Steve Jobs personally rejects FreedomTime iPhone app (2008)(juggleware.com)
juggleware.com
Steve Jobs personally rejects FreedomTime iPhone app (2008)
http://www.juggleware.com/blog/2008/09/steve-jobs-writes-back/
10 comments
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.
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.
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. 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.
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.
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.
Tethering is available for the iPhone - it just needs the carrier to activate it.
The carriers in the UK offer tethering (for an extra fee, of course).
The carriers in the UK offer tethering (for an extra fee, of course).
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.
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.
tether their laptops to their iphones are complaining
>> 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.
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.
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.
Apple has implicitly (and sometimes explicitly) taken responsibility for the quality and content of apps in the store.
You may have noticed that this has been profitable choice. Taking responsibility for what you put in your customer's hands is a winning strategy.
Otherwise people will slowly migrate to platforms that are less restrictive, like Android.
Why aren't they doing so now?
You may have noticed that this has been profitable choice. Taking responsibility for what you put in your customer's hands is a winning strategy.
Otherwise people will slowly migrate to platforms that are less restrictive, like Android.
Why aren't they doing so now?
When a retail store chooses not to carry a software product, you can always go to another retail store.
When the app store chooses not to carry a software product, you can always go to ??????
When the app store chooses not to carry a software product, you can always go to ??????
... another app store. I believe there are (or will be) about five competing app stores.
> When the app store chooses not to carry a software product, you can always go to ??????
... one of the other mobile platforms. The OP listed four alternatives.
... one of the other mobile platforms. The OP listed four alternatives.
...another retail store.
Every piece of software is "opinionated" to some degree. *nix has its philosophy, OS x has its look and feel, webOS and Android work in fairly different ways etc.
Apple, however, is the only one that stretches it's opinion from how software works over to what kind of content its customers can consume. Jobs and Apple seem to think that sine lots of people like their opinion on software, these people must also like their their taste in content.
And please, don't give me the Safari comeback argument, we all know there's a world of difference between native apps and web sites.
I've already voted with my wallet and development time, but the more people talk about this kind of bullshit from Apple, the more informed choices they'll be able to make.
Apple, however, is the only one that stretches it's opinion from how software works over to what kind of content its customers can consume. Jobs and Apple seem to think that sine lots of people like their opinion on software, these people must also like their their taste in content.
And please, don't give me the Safari comeback argument, we all know there's a world of difference between native apps and web sites.
I've already voted with my wallet and development time, but the more people talk about this kind of bullshit from Apple, the more informed choices they'll be able to make.
You still don't understand branding. When a product is new, people do not differentiate content and channel. When an offensive app is available on the AppStore, the iPhone is offensive. When there is an offensive web page which is viewable in Safari on the iPhone, the web page is offensive. Only after years of establishment does the public differentiate the product from the content. I still hear people say that something is available "in Internet Explorer". It's a long journey to establishment, and during that period, it is Apple's duty to keep their brand legitimate.
This implies a really interesting strategic model. Up to some point, strict control is profit-maximizing, by ensuring that desirable initial impressions of the platform-as-a-whole (or store-as-a-whole) are established.
But after some point, with the image established, inclusion is the winning strategy -- or else money is left on the table, or an opening for other competitors emerges. Few adults hold a lower opinion of bookstores, cable-operators, and movie-theaters that include among their range of offerings some things that are diametrically opposed to their personal political/religious/social standards.
When does a a platform proprietor know when to shift? Is the shift best done rapidly or gradually? Even if the model is correct, is Apple being too conservative in opening up?
But after some point, with the image established, inclusion is the winning strategy -- or else money is left on the table, or an opening for other competitors emerges. Few adults hold a lower opinion of bookstores, cable-operators, and movie-theaters that include among their range of offerings some things that are diametrically opposed to their personal political/religious/social standards.
When does a a platform proprietor know when to shift? Is the shift best done rapidly or gradually? Even if the model is correct, is Apple being too conservative in opening up?
Given that many older people call the internet by their web browser's name, it may be generational. So, a long time... 15 years? Its difficult because those of us who want to know are so steeped in the details that we have no perspective. I am continually amazed at the amount of advertising Apple buys for the iPod. There are people out there who still need to be convinced that having portable music / audio books / (video) podcasts is a good idea. These people would certainly conflate AppStore content with the iPhone, and it would probably affect their buying decision.
Few adults hold a lower opinion of bookstores, cable-operators, and movie-theaters that include among their range of offerings some things that a diametrically opposed to their personal political/religious/social standards.
Uh... this is wildly untrue. You don't find XXX movies at mainstream theaters or Barely Legal magazine at Barnes and Noble. Likewise you'd be hard pressed to find your typical college-educated liberal at a christian bookstore.
Uh... this is wildly untrue. You don't find XXX movies at mainstream theaters or Barely Legal magazine at Barnes and Noble. Likewise you'd be hard pressed to find your typical college-educated liberal at a christian bookstore.
That there are a few things major chains avoid doesn't invalidate the fact they carry many things opposed to the tastes of most of their customers.
You will find books, magazines, and movies with nudity and sex at Barnes and Noble -- far moreso than allowed under current App Store standards.
Also, to the point of the original app rejection, you will find plenty of material that mocks all sides of the political spectrum. A countdown to Obama's inauguration with a negative caricature of Bush is mild compared to what you can find in bookstores, cable-channels, and theaters.
Those outlets carry such material without their customers getting offended by their mere availability.
You will find books, magazines, and movies with nudity and sex at Barnes and Noble -- far moreso than allowed under current App Store standards.
Also, to the point of the original app rejection, you will find plenty of material that mocks all sides of the political spectrum. A countdown to Obama's inauguration with a negative caricature of Bush is mild compared to what you can find in bookstores, cable-channels, and theaters.
Those outlets carry such material without their customers getting offended by their mere availability.
Apple will someday (maybe soon, maybe not) allow more and more risque stuff into its store. But it'll never allow hardcore pornography, which most movie theaters don't show, either.
When a product is new, people do not differentiate content and channel. When an offensive app is available on the AppStore, the iPhone is offensive. When there is an offensive web page which is viewable in Safari on the iPhone, the web page is offensive.
You're making a big leap here. You're saying that people can't tell the difference between a telephone and a store, but they can tell the difference between an application written in HTML and Javascript and an application written in Objective-C? (Remember, Apple doesn't regulate web content, and web content can be launched via an icon on the home screen.)
The reality here, I think, is that Apple just wants some time in the tech press. They hadn't really been doing anything interesting, and people were talking about Windows and Android instead of the iPhone. Now that's changed.
Relevant video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UMX-btHwYE
You're making a big leap here. You're saying that people can't tell the difference between a telephone and a store, but they can tell the difference between an application written in HTML and Javascript and an application written in Objective-C? (Remember, Apple doesn't regulate web content, and web content can be launched via an icon on the home screen.)
The reality here, I think, is that Apple just wants some time in the tech press. They hadn't really been doing anything interesting, and people were talking about Windows and Android instead of the iPhone. Now that's changed.
Relevant video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UMX-btHwYE
You're saying that people can't tell the difference between a telephone and a store, but they can tell the difference between an application written in HTML and Javascript and an application written in Objective-C?
I get that we're all technical people here, but you're looking at this wrong. Imagine this conversation:
BOB: I am really angry at this thing my kid was playing with. It portrays a class of people as less than human.
TOM: That's horrible, where did she find it?
BOB: HorribleWebsite.com
TOM: That's tough, have you talked with her about being careful on the net?
Now Bob's daughter may have been using an iPhone, or an Android phone, or a computer, it doesn't matter. The Internet is unavoidable, and we have to deal with things that we don't like.
Lets try another.
BOB: I am really angry at this thing my kid was playing with. It portrays a class of people as less than human.
TOM: That's horrible, where did she find it?
BOB: She bought it on the AppStore.
TOM: Apple lets them sell that sort of thing? I'm going to take my son's away and get him another phone. I don't need that in my life.
Now, does either Bob or Tom know the different between an "Objective-C" application and an HTML5 offline bookmark? I can't tell, and it doesn't matter. They do know whether this offensive content can be avoided by abandoning the platform based on whether this is "web" content or not.
But sure, show your crying kittens video. Apple doesn't know what they're doing, their success was probably just luck.
I get that we're all technical people here, but you're looking at this wrong. Imagine this conversation:
BOB: I am really angry at this thing my kid was playing with. It portrays a class of people as less than human.
TOM: That's horrible, where did she find it?
BOB: HorribleWebsite.com
TOM: That's tough, have you talked with her about being careful on the net?
Now Bob's daughter may have been using an iPhone, or an Android phone, or a computer, it doesn't matter. The Internet is unavoidable, and we have to deal with things that we don't like.
Lets try another.
BOB: I am really angry at this thing my kid was playing with. It portrays a class of people as less than human.
TOM: That's horrible, where did she find it?
BOB: She bought it on the AppStore.
TOM: Apple lets them sell that sort of thing? I'm going to take my son's away and get him another phone. I don't need that in my life.
Now, does either Bob or Tom know the different between an "Objective-C" application and an HTML5 offline bookmark? I can't tell, and it doesn't matter. They do know whether this offensive content can be avoided by abandoning the platform based on whether this is "web" content or not.
But sure, show your crying kittens video. Apple doesn't know what they're doing, their success was probably just luck.
And on the other side:
Bob: Heya Tom, it's Bob from the office down the hall! Good to see you, buddy... how've ya been? Look at my awesome iPhone. It can read email and stream Pandora at the same time.
Tom: Uh, no it can't.
Bob: Yeah, well look at this boob app.
Tom: Again, not possible.
Bob: Oh yeah. Because of Apple's strange policies towards the app store, I can't run two applications at once or make my own decisions on what content I find appropriate. And what is and is not appropriate can change without any advanced notice to me, meaning that if an inappropriate app has a bug in it, the developer will never be allowed to fix it for me.
Tom: So why did you buy that piece of junk again?
Bob: Because it was cheaper than the Nexus One.
Tom: You get what you pay for.
Being a playwright is fun.
Bob: Heya Tom, it's Bob from the office down the hall! Good to see you, buddy... how've ya been? Look at my awesome iPhone. It can read email and stream Pandora at the same time.
Tom: Uh, no it can't.
Bob: Yeah, well look at this boob app.
Tom: Again, not possible.
Bob: Oh yeah. Because of Apple's strange policies towards the app store, I can't run two applications at once or make my own decisions on what content I find appropriate. And what is and is not appropriate can change without any advanced notice to me, meaning that if an inappropriate app has a bug in it, the developer will never be allowed to fix it for me.
Tom: So why did you buy that piece of junk again?
Bob: Because it was cheaper than the Nexus One.
Tom: You get what you pay for.
Being a playwright is fun.
I think if you give a close reading to Patrick's postings here, you'll quickly come to the conclusion that the differences between the app store, Safari, and the iPhone are irrelevant to non-technical users, just like the fact that Bosch makes my engine ECU and OBDII sets the standards that govern fuel efficiency vs. performance are mostly irrelevant to my evaluation of a car.
I think Mr. Job's "What's the point" is more saying that AAPL risks having 50% of it's customers ticked off by this app (and in this day, anything and everything can and will get blown out of proportion) - what is AAPL potential upside? Not much. One more app in it's 70k+ library and a drop in the revenue ocean if this is a paid for app. I completely agree that The Market should decide, but this isn't a free market unfortunately. APPL is in a position of power to weigh the risk vs reward of letting a new app into the arena and unfortunately gave the thumbs down ... no offense, but in this case I think it is smart business move on their part, but I realize how frustrating / unfair it is for the individual developer as well.
Steve Jobs wrote:
> Even though my personal political leanings are democratic, I think this app will be offensive to roughly half our customers. What’s the point?
The point is that some customers would like it and buy it. Duh. The motto should be make stuff that (some) people want, not make only things that everyone wants.
The people who don't like it (which happens to include me) should just ignore it along with the thousands of other apps they don't want. TV channels publish more offensive political speech all the time, and we consider that a good thing and we're proud of the free speech in our country.
> Even though my personal political leanings are democratic, I think this app will be offensive to roughly half our customers. What’s the point?
The point is that some customers would like it and buy it. Duh. The motto should be make stuff that (some) people want, not make only things that everyone wants.
The people who don't like it (which happens to include me) should just ignore it along with the thousands of other apps they don't want. TV channels publish more offensive political speech all the time, and we consider that a good thing and we're proud of the free speech in our country.
Sort of neat, but this is from September 2008. The author's conclusion that this was a "good omen" was a little off the mark — many developers can't get anyone to answer their questions, much less Apple's CEO.
That's just not true anymore- people keep repeating this, but the 'can't get an answer to emails' problem has been largely solved over the past three months. This is from someone who had an app in review for nine months- the problem is almost entirely in the past.
Review times are super quick, questions are responded to quickly, and rejections are almost always due to QA failures on the dev side.
Review times are super quick, questions are responded to quickly, and rejections are almost always due to QA failures on the dev side.
Article from 2008
Yes, I decided to post it anyway because the AppStore of 2010 is still the same and more dominant.
The best comment on that blog post in my opinion:
> On the response What you’ve asked Jobs to do is personally modify this decision. He’s going to have to take responsibility for that action. He’s going to have to call someone out and override the opinion of a subordinate. It won’t go unnoticed or unanalyzed. Given that it’s Jobs, he might even be analyzed in the media for the decision. It’s not likely, but when people are parsing every word you probably spend a bit more time wondering how the world will interpret your actions. Look, you’ve asked someone to do something for you that could potentially be seen by half his customers as a bad thing.
What’s the point of him doing so much for you, when there so little to be gained by it?
The best comment on that blog post in my opinion:
> On the response What you’ve asked Jobs to do is personally modify this decision. He’s going to have to take responsibility for that action. He’s going to have to call someone out and override the opinion of a subordinate. It won’t go unnoticed or unanalyzed. Given that it’s Jobs, he might even be analyzed in the media for the decision. It’s not likely, but when people are parsing every word you probably spend a bit more time wondering how the world will interpret your actions. Look, you’ve asked someone to do something for you that could potentially be seen by half his customers as a bad thing.
What’s the point of him doing so much for you, when there so little to be gained by it?
This is old news, but it does illustrate the problem with locked down systems like the iPhone, where a single organization has total control over your computing experience. Personally, I would never buy an iPhone for precisely this sort of reason, instead preferring something like an Android device.
When I at Google, I remember that they explicitly stated that they did not review iGoogle gadgets or toolbar buttons for content, at all. Because that might lead to some kind of liability, but I don't know how.
oops, server ressources exceeded, couldn't read the article. Any cache version around?
How did he get Steve Job's email address?
[email protected]
(seriously)
(seriously)
Fair enough. I'm sure that address works and someone reads it, but I would imagine there is an alias address that he actually uses on a day-to-day basis for any meaningful exchanges.
I suppose this one might have caught someone's eye and he responded, but I'm surprised.
I suppose this one might have caught someone's eye and he responded, but I'm surprised.
September 23rd, 2008
1. The market does decide. There's Android, Palm, Blackberry, and Zune (rebranded as Windows for some reason) to provide options. Vote with your wallet.
2. I have worked in Retail. Retails stores choose their products very carefully. What you carry is part of your brand. Sure Apple is the store and not the app, but they're still a store closely associated with their brand-sensitive product and thus they behave like a company carefully managing their brand.
Ok, have at it. But before you waste me with lectures about how Apple has some sort of moral obligation to lose money or why they're idiots for not doing the smart thing, please try to think of them as being an "opinionated" hardware manufacturer that is so opinionated they make their own OS.