iPhone App Developer Backlash Growing

from the openness-is-a-good-thing dept

Early on, we predicted that Apple's walled garden approach to apps for the iPhone would lead to developer backlash. Even if it was successful at first, the obvious trajectory was that it wouldn't just lead to problems that drove developers away, but it would eventually limit application innovation, just as other competing platforms were getting good enough to match Apple's. We might not be all the way there yet, but the evidence is growing that the backlash is getting serious. Slashdot noted that some respected developers are ditching the iPhone app store and reader Andrew Fong alerts us to Paul Graham's well argued explanation of why Apple's setup is bad for developers, bad for innovation, bad for consumers and bad for Apple.

To summarize, it's bad for developers because they're distanced from their users, and can't quickly make changes and updates, since each change needs to go through Apple's long, mysterious and arbitrary approval process. On top of that, by creating a very real risk that Apple might not approve an app, developers have less incentive to put in the time. It's bad for innovation because you are putting a gatekeeper in front of any innovation. It's bad for consumers, because they can't do what they want and often the apps they get are lower quality than they would be otherwise, because developers cannot rapidly respond with necessary improvements and changes. Finally it's bad for Apple because it's driving away some talented developers who are useful in making the iPhone so powerful. As those developers move to other platforms, it will help those other platforms catch up, and potentially surpass the iPhone. But, perhaps more importantly, it's bad for Apple because it risks Apple's overall reputation. It makes it harder to hire top engineers:

There are a couple reasons they should care. One is that these users are the people they want as employees. If your company seems evil, the best programmers won't work for you. That hurt Microsoft a lot starting in the 90s. Programmers started to feel sheepish about working there. It seemed like selling out. When people from Microsoft were talking to other programmers and they mentioned where they worked, there were a lot of self-deprecating jokes about having gone over to the dark side. But the real problem for Microsoft wasn't the embarrassment of the people they hired. It was the people they never got. And you know who got them? Google and Apple. If Microsoft was the Empire, they were the Rebel Alliance. And it's largely because they got more of the best people that Google and Apple are doing so much better than Microsoft today.

As for why Apple is making this mistake, Graham blames Apple's general view of the market:

They treat iPhone apps the way they treat the music they sell through iTunes. Apple is the channel; they own the user; if you want to reach users, you do it on their terms. The record labels agreed, reluctantly. But this model doesn't work for software. It doesn't work for an intermediary to own the user. The software business learned that in the early 1980s, when companies like VisiCorp showed that although the words "software" and "publisher" fit together, the underlying concepts don't. Software isn't like music or books. It's too complicated for a third party to act as an intermediary between developer and user. And yet that's what Apple is trying to be with the App Store: a software publisher. And a particularly overreaching one at that, with fussy tastes and a rigidly enforced house style.

If software publishing didn't work in 1980, it works even less now that software development has evolved from a small number of big releases to a constant stream of small ones. But Apple doesn't understand that either. Their model of product development derives from hardware. They work on something till they think it's finished, then they release it. You have to do that with hardware, but because software is so easy to change, its design can benefit from evolution. The standard way to develop applications now is to launch fast and iterate. Which means it's a disaster to have long, random delays each time you release a new version.

My guess is that there may be another reason: the perfectionist attitude at Apple. They don't want "bad" apps getting into the store, and certainly some people appreciate that. But the store has 100,000 apps right now, and most people are never going to see the vast majority of them. Having a few "bad apps" get in isn't a huge issue at this point, and certainly user-level reviews can help deal with that issue anyway. And, even if that is the biggest concern, why not at least allow non-approved apps to be viewed and downloaded, just without an official "apple seal of approval." Perhaps it made sense when Apple was first launching the store (though, even that seems questionable), but if it wants to continue to lead the market, it needs to break down that wall.

41 Comments | Leave a Comment..

More Evidence Suggests That iPhone App Store Doesn't Really Sell That Much...

from the ain't-looking-so-good dept

Among people who really, really want to believe that there's a huge market out there for selling content directly, the iPhone App Store has recently become "Exhibit A." The thinking is that all you have to do is slap together that perfect Steve Jobsian user interface that just makes it so easy to buy, and people will start forking over their money. It was part of David Carr's argument when we debated newspaper micropayments. Except... there really isn't that much evidence to support even the claim that the iPhone App Store really sells that much. We were a bit skeptical of the early reports that people claimed offered "proof" that people would buy all sorts of apps. Then, earlier this year, we suggested that it was an early warning sign that so many apps on iPhones were never used at all or were used once and abandoned. Basically, that meant that people would test stuff out when they first got the phone, but sales would likely dwindle after that. More evidence was provided by an analyst firm that figured out how little money Apple was making from app sales (which is fine -- Apple is in it just to sell hardware, but it suggested that app sales weren't quite as amazing as people were claiming).

Newsweek is presenting some more evidence -- albeit anecdotal -- that the iPhone App Store isn't making very many people very much money at all. There are, certainly, a few folks at the top who are doing okay, but for most people there just aren't that many sales -- or the cost of getting those sales greatly outweighs the revenue that came in from them.

This isn't to say that the iPhone App Store is a failure. In fact, I'd argue it's been a huge success in making the iPhone significantly more valuable. But as evidence that there's a huge market out there of people willing to pay for content if it's just packaged up nicely? There's just not enough there to be convincing.

28 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Apple Approves Spotify App... Spotify Should Thank Google

from the good-timing dept

Just before the whole mess -- including an FCC inquiry -- of why Apple rejected Google voice on the iPhone, we were among those who wondered if Apple would approve Spotify, the well-hyped (perhaps over-hyped) music app that in many ways competes directly with iTunes. Well, it looks like Apple has approved the software, though Spotify is still only available in certain European countries (though there are promises of a North American launch later this year). You really have to wonder, though, how much of the approval was due to the mess and attention that Apple received following the rejection of Google Voice. It seems likely that the company is now (finally) a bit more sensitive to this issue, and may have decided that it didn't need another PR headache... or to give any more fodder to the FCC. Spotify probably owes Google a nice bouquet of flowers.

15 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Apple Now Censoring A Dictionary iPhone App?

from the really? dept

Apple's continued arbitrariness in banning iPhone apps continues in weird and somewhat incomprehensible ways. The latest getting attention (and sent in by a lot of people) is that a dictionary app called Ninjawords was forced to block out the definitions of certain words in order to get approval to be in the App Store. Even though the app itself has a 17+ rating, apparently Apple came back with a list of "objectionable" words in the dictionary which had to be removed. Never mind the fact that anyone could just go to a website with the very same device and look up those same words... Oh, and of course other dictionaries available at the App Store seem to have those same words. The article also points out that Wal-Mart -- notorious for refusing to sell "objectionable" material sells dictionaries with these sorts of words included. The whole thing is bizarre, and again makes you wonder what Apple is accomplishing with its app review process, other than pissing people off. Update: Apple has responded and explained its side of the story. They're claiming it wasn't censorship, so much as an issue of timing. The app did have what Apple felt were offensive words/definitions, and asked the developer to wait until parental controls had been turned on for the iPhone. The developer then chose to block those words to try to get the app launched prior to parental controls being in place. Fair enough... but it still seems odd that Apple should be able to object to any definitions. It's a dictionary, based on Wiktionary.org... which anyone can visit with their browser. Still, this is one of the first times we've actually seen Apple respond to one of these stories. So that's progress...

52 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Apple's Google Voice Rejection Wakes Up A Dormant FCC; Investigation Begins

from the whoops dept

We've had a bunch of stories about Apple's rather arbitrary nature in rejecting iPhone apps it doesn't like -- including ones where it claims that they're not allowed because they compete with Apple. However, Apple's recent decision to reject Google's Voice application didn't just attract general public interest in Apple's policies, it appears to have awoken the latest crop of FCC bosses. Yes, the FCC has requested more info from Apple, AT&T and Google concerning Apple's rejection of the Google app. I wonder how the random Apple drone who made that decision is feeling right now?

Either way, this isn't good for anyone. The FCC's reasoning is that it:

"has a mission to foster a competitive wireless marketplace, protect and empower consumers, and promote innovation and investment."

That's actually a bit of a stretch on the FCC's actual mandate. And as ridiculous as I think Apple's actions are here, having the FCC get involved doesn't seem good for anyone either. The FCC shouldn't be involved in deciding what applications get put on phones. Apple's decision has angered a bunch of people, with some swearing off the iPhone because of it. In those cases, those people have other options and other phones to go to. The situation doesn't require the FCC to get involved. It should just require Apple coming to its senses and getting rid of its silly policy of outright rejections of apps it doesn't like.

77 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Apple Says No To Google Voice On The iPhone

from the shameless dept

As we wait to hear if Spotify's mobile app gets approved (I heard a rumor that it was, but have seen no proof yet), we hear of another questionable Apple iPhone rejection: the Google Voice iPhone app has been forbidden from the iPhone, though the reasons aren't entirely clear. Still, it does show that Apple doesn't care who you are, or how big a name. If it doesn't like your app, too bad. Once again, this seems like an argument for why more open solutions will win out in the end. Not only do users not have to worry about arbitrary rejections like this, but innovation will happen much faster on open platforms where each innovation doesn't need to be approved by a mercurial secret cabal.

64 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Will Apple Allow Spotify On The iPhone?

from the one-to-watch dept

Having used Spotify a bit, I can definitely see how some people think it could potentially replace iTunes completely. It basically acts like an iTunes that has access to millions of songs at no additional cost (and, yes, it's all licensed and legal). The songs are streamed, but you almost never notice it. It really does feel just like iTunes, while also having "Pandora-like" features for creating specialized stations or sharing others' playlists. Unfortunately, it's only available in the UK for now, though the rumor is it will be available in the US before the end of the year. However, where things could get really impressive is with Spotify's mobile app. For a few months, there's been a YouTube video of Spotify Mobile on Android:

The demo highlights the fact that you can sync any playlist for "offline" play, solving the biggest question about weak mobile signals on the go, or how you use it on a plane or somewhere without wireless access. With offline syncing, it's basically everything that an iPod can do -- with access to 6 million songs without having to pay for each individual song. But, of course, Android is still a limited platform. The big fish these days is the iPhone App Store, and Spotify has now submitted an iPhone app for approval, which raises all sorts of questions. With Apple's history of rather arbitrary rejections -- including ones for things Apple has deemed "competitive" -- will it block Spotify as a rather direct competitor to iTunes? That would be very unfortunate, and again demonstrate the risk of a closed platform.

That said, the initial reviews of the iPhone app seem quite strong. Eliot Van Buskirk at Wired loves the syncing feature, and warns that "you'd have to pry it out of my cold, dead iPhone before I'll delete it from my phone." Meanwhile Music Ally points out that Spotify has uploaded a video of the iPhone app as well: It really does look pretty slick. So now the ball's in Apple's court. I have no idea if Spotify can survive as a business (and I suspect that the royalty rates the music industry wants will make that difficult), but it is great to see more innovation in the space. Now we get to see how Apple feels about that sort of innovation.

15 Comments | Leave a Comment..

From Closed To Open: iPhone App Developer Skepticism Highlights Platform Trajectory

from the closed-vs.-open dept

I've been getting into some interesting discussions with people lately concerning open vs. closed platforms -- especially in light of the supposed "success" of Apple's iPhone app store, which is a very closed platform. And the point that I've tried to make is that you have to understand the trajectories of these things over time. At any given time, it's never difficult to find a closed platform that is successful. In fact, I'd argue that if you are reshaping a market, often it helps to have a closed platform initially to drive that market in a useful direction -- though, this can really only be accomplished by someone visionary (Steve Jobs certainly counts). The question is how does this play out long term. And the answer is that you can't stay closed too long, or open solutions will catch up and surpass you. We've seen this pattern multiples times (closed AOL --> open internet?).

Where this gets trickier is that the open solutions are almost always substandard to the closed solutions initially. In some ways, this is by design. The closed solution is often much cleaner and slicker, and so it gets a lot of the initial use. But, overtime, the limitations of the closed solutions become increasingly clear, and as people bump up against those limits, frustrations increase, and more and more effort is put towards making the open solutions better -- even to the point that eventually they exceed the closed solution. It's a messy process, but the point where momentum shifts is often a subtle one, and the proprietors of the closed solution usually don't recognize it's a problem until way too late.

I believe that's the case with the App Store. The iPhone itself did an amazing job pushing the state of the mobile phone/portable computer market forward. There are some people who like to mock it as nothing special, but that's unfair. The device itself was a huge leap forward in demonstrating what a phone could be, and many others are just starting to grasp what this means more than two years after the original was introduced. That said, we're seeing more and more evidence concerning frustrations on the limits imposed by Apple's closed system, such as the arbitrary rejections of apps.

James points us to a worthwhile post from an iPhone developer, noting how the process is getting to the point where it's less and less worth it to develop for that platform. You have to put in a ton of work, and then you have to wait for quite a while just to get the app approved (or rejected), and the whole process is quite arbitrary. With that in mind, developers have a lot less certainty, and it shows a growing interest in other platforms.

To date, admittedly, such alternatives really haven't been very good. There are other app stores (some more open than others), but none has really been able to build up much traction yet on other devices. But there's a huge opportunity here if someone else can make this happen (or, if there were a way to standardize across some of the competitors) and start doing a better job serving both developers and consumers. The closed solution helps define the initial market -- but the open solution almost always wins in the long run.

24 Comments | Leave a Comment..

The Reality: Not As Many Actual Apps In The iPhone App Store As You're Told

from the pumping-up-the-numbers dept

Years ago, when I worked for a company that was trying to do digital distribution of software apps, we had a competitor that used to claim that it had agreements to distribute 300,000 apps. We, on the other hand, had agreements for more like 3,000 apps, which certainly made us look at lot smaller. The problem? There weren't even 300,000 apps out there at the time. The other company had done some deals with clip art providers, and the counted each piece of clip art as an "app." But, in the numbers game, it really looked good (and bad for us).

I'm reminded of that story as Om Malik digs a bit into Apple's claim of 65,000 apps in its iPhone App Store, and points out how misleading this is, because a few providers are uploading bulk apps. These are really one app but they're differentiated by pulling different content from the web in each implementation:

These are typically local search or travel apps written by a single publisher. Molinker is one such example. It pulls content from Wikipedia and Flickr for a country or travel destination and renders it for viewing offline. Molinker offers more than 800 of such applications, at 99 cents a pop. Another bulk apps provider is GP Apps; it has 380-plus apps, each of which essentially takes a search word and marries it to Google Maps.

In reality, each of these is one app, with a single distinct instruction concerning what content to pull. But Apple gets to count them as a separate app to puff up the numbers (which is useful, given the growing competition from other phone app stores). But Om is correct. Such apps should be counted as a single app and the numbers of apps in the store should reflect that. Otherwise, someone could (for example) create an RSS-reader type app, where each one pulls a specific RSS feed. Then upload each one with the millions of different RSS feeds out there, and you could boost the app store's app count to million in no time. But that would be incredibly misleading.

26 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Apple's Confused iPhone App Censors: Softcore Porn? Ok.

from the this-time-around dept

The near total arbitrariness of Apple's iPhone morality police continues... We've already noted how odd it is that certain apps got rejected -- such as an eBook reader that users might, possibly be able to read the Kama Sutra with, because it provided access to the public domain library at Project Gutenberg. Never mind the fact that the same content could be accessed easily via a browser -- such as the included Safari browser on the iPhone. However, other apps seem to get through with no problem. Dave Title notes that Apple apparently had no problem with a Suicide Girls' app that allowed users to "strip" women down to their underwear simply by flipping the phone. It's a silly meaningless app (and doesn't contain any actual nudity), but it does make you wonder. Why is one app potentially harmful according to Apple's morality police, while the other is perfectly fine?

29 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Apple's Rejection Of EFF RSS Reader App Sort Of Proves EFF's Point About Arbitrary App Rejections

from the thanks-for-making-it-easy dept

It's pretty clear that Apple's policies covering what iPhone applications are acceptable for its App Store are pretty absurd and arbitrary. The company has repeatedly blocked applications that could allow users to access content Apple deems "objectionable" -- like an e-book reader that can display the Kama Sutra, among thousands of other books -- when that same content is accessible through the iPhone's built-in web browser or other applications. This rejection process led the Electronic Frontier Foundation to ask the Copyright Office to grant a DMCA exemption covering the jailbreaking of iPhones, so they could be used with any app the user wanted instead of just Apple-approved ones, as well as other phone unlocking techniques. Apple, of course, responded by saying that jailbreaking was copyright infringment.

The company may have now unwittingly given a little more juice to the EFF's claims that the approval process is arbitrary, censorial and anti-competitive, though, by rejecting an application that displays the EFF's RSS feed. Not because they dislike the EFF (ostensibly), but because it contained "objectionable content" in the form of a blog post that linked to a YouTube video containing the f-word in a subtitle. Once again, this content is available elsewhere on the iPhone, namely via the web browser and YouTube app pre-installed on the device, reinforcing the asinine nature of the rejection. Whether this will help the EFF's case with the Copyright Office -- or help change Apple's policy -- remains to be seen. But for now, it still looks like Apple's app rejection process is a digital equivalent of a "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" sign.

Carlo Longino is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Carlo Longino and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

42 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Do Morons In A Hurry Play Games On Their iPhones?

from the use-in-commerce? dept

A whole bunch of people have been sending in the story of a guy named Tim Langdell, who claims to own the trademark to the word "edge" when its used in the name of any video game, and has used that to force a popular iPhone game, called EDGE, out of the app store. As the article points out, Langdell's last game was released in 1994, which makes you wonder if the name is still being used in commerce (a requirement for a trademark claim). And, of course, there's the question of confusion. Considering how few people have heard of Langdell's company, was there really any chance that "a moron in a hurry" would confuse a fun block game with Langdell's title's like "Snoopy: The Case of the Missing Blanket." Kotaku points out that Langdell appears to spend a lot more time these days talking to people about how he owns the word "edge" in any video game than producing or selling video games...

17 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Apple Drops Another Arbitrary Rejection On An E-Book App, Because Somebody Might Read The Kama Sutra With It

from the know-it-when-i-see-it dept

Apple's double standards in deciding which iPhone apps to reject have hit plenty of developers. Apparently it's fine to access any sort of content through the device's web browser, but if you have an app that accesses anything Apple deems objectionable, it's obscene and therefore blocked. The latest rejection along these lines is of an e-book reader which lets people download and read books from Project Gutenberg, a trove of digitized public-domain works. One book in its collection is the ancient Indian sex guide The Kama Sutra; in Apple's eyes, the ability to access the book from the app is grounds enough to reject it. The app is simply designed to access Project Gutenberg, and users select which titles they want to read. The developer says he wasn't even aware that The Kama Sutra was in Gutenberg's archives, but he also points out that several other e-book apps can access it, while, of course, it's also available on the web. The guy has now created a version of the app that specifically blocks access to The Kama Sutra, in hopes Apple will deem it acceptable. Fair enough, since he just wants to get the app out there. But it doesn't make Apple's arbitrary approval process -- and the stupidity it regularly displays -- any better. Update: And, once again, following a bit of press coverage, Apple caves. Still, it really shouldn't take press coverage to force Apple to fix situations like this.

Carlo Longino is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Carlo Longino and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

62 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Will Apple's Low Revenues Slow Down The App Store Phenomenon?

from the loss-leader-redux dept

Apple triumphantly announced a little while back that iPhone and iPod Touch users had downloaded more than a billion applications from its App Store in under nine months. But a research firm said last week that it estimated Apple had only earned a maximum of $45 million for itself from all those downloads. The figure was extrapolated from research into the pricing of apps, and isn't based on anything Apple has disclosed about App Store revenues, but it does illustrate how Apple's using the App Store: just like the iTunes Music Store, as a means to drive hardware sales rather than generate significant direct revenues. The App Store adds value to iPhones and iPod Touch devices, making the hardware more desirable, just like iTunes does for other iPod devices. That's the real value for Apple, and is measured in strong device sales, rather than direct revenues.

Will these figures and their implication put the brakes on the app store craze that's tearing through the mobile industry? If Apple's already garnered more than a billion applications, and only has a max of $45 million to show for it, it would seem to call into question the widely held belief among mobile operators and other device vendors that app stores offer a valuable new direct revenue stream. Perhaps Apple's experience demonstrates that the real value of app stores is in extending the capabilities of hardware with new software and services, and using this to make the hardware more attractive, and in turn driving sales. But will the other players see app stores in the same way, or try to exploit them as revenue streams? Apple's shown with the iTunes Music Store that it is willing to use loss leaders as a tool to sell hardware. Will operators and other vendors be prepared to do the same?

Carlo Longino is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Carlo Longino and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

21 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Wait, So The iPhone's Browser Can Access The Sun's Page 3... But If Another App Does, It's Obscene?

from the please-explain dept

Trent Reznor already did a wonderful job explaining Apple's hypocrisy in rejecting the NIN iPhone app because you could stream some content from The Downward Spiral, which Apple found objectionable... even though you could buy the same music via the iTunes store. However, reader Yakko Warner points us to a similar case as well. Apparently, Apple has rejected an app that pulls in newspaper content from many newspapers because some of that content includes the famous (or infamous) "Page 3" from The Sun, in the UK, which is normally filled with images of topless women. But, of course, anyone with an iPhone could just as easily use the web browser to surf right over to the website for Page 3 and see the exact same photos. So why is it suddenly "objectionable" when the very same functionality comes in a separate app?

35 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Apple's Arbitrary Rejects Hit Nine Inch Nails App

from the bizarre dept

We've covered plenty of examples of Apple's rather arbitrary decision/approval process for putting apps in the iPhone App Store -- demonstrating a huge opportunity for other phone providers to be more open and less ridiculous. We've also talked plenty about Trent Reznor and how Nine Inch Nails is doing all sorts of unique things to connect with fans -- including a fantastically well thought out iPhone app that got lots of well-deserved attention.

However, those two things clashed this weekend, when Apple suddenly rejected the latest version of the iPhone app for very murky reasons:

We've reviewed nin: access and determined that we cannot post this version of your iPhone application to the App Store at this time because it contains objectionable content which is in violation of Section 3.3.12 from the iPhone SDK Agreement which states:

"Applications must not contain any obscene, pornographic, offensive or defamatory content or materials of any kind (text, graphics, images, photographs, etc.), or other content or materials that in Apple's reasonable judgement may be found objectionable by iPhone or iPod touch users."

The objectionable content referenced in this email is "The Downward Spiral". Since the app is live on the App store, please make the necessary changes to the application as soon as possible, and resubmit your binary to iTunes Connect. Thank you

Except... it's not at all clear what the actual problem is. As Reznor notes, the album "The Downward Spiral" (one of NIN's most popular albums) is not available on the app itself, though the song "The Downward Spiral" is apparently found somewhere in a podcast that can be streamed from the app. But, as Reznor later points out, the same song can be easily bought on iTunes, so it's difficult to see what possible objection Apple could have.

I'll voice the same issue I had with Wal-Mart years ago, which is a matter of consistency and hypocrisy. Wal-Mart went on a rampage years ago insisting all music they carry be censored of all profanity and "clean" versions be made for them to carry. Bands (including Nirvana) tripped over themselves editing out words, changing album art, etc to meet Wal-Mart's standards of decency - because Wal-Mart sells a lot of records. NIN refused, and you'll notice a pretty empty NIN section at any Wal-Mart. My reasoning was this: I can understand if you want the moral posturing of not having any "indecent" material for sale - but you could literally turn around 180 degrees from where the NIN record would be and purchase the film "Scarface" completely uncensored, or buy a copy of Grand Theft Auto where you can be rewarded for beating up prostitutes. How does that make sense?

You can buy The Downward Fucking Spiral on iTunes, but you can't allow an iPhone app that may have a song with a bad word somewhere in it. Geez, what if someone in the forum in our app says FUCK or CUNT? I suppose that also falls into indecent material. Hey Apple, I just got some SPAM about fucking hot asian teens THROUGH YOUR MAIL PROGRAM. I just saw two guys having explicit anal sex right there in Safari! On my iPhone!

Come on Apple, think your policies through and for fuck's sake get your app approval scenario together.

43 Comments | Leave a Comment..

How To Fool Apple's Arbitrary App Censors: Make Your App Look Cute

from the it's-all-about-appearances dept

Chris Wilcox, from Alkali Media, sends in (without a link, forcing us to go searching...) his story about his company created a somewhat crude iPhone app called (appropriately) "Crudebox." The app is nothing special -- just a sound box of semi-crude noises, not unlike some other apps out there. They were a bit surprised when the app was rejected for "objectionable" material. So, they reskinned the interface, to make it look a lot nicer, called it Prudebox and resubmitted it. The actual app (and all the sounds) were identical. And... of course, in Apple's arbitrary wisdom, they approved the new app and added it to the iPhone App Store.

So, apparently the lesson for those of you who have had Apple's arbitrary app censors reject your app: just reskin it to make it look less threatening.

30 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Google Routing Around The iPhone App Store?

from the sneaky-and-smart dept

With all of the iPhone App Store press love these days, it's almost easy to forget that Apple refused to allow any outside apps on the phone when it first launched -- instead, telling developers that anything they wanted to do can and should be done via a browser, creating mini-apps that were all web-technology-based. Of course, now that the App Store gets so much attention, plenty of folks have forgotten about designing web-based apps for the iPhone... but not everyone. Google has designed a new version of Gmail that routes around Apple's command-and-control App Store process by going direct via the web. While the article linked here seems to make this out to be a big deal, it seems like the only really big deal is the fact that everyone forgot this was the way Apple originally planned for apps to be handled on the phone.

7 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Pre-Brief Of The Upcoming CTIA Conference

from the Too-Soon-For-A-De-Brief dept

With the US mobile phone industry's leading conference kicking off in Las Vegas, I thought it might be fun to write a small "pre-brief" of the trends to expect from the show. This CTIA Show comes close on the heels of the huge, Europe-based Mobile World Congress, and I would have dropped a blog post from there...if my Netbook hadn't been stolen! Here's what to expect from the CTIA show:

App Stores: What was innovative about Apple's App Store? It is a single point of sales, it's trusted, compatible, it offers tested apps, and it gives a large (70%) revenue share to the application developer. Nothing new there, but damn, what a success. Once again, Apple succeeded by (not doing anything revolutionary, but) using a simple recipe that makes sense and motivates all stakeholders. Sadly, a similar 'imode' app store has been done by DoCoMo in Japan since 2000, but North American carrier imitations usually neglect being remotely 'open' and don't offer a large revenue share to developers. Turns out, this is fairly important if you want to stimulate a large, diverse offering of useful, high-quality applications. Anyway, all those companies that didn't copy imode are now copying Apple, so expect to see more news around Microsoft's store, RIM Blackberry's store, the Android store, and more. The trend is good, since it will get more money in developers' hands, and should help some phone owners find applications that make their devices more valuable.

Mobile Broadband/Embedded Broadband: There will be lots of talk and probably a bunch of announcements about mobile broadband access at the show. I am referring specifically to the use of cellular broadband modems in devices that are not phones, such as Netbooks, Laptops, cameras, readers, media players, etc. I am moderating a panel on this subject at the CTIA show, and I'm thrilled to be doing it, because it is such a major trend. The two driving forces to this trend are the 3G networks that are already in place, and carrier willingness to sell new kinds of service plans. Carriers have been somewhat stuck in a rut of thinking of mobile access as "one phone, one contract, $60/mo." But recently, their thinking has been changing, and the notion of wholesale businesses of selling connections to devices like Amazon's Kindle is gaining steam. Expect to see more news of daily connection plans for laptops (like Wi-Fi Hotspots), and wireless data bundled in the price of other consumer electronics. 

Femtocells: A femtocell is a small box that looks like a Wi-Fi router, and similarly plugs in at your home or small office. But instead or routing laptops to the Internet, a femtocell routes telephone calls from your mobile phone to your carrier. Put one of these in a home or office with poor cell reception, and instantly get four bars. That's good for you and the carrier, who gets to keep you as a customer. But what also benefits the carrier is that your phone's traffic is now carried over your broadband connection, saving their towers from having to allocate capacity to you. Sprint has it, T-Mobile uses a special variant, Verizon has recently launched it, and AT&T is piloting these devices. I expect femtocells to successfully creep into the marketplace, and we'll hear a fair bit about femtocells at the show, but also other new ways of delivering cellular service like Distributed Antenna Systems, Repeaters, and such.

Backhaul: Wireless data use is taking off. Driven by flat rates, popular and easy to use phones like iPhone, and supplemented by growing use of cellular modems to laptops and Netbooks, people are finally exchanging significant amounts of data traffic from cell towers. But these towers were initially put in place for highly compressed, narrowband voice traffic. As such, each tower was often connected by a meager T1 line. The connection that the towers have to the core network is called "backhaul," and yesterday's backhaul is woefully inadequate for tomorrow's data traffic loads. The short-term solution was to just add more T1s...but the costs of this rapidly become prohibitive. So the long-term solutions that will be discussed at length in Las Vegas are point-to-point microwave wireless relays, metro Ethernet, and fiber optic connections.

The Palm Pre: I'm not sure when the bandwagon is going to hit the trail for this device, but I'm saddling up right now. I've been negative on Palm for a while, but I saw the Pre at CES in January and was pleasantly surprised, but unfortunately didn't allocate much time to Palm. Subsequently, I spent some time with the Pre at MWC in February, and was very impressed. Of all the phones I have seen since the iPhone came out, this is the first one that I think may be better -- and I am very fond of the iPhone. I use a very powerful HTC Windows phone, and when I see the Pre in action, I find myself repeatedly saying "I wish my phone could do that." 'Synergy,' the Pre's ability to pull together your contacts, emails, calendars into one consolidated view, is a favorite element. But what really struck me was the User Interface, which is very visual, very touch, and very intuitive. I felt the same way I felt when I first saw the iPhone in action. The Pre is not an evolution of previous Palms. It is a new starting point, and like the iPhone, it seems devoid of classic silo thinking and lousy UI baggage. I can't predict whether the developer community will rally around the Pre, or whether Sprint and Palm will be successful in selling big volumes, but I want to call this one early: the Pre is a great smartphone.

More iPhone "killers": We've seen handset vendors offer so-called iPhone Killers at every turn since June 2007. I have found almost every such claim to be unfounded over the past 2 years. I have written that a touch screen and square icons do not an iPhone Killer make. But quarter-by-quarter, the competitors' claims get more and more credible. While HTC, Nokia, RIM, Samsung, and LG make incremental progress to matching the iconic device, I think Palm has the real bomb to drop, if they manage to get the Pre to market on time.

Android: The past year was almost devoid of Android handset announcements. Barcelona was strangely silent on that front. In fact, we haven't heard much about new Android handhelds since the T-Mo G1 was announced early in 2008! But there's enough rumors floating around to suspect a batch of Android announcements this week. Let's wait and see. 

Google Voice: Google recently announced their Google Voice service, and it has created quite a stir in the industry. The fixed carriers have long felt threatened by Google, although the search giant had yet to fire a shot across the mobile carriers' bow. So long as it stayed in search, email, web VoIP, advertising, and location services, Google was only a thorn in the cellcos' side. But with the addition of Google Voice (GV), Google is now going straight at the heart of the carrier's core service. GV is essentially a disintermediation play, where users will use just one phone number, provided by Google, and can intelligently route and manage their phone calls to desk, cellphone, voicemail, email, etc., by using a web dashboard interface. By using a Google phone number, users needn't even tell anyone their cellular or landline numbers -- the carriers become pipes for the Google Voice customer. Expect to see and hear some responses, which have already started from other newcomers like Skype, or classic solution vendors like AlcaLu.

Meet Huawei: If you are not familiar with this company yet, better learn how to pronounce the name. Huawei is the leading example of the next generation of telecom infrastructure providers out of China. They have been selling competitive equipment for years, but carriers in Western countries have been reluctant to adopt their products based on a perceived quality gap with leading vendors like Ericsson, Nortel, Motorola, and Alcatel-Lucent. But the winds are shifting. Tougher economic times, paired with some successful Huawei reference cases in Leap Wireless, Cox cable, and Canadian telcos, prove that Huawei can compete on quality and price. Huawei is growing its presence in the US, recently opening offices here in Silicon Valley. Could a major US carrier deal be in the making?

Derek Kerton is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Derek Kerton and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

6 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Developers Looking To Set Up App Store Alternatives On The iPhone

from the competition-is-good dept

We all know about the somewhat "benevolent dictatorship" position that Apple holds concerning its iPhone App Store -- at times arbitrarily banning apps from the store. This has (reasonably) upset some, who feel that it's not particularly fair that Apple gets to decide what works and what doesn't -- and now a few are even looking to set up alternative app stores, though they'll only work on jailbroken iPhones. The article speculates on whether or not Apple will send its lawyers after these upstarts, noting Apple's decision to file a protest against an attempt to have the Library of Congress make clear that jailbreaking an iPhone does not violate the DMCA. However, if Apple is smart, it makes sense for them not to do so. After all, they make more money from each phone sold -- and increasing the value of the phones by allowing more apps to run on it should only help sell more of the devices.

25 Comments | Leave a Comment..