Murphy's Law: Will Apple Let Intel Borrow Its Iron Fist?

Posted 12/17/2009 at 11:46am | by David Murphy

1

Comment

Print

I don't often connect to the Apple's iPhone App Store. It's not that I don't like perusing through new and interesting applications or games to try out. Rather, it's because Apple has made the processes of purchasing new applications so impossible to handle that it's simply not worth my time to scan through the listings to find new things to try out.

In fact, you could make a solid argument that there are no "real" listings of applications and games in the App Store. As to why that's the case, one need look no further than Apple's stranglehold on its own platform--were there a clarion call for a more open experience in application management, it would be require Steve Jobs to sit on the receiving end of one of those giant horns from the Ricola commercials.

We've been down this road before, however. I only readdress the issue because of all the unrestrained hype surrounding Intel's development of its own App Store for netbooks. Given the success of the Apple model--three parts promotion, one part consumer restraint--I can see no reason why Intel wouldn't follow suit.

Here's how it's done. Apple, in the infinite caches of wisdom at 1 Infinite Loop, has decided that it knows what's best for you, the customer, when it comes to the App Store. That's why you are given a limited number of options for discovering new programs to try out. On the iPhone, this comes in the form of four key listings: "New" apps, "What's Hot" apps, the "Top 25" listings for both free and paid-for apps, and Apple's own "Genius" utility for discovering apps that match your interest

That doesn't sound so bad at first glance. Only, it is. For some strange reason, a significant majority of the apps in the New and What's Hot tabs are paid-for programs. One infrequently sees free applications penetrating this valuable App Store real estate. The balance is a bit more even when using Genius to find new apps, but the quality of the results is open for interpretation. When Apple itself recommends programs, it's no small surprise that a significant number of apps found in the company's "Rewind 2009" Best-of Apps and Games collections are going to cost you.

I'm not one to fight quality. And there's no question that a number of quality apps come with a small price tag attached (or large, in the case of the $80 Magellan RoadMate app). It's nevertheless a strange juxtaposition that's pretty much cemented as reality once you realize that Apple takes a cut of the apps sold on its store. In the interests of usability versus profit, why would Apple want to promote free applications or games?

The issue is more than just one of fairness; it's a question of functionality. Just as I'm undoubtedly missing out on a number of interesting free applications due to Apple's alleged reluctance to feature anything that's not pricy, the App store itself is designed in such a way as to make the search for new, unique applications a fairly laborious process. Or, in layman's terms, it's a lot easier to do what your iPhone tells you than to go on a fishing expedition for better programs.

So what of Intel? The company plans to take, at minimum, a cut of 30 percent of all programs sold on its App Store to cover "operational expenses and partner revenue." For those playing the home version of today's column, that's an identical business model to... you guessed it: Apple's App Store. While the Intel App Store will support free programs, just how much choice do you think an average consumer will have should, say, OpenOffice.org and Microsoft Office both decide to join up with Intel's marketplace?

It remains to be seen just how Intel's app store will actually work from a UI standpoint. But I wouldn't be surprised to find a heavy push toward Intel-based promotion of apps coupled with a limited means for finding alternative applications in the mess. The more Intel and Apple can tweak the recommendation engines or outright suggest paid content for you to grab, the more their App Stores will simplify more than just your downloading process--they'll reduce the complexity of your bank account, too.

The iPhone is a lost cause for the creation of a third-party application store. But given that Intel's App Store is based on the good ol' PC, it couldn't be that hard to create an alternative, fairer downloading service for all to use--a Brown Paper Tickets to Intel's Ticketmaster, if you will. But who will lead the charge?

David Murphy (@ Acererak) is a technology journalist and former Maximum PC editor. He writes weekly columns about the wide world of open-source as well as weekly roundups of awesome, freebie software. Befriend him on Twitter, especially if you have an awesome app or game you're dying to recommend!