Apple's iPhone is, by all accounts, a success, and Apple may be on track to sell 5 million iPhone 3Gs this quarter. A big part of that success has come from the array of software options available from the App Store, the sole distribution point for third-party iPhone software. Though many developers are selling a lot of software, a significant number are becoming frustrated and angry due to Apple's recent decisions regarding which apps are fit for distribution; the situation has been made worse by reports that Apple has a policy that makes the rejection letters subject to a NDA.
A major point of contention is the reasons Apple has cited in letters sent to developers whose apps were rejected. One reason is that an app has "limited functionality." Both Pull My Finger, an app that makes fart noises, and Cool O' Meter, an app that measures how "cool" you are, were rejected for this reason. A letter sent from Worldwide Developer Relations to Cool O' Meter's developers reads, in part:
We've reviewed your application Cool O' Meter. We have determined that this application is of limited utility to the broad iPhone and iPod touch user community, and will not be published to the App Store.
If you choose to provide additional features that utilize iPhone functionality, your application can be reconsidered for the App Store after you resubmit a new binary to iTunes Connect.
This might be a good rationale, especially if it were universally applied. However, a quick search of the App Store reveals numerous apps that flip virtual coins, pop virtual shipping bubbles, or allow you to drink virtual beers. The utility of these apps to "the broad iPhone and iPod touch user community" is certainly questionable.
Apple's schizophrenia
"When Cool O'Meter 3000 was rejected, they insinuated that our application was too simple and lacked sufficient utility. Those are two very subjective definitions," developer Michael Tseng told Ars. "I would like to see the gauge that Apple uses to declare something lacking utility.
"Ultimately, as a developer, I am going to review the applications that made it into the store and try to gauge where they place that bar of just enough utility and too little," he added. "I look at an application like Weejee or iBeer and I think, 'Ok, that got accepted and that seems to have the same amount of utility as my app, where is the discrepancy?'" asked Tseng.
"I get paid regardless of whether the app is rejected or not, so I've not wasted n weeks or months of development time," developer Jonathan Wight told Ars. "But I am really annoyed about Pull My Finger getting banned though. That's the one rejection that I have the biggest issue with—from a developer's perspective Apple is [being] pretty schizo."
Duplicate functionality or fear of competition?
The other reason Apple has provided when denying at least two apps' entry to the App Store is "duplicating functionality." The first app known to have been denied for this reason is Podcaster. Developer Al Sokirynsky was told that "since Podcaster assists in the distribution of podcasts, it duplicates the functionality of the Podcast section of iTunes." Another app, MailWrangler, was recently denied for similar reasons: "Your application duplicates the functionality of the built-in iPhone application Mail without providing sufficient differentiation or added functionality, which will lead to user confusion."
This line of logic is problematic for two important reasons. For one, both apps actually provide features that none of Apple's built-in apps do. Podcaster allows direct streaming or downloading of podcasts to the iPhone, whereas iTunes requires computer-based downloading followed by syncing. Mailwrangler allows simultaneous access to multiple Gmail accounts; MobileSafari works with just one at a time.
The other problem is that there are already numerous apps that duplicate functionality, as evidenced by the plethora of tip calculators and Sudoku games. If the problem is confusing users by duplicating features of Apple's own apps, apparently someone at Apple really let slip when PCalc, WritingPad, and AOL Radio got approved. Users also have to purposefully download and launch a third-party app, so this reasoning is vapid.
"I think it's very wrong of them. The App Store should be a free market economy where competition is allowed," a developer, who asked not to be named for fear of reprisals from Apple, told Ars. "I understand them rejecting stuff like pornographic apps, but they shouldn't reject apps that compete with Apple's own apps."
Daniel Jalkut of Red Sweater Software agrees. "I think the first and second public rejections were sort of worrying, but didn't seem too outrageous. Then the rejection on grounds of dubious redundancy with Apple products started to send things over the edge," he told Ars recently.
NDA adds an unnecessary layer of secrecy and mystery
On top of the other issues, these rejection justifications are not part of the iPhone SDK Agreement. I can't spell out the specifics without violating the ducking NDA itself, but suffice to say that "limited utility" and "duplicating functionality" do not appear in that document. Wil Shipley, developer of the widely acclaimed Delicious Monster, wrote a lengthy blog post decrying Apple's "duplicating functionality" rejections: "Let me make my position on this perfectly clear: it is unethical and antithetical to the whole idea of an App Store for Apple to be censoring applications based on criteria they have never given to developers, and only told developers after the developers put in all the work of writing an app."
And the situation only seems to be getting worse. Although the details aren't clear, it appears Apple is now telling developers that the information included in their app rejection letters is covered under NDA. When Apple's own words became controversial, instead of clearing the air it chose to try and force developers to keep quiet. "If you get a rejection letter from Apple saying your app doesn't qualify, you can't even talk about that for fear of persecution. This whole gag order thing that Apple's throwing at people is a load of crap," Chuck Toporek, Senior Acquisitions Editor, Addison-Wesley, told Ars.
From what we're hearing from developers, Apple is only exacerbating an already ugly situation. "Now I think Apple's on a slippery slope and needs to do damage control or else risk getting a hard-to-shake totalitarian reputation," said Jalkut. And Brent Simmons, developer of the popular NetNewsWire for both Mac and iPhone, wrote in his blog, "[S]omeone is making a mistake. This behavior is definitely beneath the company that makes the software and hardware I adore and love developing for."
Other developers have harsher words. "I am starting to not believe in the iPhone platform, and that is scary because I'm sure I'm not the only developer," said Justin Williams of Second Gear. "Pissing off the people that grow your product is not the most sound business move, yet Apple seems to turn the NDA screw further and further," he told Ars.
Craig Hockenberry, who wrote the Apple Developer Award-winning Twitterrific, wrote an open letter to Steve Jobs expressing his discontent. "I'm trying to stay positive in spite of recent developments, but I'm finding my attraction to the iPhone fades a little bit each day. I think it’s important that you know that."
It's Apple's sandbox, for better or worse
What can developers do? Either play in Apple's sandbox—acceding to whatever whims strike App Store approvers on a particular day—or go home. Because those who might have some leverage with Apple, like Sega, EA, or even some of the smaller developers, are raking in some serious cash, they aren't going to walk away anytime soon. Another developer who would only speak to us on condition of anonymity said, "The middle tier of developers could very well rethink products, both current and future. This is having a chilling effect across the ecosystem."
Already, Cool O' Meter developer Tseng and Exposure developer Fraser Speirs have sworn off iPhone development. And Williams told us, "I downloaded the Android SDK. I'm not sure I will do anything on the platform, but Apple's actions over the past few months has made me actually think about it. Six months ago, I couldn't have imagined that."
What Apple needs is some open dialog, even if that is just among developers and its Worldwide Developer Relations folks, to explain these issues and actively work with developers. "We need Guy Kawasaki back," said one Chicago-based developer. But Apple's continued silence only makes matters worse, leaving developers expecting the worst. "In my opinion, Apple doesn't care about what the developers think. Apple has not made a single public statement about the iPhone SDK's gag order, not one," said Toporek. And Apple did not respond to our repeated requests for comment on this article.
No comments:
Post a Comment