Weighing up the mobile app marketplaces

The mobile apps market is in a crucial development phase

Over the past year, software for mobile phones has exploded from a fringe operation to one of the most popular mediums. Aided by Apple's App Store, Google's Android Market and RIM's BlackBerry App World, third-party developers are lining up in droves to offer software for the latest smartphones.

With the launch of these markets comes new challenges, and both developers and platform vendors are left to tackle the question of how to distribute and manage mobile applications. Solutions have ranged from Apple's tightly controlled iTunes App Store, to Google's far more relaxed attitude towards Android software and various markets in between.

But what advantages and drawbacks does each mobile apps service hold, and how could these services change in the future?

First, let's take a look at the Apple approach. The company launched the iPhone in 2007 but, owing to stability and security concerns, developers were not allowed to create their own software for nearly a year.

In the time since, the company has kept tight control over the marketplace, hosting the entire App Store on its own and requiring users to submit applications for approval. The standards, which forbid not only obscene and illegal content, but any software that competes with an Apple product, have come under fire from developers and have kept alive an outside market for software that runs on modified or 'jailbroken' iPhones.

This approach has real advantages in terms of stability and security. Apple minimises the risk of a potentially malicious or illegal application being offered and, if a dangerous app were to sneak through, the company can easily remove and disable the tool.

Risky business
What Apple gains in immediate control over its market, however, the company may lose in the long term. In keeping strict and sometimes unclear control over the App Store, the company risks alienating developers and depriving users of what they want.

If the pile of rejected Apps grows large enough, developers and, in turn, consumers could look to other sources. This could lead to larger numbers of users running 'jailbreak' procedures.

While Apple doesn't currently condone or support jailbreaking the iPhone, the company may have no choice but to address the issue if enough users are performing the procedure, at which point the tightly-controlled iPhone App Store and ecosystem would be rendered all but obsolete.

On the other side of the spectrum there are systems such as Symbian, which has opted not to keep a tightly controlled single service, but to hand distribution to third-party stores.

This approach takes much of the worry out of the company's hands, and lets third parties take over the grunt work. It is also convenient for platforms such as Symbian, which run on multiple handsets, as it lets vendors and service providers provide specialised software line-ups and bundles for individual devices.

On the other hand, the approach can open companies to the pitfalls of any affiliate programme. Unscrupulous distributors may do things such as push unwanted software, overcharge on applications or short-change developers on sales commissions. Updates and fixes also become harder to distribute as more layers are added between those writing the operating system and those using the end product.

So where is the middle ground? How can vendors keep control of their platforms and protect users without stifling developers and souring users?

Perhaps the answer lies within the security world. While it may seem like an unlikely solution, the key to managing mobile apps and platforms in their current form could be similar to the way security vendors manage malware.

Blacklists
Most security companies keep huge libraries of malware and virus samples. These collected samples are then used to create a 'blacklist' of known malicious apps and behaviours which are used by security programs to identify dangerous applications.

Many mobile platforms, including iPhone and Android, keep a similar feature intended to allow them to remotely remove harmful software from the handset in the case of a malware outbreak.

While the idea of keeping a list of forbidden software on each system conjures up some very Orwellian nightmares, it could also be used to expand user freedom.

A company such as Apple could allow the distribution of content outside the App Store, but still keep a list of 'approved' applications rather than control each and every app.

When using an application that has not been 'approved' by Apple, the device could warn the user or flash a disclaimer. Apps that are blatantly illegal or in violation of the software developer kit terms can be remotely disabled or removed.

In this way Apple could distance itself from the borderline 'tasteless' or competing applications which it doesn't really want on the App Store without causing a developer uproar and pushing users to modify their handsets and risk damaging the device.

This, of course, assumes that Apple even wants to give up any control over the iPhone. The company may simply think that users don't really want or need the rejected apps anyway, and the competing products weren't as good as the in-house stuff to begin with.

Similarly, the blacklist concept could also be used by those vendors that choose to outsource the sale and management of apps. Illegal and/or malicious apps and unsavoury affiliates can be cut off from distributing apps right at the source.

Ultimately, any current distribution system will almost certainly be temporary. As smartphones become more ubiquitous and powerful, the concept of the 'walled garden' for mobile phones and applications will fall apart just as the 'walled garden' internet providers of the mid-1990s were pushed out of the picture.

Apple, Google, RIM, Symbian and the rest will find software load far too large and varied to maintain, and the growing power and sophistication of the devices is likely to lead them into a software ecosystem that mirrors that of regular PCs.

In the meantime, the mobile market is in a crucial development phase and the various choices made by the platform creators, apps developers and even end users could have a huge say on which platforms and strategies will live and which will fade into history.