iPhone vs. Mac app quality

If you compare a typical Mac app with a typical iPhone app, you’d probably have to agree with David. I’ve experienced far more issues with some fairly popular iPhone applications than I have with popular and successful Mac applications, despite the lack of any sort of approval process.

David argues:

Only good stuff in the App Store: Ha! The App Store has some 140K+ applications. I can guarantee you that the bulk of that is less than average. There are some 100 fart apps for christ sake!

[...] In fact, lots of software has lower quality because of the App Store process. Developers can’t easily get bug fixes out and they certainly don’t release new versions as often as they otherwise would. This harks back to the era where software was really cumbersome to release on CDs, so you did it much less frequently.

His argument, as I’ve understood it, is basically: there are shitty apps on the App Store because updating an app is so cumbersome and slow, so developers can’t iterate as often.

I think that’s an oversimplification though. A large number of developers on the App Store are probably new to Objective-C programming and its pitfalls. The iPhone’s limitations also mean that apps are more severely affected by problems that wouldn’t affect a desktop app (memory issues for instance) – another reason that iPhone app quality is lower than Mac applications.

There are definitely other reasons as well, but I think those go a large way towards explaining why so many apps on the App Store are pretty mediocre, when compared with desktop Mac apps.

Newbie developer + extremely limited hardware resources = poor software quality.

If the App Store didn’t have the approval process, you’d still have a lot of crappy apps.

But what about “real developers”?

But let’s ignore the shitty apps on the App Store for a second; Does the approval process improve the quality of apps made by respectable, experienced software developers?

In my experience, it does.

On the Mac, built-in update mechanisms (such as the excellent, ubiquitous Sparkle framework), make it easy for a developer to push out a release and fix any issues almost instantly.

An iPhone app doesn’t have that luxury, precisely because of the delay caused by the approval process. Instead you’re stuck with 7-14 days of angry customers and lost sales due to poor reviews.

So “real developers”, with a reputation to protect, are forced to test and review their own apps more extensively before submitting them to Apple for approval.

In that sense the approval process is a blessing and a curse for consumers: it forces developers to test their apps more thoroughly, but it also means that if a bug does slip through the cracks, you’ll be forced to put up with it for quite some time.

So is the approval process a good idea?

Assuming the approval process forces developers to test more and therefore does improve the quality of apps – is it beneficial overall for consumers?

I’d still argue it’s not. Every piece of software has bugs. The approval process means developers spend a large amount of time hunting down the million and one things that could go wrong – time that might be better spent adding new features or polishing another area of the app.

And when an issue inevitably does crop up, the artificial delay means your paying customers will be stuck waiting 7-14 day for a (probably tiny) fix that a Mac developer could have pushed out in an hour or two.

I think one solution would be for Apple to insist on a very thorough review for initial releases, but then only quick reviews for updates and fixes.

However, the extremely short lead-up between announcement and release is a bit surprising: both the 10.4 and 10.5 releases had longer marketing build-ups, with big release countdown clocks dominating the Apple homepage.

But the slightly more subdued marketing plays into the way Apple has positioned 10.6 as an incremental release: If you stick a big countdown clock on your website, people are going to expect huge fantastic changes. But with so few visible changes to Snow Leopard, that’s clearly not the kind of message Apple is trying to send. At the same time, early reviews have been very favorable and at the unbeatable price of $29, it’s hard not to be far more impressed by the new “fine-tuned” version of OS X, than the marketing would lead you to believe.

I guess that the goal of this positioning and marketing strategy is mainly to allow Apple to under-promise and over-deliver – a great way to prepare for Windows 7 this fall.

At any rate, existing Mac owners have some great improvements to look forward to, potential first-time customers will be reminded which OS is the pundits’ favorite and developers get some under-the-hood improvements to play with. All-in-all it should be a very solid release for Apple.

If you enjoyed this article, support the site: Purchase your copy of Snow Leopard at Amazon with free shipping via one of the links below:

Snow Leopard (requires 10.5 to be installed on your Mac)

Snow Leopard Family Edition (requires 10.5. to be installed on your Mac)

Mac Box Set (Full version of Snow Leopard, iLife ’09 and iWork ’09)

Amazon’s marketing and redesign efforts for the introduction of the Kindle 2 have shown that Amazon has taken the criticism seriously and has made mimicking Apple’s success their new strategy:

1. Imagery

The look and feel of Amazon’s promotional material for the Kindle 2 is very reminiscent of Apple’s material for the iPod and iPhone. Typical elements include a white background, the product compared with an object and glossy reflective surfaces. One could argue that this visual style has simply become commonplace, but at the very least Amazon didn’t make an effort to distinguish themselves from Apple’s visual language.

2. Vocabulary

Apple makes a point of not using articles when referring to their products. Steve Jobs keynotes and Apple’s marketing copy is full of the phrases such as “iPhone will” or “iPod is”. In fact, Apple’s style guide (PDF Link!) explicitly prohibits it:

In general references, don’t use an article. When referring to the user’s particular iPhone, it’s OK to use your.

Amazon seems to have made a similar decision in its marketing copy for the Kindle:

Kindle 2 is everything customers tell us they love about the original Kindle [...].

3. Product design

The original Kindle was widely lambasted for its industrial design. Comments ranged from “almost modern” to “soviet”. Philippe Starck even called it “a little sad”. The design of the Kindle 2 is markedly different and feels very Apple inspired. Like all iPods, it has a silver, metal back, clear white plastic front, rounded corners and a much more symmetrical design. Amazon has also chosen to emphasise the new model’s thinness, much like Apple did when it introduced the iPod nano model line.

4. End to end experience

With the Kindle, Amazon is taking an “end-to-end” approach. Instead of making the software open, or creating a reference platform, Amazon makes and sells the device, sells the media and even controls the electronic distribution network. This is the same model Apple has followed for the iPod with its iTunes music store. Despite calls from some pundits, such as GDGT’s Ryan Block for Amazon to create a software platform and allow other manufacturers to build devices around their software, Amazon has only take a minor step in that direction with its Kindle application for the iPhone.

This kind of integrated approach seem to have been the more successful strategy in recent years: The iPhone’s triumph over Microsoft’s long-term Windows Mobile strategy for instance seems to indicate that consumers favour ease of use and less complication over variety of choice.

Conclusion

It would be silly to argue that Amazon is to fault for “copying” Apple in any way. But as a newcomer to the CE field, it makes sense they would look to another company with experience in bringing advanced technologies and concepts to the mass market.

One iPhone user over at everythingicafe decided to take matters into his own hands and has modded his original headphones, replacing the earbuds with the in-ear buds from his Crossroad X3′s.

The result looks pretty nice and others have had success with this mod as well. (I’m not brave enough to try it with my Shure SE310′s though…)

Link to original everythingicafe post.

“Freedomtime” is basically a countdown app that lets users track George W. Bush’s last days in office. It’s obviously designed to poke fun at the current US administration, but isn’t really overly offensive in my opinion.

The application was rejected by Apple, so the developer wrote Steve an email. Steve responded personally (in keeping with the semi-new communication strategy Apple has been making use of) with the following statement:

Even though my personal political leanings are democratic, I think this app will be offensive to roughly half our customers.  What’s the point?

    Steve

However, in recent years Apple has been more chatty than ever before: Steve Jobs has written a whopping total of 2 blog posts, and even allowed 3 entire posts about the Mobile Me launch before silencing poor David G. 

Traditional Media Communication

Apple’s primary channels of communication haven’t really changed since Jobs returned to Apple in 97 though. They are (in order of importance):

- Live events

- Press Releases

- Traditional media outlets

However these are mostly put to use when large product announcements are made:

The live events are self-explanatory: a Steve Jobs keynote is guaranteed to cause weeks of speculation and coverage all across the internet and news media. These events are supplemented by Apple press releases and Jobs will occasionally even give TV and magazine interviews as well. The “Big Two” tech journalists, Walt Mossberg and David Pogue usually have their reviews ready to go immediately as well.

Why does “the Media” play along? Because an Apple product launch has the potential to be something truly newsworthy and revolutionary. These expectations are amplified by weeks of speculation on the internet, increasing the attention paid to these types of announcements and any stories about them.

“Underground messages”

More interesting though is the new approach Apple seems to be taking in regards to announcements between large announcements. Instead of relying on their traditional outlets, they now use three alternative channels of communication:

- Articles by Steve Jobs posted to Apple.com

- Email responses to complaints sent to stevejobs@apple.com

These types of messages receive attention firstly because it’s so unusual to hear anything besides meticulously prepared PR releases or rehearsed events from Apple. But they also receive coverage because they almost always include some new product news or information as well:

Both of Jobs’ Apple.com articles so far have had a political motive. The first was an attempt to force the music industry’s hand in the DRM wars, the second was a response to negative PR Apple had been hit with by Greenpeace (who carry a substantial amount of authority in Europe). 

The secret is the sauce

But the real secret is the slip of the tongue that is almost always included. “A Greener Apple” included the tidbit that Apple was planning to introduce LED-backlit displays during 2007. That piece would have been a boring bit of eco-fluff on any other company website, the LED backlighting revelation made it a news piece.

Emails to customers purportedly from Jobs seem to serve a slightly different purpose that his “blog” posts: They are usually designed to address customer criticism about a product directly. One revealed that the iPod touch would be gaining calendar editing functionality, whilst two more recent emails have divulged information about the iPhone 3G connectivity issues. Coverage on the internet was against assured by the calendar functionality revelation in the first case and the promise of a new software update by September in the second. 

This allows Apple to address concerns amongst users effectively, without having to go through the embarrassment of publicly announcing shortcomings.

Conclusion

Apple’s legendary secrecy has also been seen as a weakness by some pundits: Whilst other companies will readily comment on ongoing issues they may be having through spokespeople or interviews, Apple traditionally hasn’t. The new avenues of communication they’ve opened up seem to suggest a willingness to address issues more directly than previously – a good move for consumers.

“I have just checked my card account online and apple have put a £121 pending transaction on the card! that’s not even 1 years subscription.”

Link to the relevant Apple Support Discussion thread.

Some have been expecting this move for a while. Whilst Apple doens’t seem to be coming down to harshly on the homebrew Hackintosh community, people selling them commercially is obviously something that hurts Apple’s business and this suit was to be expected.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the other company planning to offer a commercial hackintosh product, EFix (who have announced a USB dongle solution) is reconsidering their launch on hearing today’s news.

I suppose it helps to prevent people from “freeloading” by using multiple email addresses to use the service for multiple trial periods, but I find it hard to imagine anyone actually bothering to do that (especially considering some of mobileme’s features have excellent free alternatives). But I’m sure some people who have a more casual interest in the new services and want to ‘try before they buy‘ may be inclined to not bother signing up for a trial because of this.

Ideally I see a trial model where users are encouraged to enter Credit Card details, but are presented with a simple dialog window at the end of the trial period that offers a single-click option to automatically upgrade to a full membership. Sure, Apple would miss out on a few customers that simply forget to cancel the subscription, but I think the customers retained anyway would appreciate the entire experience all the more due to the “pro-customer” approach.

Impressions and Issues

The first issue that caught my attention was the difficulty of entering your connection details manually: Don’t get me wrong: I have very few issues with the iPhone’s keyboard when entering normal words. But entering the 30 digit pre-shared key took me the best part of 10 minutes.

Luckily, according to this deployment scenario document (warning PDF link) the final release will be able to import a pre-defined, password protected connection file – just like VPN connection files can be deployed en-masse to Cisco desktop clients, so most users will probably never have to manually edit their connection details.

Once I had everything set up and running, the connection seemed to work just fine and browsing speeds seemed to be just as fast over VPN as they were on a regular Wifi connection.

Summary

Everything basically worked as advertised and I look forward to finally being able to really put my iPhone to use at University without having to rely on a slow GPRS/EDGE connection.

P.S. Conspiracy alert! Does anyone else remember that “iPhone” trademark spiff Apple and Cisco had last year? I wonder if that’s why Cisco is the only IPSec VPN gateway manufacturer to be supported on the device. At least the last sentence of the press release seems to imply some sort of closed-door deal:

In addition, Cisco and Apple will explore opportunities for interoperability in the areas of security, and consumer and enterprise communications. Other terms of the agreement are confidential.