to pay a lawyer to fight these matters. By teaming up, they could form a unified front and not only deal with Apple via lawyers, but possibly deal with them directly. It's easier for Apple to deal with one spokesperson on behalf of say, 5000 independent developers, than for them to try to deal with even a dozen ad-hoc cases.

What I would like to see is a widespread developer boycott of the iPhone platform. This would bring Apple back to the days where they used to cajole developers into writing software for the Mac.

As long as there is money to be made there will always be developers so a boycott is pointless. If every developer currently in the app store decided to abandon it tomorrow it would only serve to create an irresistible target for developers who had been turned off by the heavy competition.

Until we live in a world where every developer has all the money they could ever want there will always be developers for a platform with over 30 million potential customers.

The analogy with the Mac doesn't really work, because the Mac has never been anything but a computing platform. But the iPhone is a phone first and a platform second. Remember that the iPhone was a huge success when it was introduced in 2007, despite a higher price point and no third-party apps at all.

As long as the iPhone is subsidized by phone carriers, Apple's cash cow will be hardware sales. It won't be until the smartphone market reaches a certain level of saturation that Apple will have an incentive to focus on the App Store as a revenue generator. And when that happens, I bet they will be a lot less mercurial with their developers.

This sort of glosses over the underlying problem here:

Apple is treating the developers like crap now. Whether we classify this as outright abuse or just as sever neglect is up for debate, but it's hard to argue that Apple is doing a good job of treating the devs well.

So the developers are supposed to patiently sit by and just 'take' the abuse/neglect waiting for Apple to 'come around' or 'see the light?' I'm sorry, but you can't run a small business based on faith that another business will stop treating your contributions as crap and start treating you with more respect. And even when that business (Apple) decides to respect you more how long until the winds blow the wrong way and you're back to where you started... being treated like crap.

Even a large company like Google with a lot to offer and a good existing relationship with Apple is being pushed around with this AppStore crap. How exactly would you expect to be treated as a smaller business with little to no leverage with Apple?

I wouldn't agree that the iPhone is a phone first. How many people bought an iPhone so that they could call or text others? The value proposition of the iPhone is not in its phone features, it's in the smartphone features. The only reason that it doesn't seem to matter is because there is no real rival to the iPhone platform. I do agree that the smartphone market needs more real rivals to the iPhone (I'm kinda wondering how Nokia is fumbling so badly here). If the HTC Hero is as good as it is claimed to be, then maybe the iPhone will see a hit in the hardware division, and Apple will be forced to behave more like a democracy.

Actually I bought mine because it's an iPod and a phone with a nice browser. Apps/Games are a frosted topping I use when bored.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com