Apple's Arrogant App Store Developer Policies
News Commentary. My praise for Apple's App Store platform is suddenly muted. This week, a single action by Apple made something quite appealing to developers horribly unappealing. |
On Thursday, Apple allegedly rejected Podcaster for the App Store because the mobile application duplicates some of the functionality in iTunes, according to a blog post by the developer.
"He wrote: "Today I finally got a reply from Apple about the status of Podcaster. Apple Rep says: 'Since Podcaster assists in the distribution of podcasts, it duplicates the functionality of the Podcast section of iTunes.'"
Apple's alleged action has generated quite the response among some Apple pundits, such as Michael Arrington, John Gruber, Paul Kafasis and Dave Winer.
"We've seen applications rejected or pulled before. Each time, a reason was found to support this decision," Paul writes. "Here, however, Apple has gone too far. Rejecting an application because it might compete with Apple is simply indefensible. There's so much wrong with it that I'm not even sure where to start. There are legal issues to consider, in terms of anti-competitive behavior."
But the more fundamental problem is when. Consistent with Apple's iPhone development policy, Podcaster was rejected after being completed and being presented for inclusion in the App Store. Apple's controlling tactics mean that other developers could invest time and money in applications that Apple could reject from the App Store. Pretty much for any reason.
Microsoft differently engages its partners, sometimes to fault. The company has established programs for which developers must meet certain criteria to receive a coveted logo for products like Office System or Windows. The logo is Microsoft's version of the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval, only more so. I've long told Microsoft that there should be more oversight over applications before they receive the logo. Too many third-party applications cause too many of the problems that plague Windows.
Apple's tighter control has merit, if it keeps the iPhone platform stable. After all, who is going to put up with a constantly crashing phone? But rejecting a developer, after it invested in the iPhone platform, when the work was done and for competitive reasons is bad business. It's stupid developer and public relations, too.
If recent history is any indication, developers won't abandon App Store, however. Michael writes:
"We've seen this all before with the Facebook platform. Facebook doesn't block new apps from launching, but they've shown that they'll compete with third-party developers, give preferential treatment to revenue partners and won't hesitate to suspend applications that are annoying or harmful to users. Developers protested, but the apps keep on coming."
The App Store is a hugely compelling platform, so, yes, developers probably will keep on coming. But will they want to, and will they look elsewhere to application stores coming to Google's Android, Windows Mobile or—if there will be one as I anticipate—Symbian? Apple's mobile handset could be the next-generation computing platform because of App Store. But Apple could lose the early mindshare lead because of stupid policies.
App Store shouldn't stop with iPhone, which is what really makes Podcaster's rejection all the more a dumb-ass decision. What Apple should do is what Microsoft failed to years ago: Provide a secure, application distribution mechanism as part of the operating system. The same mechanism providing applications for iTunes could and should be used to bring even more robust applications to Mac OS X.
Circa 2004, when I worked as an analyst, I told Microsoft executives that they should build such a mechanism into Windows and extend the existing activation technology to cover developer applications. Piracy is both the bane and fame of smaller developers who suffer because of casual and overt piracy but also benefit in real sales from theft marketing the software. Application distribution from within Windows could reduce developer distribution costs, increase visibility (e.g., marketing) and curtail software piracy.
Microsoft has the capability, even now, to offer applications directly from within Windows. Windows Welcome Center would be one place to offer such capabilities. Microsoft offers its own and third-party software through Windows Marketplace. But it's simply not good enough: Microsoft doesn't provide the activation technology, and there is no facility to take advantage of Windows Update.
Apple is on a precipice of doing what Microsoft should have done years ago. Applications could be delivered directly to Macs via iTunes as the rights-managed distribution mechanism.
But to get there, Apple has to abandon its lunatic policies. Problem: There's a real arrogance to the way Apple engages most of its partners, not just developers. Michael Arrington may be right that the applications will keep on coming. Some developers will live with lunatic and arrogant polices for the benefits of easy and secure iPhone and perhaps Mac distribution. But other developers will reject Apple.
On Thursday, developer Fraser Speirs gave a symbolic middle finger to Apple. He blogged: "I will never write another iPhone application for the App Store as currently constituted."
[Please send your tips or rumors to watchtips at live.com].
Comments (3)
So tired of apple's "My way or the highway..." tactics. I've resigned from developing for the apple platform.
Posted by Over it | December 8, 2008 5:33 PM
Great article. I think developers are going to leave Apple, with Windows Mobile and Andriod having much less restrictive demands why wouldn't they?
I think Apple's attitude with the Apps will land them in court sooner rather than later (perhaps Podcaster).
I am just as frustrated as an I-pod Touch user as the developer are. There are several glaring ommissions with the Touch and I-Phone,like cut and paste, Apple should allow a third party to create. I think it is great that Apple is trying to keep the phone and touch stable and useable, but they have the reigns pulled in to tightly.
Posted by Ron | December 8, 2008 5:48 PM
While the tactics suck I think the author's reaction is exaggerated. Thousands (or millions) of applications will continue to be programmed. For every one person who refuses on principle to program for the iPhone there are hundreds more dying for that distribution.
You mention that "developer Frasier Speirs" told off Apple in his blog, but I think the most common response will simply be, "Who?"
Posted by nameless | December 16, 2008 3:53 PM