Hacker News Reader

Comment by charlesju | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

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?

"Do they have a giant disclaimer that they do not support or condone the applications, take no responsibility for any damages, etc?"

Read your iTunes agreement. I think you will find that they already have this.

There's a big difference between a legal disclaimer that no one reads and a marketing disclaimer.

Apple unofficially accepts responsibility for the AppStore apps. They don't vouch for their quality per se, but they do vouch for the fact that they won't wreck your phone.

The same can't be said for apps on an open platform.

Hackers love open platforms but users flee them because the experience is painful.

Hackers love open platforms but users flee them because the experience is painful.

Very well said. The developers the app store is designed for are the boring, careful, professional developers who create polished, shiny, dependable apps. And that's what most users want. They want freedom from fear -- freedom to search the App Store and download whatever they find without without worrying about their level of sophistication. They want Disneyland, not a bazaar in Cairo. They want new Times Square, not old Times Square.

As a matter of pride, developers and early adopters refuse to acknowledge this factor. They pride themselves on their savoir faire and their ability to safely navigate an uncontrolled software ecosystem. The image of Apple users is carefree, self-assured, and adventuresome, and consumers can't feel that way in a place that is wild and unpredictable. They need Disneyland.

It's pretty easy - just remove the entire manual approval process and the platform would be "open enough". The problem is that developers cannot iterate, and large problems take forever and a day to plug. Both of these problems are caused by the gigantic (and somewhat arcane/black-boxy) manual review system.

Apple can continue to charge their 30% cut, they can still be the only gateway to get apps... but at the very least you can submit things and have them available to your users immediately.

Agreed.

From my POV the easiest fix for a situation where lots of dumbass things are being done is simply for people -- in this case, Apple -- to just STOP doing those dumbass things.

Duh! (<-- hyper-intellectual argument I know)

Reminds me of an old Bob Newhart comedy routine about a rather blunt psychotherapist. His patients would come to him and whine about some bad habit they had, etc. And they would ask him, "Doctor, what should I do?"

He would think for a bit and then raise his hand with a friendly smile and say, "Stop it."

The patient: "What?"

Doctor: "Stop it. Stop doing that."

"Uh, I don't understand. Should I---"

"Ok maybe I'm not making myself clear. Sometimes that happens. So I'm going to say this again, very carefully, and I need you to pay attention."

"Yes, Doctor. Go ahead."

Then he would get up and yell, "STOP ITTTTTT! JUST STOP!"

Then hand them the bill and say the session was over.

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.

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?

Before Android, there was no phone platform with open app development, JavaME and Symbian require a code signing certifiate (at about $300 per year) just for running your own code on your own phone in an acceptable manner. Symbian seems to have opened up a little bit in the last few months with free online signing for your own IMEI, but it is still very little, very late.

Not True. Windows CE/PocketPC/Mobile has always allowed you to get Apps from anywhere.

They don't - you can run basically anything you want on JavaME without code signing. The only difference is that you can't set a permanent "ok" for some actions without it (that depends on the phone model though).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?)

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.

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.

I'd add to that that it's probably best that Apple catch malware before it enters the app store, not after.

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.

> , 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.

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.

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.

> They don't?

I don't think you correctly read my post:) No worries

>Well most windows machines do have access to a network controlled by someone else.

Too right, I inserted a subliminal "not" after the do.

Apologies!

I've owned two Windows Mobile phones over the past 5 years. Both allowed me complete access to install any third-party applications, in spite the fact they were on third-party cellular network. Same for Nokia. No application vetting whatsoever. Mobile platforms tend to separate critical functions in the radio from what a developer can do with the exposed APIs.

Of course neither had an app store, but there were no controls in place for these platforms, and the cellular networks are still up.

Apple's actual reason for the approval process is quality control. And by quality control, I mean everything from ensuring a lack of bugs to a polished interface and, last but certainly not least, lack of malware.

Apple wants people to actually buy apps — imagine that. And how do you accomplish that? Make absolutely sure that users don't for even a second think that the app they're interested in might be crap or malware.

Nothing kills spontaneous app shopping like a fear of malware, that's what Apple wants to make sure stays out of their garden.

I agree with you entirely. My comment was in response to parents contention that lack of a vetting process put third party cellular networks at risk.

So you've never heard of Windows Mobile then?

Do you think Apple should look at Microsoft's mobile strategy with envy?

That's not what I, or the original commenter, was talking about. Having no approval doesn't mean chaos for carrier's networks.

Conversely, having a horrible train-wreck of an approval process like Apple does clearly doesn't mean you can't have unparalleled success either. So I guess we're back to square one.

Umm yes. But nobody seems to be arguing that. The original commenter implied that without vetting the applications, the carriers networks would be in danger. But that reality already exists on plenty of other platforms (even one by Microsoft) without any troubles. The success or failure of the platform is not in question.

Unpopular platforms rarely have problems with third party software, regardless of any approval process.

It's possible that if Windows Mobile had been as popular as the iPhone, then the carriers _would_ have started to see a big problem with malware ruining their networks.

> 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.

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.

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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com