Industry


Ads by TechWords

See your link here


The downside of Apple having its own iPhone App Store

I've said it before, Apple's iPhone App Store is the technology innovation of the year.  Apple has distributed over a billion applications over the service and now has over 50,000 applications to choose from.  That is more than its creators probably ever dreamed of.

It is a boon for developers, too.  From the little crossword type games and tank shooters that give developers six figure incomes to the multinational game companies like Vivendi that are turning out hit after hit, it is an unmitigated success 

The industry knows this as well. Every single one of Apple's iPhone competitors is scrambling to put together its own mobile device store with varying degrees of success.

But is it all roses having your own app store?

Apple has been plagued by what seems to be an endless string of controversies surrounding the App Store.  Clearly, they hadn't planned to be sorting through 50,000 applications and updates at any given time.

This week's issue is an app called Hottest Girls.  The app was submitted to the App Store with clothed models only.  But the app's developer started uploading topless models to the app through a Web server (the "app" is mostly just a picture browser).  The Web, as it usually does, went nuts and Apple took it down.  Apple needed to protect its image, even though anyone can get a lifetime's worth of much raunchier stuff with the Safari browser.  If it wasn't "Apple's App Store" they wouldn't have to troll through all of these apps to keep the developers honest.

Can you imagine Apple trying to sensor an application for the Macintosh? The lawyers at the EFF's heads would explode!

To this end, there has been talk in the developer community about building easter eggs into apps to circumvent Apple's approval process.  The problem is that as soon as Apple finds them, they can kill the application. 

Hottest Girls wasn't the first controversy by a long shot.  An app called Baby Shaker, in which the object of the game was to kill a baby by shaking it to death, brought on rightful a storm of criticism. I only mean "rightful" in that if Apple is going to deny apps that show woman topless, they should certainly ban violence to babies applications.

But, if it were a "web app" meaning it could be played in a Web browser, no one would have cared.  There are a million things on the net as demented as baby shaking ... or worse.  But, because this is Apple's App Store and Apple's brand, it is on Apple to keep it clean.

There has been some consideration given to adult-themed games.  Apple, with the iPhone 3.0 OS, released a ratings system to filter out more adult related content.  However, the only thing going into the 17+ category so far are dirty word story website and "adult themed" apps.

On the flip side, Apple has been caught denying developers entrance to the App Store for silly problems.  A NIN app got denied for updating controversial song lyrics.  The very same song is available in the iTunes store.

Tweetie, the popular iPhone Twitter client was denied an update because the reviewer saw a swear word in the trends during testing.  Clearly they had no idea what they were doing.

Because the App Store is such a runaway hit, Apple is having problems getting its approval process right.    

And that's the point.  The App store is a fantastic opportunity for Apple to distribute applications and reward developers.  Unfortunately, it does have a significant downside.

What People Are Saying

Editing is a lost art

"Can you imagine Apple trying to sensor an application for the Macintosh? The lawyers at the EFF's heads would explode!"

This would require advanced monitoring technology, I'm sure. ;-)

I was going to post

You might be able to censor an app with an app sensor.

Separating the Wheat from the Chaff

Apple's biggest future challenge regarding the App Store is that they are going to need to find a way for themselves to separate the good, useful, and desirable stuff from the bad, useless and marginal. Their second biggest challenge regarding the App Store is that they are going to need to come up with tools for App Store customer to do the same, to separate the wheat from the chaff. What happens when there are 100,000 apps or 250,000? It's going to start looking like a mess, and it kind of already does.

Imploding App Store

50,000 applications, including over 49,500 whoopie cushion simulators!

Amid this deluge, significant apps languish days and weeks waiting for approvals.

Specific beef: iPhone 3.0 Software compatibility release of Leister Productions Reunion genealogy software. Reunion is not compatible with iPhone G3 S. The update was submitted long before 3.0 release, but the update is hung up at Apple, waiting review.

OK, so what? Well, I lost access to 17,000 names in my genealogy last week during a family reunion, the only occasion when these people gather from all over the country. And the iPhone is ruining my summer travel plans because my primary research tool is... waiting on Apple.

There's no good reason for this.

Ratings

Just to simply comment on the ratings deal. I think it is good that Apple is trying to stay clean on this issue of not letting adult content get into their App Store. I'm sure many people will argue that the parents can use parental controls to monitor and limit access by their kids to these Apps. The problem is THEY DON'T. Most parents don't set these up or, even worse, just don't pay attention even buying their children adult rated games that they should never play in the first place. The rating system is a good idea, but someone has to enforce it and too many parents just aren't doing their job.

The basic issue is staffing...

This issue came up during AmazonFAIL, and I'm not surprised to see it here. It's easy to think "oh, we just need to keep the website clean," etc..

But... when you're trying to create a "walled garden" of sanitized material, you need enough people to look over all the contents. When those contents are being provided from outside -- indeed, from "the world at large"... well, that's gonna take a lot of people to check them properly. Not to mention supervisors, to double-check their decisions and prevent rogues and/or dumb$ss mistakes (again, see AmazonFAIL).

If you recruit the public as your screeners, things can actually get worse -- because now you have to verify the public "judgements". Slack off on that, you can find, say, the Jack Chick Fan Club declaring all your FRP adventures "offensive to religion", or the Temple of Purdah banning anything showing a woman's face.

The alternative, of course, is to hold all new submissions until your staff has time to review them, But then, your inventory is directly limited by how many people you can spare for the reviews....

Well done for pointing out

Well done for pointing out the obvious. This has been identified and written about extensively and I can not see what you have added. The App Store has opportunities and limitations ... what a surprise!

Perhaps it would have been better to focus on your original point - that the App Store is tied to the brand. It is not Apple's World Wide Web, it is the World Wide Web. It is not the App Store, it is Apple's App Store. Subsequently, decisions about the types of apps that will be sold will be at least partly driven considerations of the brand image.

I would like to see Apple adopt more of a community driven approach ot the App store. I believe that in the run the sustainability of the app depends on the the development community and developers wanting to be part of and improve that community.

Way to be a jerk. Apple's

Way to be a jerk. Apple's decision to create a fantasyland of Apple approval within the App Store needs to be addressed on a daily basis. Its a very touchy subject and the more its discussed, the more people can understand both sides of the argument..both view points. Seth does a great job here, summarizing the run up to now.

I understand Apple wanting to maintain a certain image, and they also have every right to sell (or not sell) whatever content they wish. The App Store is not the same as the rest of the iTunes store in the way that: every Application, once approved, is a shared property between the developer and Apple. It its not, for example, a racy R-rated movie that Apple has not affiliation with, they simply provide (restrict-able) access to.

However, to satisfy all, and to not appear obsessed with censorship, Apple should encourage the USE of their Parental Controls system. Parents should, likewise, control the content their children can access on iTunes using the built in controls, as they every right to, and as they see fit.

There is no reason that an adult needs to be protected from topless models, offensive language, or even (gasp) a baby shaking app.

How is shaking a baby any different then the Apps that let me violently kill Zombies? Poor individuals who have done nothing wrong, simply infected by a virus, getting slaughtered en mass. That's more acceptable? i think not..

Seriously?

"How is shaking a baby any different then the Apps that let me violently kill Zombies?" What is wrong with you?! Are you seriously asking this question or are you being sarcastic? It sounds serious and if you are then here is your answer...ZOMBIE'S AREN"T REAL. Killing a baby is something that really happens in our world and making a game out of it is seriously sick. Killing a Zombie, something that is totally made up, is very different. Even war games, in my opinion, are walking the line with promoting killing but there is still a difference in going to battle with an enemy and shaking a baby to kill it.

So hopefully you can see how that is different, if not I hope someone takes the time to explain it further.

Okay, so a 'Shake the Baby

Okay, so a 'Shake the Baby Zombie' app would be okay then?

*lol*