Apple's control over the App Store—which seems arbitrary at times—still frustrates developers. That much isn't a surprise, but some developers have become frustrated to the point that they have decided to simply halt iPhone development altogether. Facebook's Joe Hewitt, Second Gear's Justin Williams, and long-time Mac software developer Rogue Amoeba have all recently decided that enough is enough, and the loss of these developers and others could spell a troubling future for the App Store. True, it has over 100,000 applications, but how many of them are created with the kind of care and passion we take for granted in the Mac software world?

Hewitt, a respected Web developer who previously worked on Firefox and its highly regarded developer plug-in Firebug, recently handed off responsibility for Facebook's successful iPhone app to another engineer at the company. Hewitt cited his frustration with Apple's approval process for the move:

My decision to stop iPhone development has had everything to do with Apple's policies. I respect their right to manage their platform however they want, however I am philosophically opposed to the existence of their review process. I am very concerned that they are setting a horrible precedent for other software platforms, and soon gatekeepers will start infesting the lives of every software developer.

Hewitt wasn't able to discuss specifics with us, but several sources contacted Ars and told us that his decision may have ultimately been prompted by an issue with Hewitt's Three20 framework instead of problems with the Facebook application itself.

Hewitt originally released Three20—a framework derived from the work he did to create the Facebook app (and named for the iPhone's 320-pixel-wide screen)—as open source in March of this year. Numerous iPhone developers use the framework, which gives developers drop-in support for several user interface enhancements in their own iPhone apps. However, Apple recently identified use of a private API call in apps that rely on the Three20 framework, and starting rejecting these applications.

Private API calls are a definite no-no according to the iPhone Developer Agreement, but since the app review process is so opaque, it took some time before it was determined that the problem was related to the Three20 framework itself. The consensus is that these rejections were likely what finally pushed Hewitt to take a break from iPhone development. Since Apple's policy on use of private APIs is clear, it may seem that Hewitt's complaints are without merit.

UPDATE: Joe Hewitt contacted us to let us know this particular thoery isn't accurate. "My decision to leave had nothing to do with the Three20-related rejections over private APIs," he told Ars. He acknowledged that the rejections were logical, and his decision was related to "another experience" which he is not at liberty to disclose details of publicly.

Unfortunately, Hewitt isn't alone in jumping ship. Earlier this year, developer Justin Williams wrote a screed noting his objections to the way the App Store is being managed, and the significant risks it entails for most developers. It was prompted by the rejection (or extended evaluation, if we are to believe Apple's statement on the matter) of Google Voice for iPhone.

"With the latest app rejection being Google Voice, I am one step closer to selling off my iPhone products and focusing entirely on the Mac once more," Williams wrote. "I can't help but feel that I've wasted the past 9 months of my life building on a platform that is so hostile and anti-developer. I no longer enjoy building software for the iPhone because of the bureaucracy and infrastructure that surrounds it."

xkcd #662 riffs on App Store rejections.

After expressing his displeasure, Williams was approached by another developer offering to buy his applications. This began a two-month-long process of transferring the applications to Patrick Burleson of BitBQ. Both Williams and Burleson worked with the Apple Developer Connection to have these applications transferred to Burleson's iTunes Connect account, to no avail. Ultimately, Williams had to delete his versions from the store, and Burleson had to upload his versions for review.

Both applications—FitnessTrack and Emergency Information—are stuck in Apple's review queue, meaning they aren't currently available. Meanwhile, customers that originally bought the applications from Williams will have to buy it again from Burleson if they want future updates. "It sucks because I feel bad for existing customers, but it just wasn't feasible to keep them under my name, bank accounts, and ADC account when I don't own or maintain the applications anymore," Williams told Ars. "We did everything we could, but once again Apple holds all the cards and left us in purgatory."

However, Williams is glad to be back focusing on just the Mac platform with his company Second Gear. "I made the decision that I'm not getting back on the App Store until Apple fixes its flaws," Williams explained. "Making 25 times more [money] on my Mac apps certainly made it easier, but the reason I got out was for the most part political, and part of me wanting to make a statement. I'm going to bitch about the store, Apple's faults, and all that until they do make it right. It's the only way to spread awareness and hopefully get stuff fixed."

"It's been almost two years and we developers have no better relationship with Apple than we did when this whole thing was announced," Williams told Ars. "That's unfortunate."

This is what the previous version of Airfoil Speakers Touch would show when connected to a Mac with audio coming from Safari.

Late last week, yet another respected developer threw in the towel after having issues with Apple's iPhone app review team. Rogue Amoeba, most well known for its Mac applications for working with audio, ran into an App Store approval nightmare with a minor bug fix to its Airfoil Speakers Touch app. The app connects to Macs running Rogue Amoeba's Airfoil software—used to send audio from any application to an Airport Express—and stream the audio to an iPhone or iPod touch.

The update merely improved the way audio was received, and in no way changed any functionality. Despite this, Apple roundly rejected it several times. It turns out that what was keeping the app from being approved was that it uses an image of the Mac that it's connected to, as well as an icon for the application that is sending audio, to display the current audio source to the user. Rogue Amoeba's Paul Kafasis pointed out that the original application, already approved and in the App Store, used this same mechanism, and that Apple provides developers a public API for accessing these images. However, Apple ultimately rejected the use, claiming it was an inappropriate use of "Apple-owned Graphic Symbols."

It could be argued that Rogue Amoeba should have seen this coming, or at least changed its app after the first rejection to comply with Apple's guidelines. However, it's not so cut-and-dried that the use actually violated any laws or rules, and the previous precedent that the app had been approved before with this functionality suggested otherwise. Further, removing the icons would actually affect the ease of use in a negative way. Rogue Amoeba made several attempts to persuade Apple that the use was legitimate and provided a better user experience, but it was finally forced to change the icons before Apple would approve the update.

The whole four-month ordeal left a sour taste in the company's collective mouth, and Rogue Amoeba is no longer pursuing any further iPhone development. "The way the App Store is set up, it's very difficult to invest the time to develop a deep application," Kafasis told Ars. "So, developers don't put any depth into their products; you get one-offs, a single feature essentially."

Like Second Gear, the company is once again focused on the Mac platform, where it's possible to build a sustainable business model. "On the Mac, you can build a software company; on the iPhone, you can win the lottery," Kafasis explained. "A few people do [win], and sell hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of software in a very short period. The top-selling and top-grossing apps are likely making more than most any Mac software.

"But as far as the long-term goes, where is it?" Kafasis said. "You don't know your customers—Apple doesn't tell you who they are—so how do you tell them about your second product? If you do tell them—with an annoying in-app ad, for instance—how do you give them a discount? You can't."

A handful of developers responsible for a handful of applications leaving the platform might not matter much in the long term. "For every dev that leaves iPhone in frustration, 1,000 new ones join up." Hewitt tweeted in frustration last week.

"To [Apple], it's a tempest in a teapot," Kafasis told Ars. "If they see it at all, they can look to the 25,000 other developers and say, 'Well they're happy.' This isn't affecting their bottom line in an obvious way. 'Sure, you're making $50 million in app sales, but you could be making $55 million, if you let developers ship what they wanted!'" he explained.

The problem might better be explained via an analogy posited by Instapaper developer (and creator of Tumblr) Marco Arment. Though Apple prides itself on providing customers a single, straightforward outlet for iPhone apps, there are functionally two App Stores: one for folks who will install any app for 99? and try it at least once, and one for folks who want great software and don't mind paying for it. Targeting the first app store is a lottery, as Kafasis described it. Targeting the second one is more like the model used by most Mac developers—build well-designed software, build relationships with your users, and slowly build success over time. However, the way the App Store is run by Apple, it's incredibly difficult for developers to thrive on these types of apps alone—especially when there is potentially 25 times more income on the Mac side.

Those 1,000 developers hoping to fill Hewitt's shoes will tend to be new developers attracted by stories of a developer striking it rich on the App Store—a story Apple is only too happy to promote—and tend to be inexperienced at creating useful interfaces and cohesive design. And, as we have come to learn, plenty of those 100,000 available from the App Store lack fit and finish. Clearly there are developers that aren't happy about this situation, but do we as customers want that to be the standard? So far, it seems that this is so.

Ultimately, it seems there are two basic routes Apple could take. Apple could merely check apps for technical errors and malware, and otherwise approve everything. Alternately, Apple could allow users to install iPhone apps from whomever they choose, and make the App Store a sort of collection of premium, vetted applications. "[Apple is] currently occupying this untenable middle ground, and it's benefiting no one," Kafasis told Ars.

While developers will continue to point out the problems, and App Store rejections will get some press, it doesn't seem like Apple is particularly motivated to change the status quo. iPhones are selling well—where the real money is for Apple—and the company is poised to be the number two smartphone vendor if current sales trends continue. It will be up to us—the iPhone users buying apps—to encourage Apple to change.

Further Reading: