There’s a whup for that ☀
By reviewing applications, Apple tacitly endorses them. This is bad for Apple, in that any failures in the process are (properly) attributable to Apple. It’s bad for developers, because any application Apple doesn’t like can be summarily rejected. And it’s awful for the public because the review process delays new applications, updates, and bug fixes. It’s as if Microsoft were to implement a review process for all P.C. software. By opening up the platform, Apple could solve all of these problems. Marco offers part of a solution:
One possible solution is to maintain app review only for inclusion in the App Store and start permitting apps to be sold and distributed independently without requiring customers’ phones to be jailbroken. But this has a lot of technical and practical hurdles before it could be a high-quality experience, and I’m not confident that it would relieve Apple of the implied liability for the effects of bad apps.
I can’t speak to the technical side—though I can’t imagine the practical and technical hurdles would be so difficult for Apple to handle—particularly because the current submission/review system is not a “high-quality experience.” And I can’t imagine what liability Apple would have for any bad apps, so long as it’s clear that Apple hasn’t checked the apps in anyway. Currently the apps (and their content) have Apple’s stamp of approval. If something slips through, Apple is in trouble. By opening the gates, Apple can absolve itself of its responsibility as gatekeeper.
Best of all, Apple can keep the app store and can get its slice of the pie of everything purchased through the app store. It can improve the review process and only sell the best products. If Apple is willing to stand behind the developers it helps promote, the developers can ask higher prices for their apps, and consumers can buy them, confident that they are getting a quality application. Everybody wins.
I doubt Apple will relinquish any control over the iPhone as a platform. I doubt Apple willingly relinquishes control of anything.
I already regret my iPhone 3Gs purchase and 2 year contract renewal. And I’ve pledged not to sink any more money into the Apple App Store.
Not that I do not still marvel at my iPhone. By far, it eclipses any other phone (or PDA or any other eBook reader on the market) in ease of use, bundled features, and available add-on applications. It’s just that I cannot justify support of a walled garden. As a developer, I realize many are striking success in their development efforts with the Apple iPhone SDK. The prospect is tantalizing, but I choose to develop on free and open platforms, not for closed, proprietary systems. No doubt, this quibble with the Apple ecosystem, along with my past departure from proprietary application software development has cost me hundreds of thousands in compensation.
Apple may possess the market lead for now, but I predict in a few years, it will succumb to challengers championing a more open approach. This Apple narrative has played out before, some 25 years ago, where Jobs and company and their revolutionary computing product faltered in response to open competition. It probably won’t be a Palm device. Maybe it won’t be Android either, but Google is an industry heavyweight now, and I wouldn’t wager against an eventual Google victory. But eventually, somebody is going to create a shiny computer phone that does all that iPhone does, without the restricted sandbox paradigm. One powered by an open platform and freely available development kit, for which we will witness an explosion of mobile computing saturating a greater mass of users.
The iPhone is a remarkable device, a fusion of iPod, PDA, ebook reader and telephone all in one. But it still can be an exercise in frustration — why can’t I just drag files off and on to it without an obligatory “sync” procedure? Whether tethered by a USB cable or connected wirelessly, you should be able to use your minature computing device to talk easily to your home network, desktop computer or netbook. I should be able to write an application and post it online to share with anyone interested. I reject the “anointed guardian” approach and its Orwellian justification.
