Editorial: Apple, the FCC, and the sideloading solution
By Nilay Patel 
posted August 24th 2009 2:30PM
posted August 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.
This is (of course) some volatile territory. Apple has developed it's reputation for quality by keeping it's hardware and software proprietary and controlled. One of the key reasons that there are so many problems on the Windows platform is because of poor development practices. Just look at game companies like EA, I cant' tell you the number of good games that have been ruined because of poor software implementation. I think the approval process is a good idea to ensure that there is a quality aspect to the software that we download to our iPod/iPhones. I can say this, I personally feel a lot more comfortable loading an App Store title versus loading a piece of software on a Windows Mobile platform, and for the very reason of the scrutiny that the Apps are put under.
However, I detest the convoluted methods they are using currently. I started to get into App development and my wife and I began the process of purchasing a home so it got pushed to the side. Now I'm rather glad that happened because by the time I might get around to learning the process again hopefully they will have ironed out most of the wrinkles.
I must also say that I don't approve of many of their decisions regarding the reasons why they have rejected apps (this point is pretty obvious for most) especially in the light of the environment they are trying to portray to the developers. On one hand they are saying "Hey come develop your app on our platform, it's great!" Then on the other they are saying "Oh but you can't do that, or this, oh and forget that, and AT&T won't like it!!"
My wife and I were both going to get iPhones are our Verizon contracts were up in April but we have decided to stay with Verizon and just stick with our iPods. I refuse to give AT&T money again for wireless service knowing that they are part of the reason(s) for this debacle...not to mention how much better Verizons service is in our area. If/When Verizon finally gets a CDMA version of the iPhone I will consider it again (as long as they don't cripple it with software restrictions).
But I think Apple should keep their approval process, just fix it, get the message already!!! These issues maybe new but they are already months old now and in the technology world that's pretty old and if this process isn't fixed soon the vultures are gonna swoop in and get their fill. Microsoft, Sony, Verizon, RIM and many other companies are following the successful model of the App Store with their own existing/upcoming implementations and if Apple doesn't fix this issue (pioneer or not), I feel like they will loose a keystone that has helped the iPhone become such a dominant force.
I refuse to give AT&T money again for wireless service knowing that they are part of the reason(s) for this debacle
and how exactly do you know they were part of this debacle as you put it other then pure speculation? enlighten me.
One example is Sling Player. Sling player wasn't approved because AT&T feared it was going to hinder their network, yet it runs on Windows Mobile and Blackberry devices. There may be twice as many iPhones versus every other smartphone on AT&T's network, which is why AT&T likely fears a resource intensive media streaming application like Sling player given the quantity of people that might use it. Nevertheless, does that justify allowing it to run on other platforms and not the iPhone? How much confidence does that convey about their network then if I'm paying an additional $30 per month for a data plan and I get censored on what applicatations I can use on a device that's supposed to allow for robust development? So whether directly or indirectly involved AT&T is influencing these decisions. Understand I (and others) do realize that any carrier is going to impose restrictions on hardware capabilities, but the point here is value. Knowing that AT&T is influencing the decisions of what is/isn't allowed to utilize network bandwidth while imposing double standards serverly detracts from any percievable value. If the tables were turned and it was Verizon would I feel the same? Absolutely. Verizon has no excuse to disallow this funtionallity however since they heavily tout these features on all of their phones. And, as it applies to this particular case with Google Voice, double standards again apply, not just from AT&T, but influenced by AT&T. There have been other dialer apps and text messaging apps approved in the app store yet Google Voice gets rejected? Again whether or not directly or indirectly involved AT&T influenced this decision because it duplicated funtionality, which isn't part of iPod functionality by default only iPhone so not even iPod users can take advantage of a Google Voice App.
So given the fact that they do influence these decisions, have inferior nationwide coverage (and far inferior coverage in our region) that's why I personally will not give them my money again.
I'm lost as to why this had to be written by a former attorney. I was secretly hoping for a bit of rant likening Apple's Apple-rati to a patent examiner or to the patenting process. Haha, user having ordinary skills in the genre of application. Seriously though how about a link to Apple's procedures and requirements or a legal perspective? I don't have time to check Lexis.
Viva el redsn0w!!!!
Nilay the Apple apologist.
What am I apologizing for? Be specific, and cite the text where appropriate.
the exit is this way....
Apple only hurts themselves with their restrictive policys.
I know plenty of people that want iphones and don't get them, because they have no interest in hacking or jailbreaking their phone just to be happy or make full use of it.
All the apple nazi's do is hurt their own sales.
Unlocked unbranded phones FTW.
Ya, you don't get a million fancy apps, but then again you don't have to spend a ton of money to get crap you will only use for a few days.
Nilay, you gotta little Apple spooge on ya there. *points to lip*
@ peestandingup
Leave your fantasies for your boyfriend. No one really wants to know what you think about behind closed doors.
all your base are belong to us.
Everybody is forgetting the reason they did this in the first place.....stability. Blackberry's need their batteries pulled all the time, Palm OS froze all the time, Windows Mobile is just terrible. Apple wants control to maintain the stability of the phone. The iPhone never freezes, and never needs to be rebooted. Unless you jailbreak, which I have, and I reboot all the time now. I trade off stability for having other apps, but Apple isn't going to want that for the majority of their customers.
thats bull. my ipod Touch freezes ans crashes plenty. NOTHING IS PERFECT. Dont be a fool and believe Apple has created a perfect device.
There are plenty of people who will agree Safari crashes constantly for some. Facebook is another pain in the ass app thats buggy sometimes.
The quality control at apple is generally why people pay the price. It is part of the reputation they sell. Clearly some prefer the quality control while others, prefer the freedom of choice. Why can't there be both?
hmmmm. i think Nilay deserves the same love that Paul said he got for his review in the Podcast
Nilay, awesome editorial. you are the awesomest, most beautiful engadget writer/editor known to man
if that doesn’t come up in this weeks podcast, im going to be maddddddddd
wait, wth? why did that comment reply to you?
stupid engadget commenting system
I think a big problem is that the vast majority of even the smartphone population (which is still a minority of the overall mobile phone population) has yet to acknowledge that what they hold in their hands really is a computer in every sense of the term. The problem is that Apple fails to recognize this as well in all of their departments except perhaps Marketing.
If Apple simply said to their users, "Look, you're buying a computer and you're responsible for making sure you don't install questionable software from shady sources because this device is susceptible to crashes and exploits from malware just like any other computer," then a lot of this would just go away. But Apple is obsessed with making sure that the iPhone "just works" for everybody no matter what they do as long as they stay within Apple's restrictions, and from a marketing standpoint I guess I can understand that; Microsoft certainly takes a fair amount of bashing for Windows that should actually be directed at third party driver and software developers (though Windows does have its fair share of problems as well). And while Apple's current "walled garden" approach might insulate less savvy users from ending up with a defunct or compromised phone (those same users that fall victim to malware on their PCs), it constraints users and developers who want to live a bit more on the edge.
Again, I think it's more about changing a mindset and educating users. Users need to understand that phones are no longer static platforms with a fixed set of functions and software, and that if they want to expand the utility of their phone, they need to do so cautiously. But that's something that will take time and more companies than just Apple to pull off.
Just my 2 cents.
Those users who want to have more and more and more tech, may find that an Iphone isn't for them. Everyone talks about how the pre allows it etc etc. So what. Then hop on sprint and get a pre and download all 15 apps. Apple sells you a consistant user experience. "It just works"
This is why their imacs/ mac books etc all cost a premium. That experience is built in. People pay for that. By allowing sideloading apple release that control that's assures me that the next app I download isn't going to cause the phone to crash or brick. Windows mobile is a prime example. If you had a non standard screen. Some apps loaded funky, some didn't load, some just flat out froze and you had to take the battery out for a reboot. About 1 out of 4 apps I got for that thing didn't work as promissed. They were also about 3-4x as expensive as iphone apps I normally get. Eventually having to file a charge dispute for a $10 app that wouldn't start up and the company that tech supports the app being just flat out horrible. My customer experience with my phone hung on a developer who outsourced their tech questions to some indian firm that didn't really speak english, and had no ability to resolve a complaint. "I'm sorry sir but there's nothing I can do for you, I can't give you a refund and I can't get this app to work on your phone". This was one of the reasons I got it and for apple to loose that control would loose control of their customer experience. They'd become a microsoft where they'd point at the developers for making sloppy code yet that sloppy code is what gives people a bad experience using windows.
It would be ridiculous to throw away the keys to the kingdom just to let 3-4 good apps through along with 5000 bad apps.
After reading some of the responses to the FCC, I'm going to make a wild ass guess that Apple has an agreement with AT&T that gives it some sort of royalty based on iPhone call and text message revenue. Therefore Apple has an incentive without direct AT&T involvement to keep calls (especially the expensive international ones) and text messages on the AT&T network. The FCC should investigate the agreement between the 2 companies. I can see why a clause would be in the contract - AT&T should want Apple to protect the interests of AT&T.
Isn't this exactly the situation Google indicated they are using for Android? This whole situation/argument reminds me of the requests for Apple to release OSX on different hardware. It may be a great idea, it may increase the widespread usage of the iPhone, but it's just not going to happen because that is not how the Steve Jobs run Apple Inc works.
I saw someone argue that it's their phone and they should be able to install whatever they want. Not so fast. Apple is selling you a product that includes hardware, software, updates, connectivity and access to applications. You do not buy just one specific part of the package when you purchase an iPhone, you buy the whole package and it is Apple's intent (just as it is with a Mac) to tailor the experience of using that package to provide consistency and reliability because that is what gives them their competitive advantage. Why do you think the early Mac vs PC ads were about viruses?
So while Nilay may consider this a disadvantage, if you consider Android (based on Google's responses) work the way Nilay is proposing and Blackberry may as well, adopting the same sideloading option actually would negate any advantage either side has, because they all using the same model. So if Google is already using it, why would Apple change? Because some people are complaining about a few apps and the FCC is investigating AN app? No way. As they've stated, there are 65k apps and some 1.5B have been downloaded. Why give up that cash cow because a few people are angry?
The only way Apple will consider alternate options for controlling how apps are distributed (assuming no government intervention) is if their app store proves fiscally untenable. Which means all the iPhone users need to stop buying apps. That's not going to happen, however, as the small percentage of iPhone users/owners who visit gadget sites voicing their disapproval pale in comparison to the many users/owners who simply do not care.
When your the best selling and development wise industry leader i do believe you have an obligation to customers and continue to innovate when you see problems. Apples HUSH HUSH tactics on approval are exactly why theres plenty of people who will never buy their products,
i totally disagree with anyone that says as a customer i dont have a right to BITCH and MOAN when Apple is shady and refuses to do right by their customers.
More then any other company Apple rightfully assumes their products are the BEST and GREATEST ever. They practically shout it and thats how its products are marketed. And its total BULLSH*T if they hide behind the idea that allowing apps to be installed outside the App store would kill QC. Cmon if your product is made as good as u sold it as then it can handle it. There are tons of Apps in the App store that are extremely buggy and get no updates and yet wheres Apples QC? Were supposed to assume only Apple knows how to police Apps? Give me a break. They got into the mobile game with a huge splash and now they need to step aside and let the industry and customers dictate where it needs to go.
The only reason Apple wont allow outside the Apps store apps is b/c then they would lose the control they have worked so hard to force people into beleiving is the only way youll have anything of value. that Smug attitude that the customer cant be trusted to develop, install and customize for themselves is EMBARRASSING.
All your doing Apple is selling fear. Stop hiding behind weak excuses. instead they should allow sideloading and when you have an App problem dont support it. That could be their #1 example on why you need the app store. Its just wrong and your customers deserve better. If you truly believe in innovating then you should know you cant CONTROL EVERYTHING.
Nilay,
Excellent article. Side loading has its own challenges. Who vets the applications to ensure there are no security issues being cause by them? How would we download, install, and manage them?
Having a centrally managed storefront, while useful in its own way, has other problems. I am not that naive that Apple is thinking that they have only 2 people approving apps? If thats the case, how were they able to get 65,000 apps approved? Something's not clean in the water in Cupertino.
Windows Mobile is an excellent example of side loading apps. In theory it sounds good. My experience using my HTC 8125 was frustrating at the lack of finding one place to purchase reliable applications, utilities, and being able to easily install them. I gladly gave up my Windows Mobile phone, because it lacked the ease of use, application accessibility, and costs to make it worth sticking around for. I didn't appreciate having to upgrade my device to get the latest OS, having to hack it run A2DP bluetooth audio, not having MMS, or having applications randomly crash on me.
I am, have been, and always will be a Mac user, but this is ridiculous. if Apple truly is the purveyor of innovation, then it should put its money where its mouth is.
Its clearly obvious that the apps in question infringe on Apple's own propietary apps, which Apple is trying to monopolize.
Bowing to AT&T and preventing full functionality of other apps becasue of bandwidth issues is clearly AT&T's and Apple's fault for false advertising. I don't think that Verizon could handle 10 million datacentric users either. No telecom company can.
The FCC should require all wireless companies and hardware makers accountable that any program running is ultimately designed to provide the best value and most secure environment available. It doesn't require any additional man power, just public posting of information.
Let me decide if I want to Skype Out, Google Voice or use what came with the hardware. It works for the rest of the computing industry.
"Let me decide if I want to Skype Out, Google Voice or use what came with the hardware. It works for the rest of the computing industry." And there you have the argument for why Apple won't do it. I like that you want choices, but Apple is selling you a phone, so why would they want to let you use other people's phone apps? Especially if the app is altering the use of their phone to make their application moot?
Captain obvious here...
a closed system works for some and doesn't for others. the app store has a great head start but apple is no monopoly in the smartphone space. right now, less than 1/3 of smartphone buyers are voting for apple. that will grow and if it hits that magical monopoly number of 80-90%, then outside forces will step in. i'm sure microsoft will be the first on the complaint line with google, rim and palm close behind.
let the market play this thing out. let apple rise to the occasion or lose their momentum and possible lead.
let consumers shape the market, not legislation.
Gosh golly.It sure does seem that not a day goes by when there isn't an article on engadget on either apple's iphone, macs or their OS. Now sure i get that apple has outfoxed every other manufacturer in the states in the smart phone market, and yes apple articles get a lot of click through etc, but really give me 2 days,PLEASE!!!! pretty please, without an iphone, ipod or mac related moment.
Thanks just saying.
There is nothing wrong with a closed system. Every game for the Nintendo has to be approved by Nintendo and nobody complains about THAT. If you don't like Nintendo's, buy a PlayStation or a XBox or a PC.
If you don't like the iPhone's, don't buy it. It is not a computer!
As a developer, I see nothing exciting or 'vital' about developing dinky iPhone apps.
While the mac fanboys are touting the review process as the "next best thing since sliced bread" and "the ultimate in software testing", they really ought to ask themselves one question.
How much of an app can you really test in ten (or was it 12) minutes? Because thats how long the app review board has for each application according to the "40 full time employee" figure that apple has provided. Software developers take way longer to test their programs, both in a functional and usability sense. So if you're thinking that 10 minutes of testing is able to root out poorly programmed apps, then you're flat out wrong. It takes more than that, hence the app store review board serves to do nothing except remove applications that are either a) not working at all, or b) not working in apple's interest.
@ Richie
So in the vast depths of your App review knowledge perhaps you could let the rest of us know on what steps, procedures and key points the board concentrates. Also, what automated platform dev tools is the board utilizing to review apps?
@Drybonz - A few points. You definitely get marks in my book, because most people would had called me this or that fanboy or hater or some dumb shit but you didn't, and I think that's worth pointing out.
"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..."
Your in a minority amongst those who post here. You post intelligent comments that aren't merely to aggravate. Given that, I assume you knew about the iPhone's app model. And although you don't prefer the closed ecosystem, the rest of the device meets your needs in a way that you still wanted it, and are overall happy with it. So, your not the type of person who spouts off at the mouth and is a dick in general about it (and that's good).
"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."
Here I agree and disagree. It's fair for you to own the product, and want more from it. But see.. that's just it. You're aware enough about the iPhone to know that Apple isn't going to change their App policy soon, for better or worse, love them or hate them. You know deep down this is not a company that is going to change this attitude. The iPhone is a IP worth billions. Why mess with success? Apple doesn't want the in-Store headaches, CSR headaches, warranty claims etc etc. I agree with Zak on this, so I'll take his side. Like Zak mentioned, its about liability/accountability. A phone is more of a sidearm than a computer or iPod. Zak mentioned what if a poker game was really porn or a trojan in disguise? Let's take that a step further, what if your poker game, that you authorized to install (thinking it was only a poker game) shut down or crashed the device when you called 911? That's a lawsuit waiting to happen. There's thousands of scenarios. Thusly Apple closes the door on sideloads. There really is more at stake with a phone that people may depend on in a life-or-death emergency.
"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."
Yeah.. that's why Jailbreaking, WinMo, Android, and Symbian exist. Alternatives are good, even though many of those were out before the iPhone. Choice is what's key.
I agree that flat-out installing whatever you want will not work (trojans, malware, changing phone functionality, etc). However, the way I look at it, Cydia is very successful in the JB community (I use it all the time). There is some QC even in Cydia. Look at the malware protection and call-home protection they have recently implemented that non-JB users don't even get from the all-mighty Apple! If Apple wants to offload all the hate, allow a 3rd party app-store (why not Cydia?) to take over all the illegitimate stuff (Ninja-words w/ swear words, porn apps, whatever). The people running this alternative store would have an incentive to make sure it runs smoothly to ensure steady income. They could even take a 1% cut of the profits for store maintenance.
This is what I think Nilay probably intended to convey. Hunting down an app a la regular PC/Mac experience will not be successful so an alternative centralized place would be a great solution. If a trojan-laden app gets thru, shame on the store for letting it thru (Apple is untouched since they gave this store free reign).
I'm pretty tech savvy and would not have bought the iPhone if there were no alternatives like Cydia and jailbreaking/unlocking. Apple, instead of stifling innovation should learn from this. Look at the many functions in OS3.0. Many of these were available to the JBers in OS2.0. Obviously it was advantageous for Apple to have these folks around. Without them they wouldn't know the capabilities of their phone and the current OS3.0 might not have been as good.
sorry i dont get the comments. its apples product, they should be able to do whatever they want with it. it u dont like that u should not have bought a iphone like me. google is trying to make iphone user use there servers. i think this is a way of moving people away from apple and to google products, making people buy there phones (android) os, web browser, web services etc.
also google use a crude service with there android phones as they change the price (they sell each android os to companies) depending on how much google services and adds are kept on the os. If apple or microsoft wanted to released a app that moved all services to there servers, bypassing googles servers do u think it would be let into the android app store. i think this is very dirty tack ticks from google.
This is like saying "my car is Ford's product, so they can prevent me from driving down streets they don't want me to!"
Get off my internets please.
I just wish that Apple would allow apps after checking them for malicious code and making sure that they are rated correctly (17+ for all dictionaries and wikipedia clients, naturally). They need to do away with the whole "no duplicating existing features" thing (why is Apple afraid of competition from independent devs?). AT&T can deal with users who abuse the network with egregious amounts of tethering.
This ship has sailed for me. I ditched my Iphone for Android two weeks ago. Granted, Android needs work. It isn't nearly as polished as Iphone 3.0. But I get the functionality I need, and I can't any longer support a company that attempts to control its platforms in such an authoritarian fashion.
My iphone (both 2g and 3g) had been jailbroken since it was possible. I was able to sidestep most of the restrictions Apple placed upon the device. I wasn't even on ATT anymore (tmobile). I'd paid my ETF happily and moved on.
But that is beside the point. None of us should be having to take extraordinary measures to use a platform in the manner we see fit.
That said, I'm not asking for government intervention in this market. If Apple continues to persist in this foolishness, I'm confident the market will self-correct the problem. Eventually, people will move away from a closed platform to an open one.
Call Microsoft the evil empire. Call them derivative. But they have never attempted to close their platforms in the way Apple is doing here. I wanted to like Apple. It is a great platform. But like I said at the beginning, I'm done with them.
And just in case someone at Apple cares:
I'm also getting rid of my Ipods and my wife's Iphone. I won't be using my itunes account anymore. I will purchase my music elsewhere. I also won't buy any more Mac hardware. I'll keep a virtual mac machine handy for the times I need it.
I will not buy any Apple products or spend any money that directly or indirectly benefits Apple until they have completely opened the platform.
Thanks for your time. I am now off my soapbox.
I think we are on the same page on most everything. I absolutely agree that Apple is unlikely to change any of this... but I'm not really talking about what's good for Apple or what they are likely to do... I'm thinking about what is good for the consumer. I think people should continue to demand what they want from Apple regardless of how likely it is for any kind of change to be affected.
On a side note, I agree that choice is key... my personal solution of choice, currently, is jailbreaking... but that doesn't work for everyone.
comment was intended to be in reply @Level 5 above.
okey .. so "Apple's agreement with AT&T prohibits VoIP apps"
But why when i buy an iphone from Australia i still can't use voip over 3G???!!!
Nilay,
I think your editorial is missing one large thing.
How are these decisions affecting your "typical" iPhone customer. I would argue that the affect is slim to none, from my perspective. I'm having a hard time wrapping my mind around why this is even a topic. Sure it makes sense for the "gadgeteer", but it's maybe a little more than dust in the wind.
I'm only a borderline fanboy, I tend to be realistic about my loyalties in the tech community.
I think this Apple/FCC/Google/ATT topic has been beaten into the mud. Hardly reportable news and hardly worth the breath wasted. Ask Paul, it has a virtual keyboard.....it's wonderful =)
I'm just saying, can we drop this non-sensical theoretical discussion on the App Store's policies? It seems like bullshit....well then let bullshit lie. There are always compromises in life when it comes to things...the app store is one of them.
Does anyone read up on Warren Buffett and the "toll-bridge"? I think Apple's got one. People who say Apple isn't making much from iTunes is full of poo.
all I know, is I had a treo and it would crash, needing a hard reset, ever 1-2 days. I could never figure out why; apps or OS.
Now I have an iphone and it crashes maybe once to twice a month, and then it just exits the program and goes back to home.
I like the apple way better. My number one need for my phone is for it to work; for calls and about three programs. The other apps are just gravy.
I keep wondering ... if Microsoft only allowed you to run applications on Windows that were purchased from its store and did not alter the Windows user experience nor replace its core functionality, would that be OK too?
:)
-ozone
It think most of the comments lack perspective. The iPhone is a great young platform, one that everyone is trying to copy. The app store is wildly successful with 65,000 plus apps with 7,000 plus added each week and billions of downloads. Most of the apps that are rejected are due to bugs which if fixed they will post. Apple does not have a monopoly of phones or smart phones. They don't do it for the money since they don't make a profit off the app store — remember they offer developers with free apps to host them for no charge. When the phone (iPhone OS) is mature enough to handle it they will open it up to side loading. Would everyone be happy if Apple said no third party apps at all? — which is the right to do so. My person take is every is getting bend out of shape over nothing, get another phone. Until they have anywhere near a monopoly there is nothing to complain about.
really late to the party on this, but just wanted to say, great idea about the sideloading, i hope someone high up at apple listens.
This article totally misses the point. The app store is a great thing! As a user of all computers from the TRS-80 in the 70's, the Atari 400/800/1200 in the eighties to the PC's in the 90's, Apple has a great thing going here. Dispite some of the reviews I've read here, I have yet to have ANY app downloaded on my Ipod Touch or Iphone crash. I cannot say that for my Motorola Razr, Motorola Q, LG Voyager, etc. To me this article says "We want freedom to install anything on the Iphone". Not a good choice! We NEED Apple to look at all the applications. Honestly! I've been working in the computer industry for 25 years and fix computers all day long. And guess what, I shouldn't tell you this but 90%+ of all the PC computer problems I see are due to Limewire and Kazaa.
DISCLAIMER:
I am not a PC or MAC person, I work in the industry.