Apple Cracking Down on "Cookie Cutter" App Store Applications?

[xIGmanIx]

on topic, apple needs to remember, that no matter what, the developers are the one making money for them, and instead of blocking applications, they need to make navigating the apps better. If some one makes an app that apple might not use or approve of, but it enhances the users experience, what is more important?

Instead of Apple banning apps, why not concentrate on making the App Store a better experience? Bookmarks for apps you'd like to buy, friends lists of apps they would recommend, apps by ratings rather than just how much money they made, the ability to turn off certain groups of apps (like someone who is NOT into sports can turn off all the sports apps to unclutter their search), search by keywords and tags that both publishers and users can create.

well, if its mimicing a web apps functionality, but offline, I don't see the problem. If it is doing it while still requiring a data connection, its less of a problem.

on the other hand, what about apps like iReddit? Its functionality could be mostly miniced via an iPhone customized version of the page, but reddit doesn't offer that, so this 3rd party tool fills the gap.

it's all a little arbitrary and I would rather Apple provide better categories and subgrouping system to filter out the chaff rather than blocking it outright.

i quiver at the day when you are the one that dictates reality.

That's right, kids, Apple's platform is closed, there is an approval process, Apple reserves the right to refuse . . . . and the whole operation is succeeding BRILLIANTLY. And there's no evidence of anything happening to the contrary anytime soon.

The sooner we all wrap our heads around this reality, the better.

 

[RalfTheDog]

Just curious, why does everyone get so riled up whenever Apple changes something with the app store and their app model?

They are free to do what they want. Don't buy their product if you don't like how it works. Want to hear of a tighter development model? Try getting your game to run on the Wii. The Nintendo Store pre-dates the app store and yet the app store has many more apps.

Who's to blame for the delays in approval?
Why the plethora of one trick ponies that developers are putting into the queue. I hardly find this to be Apple's fault. You can only streamline a process so much and then all it takes is a few people to get it to screw up.

If you run a 10 person team for a year to make the best app ever, then when the project is coming close to completion, the rules change, that can induce a bit of fear. (Fear can lead to long run on sentences.)

 

[JAT]

Instead of Apple banning apps, why not concentrate on making the App Store a better experience?
....
search by keywords and tags that both publishers and users can create.

?? That's all it has right now. Publishers already do keywords, and that's basically how you find an app. Unless you just mean searching the user reviews, but that's always a bad idea. You end up with people doing bizarre comparisons, and search results that are completely skewed.

 

[Analog Kid]

Gotta agree with you. As much as I hate the clutter, and as much as Apple may legally have the right to be the ONLY store and the ONLY say on what's in the store, it's a slippery slope. Feds may not allow that forever. It's a grey area. Kinda like building an apartment building and saying "only white people allowed." Yeah, they built the apartment. They own the apartment. They run the apartment. But they don't have the right to discriminate. Sure it's not Apples to Apples. The but idea is similar. They've created a market that takes away a certain percentage of the potential whole. For example, if the iPhone ended up being 99% of the cellphone/smart phone market, would it then be ok that Apple controls all decisions? What if Apple had decided to ONLY leave the clutter and little nonsense apps because they wanted to develop the big expensive useful apps and sell them themselves? I'll bet people here wouldn't be defending Apple's right to do so.

Not grey at all-- private business can choose how they operate. The Feds have no jurisdiction except in specific cases where a federal law is being broken. In the case you describe, it violates the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which bans housing discrimination. I don't think it's hard to draw a line somewhere between racial discrimination and choosing what you put on your store shelves.

Apple is free to keep the clutter and own the productive apps, but they'd be shooting themselves in the foot. The key is making a wise business decision, and right now the wise move is to clean house so people like me come back to the store. I used to buy several apps a week, now I just don't have confidence in the quality of what I'll find, nor the time to sort through it all.

That would seem like a very obvious way for Apple to automatically vet applications; remove apps whose developers are no longer willing to pay the $99 dollar fee.

Trouble is that it only takes a small number of people to hit "buy" and that $99 pays for itself. Spam is still with us because somebody keeps clicking on it. If they raise the fee, then they'd be blocking small developers-- a situation I wouldn't want.

The problem is it's a never-ending list of changing rules. Apps that have images or icons representing iPhone. Apps that stream podcasts. Apps that have dialing interfaces. Apps that support google voice. Games where the female avatar is wearing short shorts. Apps that are on-line catalogs for swimwear stores. Apps that have bobble-head representations of congresspeople. Apps that poke fun at the bank bailout. Apps that are political. Stumbler apps. And now "cookie cutter" apps.

This category might not sting, but there will be others.

Talk to anyone who's dealt with a major retailer, or particularly with an exclusive distributor-- there is always a concern that your sales channel will decide they don't want you any more. It's part of doing business. The producer needs to keep the seller happy, and the seller needs to build a relationship with the producer.

If Apple alienates more developers than they please, they'll find themselves in trouble. First duty though is to the customers-- developers will put up with a lot if there are sufficiently many paying customers to be had.

 

[Manxman]

Appmakr doesn't stand a chance. The apps it generates are worthless garbage.

 

[840quadra]

Actually glad to see this. I am one of the few that supports Apple's App store model. There are plenty of open systems in which people can choose to participate. There is no need for anyone to have to feel like they are being subjected to cruel and unusual punishment by being subjected to what Apple feels is the right way of running a platform. Those people can go to Palm, Android, or other mobile platforms.

Competition is good, and if Apple sees that open is the way to go, I am sure they will avoid huge losses, and migrate to a more open platform. For now, they are profitable and feel just in running the app store. If you are against this, speak with your wallet by paying into an other platform, it is highly doubtful that Apple is going to respond to anybody's responses on a discussion forum, and suddenly decide to open up their marketplace.

If open is better, it will win out over closed (and likely will). For now, I enjoy the walled garden. It is nice to know that some companies still are concerned about the full user experience, as well as being profitable.

 

[mags631]

In a democracy, there is no place for any corporation owning anyone (as how the link you mentioned states Apple effectively owns the user AND the developer.) But thankfully, we're a corporatist realm...

Apple doesn't own you -- you are exaggerating. The link is not about censorship; it's about the negative impacts of Apple controlling the promotion process from a software development standpoint -- not free expression.

Look, if you don't like it, strike up a petition to get a law passed. That's what a democracy enables you to do. A democracy doesn't say anything about how a business controls its products.

No they weren't. Not even close.

It's moot wether the apps violated obscenity laws. If Apple chooses not to allow a certain kind of app on its platform, then so be it. If consumers disagree, then they will go to another platform. We don't need laws -- the consumer gets to vote with their wallet.

 

[RADumas]

How about a rewrApps category?

I was getting annoyed at the number of apps that are just the same content as a single website. Redundant. There may be an argument for them, though I can't quite see what it could be. Let them stay, but segregate them into a category that is just RSS or Websites that are wrapped up as an App?

rewrApps?

 

[cmaier]

It's moot wether the apps violated obscenity laws. If Apple chooses not to allow a certain kind of app on its platform, then so be it. If consumers disagree, then they will go to another platform. We don't need laws -- the consumer gets to vote with their wallet.

Agreed. Just don't like people spouting incorrect facts.

 

[skate71290]

Instead of Apple banning apps, why not concentrate on making the App Store a better experience? Bookmarks for apps you'd like to buy, friends lists of apps they would recommend, apps by ratings rather than just how much money they made, the ability to turn off certain groups of apps (like someone who is NOT into sports can turn off all the sports apps to unclutter their search), search by keywords and tags that both publishers and users can create.

Bookmarks for Apps i would like to buy genius... i have loads of Apps i would like to get but can't until end of March, but i guarantee i will have forgotten the, by then

I would also like, as dumb as this sounds a FULL A-Z LIST OF APPS

 

[RalfTheDog]

No they weren't. Not even close.

I am sure they were violating obscenity laws someplace.

 

[mags631]

If you run a 10 person team for a year to make the best app ever, then when the project is coming close to completion, the rules change, that can induce a bit of fear. (Fear can lead to long run on sentences.)

I agree with this sentiment -- Apple does lose something if the lack of stability in the rule system drives away potential developers and users.

However, if there is some valid reason to the rule changes, then I think most developers and users will be forgiving, don't you?

 

[cmaier]

I am sure they were violating obscenity laws someplace.

Not in the U.S., they weren't.

 

[tdmac]

I don't get why anyone would be against this, developer or end user. Unless of course you are one of the developers making one of the apps .

When Apple was the only one with a mobile store. Quality as well as quantity was important to establish position. However, with Android, Blackberry and soon to be win Mobile 7, Apple needs to refine the brand.

Open source is great in that it allows you to make anything you want. It is also bad for the same reasons. Allot of the same nonsense crap that is in the App store will find its way to the open source stores, especially Android. If the Android platform and possibly others stays opensource, this stuff does not go away and it makes it hard to find relevant and worthwhile apps. Thus the user experiece suffers. Apple knows this so its cleaning house while sending the garbage over to the opensource mobile devices. Kind of like an exterminator. You drive the pests out of your store and they scurry into the next one and setup shop.

 

[alent1234]

Instead of Apple banning apps, why not concentrate on making the App Store a better experience? Bookmarks for apps you'd like to buy, friends lists of apps they would recommend, apps by ratings rather than just how much money they made, the ability to turn off certain groups of apps (like someone who is NOT into sports can turn off all the sports apps to unclutter their search), search by keywords and tags that both publishers and users can create.

you've obviously never shopped on ebay and had to deal with dozens of crap listings where a seller had a huge paragraph of "keywords" that have nothing to do with the product being sold

 

[Analog Kid]

I agree with this sentiment -- Apple does lose something if the lack of stability in the rule system drives away potential developers and users.

However, if there is some valid reason to the rule changes, then I think most developers and users will be forgiving, don't you?

Agreed. I understand the concern of developers over the changing landscape-- that really could become a problem if Apple takes it too far. If you've got 10 man years invested into an app though, it's almost certainly not cookie cutter.

Apple needs to dial in their model relatively quickly, but until then developers should factor the changing rules into their risk model. So far, I haven't seen much that a legitimate developer needs to worry about-- I think Apple's after the equivalent of App Store spam (10's of apps a week from the same engine, hoping they'll get enough downloads to pay the bills).

 

[tdmac]

I agree with this sentiment -- Apple does lose something if the lack of stability in the rule system drives away potential developers and users.

However, if there is some valid reason to the rule changes, then I think most developers and users will be forgiving, don't you?

No because the quote you referrence does not apply to what Apple is doing here. There is no 10 man dev team working on making useless web apps or business card apps.

Apple had no ideea when they opened the App Store the success it would have. So how could they know what was going to be created and what pitfalls could happen with apps way back when? They were mainly concerned about apps that could do harm and duplication of functionality or change of interface as the important aspects. Does that not mean that they shouldn't enhance the process along the way? This works both ways. It helps legitimate developers as well as end users. I don't see any issue.

 

[dejo]

If this move takes care of Brighthouse Labs (4300 apps and counting), I'll be happy.

 

[Bonte]

They offer no more than a webpage disguised as mediocre apps, will Apple allow book and comic apps on the iPad?

 

[RalfTheDog]

I agree with this sentiment -- Apple does lose something if the lack of stability in the rule system drives away potential developers and users.

However, if there is some valid reason to the rule changes, then I think most developers and users will be forgiving, don't you?

I can forgive them and live in terror of the next change. One does not exclude the other.

No because the quote you referrence does not apply to what Apple is doing here. There is no 10 man dev team working on making useless web apps or business card apps.

1. Some apps can be quite simple in terms of code, but have quite a bit of very high quality content. Much of what goes into a good application can be artwork, soundtrack, voice talent, motivational strippers...

You can build very complex applications using HTML and Java. I think I could get 95% of my function with a web app. I would prefer to ship a native app for security reasons. Will Apple tell me I can't ship native? What about the next change?

I understand why Apple does what they do. I agree with their choices. That is not to say, these good choices don't inspire fear.

 

[cutthroughthebs]

That news is just another reason not to write software for Apple's iGadgets.

For those who haven't read it yet, I think Paul Graham's essay "Apple's mistake" is a must-read on the topic:

http://www.paulgraham.com/apple.html


Censorship and no competition are never a good thing, no matter how much you guys love Apple.

Dude... It's us die hard mac users that have been using macs since they were invented that have made apple what it is today! Not switchers like you! We've been here through thick and thin... If the mac couldn't run windows, you wouldn't use one!

 

[tdmac]

I can forgive them and live in terror of the next change. One does not exclude the other.



1. Some apps can be quite simple in terms of code, but have quite a bit of very high quality content. Much of what goes into a good application can be artwork, soundtrack, voice talent, motivational strippers...

You can build very complex applications using HTML and Java. I think I could get 95% of my function with a web app. I would prefer to ship a native app for security reasons. Will Apple tell me I can't ship native? What about the next change?

I understand why Apple does what they do. I agree with their choices. That is not to say, these good choices don't inspire fear.

Fair enough

 

[cmaier]

Dude... It's us die hard mac users that have been using macs since they were invented that have made apple what it is today! Not switchers like you! We've been here through thick and thin... If the mac couldn't run windows, you wouldn't use one!

It's us switchers that have kept Apple from going out of business. Chill.

 

[Jaro65]

Good riddance. Will make it easier for people to find real applications and cut down on the clutter.

I hope that is indeed the case.

 

[BaldiMac]

Not commenting on the apple thing (what they are doing is not censorship since it's based not on content but on presentation), but censorship is never a good thing. We live in a marketplace of ideas, and the best ideas will survive and the crappiest will perish, without any need for the government or powers-that-be to "protect" us from them via censorship.

I think you interpreted my post too narrowly. Censorship is good in many situations. I don't let my two year old watch horror movies. Prevention of the publication of illegal images and documents.

And, yes, it is good for a store in some situations to filter out the crap to make it easier for a consumer to make a good decision. I'm not saying that Apple is doing a great job here. The problem isn't what they've rejected. It's the arbitrariness of (very few) of their decisions.

Gotta agree with you. As much as I hate the clutter, and as much as Apple may legally have the right to be the ONLY store and the ONLY say on what's in the store, it's a slippery slope. Feds may not allow that forever. It's a grey area. Kinda like building an apartment building and saying "only white people allowed." Yeah, they built the apartment. They own the apartment. They run the apartment. But they don't have the right to discriminate. Sure it's not Apples to Apples. The but idea is similar. They've created a market that takes away a certain percentage of the potential whole. For example, if the iPhone ended up being 99% of the cellphone/smart phone market, would it then be ok that Apple controls all decisions? What if Apple had decided to ONLY leave the clutter and little nonsense apps because they wanted to develop the big expensive useful apps and sell them themselves? I'll bet people here wouldn't be defending Apple's right to do so.

Racial discrimination is not comparable to what is happening in the app store. You really shouldn't go there.

All stores decide what items they want to sell and what items they don't. Just because the App Store has virtually unlimited shelf space doesn't mean that Apple give up that right.