Apple
Schiller’s App Store approvals comparison to retail store makes sense
By Jim DalrympleDecember 7, 2009, 1:04 pm PT
I’ve been a vocal critic of Apple’s iPhone and iPod touch App Store approval process. I’m as frustrated with some of the decisions as anyone and tend to speak my mind, but recent comments from Apple’s Senior Vice President of Worldwide Product Marketing, Phil Schiller, have me rethinking my position.
The crux of the dissatisfaction comes from Apple making decisions that, on the surface, don’t make much sense to consumers. Apps that get rejected for no apparent reason or apps that get rejected when a similar app from another company is already in the store.
In an interview with BusinessWeek in late November, Schiller explains Apple’s position on the approval process and sheds some light on how Apple feels about it.
“Whatever your favorite retailer is, of course they care about the quality of products they offer,” said Schiller. “We review the applications to make sure they work as the customers expect them to work when they download them.”
Now that makes sense to me. If I walk into a retailer with my children, I expect the products on the shelves to be appropriate. I take it for granted that the buyers at the retailer are going to do that.
I also expect that when I buy something, it’s going to work. I don’t think it would be fair if I was charged two or three times for my purchase either.
Apple obviously spent a lot of time and money on the backend operations of the App Store and for the most part it works really well.
There are still some problems with the App Store approval process, especially when it comes to things like rejecting app updates when they have previously been approved, or rejecting an app when there is a similar one already in the store.
Schiller’s explanation doesn’t clear up all of the App Store problems, but it goes a long way to explaining the company’s position.
Please take a minute to Tweet, Like, or Share this post with your friends.
TweetShare
Email This Post
⋅ 
Print This Post
⋅ Post a comment
Discussion
16 comments so far
16 Responses to “Schiller’s App Store approvals comparison to retail store makes sense”
Leave a Reply
Schiller’s App Store approvals comparison to retail store makes sense
By Jim DalrympleDecember 7, 2009, 1:04 pm PT
I’ve been a vocal critic of Apple’s iPhone and iPod touch App Store approval process. I’m as frustrated with some of the decisions as anyone and tend to speak my mind, but recent comments from Apple’s Senior Vice President of Worldwide Product Marketing, Phil Schiller, have me rethinking my position.
The crux of the dissatisfaction comes from Apple making decisions that, on the surface, don’t make much sense to consumers. Apps that get rejected for no apparent reason or apps that get rejected when a similar app from another company is already in the store.
In an interview with BusinessWeek in late November, Schiller explains Apple’s position on the approval process and sheds some light on how Apple feels about it.
“Whatever your favorite retailer is, of course they care about the quality of products they offer,” said Schiller. “We review the applications to make sure they work as the customers expect them to work when they download them.”
Now that makes sense to me. If I walk into a retailer with my children, I expect the products on the shelves to be appropriate. I take it for granted that the buyers at the retailer are going to do that.
I also expect that when I buy something, it’s going to work. I don’t think it would be fair if I was charged two or three times for my purchase either.
Apple obviously spent a lot of time and money on the backend operations of the App Store and for the most part it works really well.
There are still some problems with the App Store approval process, especially when it comes to things like rejecting app updates when they have previously been approved, or rejecting an app when there is a similar one already in the store.
Schiller’s explanation doesn’t clear up all of the App Store problems, but it goes a long way to explaining the company’s position.
Please take a minute to Tweet, Like, or Share this post with your friends.
TweetShare
Email This Post
⋅ Print This Post
⋅ Post a comment
Discussion 16 comments so far
16 Responses to “Schiller’s App Store approvals comparison to retail store makes sense”
Leave a Reply
While I don’t necessarily disagree, I have one issue with that analogy. If you don’t like one store, you can shop at another. There is no other store (without jailbreaking) that you can shop for iPhone apps.
I fully agree with Apple having the right to choose what they wish to sell in their store. However, just because they don’t want to sell an app doesn’t mean it should not be allowed to be sold elsewhere.
In this case, the “store” is essentially the phone. If you don’t like the “store”, get another phone.
I bought an iPhone knowing that Apple controls the apps that can be purchased and run on it. I also understand that there are reasons why Apple chose to operate the store this way. That said, I don’t have to agree with all of their policies.
My comment was only in relation to the analogy of a retail store. If I go to a retail store and can’t find a product I’m looking for or I don’t like the store, it is very likely that I can go to different store. In the case of the iPhone, the app store is the only store. If there is an app that is useful to me, but Apple decides that they do not want to sell it in their store I have no other choice. The analogy does not work in my mind.
>>In this case, the “store” is essentially the phone.
>>If you don’t like the “store”, get another phone.
I disagree with that logic. Apple could easily “allow” other non-Apple app stores to operate legitimately. For one thing, Apple can EASILY place a disclaimer saying that “If you go ahead and download apps from non-Apple App Stores, then you are on your own, and Apple assumes ZERO RESPONSIBILITY from anything you download from a non-Apple App Store.
The Disclaimer frees Apple from the legal implications or fiscal responsibility (e.g. warranties, repair costs, etc), in case some dipsticks pick up viruses and trojans from a Third Party App Store, their iPhones get hosed and they become crybabies about it.
Apple can easily allow the legit operation of those Third Party App Stores. They just have to carefully “wash their hands clean” and write a clear disclaimer freeing them from any responsibility in case something goes wrong (e.g. porn, viruses, trojans, Russian Mafia hackers, pedophilia, etc) that results from usage of those third party non-Apple app stores.
“I disagree with that logic. Apple could easily “allow” other non-Apple app stores to operate legitimately. For one thing, Apple can EASILY place a disclaimer saying that “If you go ahead and download apps from non-Apple App Stores, then you are on your own, and Apple assumes ZERO RESPONSIBILITY from anything you download from a non-Apple App Store.
The Disclaimer frees Apple from the legal implications or fiscal responsibility (e.g. warranties, repair costs, etc), in case some dipsticks pick up viruses and trojans from a Third Party App Store, their iPhones get hosed and they become crybabies about it.”
Apple can easily allow the legit operation of those Third Party App Stores. They just have to carefully “wash their hands clean” and write a clear disclaimer freeing them from any responsibility in case something goes wrong (e.g. porn, viruses, trojans, Russian Mafia hackers, pedophilia, etc) that results from usage of those third party non-Apple app stores.”
Wrong, wrong, wrong. You’re a victim of your own delusion and your own twisted sense of (ir)responsibility that Apple could somehow make itself totally irresponsible for third-party stores. It can’t even if it wanted to, so it won’t, despite all the howling you people do. It is precisely BECAUSE of its responsibility to ensure that the iPhone performs well on its public networks that it screens its apps.
Your silly solution is like the “Drink responsibly” on liquor ads and the Surgeon General’s health warnings on cigarettes. They’re meaningless gestures which do exactly nothing to prevent the serious damage these products do in the society. And no, you can’t say that iPhone apps would be much less dangerous if they were “uncensored.” Apple is simply exercising its right and obligation to control its products and the general public image and impressions which those products, which include third-party apps, create.
If you don’t like it, go somewhere else.
The real world analogy is a strawman.
What if the store doesn’t carry the product you want? Not because it doesn’t work, or because it’s dangerous, but because of someone else’s agenda that makes no sense to anyone and isn’t even stated?
“I’m sorry. We don’t have milk. It doesn’t even exist. No, you didn’t see it last week… it just never happened!”
So what would you do if you wanted milk? I bet you’d go to another store.
THERE IS NO OTHER STORE.
I think they’ve loosened up on the types of apps that have been accepted in the store recently.
I’m more concerned with the inconsistencies than the types of apps that get rejected at this point.
I think you’re mostly right, Jim, but they haven’t (and can’t) completely fix this because they HAVE nailed the analogy. It’s exactly like retail. It’s exactly what retail would be like if there was only one store, and there was no way to buy something other than retail.
Try not to shudder at the thought.
hehehe.
What if the store was Hollister and you either buy what they have or don’t buy it. Should Hollister open up its clothes to all stores because you don’t like it there?
I don’t think that would make sense. A more accurate but also far more confusing analogy would be if Hollister clothes required special soaps to wash that was only available in Hollister.
But that doesn’t quite work, because Apple doesn’t make the applications. Others do.
It occurs to me that all of this really just underscores that there is no good analogy for what Apple’s doing here. Any attempt at an analogy is going to by its selection support a particular way of thinking.
But there *are* other stores run by Microsoft, Palm, Google, etc.
When you purchase an iPhone you are also making a decision to purchase apps from Apple’s App Store.
Exactly.
Yes, you are right. That’s why we pick our analogies
Apple is no strawman. And I really dislike that analogy.
One analogy that borders on not being an analogy is: Apple is a partner–MY partner.
I’ve been with Apple (buying their products) since before the Mac. I recognized the personality in the Apple ][, but the Mac was the full realization of that personality. Far from perfect, many flaws, but the overriding quality was summed up in later years as “thinking different.”
I’ve done that all my life (almost 60 years now), and I’ve had numerous occasions to associate with and surround myself with both like-minded people and at least products from like-minded people and/or companies.
I admire Steve Jobs for all of his talents and qualities. I don’t care about any flaws he may have. I just care about the great products from his mind and his company(s).
Apple is one of my partners. I invest time and money with its products, and I reap a lot of dividends.
I’m a registered iPhone developer who is just starting out learning the language and is still “appless.” But the journey is fascinating and exciting and very promising.
The partners anyone has who they can say those kinds of things about are rare. As rare and valuable as they are, the best way to treat or deal with them is to concentrate on the strengths and positive qualities and rather ignore any flaws.
Wouldn’t you be pleased if someone felt that way about you? Wouldn’t you appreciate it if they ignored your weaknesses and failings and just kept buying your products, knowing that they liked them and believed and trusted you simply to keep improving with experience?
I'd like to add a comment as a small scale developer of iPhone apps.
I am a sole developer and I do the development from my study at the back of my house. I have had an application on AppStore since Nov 08 and it has sold in 53 countries so far. I would never be able to access that sort of market without Apple and their AppStore model.
I have gone through the release cycle several times now for my product. We all know what that means, but let's look at it from my point of view. The fact that Apple cares so much for its product that it is willing to go through this effort to protect their product means that I am also the beneficiary of that protection. I consider this protection part of the royalty I pay them from each sale.
If a customer decides to download a nasty program from another site and that starts to cause havoc with my product, what am I to do to support that customer? I do not have the resources to cope with all the possibilities of all the things that can go wrong? I can't tell if it my application is failing by itself, or whether it is something else in the phone that is causing the grief?
At least with the rigour that Apple puts into the release process, I know that I have a reliable environment in which my application is running, therefore, if there are any problems, then they are mine alone to deal with. Without this assurance, I would not be so willing to participate. And when you look at the applications in the AppStore, I would suggest that most come from small scale developers. All this adds to the whole richness of owning an iPhone/iPod Touch.
So next time you are worrying about the release process, whilst some of the decisions may look odd, for many of us developers, it is a necessary and appropriate thing to do, so you and we can benefit from a stable and known environment and the innovative new applications can keep flowing.
Well put, Peter. I'm an aspiring developer, myself, currently learning the languages and the system. I hadn't thought of the particular view of Apple's approval system that you present here. I agree with it, and am grateful, too, for it.