I see the pitfals of a non-scalable business model.
Apple has a few parts of their business that do not scale well: retail stores and app vetting process. In either case the per-employee marginal revenue is small in these sectors and so the cost has to be managed.
Same is not true for scalable businesses such Mac OS X development where per-employee marginal revenue is very high and you can actualy afford to hire the brightestand and train them well.
They have a large chunk of the mindshare when it comes to mobile phones, they're making a bucketload in sales, not only in phone but with apps... just how is that not a scalable business model? Do you have any data to backup your claim?
Firstly, Wal-Mart is hugely successful and their business does not scale at all. If you find yourself in such business you have to be very good at controlling costs, but you can still be very profitable.
In the case of Apple I perhaps should be more accurate - their business has parts that do not scale well and parts that do scale well. The stores and the app review parts do not scale, therefore Apple must be super-diligent in controlling costs there. Result of cost-control is of course less trained and less well paid personnel. Hence the gaffes with review process are to be expected. Apple's fault is in not designing a proper escalation process (other than the "Techcrunch PR egg-on-face channel") .
By the way, the jury is still out on how much the app sales are bringing to Apple and what are the costs of the review process. I've seen analysis (can't find it now) that has shown Apple is barely breaking even on the apps themselves and make all their money on hardware. Which is nothing new - they used to make next to nothing from iTunes music store and make a lot of money with iPods. So the more reasons to control costs.
How is this a great point? How does this 'fact' (serious question: does anyone actually know if this is true?) at all inform how we should feel about Apple's app approval process?
It's not like every app that gets unfairly rejected gets this kind of publicity - Eucalyptus did because it caught Gruber's attention and he blogged about it; this one did because it's coming right on the heels of the Eucalyptus incident and it's the EFF.
So, seriously, what, exactly, are we supposed to take from this point?
Maybe I misused the word "point". I do think it would be interesting to see some sort of analysis on how press attention regarding rejected apps affects sales.
I agree. Apple should totally start charging developers hefty fees for those rejection letters they send out, it's just free publicity. Fucking freeloading pervy developers.
Couldn't Apple just leverage facebook's 150+ porn patrol employees?
All kidding aside - how could you systematically enforce guidelines on applications when the universe of applications is wide open? In other words, there's no baseline so how could you create test case?
Wouldn't it make more sense to have a group of iphone users (i.e. folks that like to play with anything on the iphone) and have them vote on the app? (apple could reward these users with the app for free or some other random goodies - itouch, ipods, etc...)
I know it's in the rules not to post comments moaning, but do we really need a live feed of every single app store rejection on here? Is it useful or interesting? It's linkbait + spam IMHO.
If you don't want the risk of developing for a closed platform, don't do it! But please please please stop whining about it.
* Apple censors stuff
* Apple aren't consistent
* Apple take random time to approve/deny apps.
I'd be surprised if many people aren't aware of those facts by now. It'd be news IMHO if any of the above changed.
I personally don't find it outrageous in the least. It's their platform to do with what they wish. Developing on top of someone else is a big risk. Just as if you build something on top of twitter, they could and might cut off access if they decide to.
I think we can all agree that people generally have short attention spans. I think we can also agree that quite a few HN readers are iphone developers and users. The developers among us develop on the iphone platform because the users like it. It isn't wrong to remind users about the hardships developers face in bringing quality apps to them. And I'm sure that most rejection still go unannounced ;). Hopefully this will lead to a) Apple being more reasonable or b) Users moving onto a platform that is more developer friendly.
The news is not that they censor but what they censor and the reactions to it. I want to be kept up to date as to how various platforms evolve in terms of taking away my freedoms. Platforms like appstore and their approach to restricting content are still very much evolving.
If you apply your standard of news to other stories on HN or elsewhere there would be very little left as most content is not original but sourced from somewhere. 20 very similar reviews of Wolfram Alpha or Google Wave isn't exactly news either.
But obviously it's all a matter of balance and I do understand the point you're making.
"I personally don't find it outrageous in the least. It's their platform to do with what they wish."
Well, I see your point about "their platform", although I can find it pretty crap policy if I like :-)
I think the EFF article is particularly interesting because I think in the end this will be one of those about-face situations for them, I think their policies and procedures may not actually match up with what they really want (or perhaps a better guess is that the might be blocking things they didn't really intend to block -- or maybe they just don't like the EFF!).
So the EFF rejection stands out for me. It's like blocking the NY Times app because there's a political cartoon shown in it -- which would actually match up with a lot of other rejected apps.
Anyway, it's sand in Apple's face, publicly. And many developers stay away from the platform because of these issues. It's good all-around that this is in the news, imho, it gives them more incentive to stop the lameness.
Since when was the EFF competing with Apple? You're mental.
I would be if I said anything remotely resembling that.
When Apple arbitrarily rejects applications, it can be construed as being anti-competitive. While at this point, it's not overt (like saying, if your company makes an Android app, we will never approve your iPhone app), the infrastructure is in place for implementing this system. Maybe it's happening now, and we just don't notice.
Anyway, just saying that this might not actually be OK. Or, it might be. (Try writing software for your favorite video game system.)
On the other hand, if the EFF has its way, Apple won't be able to use the DMCA to sue you for jailbreaking your iPhone... an option Apple would really like to have.
"We cannot post this iPhone application to the App Store at this time because it encourages a physical activity that could result in a customer damaging their iPhone."
31 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 76.3 ms ] threadApple has a few parts of their business that do not scale well: retail stores and app vetting process. In either case the per-employee marginal revenue is small in these sectors and so the cost has to be managed.
Same is not true for scalable businesses such Mac OS X development where per-employee marginal revenue is very high and you can actualy afford to hire the brightestand and train them well.
And yet only recently Techcrunch did a piece on just how profitable Apple's mobile phone business actually is.
http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/06/01/the-spoils-go-to-the-sm...
They have a large chunk of the mindshare when it comes to mobile phones, they're making a bucketload in sales, not only in phone but with apps... just how is that not a scalable business model? Do you have any data to backup your claim?
In the case of Apple I perhaps should be more accurate - their business has parts that do not scale well and parts that do scale well. The stores and the app review parts do not scale, therefore Apple must be super-diligent in controlling costs there. Result of cost-control is of course less trained and less well paid personnel. Hence the gaffes with review process are to be expected. Apple's fault is in not designing a proper escalation process (other than the "Techcrunch PR egg-on-face channel") .
By the way, the jury is still out on how much the app sales are bringing to Apple and what are the costs of the review process. I've seen analysis (can't find it now) that has shown Apple is barely breaking even on the apps themselves and make all their money on hardware. Which is nothing new - they used to make next to nothing from iTunes music store and make a lot of money with iPods. So the more reasons to control costs.
It's not like every app that gets unfairly rejected gets this kind of publicity - Eucalyptus did because it caught Gruber's attention and he blogged about it; this one did because it's coming right on the heels of the Eucalyptus incident and it's the EFF.
So, seriously, what, exactly, are we supposed to take from this point?
All kidding aside - how could you systematically enforce guidelines on applications when the universe of applications is wide open? In other words, there's no baseline so how could you create test case?
Wouldn't it make more sense to have a group of iphone users (i.e. folks that like to play with anything on the iphone) and have them vote on the app? (apple could reward these users with the app for free or some other random goodies - itouch, ipods, etc...)
If you don't want the risk of developing for a closed platform, don't do it! But please please please stop whining about it.
I like to know about such things because I'm also an app developer. I also think it should be publicized because it's outrageous bull.
Even if I wasn't an app developer, I'd think this was interesting on grounds of knowing how people get content, and who can/does censor that access.
Also, there wasn't any whining in the EFF article.
* Apple censors stuff * Apple aren't consistent * Apple take random time to approve/deny apps.
I'd be surprised if many people aren't aware of those facts by now. It'd be news IMHO if any of the above changed.
I personally don't find it outrageous in the least. It's their platform to do with what they wish. Developing on top of someone else is a big risk. Just as if you build something on top of twitter, they could and might cut off access if they decide to.
We have different definitions of 'news' ;)
If you apply your standard of news to other stories on HN or elsewhere there would be very little left as most content is not original but sourced from somewhere. 20 very similar reviews of Wolfram Alpha or Google Wave isn't exactly news either.
But obviously it's all a matter of balance and I do understand the point you're making.
"PG Still writes articles, nothing's changed"
"Big Companies still acquire Startups, nothings changed"
"VCs still fund startups, nothings changed
"Startups still want feedback for their apps, nothings changed"
Sometimes details matter.
Well, I see your point about "their platform", although I can find it pretty crap policy if I like :-)
I think the EFF article is particularly interesting because I think in the end this will be one of those about-face situations for them, I think their policies and procedures may not actually match up with what they really want (or perhaps a better guess is that the might be blocking things they didn't really intend to block -- or maybe they just don't like the EFF!).
So the EFF rejection stands out for me. It's like blocking the NY Times app because there's a political cartoon shown in it -- which would actually match up with a lot of other rejected apps.
Anyway, it's sand in Apple's face, publicly. And many developers stay away from the platform because of these issues. It's good all-around that this is in the news, imho, it gives them more incentive to stop the lameness.
Hey look, we turned this into a discussion! Wee!
Turns out that anti-competitive business practices are not legal.
I would be if I said anything remotely resembling that.
When Apple arbitrarily rejects applications, it can be construed as being anti-competitive. While at this point, it's not overt (like saying, if your company makes an Android app, we will never approve your iPhone app), the infrastructure is in place for implementing this system. Maybe it's happening now, and we just don't notice.
Anyway, just saying that this might not actually be OK. Or, it might be. (Try writing software for your favorite video game system.)
The system is fucked up, obviously, but there's a difference between fucked up and totalitarian, and it's pretty huge leap from one to the other.
Last I heard, lots of developers were releasing video games cross-platform; not quite sure I understand you.
Is it anti-competitive for me to choose to only work with google adsense, and not yahoo or ms? Could yahoo or ms sue me? I think not.
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/02/apple-says-jailbreaking...
http://www.infoworld.com/d/developer-world/unlocking-iphone-...
"We cannot post this iPhone application to the App Store at this time because it encourages a physical activity that could result in a customer damaging their iPhone."
That's what they told me for my beloved Falling Man app http://www.blendedtechnologies.com/iphone-applications/ :-(
I guess it's one of the more reasonable rejecting reasons, eh? I'm not worried, it was my first project, just playing with the accelerometer.
One post talks about not wanting Apple Rejects on HackerNews, and another talks about how Apple is censoring applications.
First Apple, then HackerNews, next we'll be claiming that our own mother's try to influence us! I won't believe it.