Appstore Absolution
Imagine what it's like to create your first app: It starts with a problem that you need to solve because it upsets you—the fact that it remains unsolved intrudes you. Then, for the following weeks and months, you're on a mission to solve this problem. After lots of contemplation, effort and work, one day, your app is mostly done. The final step, if you're an iOS developer, is to publish it on the App Store: a historic place of legendary success-stories despite it's relatively short time existing.
But a few days after submission, you get a message. It's the review team. They sent you a block of text, copy-pasted from their App Store policies, stating, for some vague reason, that your app has been declined. Currently, this is where you hit a brick wall. If you aren't in the lucky position that your app concept is flexible enough for changes that will make the reviewer happy, there is no way for you to distribute your app on Apple devices at all. The solution for the problem you found would remain unseen by all consumers and the entire project will be forgotten.
Is the App Store perfect, or does it contain issues that stand in the way of it being a better app distribution system? If it isn't perfect, what are its problems? The App Store launched in 2008 and its core largely remained the same since then. To say that it is mostly flawless is like saying cars were impeccable just 10 years after they were invented and when most people still traveled by horse. Maybe we can't imagine the perfect App Store right now. But we can identify some of its deficiencies and with that knowledge imagine a better place to distribute apps.
The problem
What is the App Store really? It's a system consisting of a platform owner (e.g., Apple), developers and consumers. The platform owner provides a system which enables developers to host and distribute their apps, and consumers to find and install apps they want more efficiently. The idea of an app distribution system was revolutionary: It solves numerous problems like compatibility-issues or installation for users and hosting or marketing for developers. Since its invention, it has become an industry standard.
In its current implementations, app distribution systems are not perfect. Problems can emerge, if platform owners are also the device owners on which the app distribution system is used on: In this article, I'll focus on Apple, and its control over the iOS ecosystem to force all installations through the App Store. Not allowing installations outside the App Store essentially means that any app installation on an iPhone requires implicit permission by Apple. This is because all apps on the App Store are being reviewed and have to conform to their guidelines.
Apple: “only I should decide which apps are installable on a device”
Apple's guiding principle is “only I should decide which apps are installable on a device”. In this lies a fundamental problem because this principle is only valid if the device is your property and not someone else's. For example, as a smartphone user, it's valid to life after that principle because you can do whatever you want with your device. It's like owning a house: You can keep it clean, you can throw a party, you can leave it empty—it's up to you as the owner. Per contra to this example, Apple is selling their devices, thus transferring ownership, and is still keeping this principle active. Because Apple is ruling that “only I (Apple) should decide which apps are installable”, they essentially rob every user their own decision power on what apps to install and use. It's like “selling” a house but keeping all the rights to decide what can be done in it. You can't clean it, can't throw a party, can't leave it empty—you always have to ask the seller (Apple) for permission, even though you bought it!
Sure, you can do many of the things on an iPhone without Apple's permission, but when it comes to installing apps, you will always need Apple's permission. You require permission, even though they don't own your device, nor the third-party apps that are being installed. It may be true that Apple builds iPhones, so it's their devices, and they can do whatever they want to with them. But as soon as they sell it (transferring ownership), Apple needs to let this principle of control go because the user is now in his right to decide what he does with his device.
The underlying reasons
Why does Apple decide to keep this unjustified control? What advantages do they get from it? Apple always states that the control of the App Store is to protect users from low-quality and dangerous apps. While the benefits from a review system are real, this is not an argument for being the only one to decide which apps can be used on a device that someone else owns. In theory, Apple could keep its App Store and policies and at the same time allow third-party markets and installations. If they're confident in their policies and decision-making on what are qualitative and secure apps, users would surely choose the App Store over other markets because it provides more value. They could even update their policies so that users lose parts of their warranty, if they install apps from third parties because Apple can only guarantee that the App Store is safe. The reasons of quality and security are nothing more than an excuse to keep a firm grip on the app distribution process. And more control leads to more power and security for Apple.
In the App Store, search and ratings are severely underdeveloped
As a side effect, this unfair control of Apple also hinders the innovation of App Store itself. If you look at App Store, you will find that two things are severely underdeveloped: The search / exploration functionalities and the rating system. It seems like the search functionality has never been updated since the App Store's launch with just 500 apps and today does not yield any meaningful results, compared to the Play Store implementation. It's like using the search form from your local library: It doesn't find anything new, it only returns results if you know exactly what you're looking for. The same goes for categories and other automated ways of discovering apps. The user-review system could partly solve this problem. If great apps could be identified more effectively through their ratings, search would improve automatically. However, the quality of ratings is lacking because they don't contain the required metrics for differentiating good apps from bad ones. Moreover, very few users actually leave reviews because doing so is too inconvenient and not incentivized effectively enough. Insufficient search and discover functionality, combined with a meager rating system, means that users hardly find any new apps, except through featured apps and App Store ads, or through ads and marketing from the internet. This makes Apple one of the most viable options for ad-selling to developers and means big money. If Apple were to allow third-party installations, they would lose a lot of money and face fierce competition from other app markets.
It's about them, not the user.
Another reason is that binding developers to the App Store automatically pulls them into other Apple Services, like its payment systems. These other services (and future services) are making a lot of money for Apple, and the control over app distribution certainly contributes to their success. To me, Apple's explanation for the App Store control, that they care so much about their users for the users' sake, is an overstatement. It's about them, not the user.
A look into the future
Imagine what an app markets could look like, if its consumers and developers were not under a dictatorship of the owner: Searchability and the rating system could be so far developed, that better apps are found more often than bad ones and are coming out on top naturally, without ads and features needed. There wouldn't be falsely rejected apps from the market with no way of disputing a reviewer's judgement, and developers could publish their apps, regardless of what anyone thinks of them. Users would have high quality, secure apps and could make their own decisions on which apps to download. And a better app distribution system enhances development of new apps, which improves the quality of apps in the app market, creating a virtuous cycle. This is just an idea of what could be possible, it doesn't mean that it has to, or will be that way. It's up to us to innovate and to create a better future for all of us.
Often times, when we look at the present and think about what could be a great innovation, we can't see a thing. Everything is so well-thought-out already. However, I think it's that when we look at the underlying principles, that we can clearly see the problems and through them the solutions to a brighter tomorrow.
P.S. I may be biased on this topic due to subjective experiences with my own app in the past few days, however I tried to stay rational and objective in this article. I'm interested in hearing your perspective on this topic, you can send me a message on Twitter
