

It’s Not the Control, It’s the Secrecy - mrshoe
http://daringfireball.net/2010/04/not_the_control_the_secrecy

======
alextgordon
It's neither. It's that the only supported method of distribution is via the
App Store.

If, in addition to the App Store, developers were able to distribute apps
themselves, there would be no problem. People would grumble whenever Apple
introduced another asinine policy, but there wouldn't be such an outcry. Some
restrictions in return for extra visibility and use of Apple's distribution
system is a fair trade.

This isn't what we have though. It isn't just Apple's store they're locking
down, it's the _whole device_. A store that you can't freely put software on
is unfortunate but understandable. A computer that you can't freely put
software on is just wrong.

~~~
wvenable
How is that neither? That is the _control_ part. They control what software
gets on the device, period. If that is what bothers you then you should be
just as upset with Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo. They all run their own
stores and they tightly control the retail channel. Their devices are
computers you can't freely put software on too.

Where's your indignation about them?

~~~
lambda
I personally do not buy game consoles for exactly this reason.

I think there's less outrage because there's a sense that they are just for
games. They are not intended to be general purpose computing devices, though
these days they pretty much are. It becomes more outrageous when a device that
you use for your private life, for your business, and for other things that
really matter to you is controlled by someone else.

------
groaner
Why can't it be both? I, for example, oppose the Patriot Act because:

1\. The government can engage in warrantless surveillance, violating my
privacy.

2\. The government can do so without having to justify it at all, even
requiring that the act itself does not get disclosed (e.g. the much-abused
national security letter).

Control and secrecy are both bad, and when combined is really staggeringly
frightening.

------
sshumaker
It's not just the secrecy, it's the fact that Apple changes the terms and
applies them retroactively.

~~~
apu
There's another factor: rules seem to apply non-uniformly. This is most
pronounced when an app by an small-time developer is rejected, but a very
similar app from a major publisher (EA, Playboy, etc.) is accepted. If this is
what Apple wants (for whatever reason), then secrecy is the only way to do it
while maintaining a semblance of fairness.

------
blasdel
The real problem with the rejections of Fiore's cartoon app or Mad Magazine's
Bobblehead Federal Register app is not the App Store approval process itself.
It's the same problem that underlies Apple's recent banning of auto-generated
app frameworks.

The real problem is that pure content is being treated as an application.

There needs to be a separate whole section of the iTunes Store for this shit:
Music, Movies, TV, Apps, _Interactive_. It'd come with its own Webkit-based
development environment, like Apple is doing for their new iTunesLP format.
The people making these pointless apps don't really give a shit about
integrating with the phone, and they aren't doing anything they couldn't do in
Mobile Safari -- they're in the App Store to get paid for their work.

------
lukifer
It's ironic that a free market can lead to authoritarian, closed market
platforms like the App Store or X-Box Live Arcade (and that, hypothetically,
government intervention could force these markets to be more open, whether or
not you think that's a good thing).

~~~
cgranade
That's part of the whole motivation for mixed economic policies in the first
place-- to correct market failures. Monopolies, trusts and other such anti-
competitive behavior can undermine any good that comes out of the free market,
to say nothing of doing things against the interests of the consumer.
Honestly, I think that government intervention here would be a good thing, as
it seems that DRM and closed platforms are symptoms of a market failure.

------
sjs
I'm still wondering why nobody has funded a web-app store for iPhone and other
modern phones. Hell, it doesn't even have to be limited to mobile devices (but
supported resolutions, features, and device support should be prominent).

There's clearly a huge market for systems that make it easy for customers to
find and purchase apps, and for devs to reach those customers. People
shouldn't be implementing payment systems over and over again for each product
they create. It gives devs exposure and a market base.

I guess the problem is bootstrapping such a market. That's no easy task and
the pay-off might not come for years.

~~~
vetinari
No, the problem is that nobody except Apple has private key, that can sign
applications, so the iPhone will install them. Unless someone factors it (or
find it in some way), it is going to stay this way.

Have a look few threads above - Apple is the only party that can put
appications on iPhone OS devices - it is not that others are unwilling to do
so, but Apple locked them out and unless there is a breakthrough in asymetric
cryptography, it is not going to change.

~~~
mortenjorck
Sjs is proposing not a third-party app store (impossible given the code
signing requirement) but a third-party _web app_ store.

I could see this working.

~~~
vetinari
Mea culpa, you are right.

There is something like this: <http://www.google.com/enterprise/marketplace/>

------
dkarl
Part of me is hoping that the reviewer who rejected the app was fresh off the
boat from some authoritarian country, and this has nothing to do with a
company that is admired by millions of young Americans and accepted or
respected by tens of millions more. I just can't fathom the idea of an
American being able to formulate the phrase "content that ridicules public
figures" without feeling sick and pretending never to have thought of it.

~~~
groaner
Considering how many of our public figures (and their rabid supporters) would
love to crack down on "content that ridicules public figures" while loudly
touting how "American" they are, I think you're in for a rude awakening.

------
Qz
Hold on a sec... does anyone else see a problem with the concept of an App for
one person's political cartoons? I remain convinced that the App Store is at
its core an evolutionary dead end.

~~~
wvenable
If web sites can be like apps, why can't apps be like web sites?

~~~
Qz
Because web sites have (mostly) visible source code. Ultra-specific apps are
lock-in central.

~~~
ugh
Isn’t that a value judgment, not a answer to the question?

There is a difference but it doesn’t matter for most people. It’s simply true
that apps can present information just as good or better than websites. That’s
just how it is. And I don’t like it either.

~~~
Qz
Actually, I think part of what's going on here is that the App Store just
makes it really really easy to sell things. It's just that it requires them to
be in the form of 'Apps'. I think the simplified billing aspect is the key
popularity point. App-ness itself has no future though.

------
gamble
Considering how long the App Store has been like this, I think it's fair to
assume that Apple wants the approvals process to be opaque.

Objective, published criteria would make it harder to justify rejecting apps
that threaten their business model. (Google Voice, for example) In addition,
it prevents third parties from investing a significant amount in any one app.

At this stage in the iPhone's development, Apple may actually prefer not to
have highly sophisticated third-party apps. Third-party apps add value to the
iPhone, but they don't supersede the core OS applications. If apps became more
like proper desktop applications and users came to value them more than the
core OS, it would be easier for Apple's customers to follow ports of those
apps to another platform. By undermining the third-party ecosystem, Apple
gives itself time find out what people want and ensure the core OS apps have
an insurmountable lead.

------
nnutter
It's not the secrecy, it's the monopoly on the sale of iPhone applications.

Monopolies are OK as long as...

~~~
ugh
McDonald’s has a monopoly on the sale of Big Macs – I don’t think that’s a
problem :)

All that aside, there is a problem:
[http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/01/apple-
responsible-...](http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/01/apple-responsible-
for-994-of-mobile-app-sales-in-2009.ars)

~~~
nnutter
How is this a valid comparison? A Big Mac is an end product not an
intermediate. I suppose you could say it is an intermediate product for
condiments. In which case McDonald's does not have a monopoly on what
condiments you can put on your Big Mac.

Even if you did think it was a valid comparison they don't really have a
monopoly on the sale of Big Macs. They have a trademark (or whatever) on the
name Big Mac but there are plenty of burgers that are very similar and you are
free to create a burger that is identical in form to what McDonald's sells.

~~~
ugh
There is Google, RIM, Palm. There soon will be Microsoft. Nokia, too. They all
will sell mobile apps so I don’t see the problem with Apple being the only one
to sell iPhone apps if – and only if – they lose their dominant position in
this wider group of those who sell mobile apps.

They can keep their monopoly on selling iPhone apps if they want to. I think
that’s unfortunate but not something that has (necessarily) to be stopped. As
I said: if they lose their dominant position, if you can get perfectly good
mobile apps from any of those companies I mentioned.

