Criticizing the iPhone store has over the last year, become a hobby in itself. After more than 365.25 days filled with one controversy after another, someone from Apple has deemed it fit to respond.
The recent controversy surrounding the NinjaWords application was the first time we heard a response from Apple. While the response itself made little sense , it has been widely heralded as a good sign. Too little too late, but people just want an excuse to love Apple, their products are just too good.
We now have another response from Apple, to Steven Frank, a well known Mac developer, after he publicly declared his abandonment of the iPhone. While he was much perturbed by their constant bad decisions, the Google Voice rejection sealed the deal. Since then he has also stated what he would like changed in the system to consider coming back. Is this what it takes? Does Apple need to wait for people to start abandoning their products before they decide to act?
A response from Apple is a good sign surely, but it does not absolve them of all the blame. People have been patiently awaiting for any kind of response from Apple (besides the usual rejection letters) after literally hundreds (maybe thousands) of criticizing articles, and there has been none. It taken so long that it isn’t even funny anymore, and their rejection of the Google Voice app and has shaken the faith of the final few.
It is still unclear why the iPhone needs such strict control over applications in any case. The iPhone is certainly one of the most brilliant products in the market. It is filled with potential, which developers are not allowed to fully exploit, and while it is understandable that applications which stand to harm the phone, or which provide questionable functionality should not be approved for the store, however putting arbitrary restrictions based on published API, and competing functionality is ridiculous. For all their measures to secure the iPhone platform, all it needed was an SMS to bring the iPhone down!
In the full-fledged environment of personal computers, it is unfeasible and unwise to centralize the distribution of applications, and to have one body entirely responsible for reviewing applications. Instead what we see on desktop operating systems is a free and unrestricted environment for developing, and running applications. To ensure that the product is authentic, un-tampered and safe, we have measures such as digital signatures. Microsoft for example eases the installation of drivers which are tested, approved and signed, however to its credit, it does not restrict the installation of unsigned ones. Mobile phones have vastly increased in potential, they are now as capable as computers to run applications, and as such need have the same free environment.
For the end-users though, the App Store is definitely a success, they see tens of thousands of applications and feel all is well. They cannot see the potential of the application which don’t end up at the store. As far as the average consumer is concerned Google Latitude is a web application; the missing Google Voice application is Google’s fault. Apple doesn’t need quality applications to make a earning, thousands of crappy ones will do as well.
Apple will need more than just words to assuage those beginning to lose faith. The damage has been done, and for long enough.