[tvon]

I don't think there was ever a reasonable chance of anything else. I mean, if you're Apple, why do anything else? For the most part consumers clearly love to use the App Store. It has serious review process and barrier to entry issues, but those can be fixed over time (hopefully) and as long as there is an active audience, vendors will continue to come.

[aaronblohowiak]

3-day turnaround times of late have mitigated most of the issues, if you aren't conflicting with Apple's interests.

[Zak]

if you aren't conflicting with Apple's interests.

And that's the problem.

[tvon]

Well, it's the problem for maybe 1% of developers (to pull a "sufficiently tiny to make my point, but still made up" number out of thin air). There is still plenty of money to be made that doesn't conflict with the default functionality of the iPhone.

Don't get me wrong, I'd rather there was no filtering at all and there was instead a sort of "paid apps have the option of getting Apple Certification and being listed at the top of all lists" option instead, but I don't think the App Store problems outweigh the benefits for users.

[drewcrawford]

I've developed 10 different apps. 2 of them have gotten the Apple axe.

It's way above 1%.

[harpastum]

As the adage goes, "The plural of anecdote is not data."

Neither you nor your parent have any statistical basis for your estimates. As of early this month [1], there are over 100,000 applications in the app store. If 1% were rejected, that means that 1,010 apps were rejected. Your two apps could easily fall into that category.

Basically, all we can know is that many apps get accepted, but not all of them do. Any more clarity than that requires Apple's intervention (which I don't expect to see any time soon).

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/App_Store#Number_of_launched_ap...

[glhaynes]

If you're going to tell us that, you need to tell us what the 2 were that got the axe.

[Zak]

It may not be when you consider the large number of low-quality but harmless games and distractions out there. It's when you try to do something interesting - to push what the device can do that you run a high risk of not being approved.

[thras]

The problem is that there is a hell of a lot of general purpose software out there already that's never going to be worth the effort to port to a single device.

The iPhone has some nice apps, but runs nothing important to me in my professional life. And if the new tablet isn't going to be a useful work tool, why would I want it?

[josh33]

I honestly don't see the value proposition either. Oh wait. That's because Steve hasn't taken the stage yet to show us that Apple has created something of value that we didn't know we wanted until we were shown. Some call this fanboyism. It's really just creativity at its best. Creating new things to make life better. That's what apple does, and they are handsomely rewarded for it.

[CamperBob]

What's your profession, and what tablet/phone apps might be helpful but not yet available?

[megaduck]

I can't speak for thras, but if I can't do software development on a device, that's a pretty big problem.

I'd love to replace my netbook with sleek little tablet, but the odds of Apple selling something that runs Java, Ruby, or emacs is slim-to-none.