Mike Pulsifer Photography mike-pulsifer.org

Infoworld is one of the many tech news outlets that I read daily (well, M-F) that contributes to a well-rounded understanding of what's going on in the industry in which I work.  Unfortunately, I have yet to see that kind of cross-domain & cross-discipline approach in my daily travels, but I digress.

If there's one thing Inforworld is good for, it's "expert" opinion that really serves only two purposes:

1. comedy
2. expose Enterprise IT as so completely insular and self-absorbed 

Today's column from Neil McAllister is an example of purpose #1 quite nicely.  To me, the comedy comes from just how out of touch from the real world so many in enterprise IT really are.  In his column, he has a list of 10 (how convenient) reasons why app stores undermine developers.  Let's take a look at those:

"The platform vendor gets a big cut of the profits"

No kidding.  Really?  Brick and mortar stores don't?  Amazon doesn't?  They all do.  the only difference here is that the developer is setting the final price to the consumer.  In most circumstances, the vendor sets the final price.  That hides the big cut that the retailer takes.  This model, allowing the developer to set the retail price just exposes this reality.

"The curator has veto powers."

Yep.  The app store owner can keep porn out if they want.  They can enforce user interface guidelines (a concept foreign to all-too-many developers).  They can keep malware out.

"Developers must compete with platform vendors."

I can understand the frustration with this from a developer point of view, but in Apple's case, what they're trying to produce is a consistent and reliable user experience.  Technical people often don't understand how duplicating core functionality violates this, but technical people who like to tinker and hack aren't Apple's core target audience.  They're targeting the vast majority of consumers who can barely, if at all, discern the difference between the Internet and a web browser, much less the Internet and the Web itself.  These are called normal people.

"Apps on an app store can be hard to market."

It's no harder to market an app found on the app store than it is otherwise.  Just because your app is in an app store, it doesn't mean you can't have your own web site dedicated to your app.  Just have your "buy" button point to the app store.  All other tasks related to marketing your app remain the same.  You get out of it what you put into it.  One thing I have noticed is that if your app is any good, Apple will highlight it in the app store and on Facebook.  Thus, it seems Apple can make it easier to market your app.

"The curating process is not always effective."

You see, when you start using absolutes, you're going to get yourself into trouble.  Nothing is always effective.  Shit happens.  The question is, do those managing the app store learn from those mistakes? 

"App store security is questionable."

When talking about the Android Market, I would have to agree.  Google doesn't scan the apps it receives.  When you look at the example of Thuat Nguyen from the perspective of the bigger picture, you'll see that as a whole, this model is far more secure than the free-wheeling model of no app store.

"The curated model is hostile to free software."

This is just baloney.  Has he not seen how many free apps are available from the app stores?  What he's doing here is he's confusing the GPL with free software.  One does not necessarily mean or lead to the other.  The issue with applying the GPL to Apple's App Store is that DRM is applied to the apps.  If you, as required by the GPL, make your source code available to whomever wants to look at it, then you'll make the DRM completely ineffective.  He mentions piracy, but iPhone users who have not jailbroken their phones can't install the stolen software. That brings us to number 8 in his list:

"App stores don't always work."

There he goes again, playing with absolutes.  Will he ever learn?  He adds, "the App Store is the only place you can get new apps -- so it had better be reliable.  Apple's track record has been good so far, but not every competitor can say the same."  So, tear down Apple along with the others just because Google can't manage its Market properly?  This "reason" is very weak, at best.

"App stores fragment the market."

What he's advocating here is apps that are designed to be equal across platforms.  Again, technical people generally do not understand the importance of an individual platform's user interface standards.  Truly cross-platform development can also hurt the consumer by restricting access to capabilities on their device only because other devices lack that ability.  This targeting the lowest common denominator is the favorite tools among lazy developers and must be resisted at every possible opportunity.

"App stores aren't always successful."

Let's ban cars too because they can't always stay on the roads.  See what I did there?  App stores aren't always successful.  Mobile platforms aren't always successful.  Children aren't always going to have three square meals a day.  Tech columnists aren't always earning honest livings.

Posted via email from Mike Pulsifer's posterous