Yeah, there's an app for that. But for how long, and at what cost?
With the recent kerfuffle surrounding the removal and rejection of Google Voice apps from the App Store, many developers are beginning to question the trust they have placed in Apple to provide them with a reliable system for developing and distributing applications.Generally, the major hurdle associated with iPhone development is getting approved by Apple. It's no secret that this process is often quite frustrating, and sometimes downright arduous. Developers often wait several weeks without any response before they are suddenly rejected, and then they must make the requested changes (if possible), resubmit their application, and again wait for a response.
But once they have put your app through the paces, and presumably have double and triple checked to ensure that you have complied with the terms, you're safe, right? Your hard work has paid off, Apple has accepted your app, and now you can move on.
Wrong.
As the developers of GV Mobile and VoiceCentral recently discovered, Apple can take an app that was previously given the all-clear, decide that it now duplicates native functionality of the iPhone, and yank it from the App Store in a matter of minutes. Needless to say, there are some serious flaws in this process. First, the functionality provided by both of these apps isn't actually provided by the iPhone, so there's really nothing to duplicate, unless Apple is going to start expecting developers to predict future features and avoid duplicating those too. Then you have the fact that the feature sets provided by the apps and the iPhone itself have not changed since Apple approved them in the first place, so if they truly are duplicating native functionality, they should have been rejected from the start, not months after they were approved.
Now one might also argue that some features offered by Google Voice do overlap with the iPhone, such as the SMS and voicemail functions, although contrary to popular belief, Google Voice is not a VoIP service and doesn't really compete against AT&T. But even if you concede that point to Apple, couldn't they just ask the developers to remove those features and resubmit? What about the other apps -- like Skype, TextFree, or iCall -- that offer similar feature sets, are they going to disappear too? And if AT&T is really responsible for this, as has been suggested previously, why was the app pulled from the App Stores of other countries? Why not just honestly tell the developer that the app is being pulled at the request of the carrier?
As if having to worry whether or not your apps could start disappearing isn't enough, there is another layer of complexity to deal with if a paid app is removed: the users. Sure, if a live app is removed, users will likely be upset no matter what happens... but if they've paid for it, and they can't get future upgrades or bug fixes, some of them are going to be wanting their money back. As some developers have already discovered, refunds can get expensive if there are enough of them, because Apple's developer contract allows the company to retain its 30% commission, while the developer may have to reimburse the full cost of the application to cover the refund -- meaning each refund on an app that is priced $9.99 would end up costing the developer the full $9.99, rather than the $7 in revenue that they actually made from the purchase. Apple's enforcement of this clause has been inconsistent, however, as developers report mixed results in whether or not they have been charged the full amount when dealing with refunds in the past.
By now, you're probably wondering how the refunds fit in with the Google Voice situation. Simple: Apple is now issuing refunds to users of the VoiceCentral application. That's right, Apple suddenly decided that the application should be removed -- after it had already been approved months ago -- and is now giving out refunds for it when users request them, leaving the developer to foot the bills for both refunds and staffing end-user support to answer questions about what happened to the app. Meanwhile, Apple gets to keep their cut of the profits. Sounds fair, right? Didn't think so.
The folks at Riverturn then did what anyone else in this situation would do, they went to Apple. As has been the case with other incidents, many of their e-mails and phone calls went unanswered. They finally got a response from the Apple employee that initially notified them of the removal, but the bulk of his responses can be summed up in just four words: "I can't help you."
So for the sake of posterity that may be aspiring to develop their own iPhone app, let's review:
- Lets say I write an application that lets me control my Google Voice account from my phone.
- I submit it to Apple for review, and several weeks later, it is approved.
- The app does well in the App Store, and other similar apps pop up as well.
- A few months later, without warning, Apple pulls the app from the App Store, claiming it now duplicates functionality of the iPhone. (Funny, it didn't do that before...)
- I now have to reimburse Apple for their decision to remove the app and refund upset users, as well as field support questions that are pouring in about the sudden disappearance
- After repeated requests to Apple go unanswered, I finally get a response of "Sorry, but I can't help you."
At this point, I'd be running away from even the though of developing for the iPhone. This is not a good way to do business. Yes, the iPhone is doing incredibly well right now. And yes, there are over 10,000 developers, 65,000 apps, 40 million devices, and 1 billion downloads from the App Store. But none of that matters unless you realize that the developers themselves are directly responsible for much of the iPhone's success. By alienating those developers through inconsistent policy handling and refusal to communicate one-on-one with them to resolve problems, Apple is setting itself up for failure.
iPhone developers should be able to spend their time doing what Apple intended: developing great apps. Instead, they are forced to spend their time worrying how to keep their apps alive, and how much it's going to cost them in the end.
Update: Due to shortcomings in the App Store reporting, Riverturn is not certain at this point exactly how much Apple is taking back for the processed returns. Judging by conversations I've had with other developers, however, it does seem that, in most cases, Apple generally takes only the 70% revenue that was paid to the developer and not the full purchase price of the app -- although their policy still clearly states otherwise.
Regardless, it is still very unsettling to me that Riverturn is being held responsible for any of these refund charges, seeing that the decision to pull the app from the App Store rested soley with Apple, and was not a direct result of any wrongdoing by the developer. It is also quite disturbing that Kevin Duerr, the president of Riverturn, has yet to receive any response from Apple regarding the situation.
Share
Categories
With the recent kerfuffle surrounding the removal and rejection of Google Voice apps from the App Store, many developers are beginning to...
Add a Comment
I hardly buy any apps anymore. Not because they might get disappeared by Big Brother Steve, but I hardly use the ones I bought or got for free. There are just a couple that are really useful for me. The others seemed like a good idea at the time, but they were either a pain to use, not easy to use or just not that useful.
Never mind the ones that needed to be "set up" with acct numbers and/or passwords that disappeared when my iPhone burped during a sync, wiped itself out and reinstalled everything fresh, without the aforementioned info. I've gotten by without those apps for months now, why keep them?
Good luck for the rest of you.
These are some ruff spots that need to be addressed by Apple. I wonder with Steve Jobs back, if he will get this all inline.
July 31 2009 at 1:21 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyThe way refunds are handled is explained (very clearly) in the developer agreement, and each developer signs and agrees to that agreement. What you don't do is, knowingly sign a contract and then complain about the terms. What you DO do is, don't sign the contract at all if you don't like it.
Every developer knew - before they signed - that the refund process meant they could be refunding more than 100% of their revenue. Their only two options - complain and don't sign, or sign and don't complain. Those who sign and complain have only themselves to blame, they KNOWINGLY signed up to this deal!
I do believe, personally, that users should only ever get from the developers the amount the devs have actually been paid, and no more, but then, I didn't sign the agreement, hey.
"And yes, there are over 10,000 developers, 65,000 apps, 40 million devices, and 1 billion downloads from the App Store. But none of that matters unless you realize that the developers themselves are directly responsible for much of the iPhone's success. By alienating those developers through inconsistent policy handling and refusal to communicate one-on-one with them to resolve problems, Apple is setting itself up for failure."
I disagree with this. I think it *does* matter that 10,000 devs have made 65,000 apps without much hassle, and yet the number of rejections and complaints is ... what? A dozen? A few dozen? I think it is very important for you to put things in context, otherwise you are misrepresenting the true situation - you've basically made it sound, from the article, that all developers have a problem with Apple, when in fact, we've only heard that a dozen or so do (out of 10,000 - that is a very small percentage!)
I also disagree with the overall tone of the article which suggests that Apple benefits from developers while developers do not benefit from Apple at all.
No developer designed, created and marketed the iPhone and App Store. That was Apple. But developers have been able to use this new market to make money - we know that some devs have profited (and profited well) from the App Store. So I think it is abundantly clear that devs have benefited from Apple as well as the reverse.
Lastly, I don't agree that Apple is setting themselves up for failure - I remember similar comments about Nintendo abandoning the polygon count race, and we know how that turned out.
Sometimes, decisions that look wrong on first glance, turn out to be right. This has been true of Apple in the past. It was wrong for Apple to launch a smartphone without copy-and-paste, without multitasking, without a replaceable battery, wasn't it? More like 40 million points of right. Apple correctly identified what people wanted and needed, while most everyone else fell over themselves declaring that Apple had set themselves up for failure.
I think you are discounting how much the iPhone's and iPod Touch's stability and friendliness comes from Apple's "crazy" rules and the heavy-handed imposition of them, and I think you are blatantly assuming that Apple has had no reason to ever pull and reject apps. Apple might not be saying, but that does not mean that they don't have a reason and that it isn't a good one.
"Every developer knew - before they signed - that the refund process meant they could be refunding more than 100% of their revenue. Their only two options - complain and don't sign, or sign and don't complain."
Actually, if I remember correctly, for many developers the refund option didn't even exist initially, and many developers were upset when it appeared in a later update to the agreement.
Either way, it's a good point, since developers pretty much do agree to those terms just like many consumers agree to ridiculous terms on credit cards, and then complain when they are hit with huge fees because they didn't actually read what they were agreeing to. And in this case, it's no fault of Apple's if the dev didn't read their agreement. Luckily, in most cases, it doesn't appear that Apple enforces it anyways.
"I disagree with this. I think it *does* matter that 10,000 devs have made 65,000 apps without much hassle, and yet the number of rejections and complaints is ... what? A dozen? A few dozen?"
Okay, I could have used better wording instead of saying "It doesn't matter," but I think you underestimate the number of rejections and complaints that actually happen. Yes, when compared to the total number of 65,000 apps, even saying as many as maybe (just throwing a number out there) 5,000 of those apps were rejected seems insignificant.
But looking at it from a different angle, we here at TUAW get a good number of e-mails regarding apps that were rejected or complaints about the approval process on a DAILY basis. Yeah, some are repeats and some days are more than others, but still, there is a much larger volume of rejections and complaints than what actually gets covered in the media.
"... that all developers have a problem with Apple, when in fact, we've only heard that a dozen or so do (out of 10,000 - that is a very small percentage!)"
Agreed. But what I believe the real problem is doesn't lie in the number of developers affected, as much as in the significance of the problems those developers have faced.
If it were just a handful of devs getting apps rejected for blatantly violating terms of the SDK, I don't think there'd really be much to complain about, and we wouldn't be having this discussion. But what's happening is individual developers hit snags with Apple, where they follow all of the rules but, for one reason or another, Apple removes/rejects their app or some other problem arises that makes everyone stop and wonder what is going on.
And it is here that Apple stumbles, because they don't deal with the problem in an efficient manner, they usually either give vague, inconsistent responses to the developer, or they choose not to communicate at all. Then the developer gets upset, the media gets involved and it becomes a big PR nightmare, and only then does Apple (sometimes) step in and make an attempt to remedy the situation. But by that time, the damage is already done.
"I also disagree with the overall tone of the article which suggests that Apple benefits from developers while developers do not benefit from Apple at all."
That's not the tone I intended, so I apologize if that's what you're getting from it. The intention was to express and convey the frustration with Apple's decision to pull the GV apps, and claim that they were "duplicating functionality" rather than being open and honest with developers about the true reasons for their removal and offering methods of recourse; their lack of communication to the parties involved when they encountered the problem; and the effects of penalizing the developers with refunds for a decision that really was not the developer's fault.
"No developer designed, created and marketed the iPhone and App Store. That was Apple. But developers have been able to use this new market to make money - we know that some devs have profited (and profited well) from the App Store. So I think it is abundantly clear that devs have benefited from Apple as well as the reverse."
Completely agree.
"Lastly, I don't agree that Apple is setting themselves up for failure ... It was wrong for Apple to launch a smartphone without copy-and-paste, without multitasking, without a replaceable battery, wasn't it? More like 40 million points of right. Apple correctly identified what people wanted and needed, while most everyone else fell over themselves declaring that Apple had set themselves up for failure."
This can be interpreted very differently, depending on how you define failure. Do I think that the App Store will collapse, killing the viability of the iPhone platform and destroy the future of Apple? Definitely not. But I think that it is reasonable to believe the App Store (and by effect, Apple)
Exellent article.
Can someone on here imagine a way to protest against apples policies by - let's say getting people to not shop at the appstore for 24 hours or so ?
Apple must realize this is no way to treat developers and customers. After all there are a few options around by now.
Interesting notion. Of course screwing with the geek darling Google seems to be working out well, negative presswise at least.
The most important step tho Martin is to get people to see that this is all Apple here. Latitude us w Google product. Google Voice is a Google product.
Google makes mobile platform.
Apple makes a mobile platfom.
AT&T doesn't.
as a long time Apple user (20+ years), and an AAPL stock holder, I hope this comes back and bites them on the ass so incredibly hard. I'm really sick of this crap coming from Apple.
July 30 2009 at 5:23 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyI agree. Yes the iPhone is a great device but there is now welcome competition in the smartphone market. One more year could see even greater devices from other vendors. If the iPhone applications issues get more pronounced, I too may leave for another good handset.
I don't think that the problem lies with the presence of an approval process. Without one there would be (tens of) thousands of apps that would be meaningless and offer no functionality leaving the user searching through all of these to find that one gem.
The obvious and aforementioned problem is the processes set up by Apple in which your app gets approved. "Duplicating functionality" we can agree is ambiguous at best and should read "does something that our current partners don't want or may make our current app obsolete". It's my opinion that if they are going to use the "duplicating functionality" excuse instead of proper communication, then the thousands of fart apps need to get pulled because the whole app platform is beginning to stink.
I have yet to see why this lame "there would be too many apps" argument is repeatedly present as valid.
The only platform in the past that came even remotely close to this approach is Verizon's BREW.
The notion that it is "better" to have less choice seems to be a particular version of Stockholm Syndrome reserved for us Mac types...but get this:
The App Store is FULL OF APPS. Apple brags about this. Most agree that it is not full of *quality* apps...but no one really seems to want to put two and two together and scream it from the rooftops:
APPLE DOES NOT CARE ABOUT THE QUALITY OF THE APPS IN THE APP STORE...ONLY IN CONTROLLING THE REVENUE STREAM.
Please read the above again.
No one...NO ONE needs the App Store in the Really-for-Real-World *but Apple*.
*Before* the app store and this concept, again, outside of the Verizon model which everyone agreed *before Apple Cloned it* (good ol' Apple innovation again, lol) was a HORRIBLE idea.
*Before* the App Store, people found software they wanted and needed with this thing called The World Wide Web. Developers could make trial versions of apps, people tried them out, and a joyous noise was made.
In the *millions* of apps out for Palm, Symbian, J2ME and hell, even WinCE, less than 100 were ever found to be directly malicious that anyone ever heard about.
Apple then sells a classic "Bill of Goods" on the backs of their most loyal customers Good Will and Well Known, Well Placed Press Shills that it is all for Quality, Stability and Security.
NONE OF THESE THINGS ARE REALITY.
But yet day after weary drag ass day, the same rabid apologist pop up to join with Apple in repeating lies. Apple now claims *unlocked iPhones are a National Security Threat!"
And yet as of today, every damned hole found in the iPhone is *in Apple's software*.
The App Store exists to benefit no one but Apple. If we are going to have debate...let us at least have *honest debate*.
Without the App Store, devs would still create software, users would get better software, faster. The only people that stand to lose here?
Apple.
-K
Well, this could be considered fraudulent from Apple Inc wouldn't it be agreeing to their policies in the first place is like signing your life away. I think there is a way around this by using proxy companies that sign up for the development connection, take 70% and once the bills of refund start becoming higher then the income, simple start a new proxy company and let the one which got its app removed to die. That way Apple can send it bills and debtors as much as it wants, there won't be nothing to grab and in the end Apple can pay those refunds out of its own pocket. A proxy company can be set up for less then $1000. Usually directors and owners are of offshore descent and are not worried for these types of claims. You as benificiary have power of attorney and only walk away with the good things. :-)
July 30 2009 at 3:27 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyDitto. As the article says, there are over 10,000 developers, 65,000 apps, 40 million devices, and there have been 1 billion downloads from the App Store.
With 10,000 developers and 65,000 apps, the process can't have been too arduous nor too painful nor too risky, nor, given the rate of growth, does it seem that they've become too alienated.
Should Apple make some changes? Sure. But until there's a competing platform with any traction whatsoever, developers will develop for the iPhone, and the vast majority of those 40,000 owners will regard the App Store with delight.
No more apples iphone development for me. I'm going to Android
July 30 2009 at 1:50 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyLike you can even spell programmer...
July 30 2009 at 2:06 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyHot Apps on TUAW
Deals of the Day
more deals- iFrogz Luxe Lean Hard Case for iPod touch for $10 + free shipping
- Refurbished MacBook Air Laptops: Deals from $849 + free shipping
- iFrogz Breeze Hard Case for iPhone 4 / 4S for $16 + free shipping
- Ventev UltraTHIN Hard Shell Case for iPhone 4 for $2 + $2 s&h, more
- Body Glove Matrix Case for iPhone 4 / 4S for $3 + $2 s&h
- Pogoplug Premium Personal Cloud for PC and Mac for $10 + free shipping
Software Updates
more updates- EFI Firmware Update brings Lion Internet Recovery to 2010-model Macs
- OS X Lion 10.7.3 released with Safari 5.1.3, Wi-Fi bug fix
- Aperture updated to 3.2.2, addresses Photo Stream issue
- Apple updates Keynote to address Lion issues
- Google Search app gets new look on iPad
- Apple releases Apple TV Software Update 4.4.3
Featured Stories
more stories
Popular Stories
TUAW (or The Unofficial Apple Weblog) is a website devoted to tips, reviews, news, analysis and opinion on everything Apple.
72 Comments