iPhone Devs: Don’t Bite the Apple that Feeds You
In the last couple of months there's been much indignation about Apple not approving some iPhone apps, in particular, Podcaster and MailWrangler. But when you really think about it, they never stood a chance, because both threatened Apple's revenue.
This doesn't make it right or sensible that Apple has rejected them. Nor is it acceptable that Apple made up other excuses. But maybe admitting it was about revenue would have attracted the interest of the DoJ (The US Department of Justice who gave Microsoft the once over for monopolistic practices a few years back).
MailWrangler
Anyone heard of Mobile Me? Just in case you haven't, MobileMe is a suite of online applications from Apple which let you take your important information anywhere. Central to the suite is Apple's own email. Oh, and Apple charges for it.
Now, what's MailWrangler do? Here's a report from MacWorld:
Angelo DiNardi’s MailWrangler aimed to simplify the lives of those using multiple Gmail accounts by allowing them to log into different accounts simultaneously and quickly switch back and forth between them.
Unlike the built-in Mail client, MailWrangler embeds WebKit and allows users to access their Gmail via the iPhone-friendly web interface.
Oops! Notice the problem? This is all about Google mail. This app does nothing to help Apple get more Mobile Me subscribers. In fact, encourages the opposite, making Gmail much more appealing on the iPhone than it is. As a Google mail user I would love this app and it would tie me more strongly to Google mail and definitely lessen the urge to suss out Mobile Me.
Yes Apple includes access to Google mail, Yahoo mail etc on the iPhone, but that's just token efforts to help get users of those systems onto the iPhone. From there it can slowly try to woo them over to Mobile Me. (By the way, Apple, you've got Buckley's chance while there's no productivity apps in Mobile Me.)
Podcaster
Anyone heard of iTunes Music Store? You can get all sorts of cool media from it, including podcasts. You access it using an application called, unsurprisingly, iTunes.
Now what's Podcaster do? Here's a short take from CNet:
Podcaster--an iPhone application that lets people download podcasts directly to their devices without going through iTunes
Gasp! Again, see the problem? It lets you get podcasts without going to the iTMS. You really think Apple will endorse an app that reduces your visits to its core revenue stream? The Apple world revolves more and more around iTunes, and therefore the iTunes Music Store. So how on earth can anyone be surprised Apple would reject Podcaster?
Flipside
There is a flipside though that it seems Apple doesn't care about: more apps means more choice, means more users. This has been DOS/Windows' main leverage for 25 years and it's done okay - in fact, you might have even heard of it.
Good and useful apps like Podcaster and MailWrangler have the potential to sell more iPhones. And more iPhones means more market and then even more apps, which then sells more iPhones.
And more iPhones means more people exposed to Mobile Me and iTunes Music Store.
But this island approach has always been Apple's way and maybe it's too inculturated to change. It has enabled it to produce great products and services over the years, albeit, at the cost of exposure to a wider customer base.
Monopolisitic?
But is this monopolistic behaviour? Is Apple using its control over the App Store to unfairly limit and control the opportunities for other services, such as Google and anyone who might want to podcast away from iTunes? Should the DoJ intervene?
So it's easy to see why Apple wouldn't give the real reason for rejecting these apps. And even the reasons it did give might get a little attention down at the DoJ. Which probably explains why Apple has reminded developers the NDA (non-disclosure agreement) extends to developers not revealing reasons for rejection.
Conclusion
The rejection of these apps it is undoubtedly a revenue reason, and (I'll generously suggest) really does teeter on the edge of being monopolistic. Rather than the advantages of being a more open platform, Apple obviously sees greater long term revenue potential by corraling you towards its services.
So, if you're a developer, rightly or wrongly, don't expect Apple to approve your app if it discourages people from using Apple's revenue generating services.
As the title rather paradoxically states, don't bite the Apple that feeds you.
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Slashdot
StumbleUpon
Comments
Mail-wrangler and Podcaster are nice applications and I would love to have them on my iPhone. But to say that they compete with Apple is outright ridiculous. While the entire approval process is questionable and the rejection is wrong, its because of its over-protective tendencies rather than anti-competitive or monopolistic policies.
The fact that the whole slew of rejections started after I’m Rich provides enough evidence to argue that Apple started more stringent approval process aimed at protecting its hapless customers(the 8 that bought I’m Rich), apparent lack of ability to quick refunds.
Once again, if you think MailWrangler & Podcaster compete with Apple you must be completely out of your mind. Please stop spreading the FUD.
I have written more about this here:
http://wannabesimple.com/2008/09/28/the-benevolent-universe/
“But to say that they compete with Apple is outright ridiculous. While the entire approval process is questionable and the rejection is wrong, its because of its over-protective tendencies rather than anti-competitive or monopolistic policies.”
Wrong. APPLE itself said that the reason Podcaster was rejected was because it duplicated functionality already found on iTunes.
Apple: Since Podcaster assists in the distribution of podcasts, it duplicates the functionality of the Podcast section of iTunes.
I guess Apple is being outright ridiculous (they are) and out of their minds (no argument there). And spreading FUD (agreed).
To put this in perspective for all the kool-aid drinking Apple apologists, imagine if Microsoft did this.
Yeah I love Macs and iPhones and iPods. I converted in 2002 when they were making standout software, and they still are. But lately Apple is really starting to suck.
Lakshmi, you should consider that there is a plethora of apps on the app store that duplicate functionality found in Apple iPhone apps. Among them, calculators, notes apps and newsreaders (which mean you don’t have to use Safari as often).
I looked at these and wondered why Podcaster and MailWrangler were being treated differently.
And then I realised none of the others had the potential to impact on Apple’s revenue services.
Is Apple being monopolistic? Any company that directly limits the opportunities of third parties is being monopolistic.
“To put this in perspective. . . imagine if Microsoft did this.”
Indeed. Imagine if MS didn’t allow third party office suites on Windows? We’d all be on the phone to the DoJ.
Beeb, I actually had that in an earlier draft. I took it out though because I’ve found saying that is a waste of breath, it always falls on deaf ears. And I’m tired of the baseless counter-arguments of those who find some way of twisting it so it’s totally different when MS does it.
Chris,
I think Apple’s review process is screwed up and they are driving developers away with their bureaucracy. Rejecting applications on rules that have never been mentioned before is unacceptable. I am in no doubt that these have to change in order for the iPhone to be a successful platform.
What I am arguing is the intent. There is very limited(almost negligible) evidence that suggests that these rejections are based on anti-competitive or monopolistic tendencies.
1. Exposure - Flickr client
2. Last.fm & AOL Radio - Free songs?
3. Sync In a Blink - Syncs gmail contacts
Some apps that would fall along the same lines as Podcaster or Mailwrangler.
MailWrangler & Podcaster are two applications that got rejected with several other applications after the “I am Rich” fiasco. Pull my finger was rejected for “Not having a point”. I see these rejections as Apple playing the Big brother to protect the consumers from paying for applications that they would regret later because:
1. They don’t want to handle returns and refunds and / or
2. They want to increase the quality of the store by increased policing
@Beeblebrox
“Wrong. APPLE itself said that the reason Podcaster was rejected was because it duplicated functionality already found on iTunes.”
Right! However, Your interpretation is one of the many. It can easily be read as: “You are charging customers for functionality that they get for free. What’s the point?” The other applications that were rejected strongly reflect this sentiment. Once again, that reason would be wrong, cocky & misguided abuse of power. But anti-competitive, monopolistic? Hardly.
Lakshmi, not sure I understand what you really mean.
It appears you are either saying these apps are plain crap and apple wants to help us avoid buying crap - which I doubt they are not crap, and anyway there’s plenty of crap apps on the App Store that Apple isn’t protecting us from.
Alternatively, you are suggesting we’d be disappointed and want a refund because these apps duplicate existing iPhone technology. Again doubtful because there’s plenty of apps that duplicate that Apple hasn’t banned. And actually both these apps bring functionality we’d really like.
But I can see we all agree tho that Apple is screwing up a golden opportunity.
Chris,
Here is my summary:
1. This stringent review / rejection process started after the I’m Rich episode(where apple had to refund 8 users). Most of the crappy applications got in before “I’m Rich”
2. Apps were rejected primarily for not doing enough(“What’s the point?” said SJ), ex: Pull my finger, Freedomtime
3. Someone / group is making subjective decisions about the utility of an application.
4. The above person / group thinks that providing the same features(in their opinion) as the Apple applications bundled with the iPhone and charging for them would cause user confusion leading to return / refund mess and lower the store quality.
I will leave it at that as well. Like you said, intent aside, we are all in agreement regarding the outcome.
“However, Your interpretation is one of the many. It can easily be read as: “You are charging customers for functionality that they get for free. What’s the point?” The other applications that were rejected strongly reflect this sentiment. Once again, that reason would be wrong, cocky & misguided abuse of power. But anti-competitive, monopolistic? Hardly.”
Again, imagine if MS said to its users, you can’t have another application that duplicates the functionality of Office because, hey, we’re looking out for your best interests!
NO ONE would buy that explanation. And frankly, your generous “interpretation” is naive to the point of silliness. Their actions are, by DEFINITION, anti-competitive (banning apps that compete with theirs), however benevolent YOU think they’re being.
Hell, MS got into trouble just for including a browser for free without even forbidding others on its system.