Indie Mac dev on App Store: "A little piece of my soul dies"
Steven Frank is a developer at Panic, but speaks only for himself (more or less) when lamenting the restrictions Apple has put on developers who want to sell software through the iTunes App Store. His closer reflects the feelings of many, I suspect:
I've been trying to reconcile the App Store with my beliefs on "how things should be" ever since the SDK was announced. After all this time, I still can't make it all line up. I can't question that it's probably the best mobile application distribution method yet created, but every time I use it, a little piece of my soul dies. And we don't even have anything for sale on there yet.
On the App Store [StevenF.com via ★]
• iTunes App Store shows strengths, weaknesses of a walled garden
• $999.99 "I Am Rich" pulled from iPhone App Store
the latest
latest episodes
The iPhone is a general purpose computer, but Apple wants to treat it as a proprietary appliance.
I love my MacBook to pieces, but I won't be buying an iPhone.
As long as jailbreaking continues to thrive, the iPhone will stay a general purpose computer.
I actually quite like the choice, having one place to easily get software that you know will work, and another with no promises but no restrictions.
I really try to sympathize with the differing points of view I encounter on the interwebz. I just can't muster any sympathy for this perspective.
The iPhone is a consumer product. It was not developed to be the playground for the geekerati to experiment with code. The app store has one quality that other distribution methods lack - trust. I am glad that Apple is trying to institute rules and regs. I am glad that they are keeping an eye on what goes up on the app store. I am glad that they are willing to pull the plug when they need to.
All of that give me confidence when I select, download, and install an app.
@3 - Does it inspire confidence to know that, at any given moment, they can remove any app from the store and stop supporting it without giving a refund? That they can remotely disable the app on your phone, even though they once approved it and allowed you to buy it through their 'trusted' distribution mechanism? That they can take their cut of an app's sales, pull the app, and not cut a check to the developer?
I think the App Store is a walled garden for very good reasons. With a few oddball exceptions (ie, a prank/art piece), they've been very open to any apps developers want to distribute through the store.
We're in the nacent days of the App Store and the iPhone as a consumer device. Apple's being very cautious about how they handle it, because they know exactly how game-changing the App Store is for handheld devices and portable computing. If they seem a little nervous, I don't blame them.
Yeah, I don't know that "trust" is what I'm picking up from the App Store at the moment, especially considering that at least three applications that I can think of off-hand have violated Apple's murky standards but were still sold on the App Store:
• Aurora Feint – Transmitted users' contact data over the internet to developer's server without encryption. Not nefarious, it turns out, but still bad security.
• NetShare – Pulled because it violated AT&T's terms of service for the iPhone data plan, despite the fact that AT&T disavowed any knowledge or responsibility for NetShare's interdiction.
• I Am Rich – The $1,000 iPhone app that was removed for not being classy, more or less, despite failing to violate any of Apple's rules for iPhone Apps.
Trust is for spouses and Elvis Costello. Everyone else gets the skeptical eye, especially when they're acting so mysteriously.
What ever happened to good ol web 2.0? Let users rate and comment on apps. If the apps are doing something nasty or just plain sucks, people will rant about it and no one else will download the app.
@3 Your point of view is what is wrong with the current consumer base driving Apple (and thus influencing the rest of the market). You essentially clamor for a babysitter and applaud restrictions.
Hearing all of the restrictions Apple puts on developers of iPhone software, I couldn't help but think: What would happen to OS X if they used the same policies for Macs? Outrageous? So why is it okay on the iPhone? For that matter, what if Macs would only connect to the Internet through AT&T broadband? Again, why is it okay on the iPhone?
I love OS X and the hardware's generally really good, but I won't be getting an iPhone until/unless I can legally use it as if I own it.
Less QQ more pew pew.
when i first read the healine i did a double take, as i thought it was about a failed bank.
http://www.indymacbank.com/
"a little piece of my soul dies"?
That there is some severe soft skulled hyperbole. I like Panic, have bought some of their products, this doesnt change that, I guess dumbassery can be found in even the best vendors.
Reality check, since when did you think apple was open about anything? That's just their marketing fud.
Why do people act like this type of store is so new? Other damn cell companies have had digital store for alot longer.
Screw the walled garden.
Symbian 4 lyfe.*
*'cept for maybe android if it ever comes out
It is nice to see that the iPhone isn't made to work like a digital watch from 1982 -- as most phones are these days (STILL!!!1!).
However, I am pretty pissed that my choices of free apps consist of whatever is free on the App Store. Why do I have to buy free applications? That is just silly. I made the mistake of upgrading the firmware, and now can't do the jailbreak. Stupid me for not reading pages and pages of forums to learn this beforehand.
Kinda reminds me of the early Palm Pilot, and the many many free and free-to-install applications that were available for the thing. I enjoyed the hell out of mine, except for the ultra-limited I/O, and no wireless.
Then again, I don't like having to dedicate a Windows computer to running iTunes, so I can charge the thing, and back it up.
I'm gonna have to give this one a "cheer up, emo kid."