App Store: Sentence first — verdict afterwards

http://shiftyjelly.wordpress.com/2010/06/01/sentence-first-verdict-afterwards/

by bensummers • 16 years ago

129 82 16 years ago

shiftyjelly.wordpress.com

goodside• 16 years ago

"[The App Store is] a platform that can change at any time cutting you off and kicking you out, with no course of action but to whine on some no-name blog. There is no alternative platform, despite what others may say about Android, it’s immature and their app store(s) are a wild west nightmare."

These aren't unrelated.

thwarted2• 16 years ago

It's interesting that the author took that blog post to describe the exact opposite. Apple is treating the developers and users like they are immature, with the "because I said so" and inexplicable nondetailed explanations treating everyone with kid gloves. Even Jobs' response sounds like something a parent would say when a kid keeps asking "why?" continuously.

Then there is the "wildwest" of the Android market, where you have to watch out for yourself because anyone can do whatever they want and no one is looking over your shoulder and telling you what to do. That sounds like more a more mature environment to me.

ROFISH• 16 years ago

I think you're confusing "mature", treating people like responsible adults, and "mature", a market that has fully expanded and is not growing. If the author from Australia cannot sell an app, than the Android Market is an immature economic market.

The App Store is both mature and immature, and the Android Market is both mature and immature at the same time.

donaq4• 16 years ago

It's a mature environment but not a mature market, because apparently anyone not living in the 9 countries approved by Google cannot sell their apps on the market.

drewcrawford• 16 years ago

As someone with a very deep understanding of at least one of the platforms, I would argue that the differences are primarily technical. That is, there are technical barriers to doing bad things on iPhone (APIs are much more limited in scope) that don't exist on Android.

Of course, it's easy to link to private APIs on iPhone, but the app submission process has a totally automated system that verifies that you don't.

tomjen32• 16 years ago

So Android isn't even a contender, yet just last month we got the sales numbers posted and they were of the charts.

Methinks the person hasn't actually tried it.

ebiester• 16 years ago

The posters also said that they were in Austrailia and couldn't post paid apps, if I understood from the comments directly.

jamesbritt3• 16 years ago

"[A] platform that can change at any time cutting you off and kicking you out, with no course of action ..."

That sounds pretty damn immature to me.

jokermatt9994• 16 years ago

To be fair, the Android Market does still have plenty of issues. Searching is horrible and the organization is terrible for finding new apps. Those are the main two issues I've noticed as a user, but I can see why those would deter somebody. However, if it's a choice between arbitrarily deleted and just not having your app get noticed (which could also be an issue on Apple's App Store), the latter seems like a much more sensible option.

bshep3• 16 years ago

1. change the app a little, give it a new name

2. resubmit

3. if denied, go to 1. otherwise go to 4.

4. profit

Actually after writing this I have a thought, I wonder what is the cost/benefit analysis of buying several developer accounts and submitting your app ( under different names ) and just use the one that gets approved first.

CoryMathews• 16 years ago

I would assume you would be banned if/when they figure it out.

bshep3• 16 years ago

I guess you could get banned, but there are so many 'clone' apps out there it would be kinda hard for them to find out.

I was just wondering if it would be cost effective, since the rules seem to be arbitrary you might get more lenient reviewers and get through more often with more accts.

jokermatt9994• 16 years ago

Even if this isn't a viable business idea, it would make more an interesting experiment. It could really show how apps are approved or disapproved, and for what reasons. Something tells me the results would vary wildly, with apps being approved and being rejected for unclear reasons at about the same rate. However, that's just a hypothesis, and I don't have the time, cash or hardware to run the experiment.

jancona• 16 years ago

Another reminder that IPhone developers are all sharecroppers: http://goo.gl/HPAp

loup-vaillant• 16 years ago

Full URL: http://www.google.com/search?as_q=sharecropper&hl=en&...

xurble2• 16 years ago

By that definition, so are Android developers.

Firstly, the platform vendor - Google - can and does ship competing products for free (turn by turn navigation anyone?).

Secondly even though Android is free you still rely on the manufacturers to ship it on actual phones. They could all jump ship for Windows Phone 7 leaving you with no platform (go with it, it's a thought expermient).

I understand that this is a 7 year old article and that Tim Bray has undergone a road to Damascus conversion to Android Apps over the web, but even if you accept his original conclusion that you are only not a sharecropper if you run your own web stack, it doesn't really afford you much extra security. Google could come along and release a competitor to your product and give it away for free.

In summary: we're almost all sharecroppers because the definition is so wide and even those who aren't face a similarly large but different risk meaning that being a sharecropper isn't necessarily much worse, if worse at all.

Dumb app store rejections still suck mightily though :)

martythemaniak3• 16 years ago

By that definition so is Windows. And OS X. And any computing platform in the history of the world.

MS can release a free competitor on Windows and Apple can release a free competitor on OS X. Nevertheless, these are pretty solid platforms and no one has ever suggested developers are sharecroppers. Due to its nature, Google is far less in charge of Android than MS is of Windows or Apple of OS X.

If you stretch a definition enough, it looses it's meaning.

jlgosse3• 16 years ago

I don't understand this. The author goes on about how they don't know what's wrong with the app, but then goes on to quote herself (from an email to Apple):

"Our app is a beautiful photo frame with a few nice things you can put over your photos."

There's her problem. I'm assuming the app is a full screen digital picture frame app, and then you can put their special widgets on top of it. The only thing wrong is she said "a few nice things" instead of "widgets".

It's her own fault the app got rejected.

EDIT: Not sure why I'm being down voted for this, but basically I'm saying that Apple was quite clear about what the issue was, and it shouldn't be difficult for her to understand this. When they update the terms of the contract, I'm sure it'll make more sense. Updating contracts isn't as simple as adding in one sentence - things take time.

jbrennan• 16 years ago

The real problem is the App Store Guidelines make no mention of "no widget/desktop apps". And initially, the application was approved. Then, Apple changed their minds (without updating the guidelines or providing any route to fix the problem) and suddenly this app removed on them.

It would be like if drinking Coca Cola suddenly became illegal to drink, but the laws were not updated to let citizens know. So you're on a hot summer's day, drinking your cool refreshing Coke like you always do, suddenly you're arrested and the cop won't even explain why (but he says he thought your Coke looked especially delicious). It's a little bit outrageous.

jlgosse3• 16 years ago

I realize it wasn't listed in the rules, but when Apple comes knocking on your door and gives you a reason for the rejection, and blatantly tells you "NO WIDGETS!", it shouldn't be hard to realize that the damn "nice things you can put on your photos" are what have to be removed.

jstevens852• 16 years ago

Their app is still available in the store.

Here's a better analogy. You start up a Coke stall on the "sidewalk". You're making money. You buy a couple more and place them in surrounding streets. Now you're making even more money. You buy two more stalls, and then the local council steps up and says "you can't operate anymore stalls. The three you have are fine and you can continue to operate them and make money, but you can't expand any further." Now you feel like shit because you've bought two stalls that are useless, but at least you're still making money on the first three.

jlgosse3• 16 years ago

Let me further expand on the problem here. the author says, and I quote:

"They refused to be pinned down to an exact reason, simply stating that they were doing a cull of any applications that presented widgets to the user."

And then she says she doesn't understand what she would have to take out of the app to have it re-approved.

So then, she goes on to say, and I quote:

"Our app is a beautiful photo frame with a few nice things you can put over your photos."

I take this as: you can use their app to make your iPad into a digital photo frame. Since the whole screen is taken up by the photo app, I'm sure that as a feature, the developers added the ability to add "nice things" to a layer on top of the frame, such as a clock, or speech balloons, or SOMETHING which Apple may consider the equivalent of a widget.

jamesbritt3• 16 years ago

You're just guessing. Much like the author.

Guessing shouldn't should be part of the platform development process.

jokermatt9994• 16 years ago

The issue is that it's retroactive. Did Apple have a rule against widgets when it was developed? Did they clearly state it to their developers? Did they elaborate on what they meant?

In no way is this fault of the developer, except that she knew developing for the app store carried this kind of risk. If Apple had said before development "no widgets" (although defining what they meant), then it would be fair and clear. The whole situation is crap, and I honestly don't see how anyone can defend a practice as unfair as this.

itistoday2• 16 years ago

I love this little snarky response to that post:

  "THEY CAME FIRST for the phone app developers,
  and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a phone app developer.
  THEN THEY CAME for the flash developer,
  and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a flash developer.
  THEN THEY CAME for the desktop style app developers,
  and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a desktop style app developer.
  THEN THEY CAME for me
  and by that time no one was left to speak up."
  Yep Godwin was right : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
  Neil Ellis said this on June 1, 2010 at 11:01 pm

jokermatt9994• 16 years ago

You know, despite the fact that that poem is about the Nazis, it does have a point beyond that. I've mostly seen it referenced as "be aware of these kind of issues, it could be you next", rather than "<issue> is just like what the Nazis did!" To say that this is a case of Godwin's law misses the point: it is a good idea to be active in calling out injustice even if you are not personally affected, because one day you could be. It does not always warrant the gravitas of comparing it to the Holocaust, but the poem itself is a nice succinct illustration of the idea that preventing injustice against others is a wise idea.

Also, calling Godwin's law on a legitimate comparison is just as bad as what Hitler did. :-P

itistoday2• 16 years ago

I certainly agree with you, and just to note, even though he puts it in quotes, he wasn't quoting any part of the original post, it was mostly his own invention (a modification of the original: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...)

Naga• 16 years ago

I came here to post something like this. Too late!

mcantelon• 16 years ago

>despite what others may say about Android, it’s immature and their app store(s) are a wild west nightmare.

Hardly a "nightmare"... User ratings and reviews give me a sense of whether an app is quality and if I don't like an Android app, I can get an instant refund.

moultano• 16 years ago

I wish he'd elaborate on that in a future post. Even if his reasons turn out to be idiotic, it's still an important thing to understand why developers like him are hesitant to move to the platform.

pigbucket• 16 years ago

From the comments: "I was speaking as a developer, not a consumer. As a consumer the Android marketplace might be great. As a developer Google doesn’t even allow Australian Developers to sell paid apps, so yes, it ain’t no alternative"

martythemaniak3• 16 years ago

" There is no alternative platform, despite what others may say about Android, it’s immature and their app store(s) are a wild west nightmare."

Silly Apple fanboy. He's whining that there's no approval on the Android market in a blog post dedicated to complaining about the approval in the App Store.

I also wonder what "immature" is. Probably another way of saying "I don't know anything but I don't like it, so I'll make some stuff up"

jcromartie• 16 years ago

Maybe it's about revenue. Compare the revenue of top App Store to top Market apps.

martythemaniak3• 16 years ago

Maybe. We'll see how much revenue they get now that their app's only venue is Cydia.

not_an_alien3• 16 years ago

Some people are too scared to be left out of their walled garden.

Hopefully with the new online store with send-to-phone feature and as Android numbers continue to gain on iPhone, people will realize the Android is a very solid platform to develop for.

jessriedel• 16 years ago

Not having a central approval process doesn't have to mean that the marketplace is unnavigable like the Android app store.

ZeroGravitas3• 16 years ago

I've only browsed the Android app store via my wife's Nexus One for a short while, but i didn't notice any big difference from the Apple app store.

It's got top-selling apps, most popular free-apps, and new entries, all within various (sub-)categories like games, or card-games. I also did a couple of searches and found apps that I was vaguely aware of based on their content.

So what's missing that makes it "unnavigable"? There wasn't any genius recommendations as far as I saw, and no top-grossing lists but these seem more like niceties than core functionality.

megablast2• 16 years ago

Unfortunately, Google does not allow Australian developers to sell apps in the appstore. It has always been like this, and we have not heard anything on this issue from google.

That is why it is immature. If I can't sell apps, then what good is it to someone trying to run a business? Some people aren't willing to stoop to selling ads, and ruining the experience.

petercooper• 16 years ago

If Android's as "open" as people keep saying it is, is it possible for you to sell Android apps from your own site and let users download and install them without using an app store? I'd expect this to be possible if it's a truly open platform.

donaq4• 16 years ago

Ditto. When the G1 came to Singapore, I bought it within the first three days, then paid to register for a developer's account in the Market, only to find out that I couldn't sell apps. It was disappointing, to say the least. I still choose to use Android over the iPhone because I generally support the more open alternative in any tech, but the incentive to develop for Android has been removed because Google seriously flubbed this one.

Any Googlers reading this care to comment on why it is taking so long for Google Checkout to reach more countries? I mean - after what, 2 years? - a list of 9 countries where you're allowed to sell Android apps in the market is pretty pathetic. Why not just allow Paypal accounts for receiving payment if you can't be arsed to do it properly?

We're working hard to add more countries, but we're unable to provide any guidance on timelines. Please stay tuned!

I don't think they were working very hard.

not_an_alien3• 16 years ago

This is pretty emblematic of all the Apple apologists out there: stating that everything is fine for everybody, just because it's fine for them.

Until they fall into the hole themselves.

josefresco2• 16 years ago

I don't think this type of 'apologist' is unique to Apple. You could in a general way say "Everyone is okay with X until..." for just about anything.

not_an_alien3• 16 years ago

Not unique, but certainly extremely common. Go check the comments on the page and see for yourself; plenty of comments there saying it looks "widgety" so Apple was right to ban it (even though there has never been anything on the agreement about "widgety" applications). I'd bet this guy would be one of them writing in defense of Apple, had it not been his application the affected one. As long as those people have an excuse, no matter how inane it is, they're gonna stick to it; and I'm seeing more from the Apple camp than any other fanboy camp I've seen before.

I hope this causes more people to look at their own attitude towards Apple and the kind of future it's buying them.

zweben• 16 years ago

I suspect that this new unwritten policy is to prepare for the introduction of widgets in iPhone OS 4.0. That would explain why they want to get rid of widget-like apps, why they would try to keep it low-key, plus the timing fits. That the app store reviewer said that Apple 'doesn't like' widgets anymore is probably meaningless; I doubt he knows about Apple HQ's plans or motivations any more than this developer.

mortenjorck2• 16 years ago

Fine, then. Announce changes to the developer agreement, and stop approving widget apps. But don't suddenly pull existing widget apps from the store as if they've suddenly become dangerous to users!

That's not preserving the user experience or maintaining the flexibility of the platform. That's madness.

jstevens852• 16 years ago

> But don't suddenly pull existing widget apps from the store as if they've suddenly become dangerous to users!

That hasn't happened. This guys app is still available. You can buy it [here](http://itunes.apple.com/au/app/tennis-stats/id364532249?mt=8). What Apple is doing is holding back approval for updates and new apps.

tomjen32• 16 years ago

So Apple isn't evil, until they hit me?

Classy, very classy.

mortenjorck2• 16 years ago

There's a right way Apple could have done this.

1. Just like with the infamous 3.3.1, announce that there will be changes coming to the developer agreement that ban "widget desktop" apps, and that apps of that variety will no longer be approved after July 1, 2010.

2. Grandfather in existing widget apps and make it clear to developers that they will only be able to make maintenance updates to their software and that no significant new versions will be approved.

I've actually bought Jobs' "sacrifice for the future of the platform" politic up to a point, and gradually phasing out approval for a type of app fits into that.

Sniping your developers does not fit into that.

josefresco2• 16 years ago

Your second suggestion is still pretty evil. Imagine being a moderately successful app developer and having Apple tell you that you've released your last version and your app is essentially 'frozen in time' and your only option is to release maintenance fixes (at your cost yay!). Why would I maintain software for users whom I'll never be able to sell a future version or upgrade to?

pavel_lishin3• 16 years ago

How is that worse than having Apple tell you that they're pulling your app altogether?

jasonlotito• 16 years ago

I'd like to say I feel bad for the developers, but I can't. This isn't anything new. Many of us have been saying this for some time now. This isn't any different then the Bikini App situation. Even the article mentions eating the author's own words. What they fail to realize is that Apple's T&C are changeable. They are Apple's, not yours, and they can be whatever they want with no regard for your app.

As a user, this is bad. I don't want to buy an app because I can't rely on it. If Apple should remove it in the future, I lose the functionality I've come to rely on. As a user, I'm not in control of the applications I install. Apple is. This means if Apple suddenly changes it's mind, I lose the application and whatever data it supports.

This is not good for me as a user, and has influenced my buying habits.

dave16192• 16 years ago

I feel bad for the developers because 1) iPad apps take a lot longer to developer than iPhone apps and they put a lot of time/money into it, 2) the app doesn't break anything in the developers agreement, 3) Apple approved their past 3 updates, and 4) I really don't understand the rejection reason.

vegashacker• 16 years ago

I have heard that Apple can actually turn off particular users' apps on their devices, but this isn't necessarily the case. I bought NetShare (a tethering app) and it was later pulled from the store, but it never disappeared from my phone. (Now I never actually got it working, but that's beside the point.)

So I would say this is only bad for the user in the sense that they might not be able to have all the cool apps they want because (a) they may be pulled before they can purchase them or (b) they may never be developed because it's too risky to make them with Apple's fickle review policies.

logic• 16 years ago

They've never actually used their remote "kill switch" for any apps; if an app is simply removed for a change in policy or after-the-fact enforcement, deployed apps have remained.

However, there is most definitely a remotely-controlled kill switch for apps. The URL containing that list is here:

https://iphone-services.apple.com/clbl/unauthorizedApps

pavel_lishin3• 16 years ago

So, what exactly determines whether something is a widget or not?

wmeredith• 16 years ago

That's my question. I'm not sure I even understand what apps would be considered widget-like.

protomyth2• 16 years ago

The quote is "We are not allowing apps that create their own desktops". So, It might be safe if your app didn't display all the system indicators that the iPad normally shows on the desktop (battery, signal, time).

I am at a real loss on this one. It would seem to indicate something coming, but it just seems odd.

dave16192• 16 years ago

Wow, this is sad especially since the author wrote a post defending Apple a month prior. Apple desperately needs reform in their developer relations.

1. Apple should replace whoever is in charge of developer relations.

2. Apple should open up a 1-800 developer hotline for any problems.

3. Apple needs to be more clear about app approval and rejection policies, and should give updates if there are any changes of apps they are rejecting.

4. Apple should be more in dialogue with developers.

pornel• 16 years ago

None of these will help if "we're adding a desktop, get rid of all desktop apps" order comes from the top, and that's not a single mistake, that's a strategy.

lylejohnson• 16 years ago

MyFrame looks awfully similar to PhotoFramePlus (http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/photoframeplus/id365563397?mt...), an app I read about just this morning and was considering purchasing. Now I'm wondering if PFP is next up on the chopping block (although it's not so "widgety" as MyFrame is).

What happens when Apple kills an app that you've purchased? Does it get removed from your iPad the next time you sync (a la Amazon.com and the "1984" fiasco)? If it does get removed, do you get a refund?

protomyth2• 16 years ago

I have a couple of the wifi apps and they don't get removed from the iPad / iPhone. The problem is that you get no more updates for OS changes.

10ren• 16 years ago

So Apple is being unfair, but there's no alternative?

Sounds like a good investment, according to Scott Adams http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1383843

jonknee2• 16 years ago

What's their issue with desktop type apps? It looks quite nice actually, I could see enjoying the iPad in a stand next to my computer with beautiful photos and passive information displayed. I guess I'll have to make my own with Javascript.

omaranto• 16 years ago

I think this guy winds up sounding like a self-centred jerk: in that earlier post he mentions he basically says "all that stuff other developers have complained can't be that bad becase it hasn't happened to me", like he doesn't believe them, and now it happens to him and suddenly he agrees with everyone else's complaints... Sheesh.

donaq4• 16 years ago

For those who take issue with the author's claim that Android is immature, please read this comment first.

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1397398

Disclaimer: I am an Android user and I love it as a consumer. As a developer not in the list of 'blessed' countries, it stinks.

App Store: Sentence first — verdict afterwards

Related Stories