I agree with the primary point that Apple is making a mistake in not treating developers well.
However, I think that the essay misses a couple of points.
1. The essay rejects the notion of an "intermediary" or a "software publisher". However, it fails to appreciate the fact Apple has opened up the mobile app market to developers and eliminated far worse intermediaries (the walled gardens of carriers). This is a huge order-of-magnitude improvement.
2. A lot of developers do release badly-buggy apps out there and then end up "blaming" the Apple review process for their customers dissatusfaction. While I agree with the launch-fast-and-iterate approach, I don't think developers/companies should use that as a license to release poor-quality crashing apps. Cutting/postponing features to launch the app quickly can be a good thing, not testing the app and releasing an app with crashing bugs is not a good thing.
---
I don't expect Apple to throw out the review process, but I do hope that they improve the review process. A simple/easy improvement would be to show the latest queue ranking of apps that are waiting for review. That will go a long way towards reducing the "ongoing karma leak" that pg mentions.
Replying promptly to developer emails about app-store rejection will also help. Setting a limit of n apps for a $99 license may also help Apple cope with the incoming deluge of apps
1. Carriers never had walled gardens around smartphones. Apple didn't invent smartphones, they've been around for years before the iPhone was released. In fact, the carrier (AT&T) has more control than they do on blackberries or WinMo phones.
2. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. The review process exists so developers are already doing their best to not be rejected and Apple is rejecting anything badly-buggy. Bugs still escape that process, it's inevitable. Fixing them should be easy and quick, but it's not, and Apple is entirely to blame for that.
However, I think that the essay misses a couple of points.
1. The essay rejects the notion of an "intermediary" or a "software publisher". However, it fails to appreciate the fact Apple has opened up the mobile app market to developers and eliminated far worse intermediaries (the walled gardens of carriers). This is a huge order-of-magnitude improvement.
2. A lot of developers do release badly-buggy apps out there and then end up "blaming" the Apple review process for their customers dissatusfaction. While I agree with the launch-fast-and-iterate approach, I don't think developers/companies should use that as a license to release poor-quality crashing apps. Cutting/postponing features to launch the app quickly can be a good thing, not testing the app and releasing an app with crashing bugs is not a good thing. ---
I don't expect Apple to throw out the review process, but I do hope that they improve the review process. A simple/easy improvement would be to show the latest queue ranking of apps that are waiting for review. That will go a long way towards reducing the "ongoing karma leak" that pg mentions.
Replying promptly to developer emails about app-store rejection will also help. Setting a limit of n apps for a $99 license may also help Apple cope with the incoming deluge of apps