You are right to say that the quality of the merchandise affects the brand of the store, and that's the problem with the App Store model: Apple has implicitly (and sometimes explicitly) taken responsibility for the quality and content of apps in the store.
But the iPhone is not just a store, it's also a platform. Sometimes shitty software is the only choice you have. Sometimes you want to do something most people would consider offensive with your device.
The lack of an (authorized) way for consumers to load apps onto their phone independently of the App Store is leading to continuous PR problems for Apple, alternately with consumers for hosting offensive apps or developers for rejecting inoffensive ones.
Apple needs to turn the App Store into a premium distribution channel (most people will still find their apps via the store) but create an unregulated channel for installing apps. Otherwise people will slowly migrate to platforms that are less restrictive, like Android.
The lack of an (authorized) way for consumers to load apps onto their phone independently of the App Store is leading to continuous PR problems for Apple
Step out of the echo chamber. The only people complaining are the tiny minority of customers who happen to be developers.
People who can't use their Google Voice service, make Skype calls on 3G[0] or tether their laptops to their iphones are complaining. Those are still a more technically sophisticated audience, but they're not developers.
Long-term, what I think will end up being a bigger issue is the apps that aren't even written for the iPhone out of fear of rejection. Once Android captures a bit more of the market, I think we'll start seeing a lot of high-quality apps coming to Android first because developers know they're not going to be blocked.
[0] Yes I know that has changed or is changing soon
Long-term, what I think will end up being a bigger issue is the apps that aren't even written for the iPhone out of fear of rejection.
That's a nice fairy tale. Anyone who wants to make money will make an iPhone app, because the other phones do not have marketplaces of the same magnitude. And there are very few people who have been rejected. Most rejections seem to be non-final for the sake of fixing trademark issues, inappropriate ratings, or serious bugs.
The elephant in the Android room is that Google can't decide if they want an open platform, or their own phone. They started with the platform ("PlaysForSure") play, but soon decided to pursue their own vertical ("Zune"). The problems with the platform play are the lack of at least one strong competitor, and the bane of Java: "write once, test everywhere". The explosion of test environments make it difficult for small shops to ship a quality Android app.
Plus the Android market is mostly people who (a) didn't want to leave Verizon, or (b) want a cheaper phone / plan, or (c) have control issues. The end result has been that the Android app market is a toy, and the AppStore is the winner taking all.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and predictions. I have no intention of changing your mind. But know that your arguments are classic second place arguments: "people will change because they want this feature", "developers are afraid of failure". People do not change until they feel second rate (the complete iPhone experience is extraordinarily better than a less restricted app store). Developers are motivated by possible success, not possible failure.
In short, the iPhone will lose when people start buying something else. Nothing that anyone says in a forum has any bearing on that at all. Apple is working harder than anyone else to win, and they are far ahead.
For the vast majority of iPhone users, whatever exists in the store is just fine and dandy, and while not being able to use Google Voice natively etc might be an annoyance, the probability that an average user is
a) aware that an app they might use often has been actively rejected from the store and
b) feel that the functionality provided by said app is important enough to switch phones to have
seems pretty low. The fact that you read a site like HN and know the dramas surrounding rejected apps colors your thoughts on the subject heavily.
And tethering isn't there -- AFAIK -- because of AT&T, not because of Apple.
Rogers/Fido up here in Canada doesn't charge extra for tethering. Mind you, I don't have an unlimited data plan, so I guess they don't care how I use my bandwidth since I'm paying for it.
I keep waiting for this much-hyped anti-Apple backlash to materialize, but there seems to be a distinct lack of outrage outside the rarefied world of the blogs.
The only people I know who even have Google Voice (closed beta) are exactly the ones the original poster was talking about. It was AT&T, not Apple, who disallowed Skype. Tethering, again, really? You really think >5% of iPhone owners even know what that means?
As long as Apple dominates the market with one platform there will be people lining up to write apps. And you want one reason why Apple is dominating? The apps have QC.
>> Apple needs to turn the App Store into a premium distribution channel (most people will still find their apps via the store) but create an unregulated channel for installing apps. Otherwise people will slowly migrate to platforms that are less restrictive, like Android.
I don't necessarily disagree but I admit that I don't know that to be the case. One of the causes of Apple's growing arrogance, IMHO, is that everyone concluded Apple was wrong about 10 years ago in regards to the Mac.
10 years ago everyone said "Controlling the hardware and software of a computing platform is stupid and that's why Apple will always be a niche and Microsoft will always rule the market"
Now it seems that might not be the case. With Apple's growing Mac sales and iPhone success Apple's theory that "controlling everything is good" seems to be justified and there's even a question as to whether Apple could retake the PC market (Quantcast recently put Web user market share at Apple: 29.4% vs Microsoft: 51.8%)
Again, I'm not saying Apple's right. I don't know. But they're on a high right now and that high is based almost solely on the fact that they do insist on control. The theory being that people are so sick of all the cr@p on PCs that they're willing to submit to Apple's control and see it as a good thing.
That's why Apple's pushing for more control via the app store.
>> " is leading to continuous PR problems for Apple"
Is there any evidence to show consumers care? Sure, PR types geeks etc like moaning about app store rejections, but ask the average person on the street, and they couldn't care less.
But the iPhone is not just a store, it's also a platform. Sometimes shitty software is the only choice you have. Sometimes you want to do something most people would consider offensive with your device.
The lack of an (authorized) way for consumers to load apps onto their phone independently of the App Store is leading to continuous PR problems for Apple, alternately with consumers for hosting offensive apps or developers for rejecting inoffensive ones.
Apple needs to turn the App Store into a premium distribution channel (most people will still find their apps via the store) but create an unregulated channel for installing apps. Otherwise people will slowly migrate to platforms that are less restrictive, like Android.