Totalitarian App Store
By Chris Barna
Imagine you're browsing through Facebook on your computer and the pre-installed Internet Explorer browser keeps crashing. You wish you could use another browser like Firefox, but it's impossible because you can only install Microsoft authorized software. Since Firefox serves the exact same function as Internet Explorer, suppose that Microsoft were to decline their request to be allowed on any computer.
Pretty outrageous, right? Then why do you let Apple do the same thing with the iPhone App Store?
Before I go much farther, let me explain a few things about my relationship with Apple products. I grew up in a house dominated by Macintosh computers.
The first computer my family owned was a 1992 Apple LCII. My parents lined up for the original iMac on release day in 1997. While the whole world complained about Apple's new portable media player in 2001, I was rocking out with 1,000 songs in my pocket. I am a born and bred Apple fanboy. Lately, however, I have been less enthusiastic about their products.
My issue with Apple is not with their technology. Contrary to many tech geeks, I think the iPad is an impressive piece of engineering.
The App Store for the iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad, on the other hand, is atrocious. The most famous example of the shortcomings of the App Store is that of last year's Google Voice debacle.
The Google Voice application would have liberated iPhone users from AT&T's oppressive text messaging fees and provided a new voice mail system that included transcription. Google reportedly had their application pre-approved by an Apple Vice President before they were rejected for duplicating an existing iPhone feature. Initially, there were fears that AT&T had pressured Apple to reject the application, but they were vindicated when the FCC decided to investigate.
Google Voice is probably the most extreme example, because it actually would have improved the functionality of the iPhone. But there have been many more rejections for frivolous reasons.
According to technology blogs, applications such as the $999 "I Am Rich" application and "Obama Trampoline" were either not approved or killed shortly after their launch.
The Twitter application "Tweetie" was temporarily banned for profanity because one of the trending topics on Twitter during the approval process was vulgar. The list goes on, and Apple does not necessarily disclose the reasons for rejection. Apple is the virtual gatekeeper for anything that goes on the iPhone.
Further, to even be considered for the App Store, Apple requires developers to pay a fee of $99. This is not a large fee, especially for companies that have budgets of thousands, if not millions of dollars, but the fee does not guarantee acceptance.
There are some benefits of having tight restrictions on the content allowed on a product. To date, the iPhone has remained relatively family friendly and your applications do not bombard you with spam. On the other hand, without a free market, applications will surely not be as good as they could be. Without a free market, products like Firefox could never have existed and driven healthy competition.
Chris Barna is a sophomore political science major.