Global Geek News Blog The home of more Global Geek News insight and opinions

16May/090

Apple’s approval system: keeping them safe or ruining their platform?

There's no question that Apple has enjoyed immense success with the launch of the iPhone. It's one of the best selling phones ever, and considering it was originally priced at $500 and is now $200 on a two year - or longer - contract, that's certainly a feat. It's pireced our society's collective mind as a must-have gadget and this is in no way because of hardware. Instead, Apple created and marketed brilliant software.

All is not well in the world of Apple, however. They are facing stiff competition from both Google and Palm from Android and WebOS respectively. Both are going to be robust platforms and will have multiple devices shipping this year. We don't know much about Palm's OS yet, but Google's Android is a fully open system - the user is free to put whatever they like on it and modify it whatever way they see fit.

This is one of the core reasons people loved the iPhone when it launched. It freed them from their candy bar phones. It let them explore a world foreign to flip phone owners. For the first time ever, people could browse an application store over the air and install whatever they please. This was the true joy of the iPhone. This is also why it took the launch of the 3G and iPhone OS 2.0 before the device hit critical mass.

Now that it has hit critical mas, Apple has a big problem on their hands and it all stems from their application approval process. They have published guildelines for what will and will not be accepted to the app store, but often the lines are blurred or even misinterpreted by the person reviewing the application. This has led to countless examples of peoples' apps being rejected (most notably the recent rejection of Nine Inch Nails' application) for seemingly trivial or invalid reasons.

There are two main problems at play. The first is that Apple wants to control content and keep everything PG. In a world where Watchmen can make $100 million at the box office, an R-rated comic book movie, this seems highly illogical. That is not to say that content needs to be violent or innapopriate to be good, rather that there is excellent content out there that is not family friendly. Considering the average iPhone owner is likely well over the age of 18 (you do need to be a legal adult to sign a contract), it follows then that there should be channels by which Apple can allow mature content onto the app store.

The second problem is random rejection. The app store is Apple's playground and if they don't like what you've built, either because it potentially threatens one of their businesses or they simply don't like what it stands for, they can and will reject your application. Frustratingly, they recently rejected an app that lets you remote control Transmission - a BitTorrent application. To be clear: the iPhone app was simply a remote control and did not download any content of any kind. Apple either accidentally or purposefully misinterpreted the function of the application, and rejected it based on the grounds that "this category of applications is often used for the purpose of infringing third party rights." It's hard not to feel bad for the developers of this app because not only does it in no way infringe copyrights, the application that it controls - Transmission - can be used for many legitimate purposes.

There have been many more examples of Apple rejecting applications for seemingly illogical, convoluted or unfair reasons. Sling Player was released recently and it was crippled to work over WiFi only - something AT&T has since explained it was the cause of. AT&T is not the only carrier that sells the iPhone and it really shouldn't have any say in which applications do or don't get approved, or be able to impose restrictions on functionality.

Is the iPhone a great device? It was and still is, there is no question of that. Its touch interface is still unmatched and the user experience from iTunes to iPhone has no rival in the mobile device market. This doesn't mean Apple can continue to rest on its laurels. The public is becoming increasingly aware - and miffed - of rejections of truly functional applications. There have been whispers that OS 3.0 will include better parental controls that will enable users to receive mature content, and therefore allow Apple to publish such content in the app store without liability.

Parental controls alone won't save the app store. Apple needs to get much more specific with its approval guidelines and should strive to never break their own rejection rules. If they do, there needs to be a democratic appeal process. Currently there is no process apart from resubmitting, which leads to angry rants from Trent Reznor. What sets the iPhone apart from the pack is its software. If Apple is going to continue to cripple what software is available, it may just be surprised how fast Android can overtake its prized jewel.

26Jan/090

Is Microsoft repeating its Vista version mistakes with Windows 7?

Greetings Readers!

Have you or somebody you know experienced confusion with Windows Vista because of the large number of versions?  While I admit that I was never confused by the version differences other than the fact that I found the whole idea stupid, it seems that Microsoft wants to create more confusion yet again with 5 versions of Windows 7.

Reported versions of Windows 7

Late last week, a screenshot surfaced from what is supposedly build 7025 of Windows 7 showing 5 different versions of Windows 7.  Apparently Microsoft didn't get the memo that having so many versions is confusing to the average consumer.  The average consumer doesn't understand the differences between Home Basic, Home Premium, or Ultimate, rather less business or anything else.  Few consumers know what the different features are at the time of purchase rather less if they will use it.  The average Joe doesn't understand things like full drive encryption or some of the media capabilities that come with Windows.  Unfortunately, Microsoft has taken the route of confusion instead of making things easy on the consumer.

Of course this is better for Microsoft than it is the consumer.  Rather than trying to limit customer confusion and be the customer friendly operating system, they try to make money by making people think that premium is better than basic and ultimate is better than both and trying to get consumers to purchase them whether they need it or not based on the fact that it sounds better.  After reading the book Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions by Dan Ariely (I cannot recommend this book enough, it is great!), I completely understand what they are doing here but I don't believe it is a good thing for the consumer or Microsoft.

Windows 7 Starter is likely the most stripped down piece of crap version of Windows 7 there is (I am not saying that Windows 7 is crap, I actually love it, I am just comparing it based on the names of the other SKUs).  Assuming this isn't a completely stripped down version for Netbooks (the beta which is Ultimate runs quite well on netbooks), Microsoft actually expects to sell few if any of this version.  Why have this version you ask?  To make the others look better.  If the price difference isn't that huge, the average person is going to go for the version that sounds better.  Microsoft is simply trying to capitalize on this.

The bad part about this strategy is that it leads to confusion.  What is the difference between the versions?  What is the best bang for my buck?  What features do they have?  Will I ever use these features?  Are there better third party alternatives to what is offered built in?  These are only some of the bigger questions that the average consumer is stuck with when you have so many different versions.  If you want to be seen as the most consumer friendly version, especially with companies such as Apple gaining strength, confusion should be your enemy.

I will admit that just having a single version of Windows isn't necessarily the best answer.  I believe that there should only be 2 versions of Windows, a business version and a home version for everybody else.   Much like the business version of Vista, the Business version of Windows 7 should have things such as full hard drive encryption, more protection against hardware failure, remoting support among other things that the average consumer doesn't really need.  Of course there are plenty of other vendors that sell such software, so if there are any power users out there that need this functionality, they can easily get it.  Business should also be stripped of some of the media capabilities since it is usually better to have employees working rather than streaming movies to their Xbox.  The consumer version on the other hand should have a plethora of media capabilities and the stuff that the consumers might want to do.

That said, I know there are some consumers that want some of the business features such as the hard drive encryption but don't want to use other software such as TrueCrypt.  I also understand that some businesses are very media focused.  My solution to this is to have a store where you can buy certain features of the other version if necessary.  By using a method such as this, people will get what they want on their machine without all of the other crap.  This would greatly simplify things and make it much easier for consumers to determine what they need and get it instead of being up-sold to the Ultimate or whatever version so you can have the features of everything even if you don't need it.

Get rid of the Starter, Home Basic, and Home Premium and Ultimate versions and just call it Windows 7 Home and then the Windows 7 Business version.  Two versions is all you need.  Anything more and it causes confusion.  If Microsoft wants to put Vista behind them, they need to fix the mistakes they made with Vista and I believe this is probably the biggest one.

Follow me on Twitter and Friendfeed!

-Jeremy "pcnerd37" Bray