Back in March, I wrote a post, ‘The Scorpion, the Frog and the iPhone SDK,’ where I drew parallels between Apple’s mixed history with third-party developers and the fable of The Scorpion and the Frog.
In it, I wondered aloud whether Apple would recognize the importance of the ‘frog’ (developers) to its self-interest of crossing the proverbial river.
Otherwise, they seemed destined to succumb to scorpion behavior, sting their base of third-party developers and drown themselves in the process.
My concerns were based on direct experience with Apple as a developer partner dating back to 1994, and the historical pattern recognition of how Microsoft outflanked Apple during the PC Wars.
As I noted in my original post, I believe that perception has a way of becoming reality. In this case, I am asserting that serious developers will go where they believe they can garner the highest 'return' for their efforts; be that based on creative, collaborative or economic benchmarks.
And they will have viable alternatives. You can bet on that. Google's Android, RIM's Blackberry, Windows Mobile are three easy examples. Does Apple want to secure the 'first string' position in terms of developer resource commitment, or are they willing to take a chance on being relegated to 'third string'? We already know what that looks like from Mac versus Windows.
Let me say it. From the moment that Apple ridiculously decided to block the third-party Podcaster application on the grounds that it was duplicative of functionality within iTunes, it bifurcated its brand moving forward. White hat or black hat?
Yes, Apple can leverage its god-like control to anoint itself as the sole browser, media player, application mash-up or whatever toll road it wants to keep exclusively for itself.
But it stands to mint more coin if it can grow an ecosystem and really lead a mobile computing revolution.
Apple can continue their legacy of secrecy, capriciousness and deafening silence or have a ‘Come to Jesus’ moment and realize that sometimes simple, clear communication not only defuses perceptual landmines, but it’s just basic human courtesy and good karma.
One place to start is by recognizing that key to populating a star-filled universe of iPhone Platform application developers is encouraging communal spaces to form and developers to both share and accelerate best practices. Gag-order inducing NDA’s aren’t consistent with such endeavors.
Of all the sound bites that I read on the Podcaster rejection, the one from ‘Harry McCracken on the App Store’ is the best:
"Way back when, if software distribution for the Mac had been handled via a Mac App Store with a don’t-duplicate-Apple-products policy, Photoshop might have been refused distribution on the grounds that it was too similar to MacPaint."
As Daring Fireball sagely notes (great coverage of this topic!), so long as App Store is the App Store and not an App Store, Apple is on shaky ground with its exclusionary practices.
Don't get me wrong. Apple is an insanely great company. I have said repeatedly that I consider it and Google to be without peer.
I can wax poetic on why I believe that the company has created some unfair advantages for itself. Heck, we sold Me.com to them fairly recently so I feel like a 'dog' who is eating the 'dog food.'
But, Apple is also a company of many paradoxes. That statement is sufficiently self-evident that it needs no further explanation.
So the matter of 'Apple v. Podcaster' raises a fair question. White hat? Or black hat?
Either way, perception has a way of becoming reality.
UPDATE 1: Mike Ash, an iPhone developer, has a good post that captures a painful, but ultimately productive, 22 steps to develop and launch a new iPhone application.
UPDATE 2: Silicon Alley article on Steve Demeter of Demiforce, makers of Trism, 'I Just Made $250K from App Store in Two Months." Sidesteps the larger question of whether one boutique developer success in a segment (games) that has never been Apple's strong suit or focus overshadows Apple's land baron-like behavior. My take: given that Apple has not only blocked Podcaster, but MailWrangler as well on premise of arbitrarily tag of 'insufficient differentiation,' a troubling behaviorial trendline is now clear. Apple only wants innovation that doesn't step on its property lines.
UPDATE 3: So now Apple is labeling their App Store rejection letters to developers as being UNDER NON DISCLOSURE (i.e., governed by NDA they signed when they joined the developer program). This means that it is a gag order against disaffected developers bitching to the blogosphere to plead their case in the court of public opinion. I swear that this is the moment when Apple starts becoming the wearer of the black hat; the bad guy who would rather squash dissent than have reasoned debate, who would rather exert bullying control than see its community iterate to the best, most innovative solution, who seems to fear that if real community fosters they will organize and revolt rather than iterate and elevate this still nascent platform to new heights. If we simply switched the exact same storyline from 'Apple and iPhone' to 'Microsoft and Windows Mobile,' and said that Microsoft was not allowing email packages other than Outlook or browsers other than IE, everyone would be talking about Evil Empires, antitrust and bad karma. Yes, this is Apple's platform, and they can technically do whatever the hell they please, but we all know the axiom of biting the hand that feeds you, and developers are that hand in a platform play. Be the bully, at your own peril, as not only is this not defensible, it is a great way to tarnish the brand (ala how Dell irrevocably dinged its brand by attacking a prominent blogger who complained about their diminished product support).
UPDATE 4: Well, Apple has happily removed the NDA gag order once you've released an app, but the fear of what's driving their actions threatens to scare away serious developers. In a great post, 'The Fear,' Daring Fireball spells out what's going on from his perspective. Here is an excerpt:
The problem is that the apps that are the most interesting, the most important, are the ones that take the most work to create. And the apps that take the most work to create are the ones that are most likely not even to be made in this environment, because the risk is greater. The more work it takes to create an app, the more you lose if Apple rejects it. Going back to the ladder analogy, the higher you’re trying to climb, the more you need to trust the ladder before you start.
So their rejection is problematic on three fronts. First, the submission process is such that an app rejected at the conceptual level — one that cannot be tweaked or fixed to gain entry upon resubmission, but whose fundamental premise is rejected by Apple — such an app is only rejected after it has been written. The developer does all of the work to produce the app and only then finds out it was all for naught.
Second, there are clearly rules which are not listed in the SDK guidelines. Third, in its explanations for the rejections, Apple is not stating what these actual unpublished rules are, and is instead offering as the reason this “it duplicates a built-in app” rule which, given all the aforementioned counterexamples that have been accepted into the App Store, isn’t actually a rule at all. The explanation is clearly false.
Taken together, these three factors lead to The Fear, which is that developers cannot trust the App Store process. You can spend all of the time and effort it takes to build an app, follow every known rule, and still get rejected.
Here is a complete list of what Apple must do to increase developers’ trust in the App Store system:
1. State the rules.
2. Follow the rules.
Related Posts:
- The Scorpion, the Frog and the iPhone SDK: on Apple's mixed history with third-party developers.
- Upward Mobility, Land Grabs and the iPhone Universe: Apple's mobile patent play and what it means to developers.
- Apple Genius is Pure Genius: sometimes simplicity is pure elegance.
- Holy Shit! Apple's Halo Effect: how Apple has turned gravity into its friend.
- The Chess Masters - Google versus Apple: why partners Apple and Google are without peers, and (seemingly) destined to become frien-emies.
