Note: It is going to be my aim to write this column every Thursday. My goal is to take an iPhone related topic and examine it from all angles. Maybe it lasts only a week, we shall see! Send your feedback please. josh@itnconsulting.com
If someone printed all the blogs and stories posted about Apple and the rejection (or lack thereof) of the Google Voice App I suppose it would clear a small forest. Let’s be honest, few people have been invited to the Google Voice Beta and only a percentage of those people have iPhones. Now the FCC is involved. What though is the big fuss all about? So a few people don’t get some Google Voice functionality, what is the big deal?
The simple answer is that Apple’s process for App approval hurts everyone, them included. The Google Voice App is the epitome of the issue, a perfect example. Let me show you why everyone loses.
The Consumer
The consumer, you and I, are probably the least harmed by Apple’s approval process. What we don’t see doesn’t hurt us. If an App, good or bad, never makes it to the App store rarely do we know or care. So the real question is: How many great Apps are we missing out on? We each find different utility in the Apps we use, but what if we are missing out on the next great thing? What if the greatest iPhone programs never makes it to the App Store?
Even worse, what if you or I have an App that we use every day? This is the perfect App. Then Apple for some reason decides it violates their Terms and Conditions and pulls the App. What recourse do we have? At what price point would you take the time to ask for a refund? For most of the Apps currently available I would not waste my time trying to recover $4.99. But I would still lose. Not only would I lose the money I spent, my App is a lame duck. I lose both ways. Now imagine this happening with a “premium” App.
When we buy an App we buy a license to use that software. If you really read Apple’s iTunes Terms and Conditions, they can end the license at any time. This really is not a big deal when the consumer loses five or ten dollars, but what about a hundred dollars. Does anyone else see the same class action suit I see if and when this occurs? Then we all lose, and the attorney’s win.
AT&T
While Apple has screamed from the rooftops that AT&T had nothing to do with the rejection of the Google Voice App, does anyone really believe this? The FCC apparently did not. Let’s not forget that AT&T has blocked tethering and MMS on the iPhone here in the US. Someone with more money than me had enough and sued AT&T over the MMS, or lack of it to be exact. At every turn it seems AT&T takes a publicity hit, whether it is truly their fault or not.
AT&T’s lack of overall service has lead to an increased call for Apple to add a Verizon iPhone. I know personally I would switch. I am tired of pulling out my iPhone only to have no data connection. This is a regular occurrence where I live; I hear it is even worse in larger cities.
Perception often is reality and AT&T the perception is AT&T stinks. Whether that is true or not makes little difference. Enough people believe it and it will only hurt AT&T in the long run. The damage has been done.
Developers
Developers are bearing the brunt of Apple’s App vetting process. Joe Hewitt does an excellent job of airing the grievances developers have with Apple: It all has to do with the review process itself.
I look at this from the financial side of the boat. Imagine you’re a developer and you make the perfect App. Because it is so useful everyone wants it. Let’s assume it is a premium App and you charge $100 for it. It sells well. 500,000 are sold in the first month. That means $50 million in raw sales. Apple of course takes their cut, but still that is a lot of money.
Then in the second month, Apple decides your App does in fact violate their Terms. Apple removes it for the App store. Apple doesn’t give a reason nor do they give you a way to make the App acceptable (Think Apple wouldn’t work that way? You’d be wrong.). Who is on the hook for refunds? Not Apple. Everyone gets mad and wants their money back. So of the 30 million you made, you now are on the hook for 50 million in refunds. Assuming of course that none of the money has been spent (I know I would be driving a new Mercedes S-class, company perk).
If you think that this could not happen, consider the Sex Offender App. Disappeared after a few months. Nobody feels worse when this happens than the developers. So how long should a developer hang on to the profits of an App. It is absolutely absurd to think of the possibilities and how Apple has put every developer in a tenuous situation—dependent on Apple’s whim of what they think is acceptable.
Apple
The final piece of the puzzle, the great Cupertino behemoth. It is clear that Apple is making things difficult for everyone else, they always have. Apple has gone so far and is in so deep they had to be creative when answering the FCC. Think that Apple’s response was completely truthful? Wrong again! Read TechCrunch’s article for the complete blow by blow.
With the review process, they are putting themselves in a tenable position as well. It is not a question of if but when they will be caught in the gigantic bear trap they are setting.
Unlike Harvey Levin, I am not a lawyer (but I played one once as Shatner would say). I do recall from my business law class in college a principle of implied liability. It went like this: McDonalds was sued and found liable for damages when a genius lady spilled hot coffee over her lap and claimed damages. Instead of the franchisee having to pay up, the McDonalds Corporation had to. Why? It was due to their policies. They (McDonalds) had rules on how to prepare the coffee, how hot the water was, etc. Because McDonalds exercised so much control over the franchise, they were found liable. If McDonalds was just the name on the outside of the building, there would have been a different result.
The point? Apple is McDonalds. They have a huge role in the whole vetting process for Apps. They are the final say in whether or not an App sees the light of day. If an App they approve gets someone killed, they would be sued with or without this whole approval process. But it is easier to show non-liability if you are just providing a framework rather than approving every App. Craigslist is not losing billions from lawsuit because they do not approve every advertisement. Every ad gets posted and then it is up to the community to censor the garbage. Apple one day will have to pay millions in damages because an App leads to someone’s harm, unless they change the process.
So everyone loses. It is time for Apple to revamp the process, give developers more freedom. Apple has never been a company to give away total control so don’t expect the Craigslist minimalist approach any time soon. But something needs to change. I hope it does. I sadly don’t think it will any time soon.
Leave Your Response