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.
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?
Read your iTunes agreement. I think you will find that they already have this.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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?
They make money off selling the phone. That apps sells the phone, not the other way around.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I don't think you correctly read my post:) No worries
Too right, I inserted a subliminal "not" after the do.
Apologies!
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 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.
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.
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.