

Apple's Schiller Defends iPhone App Approval Process - billclerico
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/nov2009/tc20091120_354597.htm

======
pierrefar
"But today, with smartphones permeating our lives and going everywhere we go,
it makes a good deal of sense to have someone keeping a close eye on what
those apps do."

No it doesn't. To use their words from two paragraphs up: "The software market
for personal computing has existed in this way for nearly three decades, and
while there have certainly been some problems along the way, I'd argue that
overall we're better off without Microsoft or Apple or some other organization
approving software applications before they're released to the market."

So it doesn't make sense now, it never made sense, and I don't see how it
could make sense in the future.

~~~
easyfrag
We IT people look at smartphones as computers with phone capabilities but I
think the average consumer sees them as phones with other stuff added on. This
is an important distinction.

Over the past 30 years people have come to accept that computers do not work
at times, whether it is due to hardware failures, software bugs, or viruses.
There is no such history of acceptable failure with the telephone, it has
always just worked - even in a power outage!

I can see why Apple is being paranoid with making sure the phone just works,
it would be a product-killing public relations nightmare to have a bug or
virus break a phone's core functionality.

~~~
pierrefar
Apple sells the phone. It's working 100%. User installs app, breaks phone.
Apple takes blame?

The trick here is see that: 1\. If Apple is very paranoid and must approve
every single app, then it should rightly take the blame.

2\. If Apple says it's free for all and users should realize that some apps
are not that great, then it would rightly remove any blame thrown its way.

Which is why I think the whole app approval process is absurd: Apple should
stop approving apps and remove any associated blame. The path it's on right
now is never going to scale or end well for Apple - all it would take is one
bad slip and it's pretty much over.

On the flip side is what Google does with Android: they're collecting tons of
feedback every time someone uninstalls an app, including an option that says
"this is a malicious app". Care to wager that this will be used in some kind
of automated way to keep the app store clean?

Not just that, they're empowering the user to make an informed decision. The
Android app store tells you how many downloads the app gets, its star rating
(out of 5 stars) and user comments. Before installing any app I read all this
info and decide "hey, with 10,000 downloads and 4.5 stars, how bad can it be?"

But then one more thing happens: the app store tells you what the application
requests permission to do like access your location or full internet access or
whatnot. You still can decide not to install if you see something fishy. I've
seen many games request access to my contacts and they didn't get installed.

So please tell me, how is Apple's way better in any regard?

~~~
pcc
An anecdote:

Two colleagues from different industries (one insurance, one technology) were
Palm Treo users. After installing various 3rd party apps (not malicious but
related to productivity things like emails, note taking etc), both of them
started experiencing sporadic crashes of the phone, for example when
attempting to answer incoming calls. One blamed Palm for his problems, the
other blamed one of the app vendors. Neither wanted to live without those
apps. Today both of them are iPhone users.

~~~
pierrefar
That's quite funny. IMHO, that's a failure of Palm to market/position the Treo
properly. The marketing message I think would work well for smartphones is
that they allow you to do anything you want. There is an app for everything,
all conveniently located in one place. Actually there is more than one. See
which one works for you.

Apple in all its marketing genius can pull this off. Honestly, I think they're
the only company who can pull this off. My Google Android example above is
certainly not part any marketing message I've heard - it's just there working
in the background without anyone noting it.

------
credo
The interview is targetted at the mainstream audience (not developers) and
they've done a good job of explaining some of the benefits of the review
process.

Unfortunately, the interview doesn't address two key points.

1\. The lack of transparency into the review process (where the app is in the
queue, is the review process going to take one week or ten weeks, will the app
be approved or not, lack of response to developer emails etc.)

2\. The number of incorrect rejections (i.e. app rejected for a bogus reason)

The second issue is an understandable limitation that can be mitigated, but
perhaps never eliminated. However, imo Apple needs to do a lot better with the
first problem - "lack of transparency" problem and related developer-relations
problem.

~~~
weaksauce
I can't agree more. The lack of transparency is the real killer in the
approval process. They added a "transparency" feature to the approval process
site, but it is so vague that it is mostly worthless. They added a "in
review", "awaiting appstore reviewer" and a few other states to the app
management area.

------
mr_eel
For anybody outside of the situation, this article may seem to explain
everything. After all, the explanation seems reasonable, the retail-store
metaphor is one that most people intuitively grasp. What's the big deal?

Well, the real issue is that Apple still does not pro-actively and directly
address the problems that developers have with the app store. Fluffy
interviews with Schiller don't cut it in my opinon.

I did actually have thoughts of making iPhone apps at one point. Now; there is
no chance I'd ever make anything if it means dealing with a tight-arse
bueracracy like that.

~~~
potatolicious
Absolutely - at the end of the day there are only two parties that can make
the App Store successful - app users and app developers. Developers
overwhelmingly have many misgivings about the way things are being done now,
and a "there is nothing wrong, move along" interview with the head honcho at
Apple is doing Apple zero favours.

Even a "we understand some problems exist and we are looking into them" is a
much, much better way to handle this than an outright denial that problems
exist.

------
SirWart
I was a little confused about why they had to reject gambling cheating apps,
given that I could use safari to create an app with identical functionality.
However, Apple is also selling the app and charging the customers credit card,
which must make them more liable for something like that.

Given that, it seems like reviews are a necessity, at least for the top tier
of the App Store. Right now there are basically two tiers, App Store apps and
Safari apps. The gulf between them is so huge that almost everyone is ignoring
Safari apps. What they need is a middle tier of native apps that can be
installed from the web that live outside the App Store ecosystem. Obviously
Apple wouldn't be able to get a 30% cut of all sales, but the experience of
installing these apps (finding the app manually, putting in credit card
information, and manually upgrading the app) would still leave most users
using the App Store. Apple would have to give up other benefits as well, such
as being able to keep out competitors to the built-in apps and enforce the
private API rules, so they probably are not going to do it unless absolutely
forced to.

------
raquo
The only real reason I see for the approval process is safety - your phone has
direct access to your money, unlike your computer. Maybe Apple could make a
"safe mode" which would not allow an app to be destructive, and only require
approval process if you the developer want to use some non-"safe mode"
features. That would significantly decrease the load on their approval teams.

