Monday, June 22nd, 2009

The Closing of the Mobile Web

iphone_3gs

Today, the concept of the ‘mobile web’ becomes more and more a reality. Every carrier and every phone maker, striving to make smarter, more efficient devices, in a continued effort to lessen the gap between traditional ‘web browsing’ and new mobile web interfacing. To date, four major players have introduced their own “App Stores,” each with their share of titles and subtle nuances that make each store uniquely tuned to that device’s specialties.

HOWEVER, only one player has really triumphed in the market, and that, as we all know, is Apple and their iPhone App Store. First to market and making the process relatively simple and painless for developers to access their developer kit and submit apps, it seems Apple is doing everything the right way. Maybe? Or Maybe not? In the past few months the amount of acclaim has been met with just as much criticism of an increasing amount of inconsistency involved in the ‘approval’ of apps submitted by developers.

Now, we’ve talked about this here before, but again it comes to the forefront, as Apple’s inconsistency is not brought on only by itself, but it now appears their network (remember these guys? The one responsible for limiting many of the new iPhone 3GS features due to a lack of network preparedness in the US?) is pulling some strings as well. Now I understand that they’re running a business, but hey, you’re running a business that opened itself up as a major player in the whole ‘internet’ game. There’s a thing called Net Neutrality and by opening your devices up to use the ‘internet’ and by allowing developers to create applications that utilize this ‘internet’ you can’t just pick and choose what you let happen and what you don’t (outside of the realm of clearly malicious apps, viruses and things like that, of course). That’s not how it works.

A great example of this was pointed out over on today regarding two interesting examples. The first was the “Me So Holy” app, which allowed users to essentially insert their face into a classic painting of Jesus, was rejected on the basis of objectionable content and to “protect the sensitivity of the customers.” This is a clear case of Apple playing the moral gatekeeper and, regardless of your religious standpoint, there’s nothing inherently wrong or inappropriate about the app. The second example is a little more fuzzy, but falls into the realm of the network choosing what does and does not get approved. SlingPlayer (also known as the SlingBox, a hardware device you use with your television set), was rejected and required to change their data connectivity setup to only work on Wi-Fi signal, not on the AT&T 3G network because of the apparent issues with ‘bogging down the network’ while streaming video content and the issue of redirecting television signals for viewing on Personal computing devices. THEN, in the almost exact same instance, the MLB (Major League Baseball) app was approved, allowing users to stream video of the exact same coverage found on any TV broadcast. How is this different?

There are folks inside the AT&T world who are claiming it stems from an issue of their network being overloaded and that it is in no way an attempt to ‘close’ the mobile web, but this kind of inconsistent behavior has been going on since before the rash increase in iPhone users, and honestly, doesn’t appear to be just a network issue.

Always a hot issue, will it ever be resolved? Who knows? Its just a little frustrating/discouraging to see the worlds most innovative and forward thinking device maker be so restricting and ‘closed’ both by its ‘approval standards’ and network restrictions. Feels a little opposite what they’re trying to do with the technology.

More: http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/06/closed-iphone/

Leave a Reply