Editorial: Apple, the FCC, and the sideloading solution
By Nilay Patel 
posted Aug 24th 2009 2:30PM
posted Aug 24th 2009 2:30PM
I don't care.
Each of the responses was long, dense, and polished to a high-gloss shine that made each company's actions seem not only rational and justified, but almost inevitable in a way -- as I wrote at the time, Apple isn't exaggerating when it says that these are entirely new problems, and simply reading the individual letters paints a fairly sympathetic picture of how this whole chaotic process ended up in such disarray. But that's a perspective that assumes deeply-rooted interest in the systems and procedure of the App Store, a perspective that assumes there's a good reason we should be looking to lawyers and government regulators to figure out what's going on with the most exciting and vital software market that we've seen in a long time.
I don't think that's true. I don't think there's any good reason the most interesting things about the App Store right now should be procedural details and the number of submissions each reviewer handles a day -- somewhere around 80, if you can believe it. I'd rather be talking about new and exciting ways to integrate the iPhone and other mobile devices into my daily life -- I'd rather be talking about apps. And the more I think about it, the only way Apple can get back to that is by doing what it should have done in the first place: allowing developers and users to bypass the App Store and sideload apps onto the iPhone themselves.
Every single App Store submission story we've covered boils down to the fact that Apple is the single point of control for the iPhone ecosystem, and it's simply not fast or flexible enough to keep up with the rapid pace of innovation we're seeing on the platform. Like it or not, what's happening on the iPhone is leading the entire tech industry, and Apple should be doing everything in its power to enhance that, rather than miring itself in scandal and regulatory investigation. If that means releasing some control over the platform, then so be it -- especially since allowing sideloading would make almost all of these problems simply disappear.
I'm not arguing that Apple should do away with the App Store, or even that it should relax its restrictions and approval guidelines -- if anything, allowing apps to be manually installed would also allow Apple to tighten its control over the App Store, since developers would have an alternative method of distribution. Think about it: the overwhelming majority of consumers would still turn to the App Store and the App Store alone, creating a huge incentive for developers to meet Apple's inclusion guidelines, but the apps that push the boundaries would be able to find their own way into the hands of enthusiasts and early adopters -- and Apple would have an organic
I want to talk about technology, not paperwork -- apps, not policy. |
Obviously there's a lot to be worked out with this plan -- allowing apps to be sideloaded immediately raises some major questions, like whether jailbreaking would be permitted, or whether developers could charge for non-App Store apps, or how to deal with apps like SlingPlayer Mobile that would apparently violate AT&T's terms of service -- but they're all solvable problems. I'd happily take a compromise that said sideloaded apps had to be free in order to preserve Apple's 30 percent App Store revenue stream, or one in which iTunes only installed apps developed using the official SDK -- those are far more constructive ways of advancing the iPhone as a platform than making procedural tweaks to the submission process or waiting for the next rev of HTML 5 to provide even richer web apps.
Maybe this is all just my personal filter talking -- Apple's description of an App Store Executive Review Board that handles novel problems and appeals immediately conjured up visions of lawyers and courtrooms for me -- but I get the feeling I'm not alone in this. I want to talk about technology, not paperwork; apps, not policy. I'm looking at these FCC papers and all I see is that Apple has the ability to put every App Store rejection story to bed forever, and all it's got to do is hand back a little control to its most passionate users. Let's hope someone in Cupertino sees that too.
I trust our politicians, they generally make very informed decisions about the technology. I mean, look at the fantastic job they've done with IP copyright law in our country!
With Scottish politicians releasing convicted terrorists, I don't think ANYTHING should be left in the hands of politicians any more...
"As Engadget's resident former attorney" - Um, Is it resident OR former attorney?
Former attorney, now working for Engadget (he doesn't work for Engadget as an attorney; he just does some interpretation of legal issues).
@OneLove
I believe that is interpreted as, "He was once a lawyer, and is now at engadget, offering his past experience up to the table". He most likely used to be one, and offers his past experiences up in legal matters.
+1000000 to you, hexydes.
He's a resident employee, who's also a former attorney.
Yeah, especially the High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991. The world today would be so much better if we were still using Compuserve and AOL for everything.
THE INTERNET IS NOT A TRUCK! YOU CAN'T JUST DUMP STUFF ON IT!!
Thanks for the clarification. Apple should stop the foolishness, let you install anything on the iphone and just take a % when your app sells in the app store.
So lemme get this straight. This editorial puts forth that Apple, the company built on proprietary systems, should open up its platforms?
RIIIIGHT.
That's totally going to happen.
You nubs dont understand...
I can create an App that uses %100 processing power that will ever heat your device. Now Apple has to repair it.
Nubs need to learn that software can control the hardware... idiots will use an App that will make long distance calls to nub land for $100/mionute..
Fack you whiners!!!
if you dont like it dont buy it... stay with winmo or NOKLA!!
And of course, the author, having been a lawyer brings that to his "solution" and demonstrates why, as he suggests, we should keep lawyers out of the decision making process for technology.
These "enthusiasts" you speak of, they sideload already. There is no problem. The market is sorting itself out. The only ones complaining are lawyers and the whining tech-wannabes / script-kiddies who think they are early adopters cause they read engadget and savvy hackers cause they install downloaded software.
Move along, there was never anything to see here.
@ reuthermonkey1
"the company built on proprietary systems"
Surely you've made an honest mistake here. The only company that builds all its software with proprietary tech is Microsoft. Everyone knows that Apple leverages the power of Open Source technologies for its core:
http://www.apple.com/opensource/
http://developer.apple.com/opensource/index.html
@Hard_Facts
I'm not sure what to think about that comment. On the one hand, you're right, but on the other nub...
Can't we all just get along?
No
SLAY THE BLASPHEMER!
Tom, I've written about this in earlier discussions. You don't realize one important thing: competition is NOT always good for the end users/consumers.
I won't go too deep as I've already covered this issue, but, quickly. OS is an environment. I for one don't actually use OS directly at all, I only use it to HOST my applications/programs that I work with or play with. OS is the least of my concerns. That being said, if there was such competition as you talk about, the apps and software I actually use daily for my work would have cost TENS or maybe even more times more than it does now, since the homogenous OS environment allows for a very quick development cycle for the companies that produce software for Windows.
You see, the same software that runs on Windows costs much less than a version for Linux for example, not counting the support subscriptions, that are ridiculous for competing Linux environment. Also, Linux versions come out later and slightly "obsolete" (not fully featured) in comparison to the Win version.
So, generally, I for one am really happy that we have this homogenity as it allows for the software makers to develop faster, cheaper and thus can focus on innovation, R&D and generally user centric development. OS? The only time I use it is to browse for my photos and even then I use XnView to view them, not the crap MS bundles. ;)
SHIT! I hate the comment system here! >:(
Sorry about that, it was meant to be a response to someone else.
i think apple should be allowed to approve and disapprove whatever they want its there store.
Their store....my damn phone. (If I had a God Phone but I don't.)
For all intents and purposes Apple is the gatekeeper of what would get on MY device which is complete BS. So they may very well have the right to put whatever they want on their store, but it impacts everyone by these actions.
And please no Jailbreak crap. I thought the purpose of anything Apple is to make things simple. If you have to JB a phone that isn't simple.
What you said is no different than the post. Nilay's argument seems to favor Apple's control of its App Store.
The problem is competition. There is none with the App Store. I can't make an App Store and allow developers to put their apps in my store. As an app developer, I can't put my app in the store if it conflicts with business goals of Apple and AT&T. And there's no way to get around it without jailbreaking, which is potentially illegal.
I do agree they should, but at the same time there should be a way to legally load whatever app I feel like on the thing.
Until the lock down is over, I'm not interested in an otherwise very interesting piece of hardware.
I absolutely do not want to start a war over Apple vs. Microsoft, but I honestly do not understand why it's acceptable to hate (and fine billions, too) Microsoft because they won't bundle Firefox and Chrome, but then everyone says "Apple should be able to decide what they allow on the iPhone." I just flat out do not understand.
I understand that it's my choice and I can go elsewhere if I don't like Apple's arbitrary rules, but when does it go from "their undeniable right to control" to "illegal"?
@Jeremy: You don't quite have an accurate understanding of why Microsoft was fined over browsers. Most of it goes back to settlements reached in the legal case that Microsoft lost in the 90s. They used their OS monopoly power to grow their browser market-share illegally. This included not only bundling it with Windows, but also penalizing companies like Gateway who added Netscape Navigator to their computers.
The key difference here is that Microsoft was declared a monopoly in the OS space and abused that power to try and grow their marketshare in other areas. Apple has only a small fraction of the entire phone market, and a respectable, but not monopoly share of the smartphone market.
Microsoft played very dirty in the 90s to get Windows to where it is today. And sadly, the punishment they deserved never came, and what little punishment they did get came too late to save the market. One other quick example, they forced computer makers to pay for a copy of Windows for every machine shipped out the door, even if that machine didn't have Windows on it.
Tom, save the market from what? The pre 90's computer market was an unmitigated shambles.
@Mark Anderson: Mostly the failure to save open competition. OS/2 is dead due to what MS did, as is BeOS. Netscape was sunk due to MS, and this lead to a great stagnation in browsers for years until Firefox finally became strong enough to compete. Hell, MS was even playing dirty to try and make users switch from Lotus products to MS Office.
Competition is a good thing, and it's something Microsoft is very afraid of, due to their slow turnaround time. Had there been a legitimate OS competitor in the PC market space this past decade, Windows ME and Vista would have likely never seen the light of day. Instead, MS gets to push garbage out the door, and people have little choice if they want to go elsewhere.
The day the big OEM makers have a legitimate alternate to Windows offered on every PC will finally be the day the PC market will be back to a level of competition where it was in the early 90s.
Actually john doe, I jailbroke my ipod and a friends iphone, it is very simple and easy, takes ten minutes of your time. All you need to do is download a program, and it pretty much does 99% of the work for you. If you can't do the simple tasks it asks of you, you have no right to own an iphone.
Tom, I've written about this in earlier discussions. You don't realize one important thing: competition is NOT always good for the end users/consumers.
I won't go too deep as I've already covered this issue, but, quickly. OS is an environment. I for one don't actually use OS directly at all, I only use it to HOST my applications/programs that I work with or play with. OS is the least of my concerns. That being said, if there was such competition as you talk about, the apps and software I actually use daily for my work would have cost TENS or maybe even more times more than it does now, since the homogenous OS environment allows for a very quick development cycle for the companies that produce software for Windows.
You see, the same software that runs on Windows costs much less than a version for Linux for example, not counting the support subscriptions, that are ridiculous for competing Linux environment. Also, Linux versions come out later and slightly "obsolete" (not fully featured) in comparison to the Win version.
So, generally, I for one am really happy that we have this homogenity as it allows for the software makers to develop faster, cheaper and thus can focus on innovation, R&D and generally user centric development. OS? The only time I use it is to browse for my photos and even then I use XnView to view them, not the crap MS bundles. ;)
There...
@loocas
Spot on.
@Tom
That's the problem, lots of competing platforms is just horrible from a development point of view. If you want fast development you need homogeneity and that's what MSDOS then Windows offered. It could have been any number of platforms, it's just that MS won out.
I remember the back end of the 80's (yes, I am that old) and it was an utter shambles from a compatibility point of view.
@Anderson
The pre 1995 market (as opposed to the pre 90's which is just a rounding to the nearest decade) was not a shambles, it was actually highly competitive and innovative.
The only shambles in that era was the Windows shell over DOS and the driver mess that platform was victim to because it was a shambles.
Back then we had real fanboi wars with multiple sides, alliances and code battles; not the pansy skirmishes between MS and Apple drones you see on blogs today arguing who's overlord is less controlling and is more kindly with the anal probe.
The other difference was that after the dust had settled, the code displayed we'd all quietly acknowledge each platforms strengths and weaknesses even if it wasn't the one we used.
There was an honour and code between fanboys back then.
@Cy Starkman
Completely agreed. Sure, one platform is nice from a developer point of view, but it also locks you into it. Standards such as POSIX, Java and others exist to try and ease that pain. If there had been real OS competition, these standards would have been worthwhile. NeXT was also trying to go the standards route later in life with HP.
Look at how networking standards worked out. Nearly every OS on any platform, including the one on your phone easily talk to each other with TCP/IP. Common runtimes environments would have been just as easy if there was a stronger demand for them.
@Cy Starkman
The only innovation was around how to make applications work on multiple platforms. MS DOS came along and, rightly or wrongly, removed that headache which is why it had 50% of the market in 1990 and 60% by 1992. The race was over long before Windows.
No-one really cares about the also rans.
nilay: your problem is that you make too much sense.
Yeah, that all makes sense until someone creates a side-loaded *new* App Store... only that this new store gives 100% of monetary proceeds to the developer and not allowing Apple taking a cut.
http://www.macnn.com/articles/09/07/30/cydia.store.earnings/
I agree with this article fully, that's exactly what Apple should do. I also fully believe that they will refuse to do so unless forced to through government intervention. Apple wants to maintain absolute control over their platform and that will probably be its eventual downfall, but I don't see them changing that strategy any time soon.
Exactly. And HOW IRONIC! The drones in this old TV spot are the apple fanboys, excusing the dear leaders EXTREME control and every bad move! That girl should have an Android logo on her shirt. Just sayin...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYecfV3ubP8
Great Editorial Nilay. I think that that this sounds like a good idea, but I also think that there are a lot of iphone users who want these apps, but don't have the technical skill to sideload apps and stuff. Also, you said there would be some problems with Att, and people who wanted to use their network for stuff that its not ment for, I agree that most people would rather solve this problem than the app store problem, but wouldn't it take a long time for anything like that to happen.
My mom and my wife aren't the most technical people, but they both side load music onto their iPods and iPhones all the time. They even side load from CDs. If Apple allows side loading, it'll probably be drag-n-drop to iTunes like they do DIY ringtones. Most people probably don't make ringtones, but it isn't because it's too hard to install them.
I think everyone should jailbreak their iPhone and use whatever f*cking apps they want!
I don't know, that "iKillcellphonetower" app might make its 'rounds.
Jailbreaking is less risky and less complicated than rooting a G1.
not by much, but its a fairly idiot-proof process.
I don't think it would be up to Apple whether developers can charge for sideloaded apps. That doesn't even make sense.
As far as Apple just allowing this on their own: HELL NO. They will never go for it. Every sideloaded app is money out of their pocket, and Apple will not change this policy unless forced to by a court.
If only companies weren't so averse to letting homebrew communities come up with their apps. Had Sony let the PSP homebrew scene flourish, it'd be in a much different place with their handheld. Alas, let us not forget the original AppStore, Installer.app and Cydia.
Unfortunately, this kind of rationale escapes big executives, who would rather fool themselves into believing they are the sole distributors of content, and take whatever liability that hardheaded belief may get them into.
Apple voluntarily give up control of something? Did I miss an iNouncement?
@nicknackpattywack
You are an idiot for saying that.
Side-loading works great on the Pre, so far. As nice as it is to have a functioning App Store (or Catalog, on the Pre), it's really nice that advanced users get to do whatever they want with their device. It's the way it should be, and hopefully Palm doesn't do anything to mess it up.
I really don't think these are "entirely new problems"... it is just the final result of Apple's app store model and seriously flawed approval policies that have been going on for some time. It's not good for the consumer (which seems to be the last group anyone is concerned with these days... only what's good for Apple, Google and developers) in that they don't have access to software that they want, and hopefully there will be visible changes.
Since when has Apple ever been concerned about what is good for the consumer? Last I checked they were too busy bending their customers over to notice.
Timepilot, whatever meds they've got you on that make you that delusional, I want some.
Timepilot,
Ever hear of iPods? You know, the device that pretty much benefitted consumers at the expense of the music industry, retail, and so on? I can't think of many ways at all that iPods hurt consumers. They made media 1000% more easy and exciting for everymen. I remember how crazy the media business was in limbo before iPods, with mp3 cd players and alot of crappy mp3 players. I owned a few, but most consumers learned how to use external media on their first iPod.
I think that Apple, regardless of their guardian-like attitude toward mobile apps, has done wonders for consumers in recent years. Call me a fanboi, but I realize good intentions when I see them. Apple has a squeaky clean image (or has had) with regards to stability in comparison with Windows (I.E. BSOD etc.). They fear that unless they seriously regulate what the COMMON end user sees on his/her iPhone, he/she will end up with apps that degrade mobile performance, leading to dissatisfaction with the company.
And to be fair, I own a WinMo device, honestly. My AT&T Tilt was one of the best of it's kind a few years ago with regards to hardware specs. Blew away the iPhone's. But even while running Roms cooked for speed and performance I want to throw it at a wall more times than not because none of the apps I use on it work well with each other. Meanwhile, I'm typing this response on a touch keyboard from my iPod Touch, and it's as smooth and easy as if I used my laptop. Even though a few months ago I couldn't copy/paste this reply, It was still faster than pretty much anything on my WinMo (and for the record I'm running 6.5 so there's no excuse!)
It's awesome that the Palm Pre allows users to install apps so easily.
Agreed, and the Preware app keeps evolving every day with new features to make it easier for end users.
The pre has been out how long? And the God Phone has had how long to fix their issues\polices? Please do NOT speak poorly of a phone that has been out 3 damn months.
I swear... the iTards seem to have the shores memories of any user group on this planet. They forget how crappy OS 10.0 was when it launched. They forget how restrictive the iPhone was on launch for ANY apps. But no. They have to compare third gen hardware and software against first because how else will the God Phone ever stand up to its competition? Its like having a 10th grader beat the crap out of a 5 grade kid and have them screech about how superior they are. Yah. Give it time a hole. That 5th grader is going to come up from behind with a garotte wire.
Apple will continue to just make their crap smaller and smaller (Because that is their definition of innovation.) While everyone else will put exciting feature, new updates, and generally push things forward. Meanwhile Apple sits on its butt collecting cash from its legion of fans who don't really even question them when they don't put something as simple as cut and paste in a V1 release.
The things you say are soooo stupid and have been argued endlessly, we can ONLY compare what is out today to what is out today. The windows 7 reviews are not going to be compared to OS 10.0 or the first generation of ubuntu, they will be compared to 10.6 and catty corpulence or whatever, its how it works for all the people who live in the CURRENT world and arent doing comparisons of todays hardware to three year old hardware, cause that would be completely moronic.
I assume you will get highly ranked, since your post is full of dumb.
@ Tsing Tao, I was with you until you had to insult someone's intelligence just because you disagree. For douchyness, you get downranked.
I enjoyed the article very much and the core frustration is dead on.
But to say "But they're all solvable problems" as a means to justify the ranting is bologna. Of course the statement is true but I would think the workaround are less then perfect. How many developers are honestly going to respect AT&T requirements? How many users will install apps with viruses or 'overload' AT&T's network to the point their service is turned off. Not to defend anyone here but we all know how rational the general public is (not very rational at all) and how much more blame could be put on Apple for things they are no longer in control of.
The fact of the matter is there in real nice workable solution yet. It takes time and a few bumps in the road will come along. We're human and nothing is perfect. Relax and take a chill pill. Move to Android if you want more flexibility.
Anyways, I just see these issues as growing pains. I wish the app store was more like the way iTunes is built. I can add my own music into iTunes and add them to my phone without having to go through the iTunes Store.
I would hope maybe there is a similar workaround. Apple simply puts up a warning list of bad apps that can cause harm or break terms and the user has the final decision to install or go to the app store and find something approved. Would be almost no different then the way you would install apps through Windows or OS X while still using iTunes as the 'library'.
I don't see T-MO and Sprint getting into a hissy fit about sideloading apps, but somehow AT&T is? I can see a business reason why to retain control, but not a technical one. Don't forget, the iPhone has remote kill capabilities. If need be, they can even write it in contract regarding limitation on support w/ sideloaded or unapproved applications. I think your hypothetical situations are sound, even if probable (I doubt it), but isn't particularly convincing.
In other words, "perfect" situation here has to be a compromise and at some point, the App store bottleneck will erode Apple/AT&T's bottom line. It may already be at that point where the compromise is more desirable than the present state.
Actually your concerns wouldn't be so big of a problem. As it is, Apple acts as the gatekeeper to its iPhone OS ecosystem. Although releasing control would allow apps to come and go more freely, that doesn't mean the ability in keeping the ecosystem healthy is lost -- it is simply transferred from Apple to the developers. With that kind of freedom, developers have as much of an incentive to protect the ecosystem as they do to sell their own products in the first place.
Just look at the Windows Mobile ecosystem. Despite not having a primary portal (a-la AppStore), proliferation of nonsensical or dangerous apps is kept at a low. Communities like XDA rise to protect and nurture the WM ecosystem. Most WM device users who are advanced enough to take on sideloading apps are aware of XDA, and thus have a vast resource on how to find solutions for their mobile needs. Users help each other resolve problems and warn each other from potentially dangerous apps. And the development cycle is incredibly fast (app updates often within 1 day, new features every week).
Maemo enjoys the same kind of self-regulated ecosystem (for Nokia's MID devices). Android's ecosystem is on the up. And you can find the same kind of examples all over the place.
Apple is going to end up making Microsoft look like a legion of saints. If you're waiting for them to do the right thing, don't hold your breath.
This is why I love my G1. A single checkmark next to UNKNOWN SOURCES under applications and I can pretty much load whatever I damn well want. (OK there ARE a small handful of apps such as tethering and process manager apps that do require rooting. But they are very few and far between.)
If Apple were to do this 60% of my complains about the iPhone would go away.
If they supported background processes that would be another 25% right there.
But this will never happen. How long did it take to just get something resembling a right mouse button? I think hell will freeze over before Steve and co would admit they are wrong. BTW this is the other 15%. Supporting the most arrogant company on the planet...not really into that.
"OK there ARE a small handful of apps such as tethering and process manager apps that do require rooting. But they are very few and far between."
There's an app for that.. in the Android marketplace.
So you are saying just make it like a BlackBerry?
Except.. no.
I already know the answer to the sideloading question. Apple will say "No." Didn't someone try to circumvent this when Apple rejected their app, so they used the ad-hoc distribution that's only allowed for educational purposes? And Apple SHUT IT DOWN. Apple will say no on the whole fact that it would mean they would have to loosen their grip on the massive control they have on the iPhone. A control they enjoy having.
Give them the Microsoft Treatment. Just label them what they really are; a monopolistic power keg of hurt. We love their products (iPod, iPhone 3G, 3GS, Macbook, and iMac puchaser here), but just being honest, Apple comes across as smug do whatever we want to ass hats. In AT&T they have found their kindred spirit.
Google is rapidly moving in the same direction behind their facade of we just want all your info to help make your life easier. They should change their Motto to "Do no evil Today" that anyone has found out about.
All of these companies need to be corralled in a bit and given some ground rules to level the playing field. There is very little difference in principle between the iTunes Music Store and Windows, especially here in America. The only group that knows more about you than Google is the IRS.
The problem with sideloaded apps is not money, like some people imagine it is. The issue, as Apple has stated multiple times, is QC. The obvious danger of allowing sideloaded apps without going through Apple's QC process is that you could be allowing an app with a debilitating bug onto your iPhone, maybe it causes data loss, and who do you turn to when that happens?
Apple, of course. Why would Apple want that headache? The type of apps Apple allows on the store is, I believe, a separate argument. I think Apple's "duplicate functionality" argument is BS, but I'm not sure allowing sideloading is a better solution than Apple just changing their policy.
People who have jailbroken their iPhones have seen the kind of problems you can run into when you can install anything you want unchecked. Apple is trying to prevent that from happening to the vast majority of their userbase, which are average users who just want their phone to work well. To that end, sideloading has much more potential to hurt the user experience than help it.
As far as AT&T, I wouldn't be so brave as to call any issue with them "solvable".
I get what you're saying, sometimes a eco-system is generally pretty stable. As far as QC is concerned, Apple's stance could be simplified. "We will not support your phone if it has sideloaded apps on it". Just like for current jailbroken phones. All they have to do is stop blocking jailbreaking with OS updates, they don't have to support jailbroken phones that's all.
I'm pretty sure those people that sideload apps or jailbreak them would be a touch more tech savvy than vanilla App store users and would find other means to get product support.
sometimes a *closed eco-system
QC? have you seen some of the horrible buggy games/useless apps out there, google aroudn for useless iPhone apps/games, you'll find them. I always love your Mac comments Zak, keep em coming.
funny, i don't have to buy my macbook apps from the app store
So they design it like Android, you have to check some preference which when checked will come up with some fancy legal document saying they are not liable for any side-loaded apps and aren't responsible for damages that can occur.
ProfessorKaos - Do you actually read anything I write, or are you just trolling everything I say because you're a knee-jerk anti-Apple reactionary toadie? Is constructive conversation simply beyond your cognitive ability? Go ahead and reply when you have something useful to say.
Uncontrol - Macs aren't a closed ecosystem, the iPhone is. Not really comparable. The point, which you seem to have missed, is that because of the closed iPhone ecosystem, Apple is directly responsible for the performance of the iPhone, regardless of which apps you load onto it - as long as you get them from the app store. Allowing sideloading could potentially damage the user experience, and regardless of whether you have to sign a waiver or not, Apple wants to ensure a positive user experience on the iPhone. Why else would they go to all the trouble? It's not like they make more money by doing it this way, is it?
My overall point here is that Apple has a history of wanting to provide the best user experience. They're not going to just shrug it off and let you blow up your phone because you signed a sideloading agreement. I don't really think sideloadable apps would blow up your phone, but without any checks and balances from Apple there's no guarantees. People are already looking for reasons to hate Apple, and some misbehaving sideloaded apps would taint not only the user experience, but the general impression of the iPhone as a whole.
I can't believe I'm agreeing with you.
It's fine for Apple to want to control what gets on to the phone they sell (maybe they should add it to the eula or something).
Keeps their quality up and gives "Apple haters" a reason to bitch.
win-win
my point is that i use apps for my macbook that aren't approved by apple and it somehow it continues to function
Zak, you're categorically correct. I think all of the people on here can be pretty clueless.
Apple doesn't OWE you the right to sideload apps. They actually don't owe you anything. They put the product out there. It's up to the consumer to do some RESEARCH as to whether or not a product fits their needs, as opposed to failing to do said research, only to bitch later that they bought something that doesn't do what they need. At this point, no one should expect a uniform app policy from Apple as of today. It's not there yet. Don't go buy an iPhone and then bitch about the policies because by now, you should already know this. You should know that there will be irregularities, and if you don't like them, be prepared to research jailbreaking, and know its risks BEFORE getting the phone.
Case in point: If you disagree with Apple's QC and App Store policies, research and be prepared to jailbreak, or buy a DIFFERENT phone.
Everyone here is hating on MS/Apple/Google/Sony/Nintendo and on and on. Stop being idiots. These companies do not FORCE you to buy a product, and they don't OWE you any features just because your panties are in a wad about them. And that goes across the board, all products, all manufacturers/companies. Make an informed decision BEFORE you buy perhaps.
I think the point is that a lot of people don't want this "closed ecosystem" you are talking about for the iPhone. Regardless of whether it is good for Apple, people don't like it and they don't want it.
What's the problem with them just using Android's current strategy? One simple box to check to allow apps from unknown sources to be loaded. It works just fine with Android.
Apple should allow their high end tech-savvy users to use the phone to its potential, but I doubt they ever will. Apple tends to cater to the less tech savvy portion. Which is not to say that's a bad thing from their viewpoint, because that portion of customers is much bigger.
>It's not like they make more money by doing it this way, is it?
Uh, yeah, it is. Like on the order of 1-3% of their entire business.
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08/06/11/apples_app_store_could_emerge_as_1_2b_business_by_2009.html
Only a hopeless apple apologist over dosed on RDF would really believe that apple's only reason for the app store is to provide the best user experience. What a laugh. Apple has always sought extreme control over its products for a variety of reasons, user experience being only one of them. Money and keeping you tethered to a closed system another. Hell, jobs fought ever having expansion capabilities in apple computers. With the iPhone they finally have what jobs has been looking for since the Apple II - a beautiful system from which you cannot escape.
@Level 5... I own an iPhone and I really like the hardware and a lot of features of the phone. However, I really dislike a lot of things, such as the app store model and approval process etc...
I think, as the consumer, it's fair for me to own this product, yet want more from it, and to expect that the company does, in fact, owe me something.
Drybonz - I know. But you have to put this into a larger perspective. Most people, and I emphasize "most", are perfectly happy with the closed eco-system. The iPhone is straight up a phone for average consumers, there should be no mistake about that. Most people just want access to a ton of apps, mail, web, and they want the phone to not break. Believe it or not, it really is that simple.
Apple has always been in this particular business, catering to average people. Their tight-fisted control over the app store is how they can ensure a problem-free product, to the best of their ability. They could allow sideloading, but that is going to be like opening Pandora's box. Think about the thousands of developers making apps for the iPhone now, can you imagine what would happen if you didn't have to go through Apple's QC process or the app store to get your app on the iPhone?
It wouldn't be all leprechauns and rainbows, I can tell you that right now. If it got really bad and every app you tried to load was a trojan, or a porn app masquerading as a poker game, there's only so much deniability Apple could offer. Again this is not a headache Apple wants to deal with. Like I said, the policy of Apple's I most disagree with is their "duplicate functionality" thing which is stupid. I say as long as an app passes their QC, it should be allowed on, AT&T's caveats notwithstanding.
However, I do believe Apple's QC process is in general more helpful than not. I think they make bad decisions in allowing or disallowing some apps, but those are pretty rare instances and let's face it, 70,000 apps approved now is pretty good. Changing their internal policies for approving apps is the best solution IMO, not sideloading.
@ Zak... I think we should give the average consumer some credit. I think a lot of people want more than what they are getting... I think a lot of people get frustrated with limitations of the device even if they don't know how to articulate the problems or are not tech savvy enough to consider a possible solution, such as jailbreaking, etc. If presented with an alternative to the current app store model, I think it's possible that a lot of these average consumers might be open to it.
Your line of reasoning makes sense, and that's exactly why Apple should have total control over what apps you can run on your Mac as well.
Drybonz
I am "a lot of people" and I want a closed eco-system. So there!
I'm with you Zak on this subject.
Zak, I agree that IF this were Apple's rationale, it would be valid. BUT, I do not believe that this is really, truly why Apple has such a completely closed policy w.r.t. the iPhone. You can't take the money that Apple will lose out of the picture. I think the reason Apple has a locked-down ecosystem with the iPhone is because, as you correctly pointed out, they can and it won't anger most of the customer base that would buy an iPhone. Since most people will be perfectly happy with the limited Apps that are available in the app store, why should Apple go out of its way to open up the ecosystem when doing so means lost revenue? Sure, they might anger (or at least annoy) a small percentage of customers who want to do more with the phone, but Apple probably figures that those customers are broken up into two groups; (a) the customers that aren't going to buy an iPhone anyway because they need more business-centered functionality that the iPhone doesn't provide; or (b) the customers that are tech-saavy enough to jailbreak the iPhone (which Apple knows it can't prevent, but for the sake of protecting its revenue stream in the App Store and its relationship with AT&T must pretend to detest) will still buy the iPhone.
The argument that this is solely for QC reasons seems disingenuous to me. Yes, of course, it is easier to maintain quality control in a closed ecosystem, but I don't believe Apple is really doing that. The shear number of Apps that are available makes it impossible for Apple to have thoroughly checked every one to ensure that it won't create QC issues. Moreover, as has been pointed out, all Apple has to do is refuse to provide customer support for iPhones with sideloaded apps. No one could blame Apple for dong that, and it might actually save Apple money in the long run, since many more customers will sideload, freeing Apple from having to service iPhones it might have had to fix previously.
At its core, this is still about Apple protecting its revenues so that it always gets a cut of every App sale, and so that as few Apps as possible will harm Apple's other cash cow, iTunes music and video sales. If Apple didn't stand to lose any money by allowing sideloaded apps, it would have done it from the beginning. To be clear, I don't blame Apple for doing this from a business perspective. Apple's goal is to make as much profit as possible. I just think they should be upfront about it.
While I agree wholeheartedly that apple should allow side-loading, The problem with that is there's no buffer for a truly malicious app to wreak havoc on someone's device. But the freedoms that side-loading would bring could also potentially bring about a new wave of malware. But I guess those are the breaks.
What on earth makes you believe that there aren't trojan horses available right now on the App Store? Sheesh. How much testing do you think Apple does with each app? I believe I heard that each Apple "approver" handles 80+ apps a day. Seriously, that's not testing. That's not QA. That's not anywhere near a thorough inspection of each application.
Face it, this has nothing to do with preventing rogue applications from entering the ecosystem. This is about protecting Apples revenue stream, pure and simple.
all they check for is mature things like language, and how stable the app is. Nothing else. How do you think hottest girls got on the device? it was updated later.
There are two things to consider here.
First- if it's open and we can install apps (without jailbreaking) willy-nilly, then we would enjoy innovation like we haven't yet seen.
However, the iPhone would then likely be plagued with problems, as certain apps may bog down the iPhone (If Cydia can run hacks, why not other 3rd party apps?).
I saw this quite a bit when I had a blackerry (and mind you, I went through 3 models of them). Every one I had encountered issues when I installed too many apps or had too many apps running things in the background. Sure, push is different than apps running in the background, but who's to stop any of that changing if any user can install any app?
Honestly, I think if it was opened up we'd have users complaining night and day about how slow their iPhones are, or how their battery life sucks, or whatever it may be. Personally there are times where apple's ultimate control scheme gets to me, but when I think about the alternative I'm not sure which would be better.
just a thought...
You're right, but if Apple ever changes their mind and allows background processing they'll find a way to force you to re-purchase everything you've ever purchased on iTunes, insult Microsoft, and claim that everyone stole the idea from them.
Yes, yes, please.
I love Apple's products but I hate their policies. I have a MacBook and I want to get an iPhone but I'm not sure if I can promote this sort of megalomaniacal behaviour.
You already have. You paid $1200 for a $700 machine and re-enforced their megalomania.
well said. The problem is that the ideal situation with Apple never happens, and yet they rake in the sales.
If you don't like the fact that apple has strict control of there products then dont buy them its not like apple put a gun to yours heads and said buy the iphone that's was your discussion move on i here there's a lot of alternatives some of you jump for joy for googles android go with that.
to sum this up: if you no like then you no buy
i get where you are coming from, but your logic is failed
The majority of the people that I talk to have no idea this is evening happening in the mobile world. It's usually about the time that they do when I know something is going to have to be done about it.
And I think we really need to kill the term 'sideloading.' Seriously we need to come up with something better.
How about freeloading.... :)