By Chris Maxcer, MacNewsWorld
So Facebook developer Joe Hewitt tweets that he's ditching the super-popular Facebook iPhone app, and TechCrunch, clearly sensing there's more to the story here, reaches out to learn why.
"My decision to stop iPhone development has had everything to do with Apple's policies," Hewitt told TechCrunch. "I respect their right to manage their platform however they want; however, I am philosophically opposed to the existence of their review process. I am very concerned that they are setting a horrible precedent for other software platforms, and soon gatekeepers will start infesting the lives of every software developer."
Hewitt's decision, of course, has sparked a mini firestorm over the so-called tyrannical Apple, with critics asserting it has a terrible App Store approval process, despite the approval of more than 100,000 apps so far. Hundreds of comments later, there's the notion that Android is a better, more open platform, and if key developers move to Android from Apple, then "it's over" -- this last bit from none other than Robert Scoble on the TechCrunch comment board.
Really?
I know a nurse with a jailbroken iPhone that can play a game where a monkey urinates into a moving toilet. I know a grandmother who uses her iPhone to check the price of wheat. Both owners can easily get what they want from their iPhone. I have a hard time imagining any set of applications so compelling and only available on an Android-based phone -- but not on an iPhone -- that would get them to switch over to an Android phone. What if the nurse lost the ability to jailbreak the iPhone and play the monkey bathroom game? Based on what I know about the nurse, I doubt there'd be too many tears shed.
Still, there will be a few million people willing to switch and try new things, no doubt about it. But there'll be millions more quite happy with the 100,000 apps they have available.
Moving on to the real noise
I've run into more than a few developers in my life, and two traits stand out: First, the best have a sort of focused brilliance. They are indubitably intelligent and capable of looking at foreign languages (a.k.a., "code") and understanding how funky characters and spacing relates to hardware, software and user-generated events. Let's not dismiss this lightly. It's one thing to learn to speak a foreign language like Spanish, and it's an entirely other thing to write a novel in Spanish.
Developers are pretty much doing the equivalent of writing novels in foreign languages. It's hard work, takes time, and often enough they become emotionally invested in their efforts. In 2007, TechCrunch, by the way, called Joe Hewitt an "iPhone God," and he seems to be pretty well-respected and talented.
And the second trait?
They tend to like things their way, and they tend to get irritated when people with power over them expect something that's not congruent with what they want. Kind of Like You and Me
So the developers I've run into -- which is an infinitesimally small percentage of all developers in the world, mind you -- are a lot like you and me when it comes to their second trait. We're just not nearly as smart.
Let's break down the two sentences from Hewitt above. He is "philosophically opposed" to the existence of Apple's review process. Sounds like a guy who doesn't like anyone peeking over his shoulder and ultimately deciding what gets to fly. Fair enough. Writers have editors. Sometimes the editors get it wrong. Most often, they get it right, and sometimes their criticism makes the product much better. If they get it wrong too often, writers can walk away. And sometimes they outright reject the work of a writer.
Being opposed to a review process is a personal thing. Let's not confuse this with a so-called "failed" Apple App Store policy.
As reported, Hewitt then added that "gatekeepers will start infesting the lives of every software developer." Ouch. No one on the outside likes a gatekeeper, but "infesting the lives"? Right on -- I don't like it when anyone screws up my brilliance. I once built a fence in my back yard, and before I could even begin building it, I had to go to my city, draft some specs, and get a permit. There's a retaining wall near one portion of the fence. Because there's a tiny possibility that some idiot might trespass through my backyard and climb my fence and leap without looking, I had to build a much shorter-than-planned, see-through fence.
My point? This stuff is part of the cost of living with other people.
Stupid? You bet -- until some guy is chased by police through my backyard, leaps the big fence I originally wanted, and breaks his back on the other side. Lawsuit ensues, and I lose my house. Look, there's money on the table for Apple, but I guarantee that Apple, which lives in the lawsuit-happy state of California, isn't interested in losing its house at 1 Infinite Loop.
Here there be monsters
What about when there is no walled garden? (Sure, Facebook is a walled Web garden, but let's not get petty here.) Anyone with a jailbroken iPhone get Rickrolled recently? I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy. (OK, I'll admit it, I Rickroll myself at least once a year just to remind myself how to jump into a chain link fence and bounce back looking cool. I might need that someday.)
But for jailbroken iPhones, there are real problems for those who haven't changed their default root passwords. A new hacker tool identified as "iPhone/Privacy.A" by Intego can compromise an iPhone by letting a hacker silently copy user data, including e-mail, contacts, SMSes, calendars, photos, music files, videos, as well as any data recorded by any iPhone app.
But that's just for open jailbroken iPhones.
For regular iPhones, how about the class action lawsuit filed by Michael Turner against Storm8 (PDF available here) over the alleged "practice of accessing, collecting and transmitting without notice or consent the wireless telephone numbers of iPhone users who download Storm8's games to their iPhones via Apple's App Store."
If true, well, ouch. This is a fairly benign violation, but an app could easily act as the gateway to identity theft and real monetary damage for consumers. Apple missed this one, but as a consumer, I like the idea of Apple vetting some apps.
Let me say that again: I like that Apple is vetting the apps.
I don't believe that Apple always makes good decisions. I think Apple makes mistakes. But I also think that great, fantastic apps will find a home, if not with Apple, then elsewhere. This is how it is with great novels. If the writer is persistent and the work is truly fantastic, it'll find a publisher. Same goes for some movies. And what about monetary success Download Free eBook - The Edge of Success: 9 Building Blocks to Double Your Sales and acclaim? There's a bit of cosmic luck involved. Sorry -- it's the way the world works, and I don't see it changing any time soon. Cosmic luck.
Meanwhile, Apple is a distributor
If you're a distributor, you get to the make the rules.
Every day around the world, distributors and retail stores -- which are just like the App Store -- are rejecting products. Someone is making choices at the distribution level every single day. Those decisions are made behind closed doors, and they involve money as well as esoteric on-the-spot choices.
Here's an example: A guy creates a new hammer. He takes the hammer to Home Depot because he wants Home Depot to sell the hammer for him. Home Depot looks at the hammer. It's got good balance. They whack a few nails with it, but on the last whack, a shard of metal flies off the hammer and strikes the tester in the eye. Oops. Poor quality metal. Hammer is rejected. Is the process open and clear? Probably not. Am I glad that Home Depot rejected the hammer? You bet. I trust the Home Depot brand to do these sorts of things, and I expect them to sell quality hammers. Just one example.
But the hammer guy doesn't give up. Maybe he upgrades the quality of metal in the hammer, then goes to Lowe's. The gatekeepers at Lowe's look at the hammer, see that it's a nice hammer, but hey, it's essentially the same as an existing hammer that Lowe's already sells. Sure, it has a hole at the end of the handle where a person could string a lanyard, but everything else, the size, weight, ergonomics -- basically the same as the Lowe's signature hammer. Sorry, hammer dude, Lowe's is going to reject your hammer.
You see how this goes in the real world? The Apple App Store isn't any different.
The only difference is that the people working through, avoiding, or using the App Store -- developers, hackers, and consumers -- all live in a Web world where it's easy to complain about it.
Speaking of complaints, I've got one: How come Wal-Mart sells the "low-end" Hanes underwear while Target sells the "high-end" Hanes underwear? Oxymorons aside, the low-end Hanes has a thinner rubbery waistband, while the high-end Hanes underwear has a wider, more cloth-covered waistband with a sharper Hanes logo graphic and better thread density. Same manufacturer, but Wal-Mart only sells the lesser quality version.
What gives?
Obviously, someone at Wal-Mart thinks that all Wal-Mart shoppers want the cheap Hanes underwear. I shop at Wal-mart, but I want the better Hanes underwear -- can't get it at Wal-Nart! So I go to Target to get my underwear. Should I be angry that Wal-Nart is selling the crappy underwear? Am I claiming there's a fundamental problem with the Wal-Mart decision process?
Is Wal-Mart going to fail because their gatekeepers are choosing to sell lower-quality underwear?
Nah. I still spend plenty of money at Wal-Mart. I go to Wal-Mart for what Wal-Mart is good for. I go elsewhere to get what others do well. None of this is going to make or break the iPhone. If anything, a flawed iPhone App Store approval process will ultimately result in more choice and better apps -- for everyone, on the iPhone and on Android or Windows Mobile or RIM, Palm, and even Samsung's new mobile operating system.
Apple is looking to protect itself, and Apple is looking to maximize profit. Those are clear and clean efforts. I might not like them, but I trust them. Steve Jobs wants to sell us quality products at a price. Steve Jobs sells. There's nothing underhanded about this. It's not even evil.
At least it's clear.
There's really only one way it's going to change. Developers need to create astounding applications that don't run on the iPhone. A lot of them. Of course, how many developers with astounding applications really want to avoid the iPhone App Store marketplace? Right. How many successful novelists won't allow their books to be sold by Amazon.com or Barnes & Noble?
Hewitt might be one of these guys who can succeed on his own. He told TechCrunch he wants to focus on open Web applications to "make the Web the best mobile platform available" rather than support a system that requires middlemen. It's a noble cause. I like the idea.
I just think we're a long long way from anything iPhone App Store being "over."
Originally published on MacNewsWorld
© 2009 ECT News Network. All rights reserved.
© 2009 BetaNews.com. All rights reserved.
Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009