Phil Schiller defends the App Store rejection process

Jonny Evans
|
November 23, 2009
|
Share

Apple’s senior VP marketing, Phil Schiller, has spoken with Business Week in an attempt to defend the iPhone App Store approval process against its many critics in recent weeks.

For example, Facebook iPhone App developer Joe Hewitt has ceased iPhone development in process at aspects of Apple’s control over applications released on its mobile platform, arguing that approval gives the company too much power over developers.

Schiller counters that Apple isn’t about exploiting this power, but instead is attempting to create a store that “people can trust”.

"You and your family and friends can download applications from the store, and for the most part they do what you'd expect, and they get onto your phone, and you get billed appropriately, and it all just works."

He also draws a comparison between Apple and any other retailer, arguing that approval of apps is the iPhone equivalent of quality control, Apple wants to ensure apps work as they are expected to, he says.

While most apps that are rejected are so treated because they contain some coding flaws, 10 per cent of those rejected are knocked back because they do something “inappropriate”, Schiller argues.

"There have been applications submitted for approval that will steal personal data, or which are intended to help the user break the law, or which contain inappropriate content," Schiller says.

Apple’s App Store team also comes up against unknowns - Schiller cites the example of a gambling app which helped users cheat in casinos, for this the company had to take legal advice before it could finalise its decision. Apple also needs to watch for inappropriate use of trademarks.

All told, it seems a lengthy list, but given recent clamour from among Apple developers we’re not entirely convinced “developers are generally glad” to have the App Store approval process, despite that Schiller claims this.

The company does operate the world’s biggest-selling mobile App store, and as such does have some responsibilities it can’t avoid. Governments are watching to see what the company does to protect children from accessing inappropriate content, Schiller informs. (Hence the parental controls feature).

“Apple has shown a willingness to let its app approval process evolve,” the report ends, suggesting that at some future point approval will no longer be required, or may change.

Read the report.

Comments (16)

9to5Mac Noob 7149 (not verified) | November 23, 2009 - 3:35am

Why would anyone even listen to this person? His job basically amounts to being paid big bucks to deceive people.

9to5Mac Noob (not verified) | November 23, 2009 - 5:18am

Wait, you're telling me the VP of marketing might be putting his product in the best light possible? GTFO.

9to5Mac Noob (not verified) | November 23, 2009 - 3:54am

Right. Don't buy stuff!

9to5Mac Noob (not verified) | November 23, 2009 - 4:57am

He'd be more convincing without the mullet.

9to5Mac Noob (not verified) | November 23, 2009 - 5:07am

U won't find any porn at Barnes and Noble. As far as I'm concerned Apple is within their rights.

9to5Mac Noob (not verified) | November 23, 2009 - 7:09am

actualy im pretty sure the one near me used to carry some dirty mags.  im not sure if they still do, as I havent walked into a B+N in years.

9to5Mac Noob (not verified) | November 23, 2009 - 5:28am

While the majority of rejections may very well be due to some of the stated reasons, there are examples that do not fall into any of the categories that Schiller claims.  The following is perhaps the best example: http://alsoftiphone.com/iPrivacy/.  Its rejection is puzzling enough but the reason for its rejection is downright bizarre and disturbing.  In addition to not falling under any of the categories mentioned by Schiller, this rejection raises serious questions about whether Apple is building back doors into encryption applications on the platform.  That certainly cannot be a good thing.  I rest my case...

9to5Mac Noob (not verified) | November 23, 2009 - 7:15am

Whan!  As Steve Jobs would say, " Just do it , No big deal."  Stop being a baby!

9to5Mac Noob (not verified) | November 23, 2009 - 7:22am

Whan!       As Steve would say, " Just do it. No big deal."         Stop being a baby!

9to5Mac Noob (not verified) | November 23, 2009 - 5:48am

It's their store, and they can do whatever they want. If you don't like it, tough.

Gazoobee (not verified) | November 23, 2009 - 7:22am

I guess you clipped that from the article, but from what I can see on the companies own site, the text is wrong.  Not only did they give a good reason for the rejection, the rejection *is* covered by the SDK agreement and *is* actually covered by Phil's remarks to the author.  What they are saying is basically that they don't want to give a loaded gun to a toddler which is covered by the whole "just works" user experience thing Schiller is talking about.  In the hands of a knowledgeable technical person who wants absolute privacy, this app is a great thing.  In the hands of the majority of users likely to buy it in the app store, not so much without that recovery feature.  Publishing this app would immediately result in people losing their data for good, and the resultant shit storm would fall right on Apple's shoulders.  30% is not enough money for that kind of bad publicity and the users themselves would be so outraged that the developer would probably add a recovery feature in a 2.0 version anyway.  This is just (yet another!), case of a pissy "I know best" developer making a lot of hay about something that they don't actually understand.  There is a reason that some people are developer's and some people are customer service people, and those "twains" hardly ever meet in the same person.  

9to5Mac Noob (not verified) | November 23, 2009 - 8:39am

There is a problem with your argument.  Even if one accepts that the reason for the rejection was to protect the non-technical users from themselves, it raises another problem: the rejection criteria are either inconsistent or there are false/misleading claims being made on the App Store.  As the developer pointed out on their web site, there are already encryption applications that claim that the data cannot be recovered if the password is forgotten.  See http://www.anoshkin.net/iphone/mysecrets.html for example.  They claim that "The password is not stored anywhere, nor is there a way to recover it, so you can be sure your data is secure."  Now, if the statement is true, then why is Apple applying different criteria to different applications?  On the other hand, if the data can be recovered without the password then the statement is false/misleading.  You can't have the cake and eat it too.  If encrypted data can be recovered without the encryption password, it is in no way secure.  If, on the other hand, the data cannot be recovered, then why was one app approved while another was rejected for that very reason?  Either way, there is a problem with the aforementioned rejection.

9to5Mac Noob (not verified) | November 23, 2009 - 8:46am

I might be missing something, but that app only encrypts data within that app. It seemed like the original app encrypted the 'Notes' section of your Address Book (The Apple app). If that's the case, then they're not really the same.

9to5Mac Noob (not verified) | November 23, 2009 - 9:53pm

They are not the same but they are similar in that if the user forgets the encryption they lose their data.  Whether that data is data entered into a third-party app or Apple app is immaterial: data is data.  At best, Apple is saying that they don't care if users lose data they enter into third-party applications and only care about data they enter into the bundled Apple applications.  That just changes the problem to one of inconsistent "security" standards on the platform.  And it still leaves no solution for those people that want to secure the data that they entered into the Apple applications.  How is either scenario good for users?

9to5Mac Noob (not verified) | November 24, 2009 - 10:56pm

Herve Leger womens fashions at ShopStyle. Shop popular stores to find Herve Leger womens fashions on sale - all in one place. Create and share looks based
<a href="http://www.hervesale.com/">Herve Leger</a>
<a href="http://www.hervesale.com/">Cheap Herve Leger</a>
Jewelry,Necklaces,Jewelry Necklaces,Links of London Necklaces,online sales a variety of world famous such as Links of London etc,with competitive price.
<a href="http://www.linksgift.co.uk/">Links of London </a>, the leading British contemporary jeweller was founded in 1990 by jewellery designer Annoushka Ducas and her  husband John Ayton.cheap Links of London jewelry at online linksgif UK store, including Links of London Necklaces, Links of London Charms, Links of London Earrings. Links of London Silver Sweetie Bracelet Medium
<a href="http://www.linksgift.co.uk/links-of-london-charms-15.html">Links of London Charm</a>
<a href="http://www.linksgift.co.uk/">Links of London </a>

9to5Mac Noob (not verified) | November 24, 2009 - 10:59pm

Herve Leger womens fashions at ShopStyle. Shop popular stores to find Herve Leger womens fashions on sale - all in one place. Create and share looks based
<a href="http://www.hervesale.com/">Herve Leger</a>
<a href="http://www.hervesale.com/">Cheap Herve Leger</a>
Jewelry,Necklaces,Jewelry Necklaces,Links of London Necklaces,online sales a variety of world famous such as Links of London etc,with competitive price.
<a href="http://www.linksgift.co.uk/">Links of London </a>, the leading British contemporary jeweller was founded in 1990 by jewellery designer Annoushka Ducas and her  husband John Ayton.cheap Links of London jewelry at online linksgif UK store, including Links of London Necklaces, Links of London Charms, Links of London Earrings. Links of London Silver Sweetie Bracelet Medium
<a href="http://www.linksgift.co.uk/links-of-london-charms-15.html">Links of London Charm</a>
<a href="http://www.linksgift.co.uk/">Links of London </a>