So… what do folks think about the app store? Good? Bad?

That was Wednesday, and the thread is still going on. The discussion has actually been pretty reasonable. Anyway, I just spent a while contributing the 137th message of the thread, and since I spent a lot of time on it, I thought I would reproduce it here.

On Oct 23, 2010, at 9:34 AM, Ken Aspeslagh wrote:

Unlikely? I disagree. As announced, the Mac App Store sets Mac apps moving in the direction of iPhone apps. Apple has set it in motion, moving in a direction, and it will continue on this course. Apple is genius when it comes to transitions. They know how to make a difficult plan, execute it incrementally over the course of years, and make each incremental announcement sound exciting. This is just the first step of a plan to completely revolutionize desktop computers, just as they forever revolutionized mobile phones.

You’re making an assumption that Apple has some grand vision of the future that they are steering everybody toward, whether we like it or not. Not just you. That idea is at the heart of a lot of the fatalistic comments about the App Store.

You could be right. But I think it’s a side effect of Apple’s secrecy that you never see how uncertain they are. Companies that talk about products in development can look clueless because you see them trying out different, possibly terrible ideas. Apple is very careful to hide their cards unless they think they have a winning hand. And even when they do, they still bet small.

One thing Apple does that is unusual for such a large company, is that when something isn’t working, they don’t double down like idiots. Consider Apple TV: when version 1.0 didn’t sell so well, they didn’t look for ways to “revise” the existing product into success. They more or less scrapped it and made a new product with the same name. If they had a “vision”, they were clearly willing to adjust it.

Remember the fat iPod nano? I think Jobs didn’t even show a picture of it during the touchscreen nano announcement. Now the nano is a tiny touchscreen. That’s nuts how different that is from the previous one! Is it selling well? I don’t know, but if it isn’t, Apple will be sure to go back to a clickwheel nano next year. Just like they put buttons back on the iPod shuffle this year.

So here’s the deal with the Mac App Store. They saw that people liked buying apps on their phones, because the environment made it easy and safe. So they are trying to bring that to the Mac. I think it could go a number of ways, and I don’t think Apple has decided which way yet. I think they are going to respond to the market.

Here’s something to consider: the Mac App Store might actually lead to a less restrictive environment on iOS devices. How? Well, the argument for requiring code to be signed by Apple is that it makes supporting a product much easier. If the Mac App Store leads to a drastic reduction in Mac software support issues, even while allowing users to install their own software, that makes the case that maybe the iOS restriction on unsigned code can be relaxed.

Or maybe the other thing will happen, where all software must come from Apple.

Who knows? Nobody does.

The point is, saying that Apple has a plan for where this is going to go is like saying that the Steelers have a plan to win the Superbowl. Sure, they have a plan, but ultimately they have to react to what happens in the real world. They are not all-powerful. They just good at looking like they are.

So, while I accept that a horrible totalitarian future is possible, if it comes to pass it will be because that’s what the market demanded. And anyone who “knew it all along” will have as much right to brag as somebody who bet on the winning Superbowl team.

Go Steelers!

I think what Apple was getting squeamish about wasn’t the sexy apps themselves, but the cheesiness that the sexy apps (and their prominence in best selling lists) was bestowing upon the general feel and vibe of the App Store. One thing I wasn’t aware of before the recent crackdown was the degree to which these apps were seeping into various non-entertainment categories. E.g., like half the “new” apps in the “productivity” category featured imagery of large-breasted bikini-clad women.

The App Store is never going to be like Apple’s retail stores, and Apple knows it. Apple’s retail stores, branding-wise, convey an image sort of like between the Gap and Banana Republic — friendly premium. The App Store is more Old Navy, or maybe even Target. But these sexy apps were casting the App Store into something junkier, bordering on the skeevy.

This interpretation makes the most sense to me, too. In fact, I sympathize. When I gave my brother an iPod touch for Christmas, I showed him the App Store, and was mildly embarrassed that the number one app that day was a fart sound effects generator.

Unfortunately, the App Store’s role as the one and only way to distribute an iPhone app means that we have a dilemma. To carry something in a store is an implicit endorsement, so any store owner should have the right to decide what products to include. However, a healthy economy for apps requires a free market. Rejecting apps for subjective reasons makes development more risky than it needs to be.

Technical Requirements vs. Community Standards

The source of this dilemma is that the app review process serves two distinct purposes: to approve apps for iPhone and to approve apps for the App Store. If separated, the dilemma can be resolved.

Suppose you have developed an app and submitted it to Apple. It complies with all the technical requirements of an approved app: it sticks to the Human Interface Guidelines, it doesn’t use any private frameworks, it doesn’t execute downloaded code. However, it fails to meet Apple’s community standards: it contains overtly sexual or politically controversial content.

Enforcing technical requirements is for the benefit of the platform. Enforcing community standards is really only about the App Store.

Kick ‘em to the curb, but no further

In theory, Apple could inform you that your app is permitted to run on iPhone OS but will not be included in the App Store. This could happen in at least two ways:

They could maintain iTunes as the sole distribution method for apps, but designate your app unlisted. Nobody will find it in the store by browsing or searching, and it won’t appear in the top seller lists. However, it will be reachable by direct link. Apple will still manage the hosting and payment processing, but if you want anybody to find it, you have to market it yourself.

I obviously don’t know how the store is set up, but I bet Apple could do this relatively easily. (I’ve already discovered that an iTunes reviews page is accessible via direct link as soon as you submit an app, before the review team has had a chance to see it.)

Alternatively, if Apple wants to completely wash their hands of these dirty apps, is to provide developers with a digitally signed IPA file. You distribute the file yourself; users install your app by dragging the file to iTunes. If you want to charge, you have to roll your own payment and registration system, just like desktop shareware developers do.

This method seems less likely, mostly because it adds a big loophole for those who want to circumvent the App Store for other reasons. On the other hand, if all developers had the option to sell outside the App Store, I think it would be an overall good for the platform. But now we’re going off on a tangent.

Obviously, everybody would rather be part of the iTunes App Store than operate outside of it, but if given a choice between “outside” and “nowhere” I think outside is a clear winner. Separating the notion of “approved for iPhone” and “approved for the App Store” would benefit Apple and developers.