it's not that serious lol.

Well said.

cheers

Really, do we have to make things up about WinMo phones to defend Apple's ridiculous policies? If so, then right there you should know the policy is ridiculous.

The market will take care of the rest. Those that want a fully Apple managed experience can have it, and more power to 'em. Those that want things Apple refuses to offer can do their own thing. ATT can block apps on its network if it wants or sell ala carte plans.

While Apple is at it they could quit actively keeping desktop software from syncing with and managing songs on the iPhone. They don't have to support it just quit changing the hash tables and charging people with DMCA violations when they try to read the tables to make software interface with the iPhone.

No hacks or mods. Just bought the apps (there were no demo options). Uninstall is a no go when the only interface to the device you have has been crippled.

So are we talking tech support now? I thought we were talking about how it never happens in the land of MS...

Obviously you have completely bought in to the BS shoveled by Apple and Daddy Jobs on this issue. But reality is that it just ain't so. The point is the world's of average users with WinMo and RIM do not come crashing down, and their phones work just fine despite the fact that yes, they can install whatever apps they want on their phones without the app having to be approved by MS or RIM.

So I would argue with your very premise. And if by some odd chance you are correct, then the hardware is the problem. This is 2009, and smartphone users have been able to manage to choose their own apps and without problem for over a decade. Unless it's an Apple product, that is.

If you really think software crashing hardware is always the hardware's fault, you obviously don't understand computers or electronics...

As far as uninstalling something that doesn't work...

Apple caters to the masses and doesn't care what nerdy iPhone blog people think (sorry guys, but face it, we're nerds). The average iPhone user would have to call Apple support if their phone started crashing or became unusable after installing 3rd party software. My mom calls me twice a year to tell me her printer doesn't work anymore. It's almost always because it's out of ink, and she has no idea.

If they're also concerned about content they could set the rule that an app must be listed as 17+ if it is published to the live store before it is approved, then once it has been certified it can have its age rating lowered.

Allowing apps to go straight to the live store with the OPTION of later certification will reduce the volume of apps that Apple has to review, but the the ability to use a rating lower than 17+ and the added attention a "CERTIFIED BY APPLE" badge would bring would likely encourage many developers to still apply for review.

To further encourage Apple review AFTER the app has been published to the store, Apps in the review process could be badged "UNDER REVIEW" or "CERTIFICATION PENDING" and an application never submitted for review would also be labeled as such "APP NOT CERTIFIED".

This could only be a Win-Win for the consumer and would ease the strain on the Apple-Developer relationship.

1) I completely agree with the call for more reviewers. You know they have to be under a lot of pressure to get through apps and that reduces the effectiveness of what they are trying to do. 2) I'm not an iPhone developer, so I don't know the process but... have developers only submit code, which is then compiled and that is used for what goes in the App store. (There's a reason, hold on. ) 3) Have an option for developers to choose whether an app is Apple approved or not. Even apps that aren't Apple-approved still would have to be in Cocoa and therefore wouldn't be able to get around the sandboxing effect that exists now. (Hopefully limiting their potential negative impact on the iPhone.) 4) Additionally, have an easy-to-find option in iTunes for showing Apple-approved, not Apple-approved or both sets of apps. (Default to only showing Apple-approved.) 5) Make iTunes better for finding good apps and weeding out the chaff.

If they wanted to, a developer could throw something out there not Apple-approved (quick to get into the App store), get a following/feedback, make changes and resubmit it for Apple approval.

This would allow the App store to remain as the one-stop shop it is now, developers the ability to put out whatever they want and not have to wait for approval, but would also give customers a warning that they aren't using something that has been proven to be safe and acceptable.

Tons of people I know now that have recently gotten iPhones always look at me like I am crazy when I pay for apps. I show them something cool and they just blurt out, I don't pay for apps.

It also appears that while Apple has "control" of what goes in the store, that they have zero control of the actual store. Does anyone at Apple besides the reviewers even look at what is in the App Store? Who is in charge of that? It is full of trash and is an utter mess to sift though to find worthy apps. I can't believe Steve Jobs can even stand to look at it himself. It appears as there is no common sense and just that if it passes review it gets in, no matter how useless it may be.

At the very least they need to triple the number of reviewers. Allow for a program where developers can submit quick updates to already established apps. And hire someone to actually think about what is getting put up in the App Store.

The 65,000 app figure they spew out all the time is a joke. It can't be more than 3-5,000 max.

@Jason: if an app causes problems on a winmo device guess what? You uninstall it. And you get to try before you buy so no problem. Winmo phones don't brick unless you hack them with a modded OS which is not what we are talking about here (and no different then bricking an iPhone with jailbreaking.)

Compared to current third party alternatives(Cydia...) it's lightyears away from the competition.

They should just relax some of the rules and get way more reviewers. If they let people volunteer to be app reviewers I'm sure they could get a whole lot of them.

Like when I loaded a different keyboard on my HTC Touch and it became unusable? Like when I loaded Opera and it sucked up all my system resources? Like when I loaded a skinning tool and then I couldn't even use my touchscreen anymore.

I can point to TONS of forums over at WMExperts with people having constant software problems.

I don't miss those days.

I really think this is why a lot of apps get turned down. It's not so much about their content as it is about simple triage. If they had a bit more time to QC the whole thing, I'm thinking it would be more organized and timely while still having good control.

Step 1: jailbreak your iPhone

Step 2: install a whole bunch of apps through Cydia including winterboard, intelliscreen, etc.

Step 3: watch your iPhone 3g speed and performance crumble to the ground

That is why Apple keeps a lid on 3rd party apps.

Lastly, with better control, the app store will be full of usefull apps beaus everybody making apps just as a get-rich-quick scheme.

I also think Apple will not let users load 3rd part Apps on the side because of the support nightmare that could/would follow. Apps would start crashing people's phones and their support lines would be flooded. If you don't think this is likely, try jailbreaking your phone and installing Apps. Alot of Apps will crash your phone upon install.

The easiest solution would be for Apple to stop being such tight a$$es and start letting the developers develop instead of fighting the approval process, etc.

Basically they need to just let people develop for the platform, and not limit what is and is not released just because they don't want to release it.