[pxlpshr]

BlackBerry is doing something I wish Apple had done. Their $200 application fee (Apple = $100) entitles you to only 10 applications. Your next 10 require an additional $200 payment.

Had Apple done this, I think you would see far less junk apps that are repurposed fifteen ways to Sunday. A lot of indies and students would probably think twice about releasing useless crap if submissions were limited and had value.

Most .99 apps that are not on the Top Charts make less than ~$75 a month.

[mxcl]

I think it'll kill the market. You need that experimentation zone. We just released our app on there. But I'd never release any hobby projects to their store. It's not just the price point that stops me. I can afford that if I must. But it means there won't be any open source/hobbyist community developing. And that's what I want to be a part of.

[pxlpshr]

Being limited by a $200 application fee to get 10 more slots is NOT going to kill a market for quality-focused developers (indie or not). I'm sorry but that's hardly the case... In fact, we would happily pay ~$10k to publish to iTunes if it meant half the stuff on the store would not be there.

That said, I really wish Apple had let apps run wild. As an alternative, developers could apply for iTunes Publishing and give up 30% + extensive review process. This would let Apple pick and choose without criticism, while "experimenters" could keep the clutter off the store but in a true free market economy where if it was truly that great — it would be recognized with or without Apple's support.

My guess is the Blackberry market will be nerfed by inconsistent hardware that will require extensive testing to ensure a consistent experience for all consumers. Have you developed a Blackberry web-app? Have fun, it's a nightmare... especially when almost all the user-agents report a unique browser specific to the phone. And that's when things were relatively simple.

It's in this regard (and others) that the iPhone wins, and while critics will find fault in a closed/commoditized hardware device — it's truly one of the primary reasons for so much interest in the iPhone (though possibly not recognized given the influx of 'new' software developers). If we had a thousand+ configurations to deal with like Windows Mobile or Blackberry, we would likely not be publishing out of our apartment unless we had funding of some sort.

Look, I'm all about experimenting and hobbyist developers and there's really not much stopping you now... build a few apps, install them on your phone and friends w/ ad hoc distros. But there's really no reason that many of these apps need to clutter a market place. It's like putting a .99 store in a respected city mall, which would never happen be/c there is a gatekeeper preventing crap from leasing space and degrading the shopping experience for customers who go to the mall with an expectation.

That said, I really wish Apple never let iFart on the store. Complete free markets tend to be overrated and resemble anarchy.

[mxcl]

Yes well said, I reconsider my stance. Apple's store is full of crap, and Blackberry's won't be. Apple want to control their platform completely, but frankly, like you say, they don't seem to have a huge quality barrier, we've all seen the store fillng up with crap. And the store cannot scale to the number of apps in it already.

Your points and experience developing for BB were interesting to me thanks. We came from doing an iPhone app, doing an Android app and then dealing with the multitude that is BB dev, so the points hit home.

[paulgb]

The difference is that with blackberry, the app market isn't the exclusive distribution channel. Open source/hobbyist stuff is best left to other channels anyway.

[mxcl]

Ahh, this is a good point I hadn't considered.

[gcheong]

How exactly are you defining "junk"? I think Apple should allow all apps, beyond those that are malicious or overly resource intensive, and let the market decide what defines "useless crap". I suspect most of those .99 apps are developers getting their feet wet learning the system of how to put a paid app up which is why they tend to drop off rather quickly but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be there. What I find more annoying than anything about the app store is that Apple thinks it can be the arbiter of taste for their users when it comes to 3rd party applications.

[pxlpshr]

As I said above, the AppStore should not be a "free market"... it should be a PREMIUM market and the free market should exists outside of the store where developers and consumers can buy and sell iPhone apps as they see fit. (IMO)

The AppStore doesn't scale for a true free market, it just doesn't and it's certainly not designed to fit the needs of software developers who are forced to use the store. There's no relationship management tools, there's no way to track marketing effectiveness, app reviews are not like comments where developers can easily respond to mis-informed consumers (or worse, developer cronies leaving wrong feedback), etc. I could go on, really.

The more popular it gets, the more broken and junk ridden it will become without some regulation.

[mxcl]

Honestly, from experience I know they hardly reject any apps. There's some serious publicity surrounding a few keys app rejections here and there (hell ours was rejected once, Last.fm), but really, they reject for technical reasons. Not due to "taste", and even then they weight it up, it doesn't happen much.

[gcheong]

Perhaps using "taste" was too vague. My .99 app was rejected for being of "minimal functionality". So who decides what minimal functionality is? The app was of minimal functionality by design, but they felt it needed more options or interaction which I felt would just needlessly complicate the product. What I don't want to do is get into the case where I'm wasting development time trying to hit some kind of moving target of minimal features required to get an application accepted. The fact that it doesn't happen much isn't the issue, its the fact that it happens at all when there are no clear guidelines that I think is ridiculous.