"An" vs. "The". It's one little article, but it makes a huge difference on the iPhone.
I've previously mentioned Rogue Amoeba's frustrations with Apple's developer certification process in an earlier post. The App Store has just launched, and like thousands of other developers, we've been unable to get any software in it thus far. While discussing the problems we've had with others, I came to realize that there's an important distinction to be made here.
There's no problem with Apple having an App Store. In fact, it's a great idea. An App Store can be a great way for nervous users to find software. They can read reviews there and find just what they're after. An App Store is also good for those developers who are accepted, as it will provide good publicity, providing them with the possibility of reaching millions of users. Finally, an App Store is good for Apple. It allows them to be as exclusive as they desire with what software gets promoted, all without preventing developers and users from getting any software they may want through other means.
Unfortunately, we don't have An App Store, we have The App Store. The difference is exclusivity. With An App Store, software can be put on the iPhone through some other method. The App Store, however, is the sole way to get software on the iPhone. This leads to some major problems all around. Users who want software that Apple doesn't approve of can't get it, because it's obviously not listed by Apple in the App Store. Developers who aren't accepted into Apple's program, for whatever reasons, can't get on the iPhone at all and thus can't sell to customers. Developers who are accepted are still running into immense issues with updates, bug testing, and more. Ultimately, that's bad for Apple too, as it means those users and developers are unhappy and will aim their frustrations squarely at Apple.
Presumably, Apple has considered all this. If so, they've determined that they'd rather have complete control over the applications available on the iPhone than have more flexibility for developers and customers alike. I can see how this could be good for Apple itself - a dictatorship tends to serve the dictator quite well. I can't, however, see why developers would support it, nor customers.
As a developer I definitely support having THE App Store.
I love the amount of time and energy my customers have to spend before they find a source of iPhone-compatible software.
I love the amount of thought my customers have to spend before they can decide which source of iPhone-compatible software to use.
I love the number of different sources of iPhone-compatible software that my customers have to visit before they find one that sells my products.
Put you money where your mouth is.
Withdraw from the iphone developer program.
I don't value this kind of article in an iphone blog.
Let see how much freedom Google gives you.
I predict you will writing a similar post on
the Android blog as well.
First let me say that I one hundred per cent support Paul's comments on the iPhone App Store.
Having a single distribution channel will not benefit customers in the long run. It will not benefit the developers and in the end, it will not benefit Apple.
And I doubt that Google will make the same mistake with Android. Sure, they made a PR blunder by only allowing the winners of the developer contest access to the next revision of the SDK, but apart from the bad publicity I actually think that was a smart move: those winners are most likely to provide the feedback that is needed to get the SDK in shape for a more general distribution. And I also think that this does not mean there will be only Google-Approved apps on the Android just as there is no limit to distributing Windows Mobile apps.
One of the problems with The App Store already becomes apparent: How to do spring cleaning? Paul is right, having An App Store would have given Apple the choice to select only the best stuff for their shelves while not preventing a lot of developers to try their luck.
One more problem: Developers ARE putting their money where their mouth is: developing innovative apps exclusively for the iPhone is not going to happen. There are no such apps on the store. No developer has invested significantly into developing an iPhone exclusive app because it is just to risky to depend on Apple's goodwill.
@rd - a better suggestion would be for you to stop reading this blog :P
The poster has every right to write whatever he'd like about iPhone and the/an appstore. You, on the other hand, have zero right to tell someone what to write. You,as a reader, only have full control over what blog you choose to read.
One Little Question:
Did Rogue Amoeba never get accepted to the iPhone Developer Program?
Perhaps you should try developing for the Nintendo DS and Wii, or the Playstation 3 and PSP, or XBox 360.
Oh, wait, those all require authentication from the manufacturer too.
Never mind, don't mention them, it will only undermine your whine.
The entire app-store/iphone development program boggles my mind.
On one hand Apple on has this super-exclusive-only-we-control-what-gets-approved app store, has an extreme bottleneck on approving updates to already approved popular and useful applications, and started the whole affair by only accepting a handful of developers into their super exclusive beta program.
On the other hand, about 20% of the apps in the store are complete junk. I mean, how many flashlight apps do we need? Can I trade in six flashlight applications for one update of NetNewsWire? One flashlight application is mildly humorous (arguably), but six?
the issue here us no different to any issue with Apple. It's one of scaling. The store has been out less than 2 weeks and people are screaming they can't get what they want.
Yes, I wish they'd process stuff quicker but it's good that tgere is demand.
As for where the innovative apps will be? Wait and see. I'm kinds tired of everyone saying that the Xperia is better or that android will beat the iPhone. Yeah, whatever. Whenever they ship.
I am more curious about android especially if your business competes with one of googles many fingers.
@phil fillmore
Your argument is specious. Having to have your app 'authenticated' is one thing. Imagine, though, if you could ONLY buy your XBox games through Microsoft. No heading down to Target or GameStop. No ability to bring your game over to your friend's house to play. To further the analogy, MSFT not only controls what's available, it controls how, when, and where you get it, how much you pay for it, and tracks every game you get.
From a developer standpoint, there are additional nightmares. If you're trying to address a bug or feature enhancement, you can't just roll out an update whenever you want. Your customers are left with software that doesn't work, or is outdated -- even after you've fixed/updated the software -- because of a middleman's bottlenecking desire for control. That's a horrid business model for a developer.
It's the authentication/approval part that's the bottleneck though. So multiple distribution points doesn't really help anything. So what if you can buy apps from Amazon or straight from the developer if they still all have to go through the same approval/signing process that is taking Apple a while.
If you accept Apple's reason for wanting to control apps on the iPhone, then the distribution points don't matter much. You may not accept that argument, but it's how they've chosen to balance security, business model, and openness. Not saying it's not a pain in the ass, but compared to normal mobile phone development where it's unlikely without a legal team and a negotiated deal your app will ever be available to the public, it's an improvement.
As to the junk on the App store, I think that's a positive. Wouldn't you be more upset if Apple were wielding their power more heavily and making more editorial, subjective decisions? Currently the model looks like "As long as it's not harmful or pornographic, we'll post it." That IMO opinion is a lot better than having to pass a mysterious bar of quality that depends on the person reviewing it.
Nugae: The idea that customers have no choices in where to shop, so they're more likely to find your software, is an interesting one, but I don't think it holds up. It certainly doesn't if you're not in the store at all. What happens when Apple decides that your software doesn't fit with what they want on the iPhone? How will you feel then?
Having AN App Store, customers would still immediately find a source for iPhone compatible software. I just don't buy that customers being able to download and install software directly from a developer's site would be a bad thing.
rd: I'm not sure how "withdrawing from the developer program" would be "putting our money where our mouth is". We want to develop software for the iPhone, and release it. Right now, that's not possible, because of the way the App Store works. Thus, I'm discussing it, and hoping for change. I'm not sure what you don't "value" about a post like this exactly, but you're quite free to not read it. It is certainly germane to the topic of the iPhone, however.
As far as Android goes, whether it's better, worse, or identical, it doesn't much change the facts as far as the current system goes. THE App Store still has myriad problems, regardless of what Google does.
Oliver Breidenbach: Much obliged. I don't know that NO innovation is happening on the iPhone, but I definitely think it's slowed because we're all at the mercy of Apple's whims. As always, I'm hoping this will open up.
TM: I'd actually argue that a reader is welcome to indicate what he likes or dislikes, and we authors can choose to tailor our writing to what the public wants. But in this case, like I said, this is quite germane to the topic of the iPhone.
RichardL: At this point, we still have not been accepted, no. There seemed to be some movement on July 11th, but our account is still not activated.
Phil Fillmore: I'm not sure how the existence of other restrictive systems changes anything. Yes, those systems are restrictive also. So? Saying "Other things suck even more!" doesn't really change the fact that this has problems too.
For that matter, I hardly see this as a "whine". If that's how you read it, alright, but I don't believe it's written that way.
Lee Falin: I really can't figure out what their goal is, to be honest. Like I said, they could have had AN App Store with just things they liked. As long as devs could get their software on some other way, that'd be alright (not great, but alright). THE App Store should have everything, but right now, it doesn't. It's an odd mix of exclusivity (based on who was accepted thus far), but then, once accepted, everything showing up, like a dozen Sudoku programs or six flashlight apps. It seems like there may well be conflicting ideas of what the store is inside of Apple.
mj: Competing with Google on Android may be an issue. But competing with Apple on the iPhone seems far worse too me. We'll certainly see what happens, but again, even if Android is terrible, it doesn't mean the iPhone is a good platform for which to develop.
Kerri: Right - the store has led to a lot of problems even for those developers who are in the store, as noted by Brent Simmons with NetNewsWire, among others.
Rob: It wasn't clear, but the assumption was that with AN App Store, authentication would disappear for any other methods. That is, just like on the Mac, you could come to our website, download the software directly, and install it yourself, without anyone worrying about Apple.
I certainly agree that if we have THE App Store, it should have everything in it. The problem is, it doesn't actually have everything - it's only got software from a small number of developers, apparently chosen at random. I don't believe there should be a quality bar at all, no. But I think we'd be better served with AN App Store that DID have a quality bar (and any other arbitrary bars that Apple chose to set) than what we have now.
I totally agree with your article. Probably you already have read Dave Winers comparison in "Apple's walled garden":
"In Steve Jobs's Apple, it's all screwy. The vendor makes the babies and the developers make little cupcakes they can sell to people who come to admire the babies. A lot of people love the babies, so in theory it's possible to make good money selling cupcakes.
But starting and running a cupcake stand isn't really what gets most developers up in the morning."