Apple is usually quite the secretive company, revealing little of itself or its practices. With the App Store under heavy criticism, the company felt it needed to break the silence, and as such, Apple's senior vice-president for worldwide product marketing, Phil Schiller defended the company's App Store policies.
Post a Comment
Member since:
2009-08-18
Makes a lot of sense actually.
I know it's frustrating for developers but as a user, its very reassuring that I'm not going to be getting anything that will hurt my phone or computer for that matter.
I think that those companies not employing such techniques will eventually experience some serious problems as a result.
I think the key here is to automate as much of this as possible and only incorporate a human to remove elements that are more subjective if that company wants to maintain a clean image, like removal of sexually explicit imagery for example.
Maybe Apple is already doing these things... I don't know. With the number of apps that being submitted I would imagine that some problems are inevitable and the more apps there are the greater ratio for problems. Developers will inevitably be vocal about it and talk to the media who will do their part in making these problems seem more apparent than they are.
Member since:2007-09-06
It's a repository distribution system so there are many benefits for the end users. Vetting applications for quality and compatability is a pretty big one. Apple has no end to example of retail and non-retail setups.
The confusion for developers seems to stem more from poorly communicated minimum standards and what apears to be arbitrary decisions. Two apps may conflict over patents so Apple simply bans one without looking at the validity of the claims by the other. A developer can't submit an app because it comes to close to a function Apple covets. Another developer has an app blocked with no clear reason why.
If Apple can maintain a single repository and vett software for compatability and quality or clear standards if they are going to play moral crossing guard then no worries. Lots of other orgs manage to do it so hopefully Apple learns quickly.
Member since:2005-07-06
If that was all there was too it then no one would complain. The problem is that Apple is blocking apps for all kinds of other reasons that have nothing to do with protecting the phone from malicious code.
Member since:
2009-09-18
Safety issues are of course important and I am all for it. I want all the apps in the store to be safe and work as advertised.
I do not care if they restrict (or allow) pornographic apps.
But restricting apps such as Opera and Google voice... c'mon Apple, even Microsoft does not do such things.
Member since:
2009-10-11
This tends to be Apple's pattern. They develop really innovative, well designed products. Then pair them with some some set of restrictions that will limit their market-share when the competition catches up. They've got a really good head start, let's see if they can hang on.
Edited 2009-11-23 21:27 UTC
Member since:2006-11-12
Agreed -- except for the part about Apple developing innovative and well-designed products.
Member since:2009-10-11
Heh. I have to admit I have never really used any Apple products as I am not in the financial position to afford any of them. But I have been assured by Apple users that they are very good.
Member since:2008-07-15
I think whether Apple's products are innovative depends on how you define that term. If you mean developed from scratch, with completely new concepts that only Apple invented then no, they are not innovative at all. I, personally, count innovation as being able to take concepts, both old and new, and rework them into something useful. By this definition, Apple has done some serious innovating. No, they didn't invent touch screens or multitouch. No, they didn't invent the idea of a phone/PDA/mobile computing platform. What they did do is take multitouch and a touch interface and design it in a very comprehensive way, they didn't just try to shove the desktop UI on to a mobile device (e.g. Windows Mobile). They didn't settle for one of the traditional mobile oses, they made one out of OS X with a UI that actually makes sense for touch devices. Love them or hate them, they did seriously change how a lot of people see smartphones and we're seeing some serious competition starting up in that area as a result.
Member since:2006-11-12
I definitely agree that Apple has not invented more than an small handful of new concepts.
I disagree with your definition of innovation. To me, that definition constitutes "rehash."
The touch and multi-touch features that Apple uses have been well documented in prior art and patents, some from several decades before the Iphone appeared.
There were multi-touch phone prototypes in existence prior to the Iphone, and Nintendo even had a patent on a multi-touch handheld.
In regards to the Iphone UI, the layout is generic, and resembles that of a Palm Pilot. All the Iphones little actions that so amaze Apple fans have mostly been done before in other UIs.
Even the enclosure design of the Iphone is generic, and was preceded by other touch smart phones, such as the LG Prada (which many think is better looking than the Iphone).
I will agree that Apple changed the public's take on smartphones, but that change is a result of intense marketing, rushing the product to market and the RDF -- it was not due to a superior UI/design/product.
Member since:2006-09-24
Not to say that the iPhone design is totally an Apple invention, but the LG Prada comparison is quite weak. Even if the Prada phone was released earlier, I don't really think Apple had the time to make any adjustments to the design. LG Prada was announced Dec 12, '06 and the iPhone Jan 9, '07.
Member since:2006-11-12
Sorry, but we can't gloss over this statement.
How is the design of the the LG Prada "quite weak" in comparison to the Iphone?
The Prada won Red Dot "Best of the Best" Award in 2007 as did the Iphone later in 2008, but the Prada went on to win the International Forum Design product design award for 2007. The Prada also won a lot of the same/similar design awards that the Iphone won from computer/mobile-phone publishers.
Certainly, design awards are not an objective gauge of design quality -- such contests are often run/judged by pointy-head snobs who value stylishness over function -- but what other Design guage do we have to compare the Prada to the Iphone?
Please explain.
Well, first of all, there is no "even if" about it -- the Prada was being sold months before the Iphone was being sold. As I recall, the Prada started selling in January of 2007. When did the Iphone first start selling?...
Secondly, the Prada was showcased earlier than the announcement you mentioned, at the iF Design Awards in September 2006. Hence, it won the IF product design award for 2007 (which was announced in 2006: http://mobile.engadget.com/2006/12/15/the-lg-ke850-touchable-chocol... ).
I do not claim that Apple stole the LG/Prada design (although the LG CEO made that claim). However, there really is not that much to to the design of flat, compact, touchscreen phones other than a screen and a bezel, so they all pretty much look the same -- obvious and generic.
In light of this fact and given that others were winning awards on the same generic design prior to Apple, it seems rather silly for Apple fans to proclaim that the Iphone is a triumph of unique and innovative enclosure design.
Edited 2009-11-27 07:30 UTC
Member since:2006-03-14
Sorry, but we can't gloss over this statement.
How is the design of the the LG Prada "quite weak" in comparison to the Iphone?
"
I think its the comparison that is weak, not the design of the Prada phone.
Member since:2006-09-24
How is the design of the the LG Prada "quite weak" in comparison to the Iphone?
[...]
Please explain.
Can't really understand how you could interpret it like that. I said that the comparison was weak, not the design.
Well, first of all, there is no "even if" about it -- the Prada was being sold months before the Iphone was being sold. As I recall, the Prada started selling in January of 2007. When did the Iphone first start selling?...
What are you talking about? I know when they started selling, what has the selling date has to do with anything? The topic was stealing design, rehash or whatever.And when it comes to R&D, it would be impossible for Apple the steal the design in that amount of time. This is no cheap chinese knock off with hardware from the 90s.
I do not claim that Apple stole the LG/Prada design (although the LG CEO made that claim).
No, but I felt that you said it in way that you thought it was possible for Apple to get inspiration from the LG Prada, and it was not.
However, there really is not that much to to the design of flat, compact, touchscreen phones other than a screen and a bezel, so they all pretty much look the same -- obvious and generic.
In light of this fact and given that others were winning awards on the same generic design prior to Apple, it seems rather silly for Apple fans to proclaim that the Iphone is a triumph of unique and innovative enclosure design.
I agree, it's quite generic.
Member since:2008-07-15
If that's true, then nothing is ever innovative. Our entire history is based on taking what we've already developed and improving it, expanding it, and refining it. We rehash everything be it technology or history. It's a cycle and, each time we refine a concept, we hopefully make it better. Innovation can't come from thin air, after all, there has to be a foundation on which to build new inventions.
Member since:2006-11-12
Not really. Ideas for brand new things constantly spring forth all over the world (but not very often at Apple).
People who are truly inventive can easily discern between such innovative ideas and mere rehash. For instance, when the first multi-touch "pinching gesture" was invented in 1983, that was innovative, but decades later, when Apple incorporated the same gesture into the Iphone interface, THAT was rehash.
When the first break-away, magnetic power connector appeared in 2001 ( http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/07/03/deep.fryers/ ), that was innovative. However, when a similar connector with inferior engineering was first used on Mac laptops in 2006 and named "Magsafe," THAT was rehash.
By the way, there were quite a few safety problems these Mac connectors -- it would have been more appropriate if Apple had named them Mag-Unsafe."
When Microsoft invented the "dock" in 1985 ( http://toastytech.com/guis/bigw101.gif ) and when Acorn released its dock in 1987 with significantly more functionality (http://toastytech.com/guis/bigarthur.gif ), both docks were innovative. However, when NeXT debuted its dock in 1988 with no significant improvement in functionality and when the OSX dock first appeared in 2000 with essentially just a different "look," both of those docks were rehash. (The magnifying feature was neat, but it didn't really add any functionality.)
I could go on and on...
Member since:2009-08-22
Thats exactly what happened with the iPod and with iTunes and .... oh wait a minute ....eh....
Member since:2006-11-12
Member since:2008-07-15
Tup, I don't know what your vendetta is with Apple exactly. I don't know if you were a former employee, or if Steve Jobs himself came over to your house one morning and took a giant crap in your breakfast food of choice. Further, I don't really care. What I see from you, however, is rabid hatred on the order of the blind loyalty you accuse Apple fans of having. The interesting thing is, while you do nothing but slobber and rant and rave against the Apple fans, you yourself are putting far more energy into doing so than the Apple fans are putting out and, in fact, I see more rabid rants from you than I ever saw from all the Apple fans combined. Everything has fanboys or fangirls, no matter what it is. Even MS-DOS had fanboys, if you can believe it, and there's a very good example of popularity != quality if I ever saw one.
So, before you start ranting about fanboys or fangirls of any product, you should probably take a good long look in the mirror. You're on the other side of the coin, true, but you're just as rabid as those you accuse if not more so. It takes a lot of energy to hate, and there are probably better uses for it.
Member since:2006-11-12
Well, I know that I have made this complement plenty of times on this forum, but it certainly bears repeating in this instance: Apple supporters always stick to the topic at hand and never resort to personal attacks nor to singling out another poster. Their arguments are always rational, without emotional embellishment, and a Mac fan's posts invariably relates directly to the previous poster's point.
/s
I have no hatred toward Apple's products nor toward its fans.
I just value the truth.
The problem is that almost every post by an Apple fan is chock full of irrational misconceptions and bald-face falsehoods suggesting that Apple items are superior and exceedingly innovative. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I am not one to single-out another poster nor to initiate personal attacks, but, if you are interested in the truth, perhaps you should try to deal directly with the points of the opposing arguments, instead of commenting about the poster.
If you deny that what I say is true, please counter logically, one point at-a-time, preferably with supporting links.
If you are still unclear about what constitutes a personal attack, I can further explain the matter, reluctantly.
Member since:2009-10-11
Member since:
2008-07-15
It is the inconsistent application of those policies that is the real issue. The policies can be read and understood, but even fully-compliant apps can be rejected basedon who reviews them or the politics behind it. This is the real issue here. Further, certain policies are inconsistent. Why is Skype allowed in the app store and not Google voice, for example? They both allow phone calls to land lines via voip rather than the cel carriers' networks. Yet Skype sits there in the app store while Google Voice gets thrown out. Come to think of it, there are a lot of SIP phone clients in the app store too. This is inconsistent and is the real source of developer frustration, not the policies. The "duplicate functionality" excuse doesn't hold much weight when there are a whole lot of other apps who are, according to that policy, duplicating functionality as well.
P.S. Not saying Skype shouldn't be in the app store, I use Skype and don't have a Google Voice account nor do I personally see the use for one at the moment. It's a good example of the situation though.
Member since:
2005-11-13
Why does this app store crap keep making front page news? If you don't like the way Apple manages its app store, then buy/use another phone. If you're a developer who's being screwed over by Apple, then stop writing apps for the damn iPhone already.
Case closed.
Edited 2009-11-23 21:50 UTC
Member since:2007-02-07
Member since:
2005-07-06
Member since:
2006-04-03
For as long as Thom keeps pushing his barrow on this I will keep pushing another. Here's a comparison of Thom's iPhone plan as published in his review the other day with a similarly priced plan with my carrier:
Thom's Plan
29.95 EUR per month
150 text messages
150 minutes
unlimited data
iPhone 3GS 16GB price with this contract: 99 EUR
My carrier
49 AUD per month
~180 text messages*
~180 minutes*
700Mb data, 0.35 AUD/Mb excess data
iPhone 3GS 16GB price with this contract: 12 AUD/mth over 24 months
*Calls and texts pull from a total credit pool - these are approximates
As you can see the significant difference is the data - unlimited vs 700Mb. That 700Mb is counted whether it's 3G or GSM data, so a poorly behaved or indeed malicious application could very quickly wrack up a significant bill for the account holder - basically if the phone is on it could be using data.
Now while it would be POSSIBLE for Apple to allow distribution outside of the App Store, it is certainly by no means trivial. Under the present model Apple have actually taken on the exposure to litigation should a rogue app like this actually make its way onto the phone - how many other companies would be prepared to put themselves in that position?
I agree that Apple shouldn't be judging moral content - that's not their job - and I also agree with this comment:
But not:
They actually don't fit together. Together these two comments suggest that Apple should still be somehow approving apps but then allowing distribution outside their channel. Logic tells us that this simply can't work. What would the financial benefit be to Apple to spend their time approving an app that they are then making no income from? And love it of hate it that approval process has to be there to protect consumers as much as to make Apple's income higher. It's one of those love / hate things unfortunately.
Member since:2007-09-06
I'll suggest Maemo as an example. I have more than Nokia's repository listed in my program manager. When I select a program and hit the button it either installs or presents a message:
"this application was not written by Nokia and we accept no responsability for it."
Now the grown adult, having read that, can continue to install the app and Nokia has made it clear that the app is not one of theres.
I also have a mode change between "only install safe stuff" and "install any old thing" similar to the suggested setting. This provides a very effective "allow only our repository" versus "any repository and any package within it" that could similarily be done in iPhone's osX.
Providing certs to developers through registration, providing more open access to the existing repository and/or allowing third party repositories is possible for Apple to do. The challenges are not technological.
Member since:2008-06-02
And we've all seen how that problem is rampant among the phones that don't have Apple's control freak restrictions on installing software, which includes... well, every smartphone ever made except for the iPhone.
</sarcasm>
lol what? It's obvious that the first statement refers only to applications in the App store. And you know why? BECAUSE IT CLEARLY IMPLIES THAT!!!
...logic should also tell you that your interpretation is completely wrong, since it makes no sense whatsoever. Even you raised the obvious objection (and failed to realize it, apparently): app store policies, by definition, can't apply to applications that aren't in the app store.
Here's a concept you might want to familiarize yourself with:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reading_comprehension
Member since:2008-01-09
They actually don't fit together. Together these two comments suggest that Apple should still be somehow approving apps but then allowing distribution outside their channel. Logic tells us that this simply can't work.
They might not work for Apple because they might dent their profits' margin, but the two fit together. Apple makes it clear that the App Store is safe (so that is the one that they must actively police), so if you want you can limit yourself to the App Store alone. You might even have a settings in the iPhone you can toggle to enable unsigned apps, preceded by a warning that you must read (scroll to the end) and terms you have to accept (no claims against Apple because you wanted to go out of the walled garden that is the App Store).
Edited 2009-11-24 14:19 UTC
Member since:
2005-07-06
Apple as a company does have the right to make decisions about what they will or will not allow in their app store. They probably should allow external apps, but that would eat into their $$$... so it won't happen.
As far as morals go... does that really belong on OS News? Yeah, I get it, you guys have railed and cried over the past few years that "we are editorializing - it's journalism". That's a load of bull-hockey. You found a bigger audience to share and spread your own ideas instead of reporting. No better than the National Enquirer, or my own blog.
Correction, I think I have fewer typos in my blog and I am not as sensational in my writing.
This whole vendetta against Apple is really getting to be ludicrous. Really, the title of this article indicated something interesting: Apple's policies as laid out by a senior official. But that turned out to be a link, and the rest an editorial about American and Apple moral views... You did touch on the possible politics going on behind the scenes. That's alright, but it would have been better if you had elaborated on that, dug in, did some actually research and reported on it. I would love to find out more about why GT was rejected but Skype allowed (what were the reasons given, were they valid? Invalid? Etc.)... you can say "go google if you want to know that," but that is exactly why I come to OS News in the first place... or at least why I used to. You folks used to report on interesting things in an interesting way.
Edited 2009-11-23 22:17 UTC
Member since:2007-09-06
The majority of your post is for the article author but the first bit did bring some thoughts to mind.
"Apple as a company does have the right to make decisions about what they will or will not allow in their app store. They probably should allow external apps, but that would eat into their $$$... so it won't happen."
The absolutely do have a right to make decisions but they should be able to make the decision parameters more clear and then provide decisions consistent to that. If it's all actually been consistent review then the Apple guarded secrecy is not helping.
In the case of eating Apple's launch, anything included is already in the initial cost. Apple's own after market retail addons should easily compete against third party programs shouldn't they? Are they somehow providing more value to the customer by blocking applications that provide similar functions?
(Thankfully, apps that make sound effects don't conflict with Apple's own software so there's a whole page of those to choose from.)
Member since:
2005-07-06
Member since:
2006-01-23
I'm reminded of the circus and all the organised mayhem occurring under the big top. There may be a plan in place, but who can tell what it is exactly? When things go wrong, they improvise.
If Apple are so great at keeping users from danger, what happened with Storm8's application(s) that were collecting phone numbers? Where was Apple then?
They were looking at calculator applications, worried that a teenage boy might put 5318008 in the calculator and turn it upside down, having some immature humour. Now, several calculator applications must censor information or live with a 17+ rating.
I believe that there is a reason for them to approve applications, but certainly not the way they're doing it.
Member since:2005-08-18
Member since:2006-01-23
Jesus mother of mercy.
The religious mothers will be happy to know that their boys won't be seeing any 5318008 on their calculators.
I don't know if a TI-83Plus will censor that or not but I remember people showing me similar tricks when pagers were all the rage.
I just wish Apple would get their non-revenue-related priorities sorted and stick to them. However, I look to the way they've treated developers as far back as the Apple II days, their vacillation on game development, and I think that the company isn't that far from 2 guys in a garage in philosophy.
Member since:2008-10-30
Member since:
2006-02-25
Of course what Schiller says is right and that they intend a certain standard of quality and all that blah blah..
But that completely misses the point!
App Store is fine, really, but what about installing applictations by ourselves? it's about choice and Apple is denying its users that choice. AppStore or not, IPhone is CLOSED, and Schiller NEVER refutes that point. Only defends the AppStore.
Member since:2005-07-06
