Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, Developer, iPhone, App Store
Facebook app developer is through with the iPhone, blames App Store approval process
It would have been nice for the App Store's public relations team if the biggest news in the past few days was the introduction of a more transparent progress report for applications under review, giving developers some of the feedback they need to see where their apps are in the pathway towards approval and release. Unfortunately, that minor but tangible step toward a more open approval process is overshadowed by a story of frustration and disaffection from one of the platform's rising stars: Joe Hewitt, the man behind Facebook's popular iPhone app, is mad as hell and he's not going to take it anymore.
Hewitt's frustration with the app review process isn't new, but in the same August blog post where he called for the elimination of review, he promised "I will not stop developing for Apple's platforms or using Apple's products as long as they continue to produce the best stuff on the market." A few months later, he's announced that he's handing off the Facebook app to another developer, and he's reached the point where his frustration has overcome his willingness to continue working on the iPhone. [Commenter 'Gak' points out that Hewitt's open-sourced Three20 library for iPhone devs has been flagged for use of private frameworks, which may have been one of the final straws.]
Hewitt spoke to TechCrunch earlier today, and his attitude is clear:
"My decision to stop iPhone development has had everything to do with Apple's policies. I respect their right to manage their platform however they want, however I am philosophically opposed to the existence of their review process. I am very concerned that they are setting a horrible precedent for other software platforms, and soon gatekeepers will start infesting the lives of every software developer."
Let's accept the premise that the majority of iPhone developers are benign and competent, and unlikely to ship malicious or horribly crashy apps (if only to preserve their reputation). Let's also acknowledge that even with a formal review approach, Apple has missed the mark repeatedly on content, functional and security issues for apps that have made it into the store. Devs want to work faster; Apple wants to make the store safe for all.
How about trying this: review after release for vetted developers. Once your first app has successfully made it through traditional review, you're marked as legit; subsequent upgrades and new releases go out without prior restraint, except in a few categories where Apple has to work within contract agreements (carrier restrictions on video or tethering, for example, or explicit sexual content). No more bug fixes waiting for weeks, no more wondering whether an innovative idea will ever see the light of day after spending months of effort and lots of money.
Here's the carrot, though, to keep some value in Apple's stamp of approval: unreviewed apps are unlisted, accessible via search or direct link but left out of category lists, promotion pages and top sales lists. Direct iTunes URLs for your app land on a warning page, telling users that the app they are about to buy has not been reviewed and may not work as expected. User flags of crashing or improper behavior will still bring the review squad down on your app, and it can still get pulled retroactively for blatant violations of the developer agreement -- although the rules will have to be both clearer and less restrictive if this is going to work.
If you can promote and publicize your unreviewed app without the advantage of Apple's review clearance and iTunes attention, more power to you -- the review is optional, more like a relationship with a traditional retailer than the gatekeeper effect currently in force.
Is this feasible, or am I smoking something? Let me know below. We've seen enough defections from the platform over these issues to make me think that a radical step towards openness is the best way forward.
I should note that my airy musings on the future of the App Store have been heavily influenced by the deep thinking of Craig Hockenberry on the topic.
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
Luke said 11:07PM on 11-11-2009
you only think this is bad for users if you have never used the iphone facebook app.
Reply
Sparks said 1:00AM on 11-12-2009
The iPhone Facebook app is still better than the Android one, alas.
Rob said 4:21AM on 11-12-2009
Couldn't agree more... the facebook app is terrible. It crashes all the time, isn't very intuitive and has all sorts of strange bugs through it that he never seems to want to fix. I say good riddance, lets get someone in there that can actually write an app for once.
Jake Marsh said 9:28AM on 11-12-2009
@Rob: SRSLY?! You sir, are an idiot. You know nothing of Joe Hewitt's work. The man is a genius and has contributed some of the best tools ever for developers. His Three20 project changed the way we think about iPhone development. Firefox and Firebug are literally the best tools for web development on any platform. GTFO if you don't know what you're talking about.
jb510 said 10:00AM on 11-12-2009
Wow, defensive much? People are entitltesd to thier opinions attacking them as individuals is a poor wayto make a point.
Personally I think the FB app is one on the best iPhone apps out there. I find it orders of magnitude better and more intuitive than FB's web site which is a confusing pile of garbage. I'm hoping he goes and overhauls the website to fix what the last two warmed over make overs have left.
JD said 3:04PM on 11-12-2009
This has nothing to do with the Facebook app. The point is that the review and gatekeeping process is onerous and inefficient. Nor is it necessary: every person advocating it uses arguments that apply equally to personal computers. Do you all really want a gatekeeper for your Mac as well? If not, then please try to develop an argument about why a six-inch computer is so fundamentally different from a 13-inch one. (And no, "bringing down the network" or "viruses" is not going to cut it.)
Dean said 11:12PM on 11-11-2009
Wouldn't that just cause the "bad" developers to create a simple app to get approved and then produce all the malicious, rule breaking code they want? Yeah, Apple could pull it, but it'd still be on phones.
Reply
Colin S. said 11:29PM on 11-11-2009
I thought exactly the same thing. What they COULD do though, that wouldn't be as great for devs, but would certainly be a step in the right direction, would be to have verified Power Developers or something. Where once you submit a certain amount of apps, or a certain number of revisions for an app, all of which turn out legit, you get some special status that lets you post first, then get reviewed later.
Michael Rose said 11:32PM on 11-11-2009
It might, but they'd be sacrificing their reputations and their future sales.
More to the point, this already happens even with the review process as it stands. Easter eggs and secret preferences are easy enough to create, but almost impossible for reviewers to see.
Ryan said 11:40PM on 11-11-2009
Colin, that was my thought, too. If there was a process to allow deva to build Apple's trust (an eBay "Power Seller" type thing) that may speed up the process and even encourage those devs to stick around.
puhsitch said 11:49PM on 11-11-2009
Yeah, a tiered acceptance system should totally work. You'd think that Apple could just clearly label new apps from trusted developers as "unverified." I'm sure they could also set up a system of consequences for those who abuse the system.
When the competition grows to equalize the playing field (and it will), he who is most restrictive will lose.
Blaktornado said 9:23AM on 11-12-2009
What I guess they could do is create official partnerships with the larger developers in the app store; the corporate app makers (such as Facebook, etc.).
Those companies would have their apps approved straight away (Facebook 3.0 took about a month to get into the store, if I remember correctly) without any need for review. If something is up, it will get brought to the attention of Apple —they'll see the reviews, read the blogs, etc.— and they can remove it. A company like Facebook, Google or AOL isn't going to screw over users because of how corporate they are.
In addition, they could then tier developers and have an internal group of trusted developers, like NGMoco:) for example, who get a brief review (ie. someone at Apple just playing the game for an hour to make sure it's ok) then approved within 3 days. A software company as popular as that, who's invested so much money in the iPhone, is not going to screw up their chances with Apple when it's their main source of income.
It's really silly how they're going about it these days. It's very paranoid, especially since they aren't even trusting big corporations either. It's ridiculous and making the experience worse of for users since we can't get updates and new apps quick enough.
David Frantz said 11:55PM on 11-11-2009
Frankly I'm glad the app is being handed off!!!! I just don't see where it is sch a great app.
This is not to say that I agree 100% with Apples app management. On the other hand they seem to be doing something right here.
Dave.
Reply
Michele said 1:17PM on 11-12-2009
Is this why the iPhone app has not worked well the past couple days???
Reply
The Jethro said 11:30PM on 11-11-2009
I am pretty sure that if you just plug it into your computer it does this.
Reply
Zane Barker said 11:34PM on 11-11-2009
Im sorry but Hewitt's complaints are not sound.
Facebook is so popular that a facebook app MUST be reviewed and tested MORE then other apps that are submitted. Imagine if a buggy facebook app was released that not only caused problems with using facebook but also could potentially mess up the iPhone OS or something.
People are not going to be compiling to Hewitt but to Apple. Apple has to make sure a highly used vary popular app like that is not only going to work but but safe.
Reply
onemanarmy said 2:12PM on 11-12-2009
Did you even read the linked posts in the article? iPhone apps "can't mess up the OS" because they run in a sandbox. Also bigger companies have quality assurance and control teams. So your point is moot really!
Zane Barker said 10:26PM on 11-12-2009
I've seen it happen. install a bad app and it causes the phone to crash. Restore the phone set it up new and install the same app and the same thing.
Apple MUST make sure that a popular app like Facebook is not going to cause problems.
The Jethro said 11:35PM on 11-11-2009
Sorry about that last post. 1Password kind of took too much control there. You say that it is a shame to lose the talent behind the #1 social networking app on the iPhone, but there are a couple problems with that statement.
First, it must not be talent that is too amazing because the facebook app is not much better than the web version.
Second, obviously, he didn't have a hard time finding someone else who was willing to develop this insanely popular app. I am sure there are hundreds of devs who want a shot at a big-name app like facebook.
Third, it is not the most popular app because he designed it, it is the most popular app because it is the ONLY facebook (tm) approved app.
Reply
Cycomachead said 1:23AM on 11-12-2009
I don't mind the app, especially with some of the newer stuff, but your statement is very true.
If this app was suddenly removed from the store, sure, apple would have problems. But that won't happen. This will generate attention and news, but most of it won't matter to the target iPhone customer as long as the can get to facebook.