Unofficial iPhone Blog

Apple Tweaks App Store Policies

Apple has tweaked the way applications are reviewed and listed in the App Store over the weekend, potentially easing relationships with developers.

Applications will now be categorized by their release date by default. Prior to the change, any updated application was listed in the new category, thus boosting its sales rate even though it’s not technically new.

Additionally, the company has changed the review policy so that reviews can only come from users who have purchased or downloaded the program. This potentially stops shady developers from propping up their applications with fake reviews, as well as keep users who haven’t tried it from posting negative reviews.

The industry recently saw the latter occur when the highly-anticipated PC game Spore was flooded with bad reviews on Amazon.com because it included what many considered draconian DRM.

These moves could potentially ease a growing frustration that some developers are having with Apple regarding the App Store. Apple determines which programs get into its store, and some are criticizing the company for not being more transparent in its vetting process.

The company has also faced criticism for pulling the iPhone Podcaster app because it duplicated functionality of the desktop version of iTunes, according to the developer.

But Apple seems to be doing something right, as users of the iPhone and iPod Touch are on pace to download a billion programs sometime in 2009. While most of these apps are free, a successful sold app can make developers a lot of money — Apple CEO Steve Jobs recently said the store generated $30 million in sales for its first month.

Apple Inc. has closed a loophole that had allowed a rejected iPhone developer to sell his application using a distribution channel meant for beta testing and enterprises.

Alex Sokirynsky, creator of an iPhone and iPod Touch application called Podcaster, confirmed that he has been blocked from selling any additional copies of his program. “Basically, Apple denied me from provisioning new devices,” Sokirynsky acknowledged in an e-mail.

Apple had said it rejected the tool two weeks ago because it duplicated features in the company’s own iTunes software. “Since Podcaster assists in the distribution of podcasts, it duplicates the functionality of the Podcast section of iTunes,” Apple told Sokirynsky.

After Apple rejected Podcaster, Sokirynsky had sold the software using the “Ad Hoc” mechanism, Apple’s name for the distribution channel it set up earlier this year to help developers beta-test their iPhone applications. The mechanism is also used by enterprise developers to offer custom iPhone apps to corporate users for business use.

Ad Hoc allows up to 100 iPhones or iPod Touch devices to download and install a specific build of an application. To enable downloads, a developer must obtain each iPhone’s UDID (unique device identifier) code. Sokirynsky created a Web site to sell Podcaster directly to customers for $9.99; during the process, buyers had to submit their iPhone’s UDID, then download and install the application to their computer.

Apple has effectively shuttered that sales channel by shutting down Sokirynsky’s account.

On Monday, he posted an entry to his blog blasting Apple’s move. “All I wanted was for someone from Apple to contact me and tell me how we can work it out so that I get into the App Store,” Sokirynsky said on the blog. “Instead, Apple took the coward’s way out by simply disabling features in my developers portal. This seems like a childish move for a company that has been proving [sic] such high-quality service and products in the past.”

Sokirynsky deleted the post shortly after it went live. On Tuesday, in response to questions, he said he regretted writing the blog. “That was written very late at night. I really didn’t mean to write and so I took it down. I should have waited a few days to cool off before writing the post.”

Others, however, have linked Sokirynsky’s move to reports that Apple has told iPhone developers that the nondisclosure agreement (NDA) that they signed covers all correspondence between the company and its developers, including rejection notices.

Sokirynsky did not immediately reply on Thursday to further questions about a link between pulling his post and Apple’s NDA.

“Apple just closed a loophole in their system and you can’t blame them for that,” he said on Tuesday via e-mail.

He’s not ditching Podcaster, however. In the since-vanished Monday blog, Sokirynsky said he would port Podcaster to Android, the Google Inc.-backed open-source mobile operating system that will debut on T-Mobile USA Inc.’s G1 handset next month. “At least there, I will be welcomed instead of being walked all over,” he said in the entry.

Another option, he said, was to tweak the program so it could be installed on iPhones that had been hacked to accommodate unauthorized applications. “I am going to compile the application to install using Cydia,” he said Tuesday, referring to an open-source iPhone application installer.

Existing copies of Podcaster continue to work, Sokirynsky said, and customers who paid for the program prior to Monday can still install it. The Web site he used to sell Podcaster via Ad Hoc was still live on Thursday, but it had been modified to include a short message telling potential buyers that Apple had blocked additional sales.

Apple has not responded to questions asked last week about Apple’s rejection policy and whether it would allow Sokirynsky to continue to use the Ad Hoc channel.

Developers need certainty when they invest time and money into applications. The early history of the Macintosh shows that when you couple intense company support, a clear process, and great excitement - that is, Guy Kawasaki and his amazing evangelical efforts - you can build an ecosystem that sustains a platform.

Jason Snell, Macworld’s editorial director, writes that Apple’s lack of transparency, consistency, and clarity in how they approve or reject applications for the App Store for iPhone and iPod touch may lead to developers reaching a point where they walk away.

The most recent absurd decision, in which Apple denied an on-the-fly podcasting management program to be distributed because it duplicated “the functionality of the Podcast section of iTunes” has had a clearly chilling effect when you follow developers on Twitter, and read developers’ blogs.

True, many of these firms that are candid about their plans are on the smaller scale, but they also make some of the best and most popular software outside design and business suites. Smaller developers have a disproportionate impact on Mac OS X as a desirable platform than, say, on Windows where large firms making games and business applications seem to hold greater sway. (This is a generalization, but it’s based on years of interaction with regular Mac users, these various companies’ volume of products sold, and the kind of purposes to which Macs are more frequently put than their Windows counterparts.)

I’m currently in the middle of a small iPhone application development project. I’m investing some thousands of dollars in having a programmer build the application, and have put over 100 hours of my time into revising the back-end of the hosting side of the equation. (The app will be a portable way to check on book prices through my book shopping site isbn.nu. Many of the changes made to the Web site and its database-driven system will also benefit its Web-only component.)

I admit that as a very small scale “developer” - I even have to put that word in quotation marks - I had to put on an extra sweater. As my family’s breadwinner, investing hours and dollars is a scary thing when Apple might suddenly decide that, say, shopping applications aren’t allowed, even though there’s nothing either competitive or against the guidelines issued.

On a much larger scale, why would a gaming firm that doesn’t have a direct relationship with Apple put $50,000 into creating a game for the iPhone if Apple could snap their fingers and the game wouldn’t go live? Or why should a one-person shop put a single penny in? A larger firm might absorb the loss and move on; it could destroy the small companies that make the Mac so rich to use.

Jason notes that the Google-backed Android platform apparently has no restrictions on what can be added to its Market application store, although at launch, all programs must be free to download (see “T-Mobile Introduces Branded Google Phone,” 2008-09-23). That may not be tenable, but it’s part of the open access principles Google has been putting their weight behind for more than a year: networks should accept any handset running any software accessing any service.

Let’s not get into a tussle about whether Android will actually thrive as a platform; Nokia also has an active, and far more open process for applications to be available for its Symbian and S60 platforms that’s poised to expand (see “Symbian Smartphone Platform Goes Free, Partly Open Source,” 2008-06-24). If there’s a comparable platform, however irritating, that’s more open for development and has a large audience of users - Symbian has the majority of smartphone sales worldwide - then developers may migrate to it if their future is in mobile applications.

Apple needs to get its act together, and be specific about what is and isn’t acceptable to avoid uncertainly. Remember FUD? Fear, uncertainty, doubt. It was what once made Microsoft great: they sowed FUD to keep their competitors from gaining a toehold.

But Apple’s FUD is against themselves. They need to unFUD themselves, and fast.

Source: TidBITS