@oldschool: I need to clarify that I don't strongly support iTunes. I have my issues with it. My rant is about ignorant comments.
People argue that there's a lot of crap on iTunes; yet they also complain Apple take control over the store too much. You can't reasonably expect Apple to subjectively remove "shovelware" apps and at the same time cry foul that Apple has decided to take your favourite app away because you think the app is great but they think it's shovelware. To those, I say pick a side and stick with it.
My other point is to clarify that Apple's mission statement on iTunes app submission policy comes from trying to offer a positive user experience. As to whether or not they've achieved that is a secondary point. If your argument is that Apple has done a terrible job with screening apps (the really long review process for the GiantBomb app comes to mind) then that's a valid and informed opinion; but lets stick to better remarks than, "Apple suck".
(love it when comments serendipitously appear and enforces my point.)
@Rolyatkcinmai: Good points raised, some of these controversies have escaped my mind as I wrote my rant. Specifically relating to the Google voice controversy.
I have mentioned in my post, we should certainly remain critical of what Apple does.
Google and Apple take different approaches to content regulation, the former, the lack of regulation and the latter is the issue of too much. I don't think that either method is inherently flawed, it's just a different approach.
Google take the free-market approach while Apple believes the control of content protects user experience--in the form of screening over malicious software or objectionable content.
There is no contention that the iTunes store is subject to a much larger influx of content; and since Apple screens every app, there are bound to be inconsistencies.
Here are a few of my responses to the links you shared:
"Apple removes an app because the developer insults the app store;" I remember this one vividly as Giantbomb and Kotaku covered this quite thoroughly over the GDC. I want to point out however that the reason the app was removed was because of the actions taken by the developer to increase prices over the app as an experiment. Every time someone bought the app, he would raise the price. He found that the more expensive the app became, the more sales he made. Apple removed the app due to this practise.
"Apple bans 'explicit' apps, but allows the Sports Illustrated app to stay because it's hugely popular;" I don't have much to say about this as I haven't followed this one. To my knowledge, Apple maintains a strict "no porn" policy; something Steve Jobs himself have made a remarked on: http://phandroid.com/2010/04/08/steve-jobs-theres-a-porn-store-for-android/
Personally, I find Steve's statement objectionable; but I maintain that eventually even sports illustrated would have to be removed to keep to Steve's own words.
"Apple removes Widgets (for no reason, likely to sell their own)." I don't think that is true. Apple is famous/infamous on user experience (the recent debacle on Apple's 3.1.1 policy enforces this point). I think the removal is in violation of the Mobile OS' user interface guidelines. Another evidence to this would be Apple's OS 4's Game Centre, to try and roll all the disparate social game systems into one central and officially supported environment.
"Apple removes WiFi apps (again, for no reason: " I'm not too sure on this one myself, but my speculation is that this is more a political move as this would be a legacy hang-over from the origin of the iPhone; since Apple needed to bring the iPhone to the mass market, they would have signed certain agreements to ensure a large mobile phone supplier would agree to the arrangement. Bear in mind that before the iPhone, Apple haven't yet proved that they were capable of delivering the success they have today. I think that eventually, the iPhone will outgrow AT&T and Apple would be able to make decisions without having to cater to bureaucratic sensitivity.
"Apple removes Google Voice based apps from the store (God forbid they actually try to compete with Android): " I don't have much to say about this and your last item as I also find this objectionable; except that Skype has been approved, so I don't see why this won't eventually happen.
I stil maintain that the sentiment, "It's Apple.. What do you expect?" to be unduly biased. I can name a few things Google have done that is objectionable: Google's decision to censor content in China, Google's privacy policy; etc. I equally don't think highly of similar sentiments like, "It's Google.. What do you expect?"
I have been trawling around the web reading news on iPad, games and the iTunes store. I've hit upon a particular article on Kotaku that I think it's worth mentioning:
Before I get on with my rant, I want to first say that I don't approve of everything that Apple does. Furthermore, I think Brian Crecente, the author of the article is on the money with his concern. What I do have a problem with however, are some of the comments. "It's Apple! What do you expect?" To that I say, "educate yourself, fool."
People seem to be dissatisfied with Apple's control over Apps. Either that there's not enough control over the store; to the sentiments of, "Apple need to weed out shovelware crap", or Apple need to stop enforcing so much rules on the App approval process. It seems Apple is in a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.
This is where I think commenters need to educate themselves before yelling out absurdities.
Apple enforces strict rules for stability (bug), objectionability (content) and iniquity (malware) but does not enforce the worthiness of a software.
Consider the following hypothetical sentiments from Apple:
1. "Your application will be removed if it continues to have bad reviews." 2. "Your application will be removed because only 50 people bought your application." 3. "Your application is rejected because it is not fun." 4. "Your application is rejected because we think it's 'shovelware'."
Consider applying the same sentiments to the internet. Imagine if Google would apply this to their search engine. I shudder to think of the consequences if Google decides to rank sites based on their own subjective view of what's worthy.
Apple simply lets the market decide. Apple does provide mechanisms to encourage better quality apps to 'bubble' up, much like search rankings; criteria being "best in genre", "top 25" (most popular, highest rated, etc.) What Brian has pointed out in his article is that while he sees the reason behind Apple's decision to change how Apple showcases apps, the issue is that Apple has taken too much control (making it overtly simple) which sacrifices the ability to perform advanced/precision searches to find content. This is a legitimate concern an I hope Apple figures out a way to satisfy the need for a "at a glance" view of app showcases, yet provide the advance mechanisms for precision searching.
It's easy to criticise Apple for how they've handled the iTunes store so far, but we also need to consider that there is little precedence to what Apple is doing in terms of sheer magnitude. Game companies are still trying to figure out how to turn the iTunes app store into a profitable business. It certainly is possible right now, as there are a few runaway indie game success case studies (in to the millions); over time, the market will stabilise. The iTunes gold rush will settle and we should start seeing a par in app quality with a standardised pricing structure dictated by market forces. Until then, I would give a bit of slack (but still remain critical) to Apple and applaud them for ensuring my iPhone/iPad/Pod Touch is not filled with unstable, objectionable and malicious software.
It's been said that the average age of gamers are closer to 30 than it is in the low 20s. The gaming boom happened around the early 80s, which is a generation I am a part of. Now that am a financial supporter and a father, the time I can spare for games have waned significantly; yet, my enthusiasm for games have not. My taste for games have changed over the years to suit the lifestyle I lead at the time. For example, the games I play during my high school years revolved around highly social games like Street Fighter or Bomberman. During my university golden years, it was skill-based games like Starcraft and Beatmania. As I was entering the work-force, it was MMORPGs, namely World of Warcraft.
The games I play today are more akin to block-buster movies. Games like Uncharted 2, God of War III and Final Fantasy XIII. The commonality between each of these games is that they all offer a linear-style of gameplay. I'm now at an age that enjoys heavy, emotive story in games but prefer to have games deliver them in a manner that I know I can experience through the end. In short, my interest is now more in the immersive experience than the challenge itself.
I can see one upside of having all multiplayer games go through BNet. Imagine all the telemetry data being captured. Every professional level tournaments will be available (regular Battlecasts) and statistical breakdowns like Steam's death heat map.
That's just some of the off-the-top-of-my-head ideas, but I bet Blizzard has more interesting services up their sleeves.
Log in to comment