SDK App Certification is GOOD (but don't despair if you disagree!)

Discussion in 'iPhone' started by loudog40, Feb 29, 2008.

  1. loudog40 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2007
    #1
    Personally, I'm glad that Apple has the care and responsibility to certify all apps that become available via the iTunes distribution channel. Developing for mobile devices is fundamentally different than developing for full fledged desktops. Developers of mobile devices must confront a variety of issues that desktop developers often don’t consider, and Apple is simply ensuring that issues such as security, stability, performance, usability, and battery life are properly addressed, effectively raising the bar for application quality. As a consumer this is paramount, and I am glad Apple is voluntarily investing resources to protect the iPhone experience which it seems so many take for granted.

    For those who wish to build and share apps without getting their app certified... I'm not sure you have so much to worry about. The SDK will almost certainly provide tools which allow devs to load their app-in-progress for testing purposes. It seems likely then that if you redistribute your source/binaries, others will also be able to load your app via the same SDK tools. This is definitely not a solution if your intent is commercial, but if you're a grassroots dev and only care about satisfying your own needs and sharing your work with the community, then it's likely you'll be able to.

    Does this not seem reasonable? What do you guys think?
     
  2. ert3 macrumors 6502a

    ert3

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2007
    #2
    Well for one way to make your self look like a tool.

    Two you must honestly have no idea how much simpler it is to develop an application when every customer you send it to has the same exact specs short of differences in memory capacity.

    Performance issues can take months to work out when you are having to balance issues between the myriad of different processors, ram types and amounts, video cards, and so fourth.

    Third, I heavily doubt apple is going to screen for how well an application works. They are probably going to screen for how much damage it does to their partners, and weather or not it does damage to your phone.

    Fourth, Apple could use this as a means to prevent applications like a linux or windows CE installer. They amy also prevent you from installing say a future mobile iChat alternative.

    Fifth, This gives apple an excuse to cut back on first party support. (This long without MMS and they call it a smart phone though it lacks a word processor) Just let some third party rake in royalties while they save man power.

    sixth, Lord knows what features they will charge for when they allow users to begin installing third party apps. iPod touch users had to pay for maps and email. What if my dream of iWork for iPHone comes true but at a Hefty 80 dollar price tag. They could begin charging for just about anything that was not in the 1.1.3 update and isn't vital to phone usage. (20 bucks for MMS?).

    Seventh, No matter what this creates a barrier for all the apps to bottleneck into. Apple can only certify so many apps at a time and its almost a garuntee that more apps will be offered than they can handle in one day. This will lead to delays as developers submit and resubmit projects waiting for apple to finally says ok.

    Eighth, Its still 3rd party support if only Adobe, Game loft, EA, and any other big name software developer gets their hands on the SDK.
     
  3. loudog40 thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2007
    #3
    Nice!​

    Well, you are assuming that everyone will indeed have the same hardware which is unlikely if you look at the evolution of the iPod. Even so, not all developers will produce apps that share resources nicely, and I don't want to have to evaluate every app for myself, especially if I've already paid for it (and I doubt the typical consumer wants to either).​

    If you're right and Apple won't be screening for application quality, then I will definitely be humming a different tune. I can't imagine Apple turning a blind eye to the technical characteristics of an application.​

    I bet you're right that Apple will also screen for apps which may damage their partners. For example, I doubt Apple will 'okay' a Voip app, considering it would counter the interests of AT&T. This is a business, and Apple won't screw their business partners while they still depend on them. What do you expect?​

    Well, installing operating systems such as Linux or WinCE is never something the SDK was designed to achieve. Apple wouldn't have to enforce this via certification because the SDK is technically unable to provide such capabilities in the first place.​

    As for an iChat competitor, I doubt that they will limit the market to one app per niche. They know that (a) people want choice and (b) competition breeds the best product. Again, if you're right, I'll definitely
    change my stance on this. I just don't see Apple doing this though.​

    Hmm, this sounds like an argument against the SDK in the first place. Not sure how this relates to the application certification process. Care to clarify?​

    I have a feeling that Apple will only be setting prices for applications they create. Do you see Apple setting prices on 3rd party software for the Macintosh platform? If anything, this gives Apple the power to restrict vendors from overcharging to distribute their iPhone apps. M$ might try charging you $80 for Office Mobile.​

    I do see your point here. There's almost positively going to be more demand for certification than Apple engineers. However, I believe that the quality of the device should be put before all else. If, in the future, Apple decides to further open the platform, they can do so. But, if they start with a fully open SDK and it ends up harming the user experience, then it becomes much harder to introduce constraints and take away what developers have already been granted.​

    Technically, yes it's still considered 3rd party support. But I see what you're saying here, and I sincerely hope that Apple gives all applications a chance at certification.​
     
  4. Sobe macrumors 68000

    Sobe

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2007
    Location:
    Wash DC suburbs
    #4
    There's this thing called *EMAIL*

    It allows you to send words and pictures and other cool stuff.

    You should look into it.
     
  5. diamond.g macrumors 603

    diamond.g

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2007
    Location:
    Virginia
    #5
    So the video features that Apple must be working on will play on my friends 29 USD phone? That will be neat to see.
    Or better yet, the iPhone can play 3gp? Because that seems to be what phones that can do video send it in.
     
  6. kdarling macrumors demi-god

    kdarling

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2007
    Location:
    Cabin by a lake
    #6
    So why'd Apple include SMS?

    Everyone thinks there's a plot against MMS. I don't know why, since Jobs never said he was against it. It's just that if the iPhone is missing something, fanboys try to justify it. In this case, I call simple lack of time to do it.

    I think Apple will add MMS whenever they get time and figure out the best presentation.
     
  7. ert3 macrumors 6502a

    ert3

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2007
    #7
    Yeah I think they said it for me. iPhone's black berries and the like can handle email fine but most of my friends own Nokia candy bars and Razor's. Their phones handle email poorly.

    True more and more smart phones are flooding into the general market but lets be honest how many people are going to bother learning how to use email i mean for pity's (see i caught myself) sake I am currently trying to teach some-one how to properly use myspace. Its a wonder your average mouth breeder figures out how to use text messaging much less MMS which is leaps and bounds simpler than setting up an email account on even an iPhone.
     
  8. fredleysir macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2008
    #8
    First Post!
    I do think Apple certification will establish and maintain a certain level of integrity regarding the new software and apps, but at the same time that will be "closing up" the development prospect behind the SDKs original intention. I just hope Apple has the customer awareness to offer the programs all of the jailbreak teams have been providing for free.. well, for free. Obviously there is a large enough interest in the development of third party applicatinos that Apple has acknowledged it, but they could really shoot themselves in the foot if the certification process is either a hassle or too strict.. or even if the apps simply cost too much money to buy (which might be any cost at all). So hopefully March 6th brings us some good news.
    I personally have never jailbroken my iPod Touch because I've only had it for a week or two and I'll give Apple a chance to offer me something stable and *certified,* but had I purchased my iPod any earlier then I'm sure it would have been jailbroken, especially considering the delay and lack of information regarding the forthcoming SDK.
     
  9. 103734 Guest

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    #9
    Apple is not going to work on and certify thousands of 3rd party apps made by the general public, im not sure how they are going to do it but for sure not the way you explain it.
     
  10. Aries326 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2007
    #10
    I'm sure Apple will certify only the programs being sold through iTunes. In return for certifying a program and making it available on iTunes, Apple will get a cut of the sales.

    I'm sure Apple will allow people to add uncertified programs to their iPhones or Ipod touch through the iTunes program with the understanding that there are risks involved with installing uncertified software downloaded from other sources on the internet.

    A higher percentage of the public (ones that don't hang out on this type of website) will probably just buy programs straight from iTunes. The convenience and safety is there.
     

Share This Page