An abbreviated history of storage

Anyone who has used a computer has found themselves in the same situation: at some point, they have needed to take information off the computer in order to share it on another computer.

In the old days, this was done via diskettes, which were replaced by CDs, and eventually CDs were displaced by recordable DVDs and USB solid-state drives.

In the corporate (or prosumer) market, larger data needs led to the use of ZipDisk, Syquest drives, and eventually file servers.

As household increased their expertise in the tech space, we’ve seen the rise of Network Accessible Storage (NAS) devices for home use (for example, the popular Apple Time Capsule or the WD MyBook series).

Devices vs. Desktops

But over the last few years, the storage landscape has grown more complicated. As more consumers carry smartphones, portable media players, digital cameras, and camcorders, or play digital content downloaded for their televisions, the computer is loosing its dominance on usage of digital media. And, along the way, the computer is no longer the hub of everything digital in the household.

Digital content is now spread across that wide array of devices and will become increasingly untethered from the computer to the point where some household may remain heavy consumer of digital media without even owning a computer.

Meanwhile, in the business world, content sitting on employees’ computers is hard to find and harder to control. Laptops can walk away from a company with crucial company content on their hard drives so there’s an increase push to get users to save their information on centralized servers.

Enters the cloud

However, along with the spread of devices, there has been a growing spread in available bandwidth at higher speed. A decade ago, the majority of internet users were accessing it at speed of about 56kbps. Today, that number has gone up 100-fold and will continue to go up (by some estimate, the 100Mbps mark will be standard by 2020.)

With extra bandwidth to spare, data can now be stored more efficiently on remote servers.

In the consumer space, people are increasingly storing their videos on YouTube or Flickr, their images on Flickr and Facebook, and other files on the likes of Google Docs. Social networks are becoming a large repository of backup data that can be shared with friends or locked away.

And today, some solutions are allowing for such things to happen automatically from the devices to the web. For example, I use Eye.fi cards in most of my cameras, which dynamically upload the content of the camera to the online service(s) of my choice. They also have software based solutions that run on the iPhone and Android devices. Pixelpipe, one of their competitors, is software based only.

In the enterprise space, companies like dropbox, drop.io, and box.net provide solutions that store the files on their servers and allow end-users to access them from any computer or mobile devices.

Creation, Distribution, Consumption

Up until recently, I was pretty opposed to the iPad as a device, seeing it as a consumption only device. Over the last few months, as more tools have become available, we’ve seen a slew of tools allowing people to use the iPad in creative ways. My blind spot was to equal storage with creation and assuming that content was not stored locally, it would be issue from a creation standpoint.

But I was wrong.

In today’s world, content that sits locally is pretty much as good as dead. It is not distributed and thus is not consumed. This epiphany came to me not as a result of using an ipad but while authoring a story for my site. I realized that I was opening up my browser and launching a web app to do so. The same had been true for most of my week and I often can go days without opening a desktop app other than my browser. As a result, I’ve concluded that local storage is becoming increasingly irrelevant.

What is still relevant, though, is the existence of some form of local storage. In the future, local storage will be used primarily to hold content and application on a temporary basis before said content and app return to the cloud. The reason for such an approach is that running application locally will always be more efficient than running them over a network link.

Impact on consumer electronic

Probably more important is the final impact on digital media. The iPod was revolutionary in that it did away with the standard model of distribution for music: CDs are increasingly getting replaced by digital distribution and may continue to exist as a specialized domain (much like there are still some LP record purchasers today.)

The Kindle (and its competitors in the e-reader category) are starting to do the same thing to magazines, newspapers and books.

The iPad takes music, books, magazines, newspapers, TV shows, and other video content and runs them through a single device.

The same thing is about to happen to all video content. Today, companies like Netflix shuffle a lot of plastic back and forth so the plastic piece can be played on a specialized device (either a DVD or BluRay player) and then returned. Netflix has seen the writing on the wall and is increasingly trying to push its users (and providers) to move to a plastic-free world by streaming the media directly to the device of their choice. Much like kids today may not really understand the concept of rewinding a video tape, the kids of tomorrow will not understand the idea of putting something into a machine in order to play it.

As streaming distribution becomes more common, attitudes towards the disks will change so that such things are only catering to a much smaller audience.

My five-year-old son looks at DVDs as something you can decorate in art projects, not something you can play. His view is that everything is available on demand either via my computer, smartphone, or our connected TV (Try explaining to a 5-year-old that Wall-E is not available because it’s outside the release window set by the studios). With the advent of Apple TV and Google TV, his experience is about to become more common.

He’s the consumer of tomorrow and his view is that storage is something that happens in the cloud. In his teenage years, he might end up looking at USB drives with the same disdain as we look at videotapes.

Tristan Louis is the founder and CEO of Keepskor and writes the influential tnl.net weblog, where this was initially posted under the title The end of local storage. You can follow him on twitter here or receive his weekly newsletter by subscribing here.

So let’s delve into the list:

Text (SMS Messages)

The main challenge to the “Text” application was due, in large part to the fact that it was initially submitted as “SMS Messages”.

For every application that goes through the rigorous approval process at Apple, the first thing that is done is reviewing whether the functionality of the application is provided by an application that was previously approved. In the case of “SMS and MMS Messages”, the word “Messages” triggered all kinds of alerts as Mail had previously been approved. It was thus decided that any messages could be sent via email.

The developer resubmitted the application after removing MMS functionality, pointing out that this application would not be able to send pictures, thus not replicating mail functionality. The argument failed the appeal and the application was rejected again.

The approval only came when the developer resubmitted the application as “Text” describing it as an application that allowed a user to take notes, as long as he/she didn’t have to cut or paste anything. This was considered OK and the application got to green light.

Calendar

Calendar was another application that had multiple difficulties in getting approved. Initially called “Rendez-Vous” to evoke the French’s aesthetic design sometimes appreciated in certain corners of the Apple world, the application was rejected when it was discovered that Rendez-Vous had once been another Apple trademark.

The developer proceeded to resubmit that application as “Calendar”, figuring that the Microsoft-sounding name might pass some of the constraint of the fascist-like approval board. At that point, the application passed two thousands levels of sign-offs but, as it was about to get its last needed signature for approval, someone pointed out that a calendar could be used to schedule illicit behavior. This led to an immediate rejection.

It is unclear as to how the application was reinstated but the names Schmidt and Bohner appeared to have something to do with it. Our assumption is that those are top secret projects related to devices we have yet to hear about.

Camera and Photos

The Camera and Photos application ended up being submitted as part of the same package. Internal notes point to the fact that they are one and the same.

When first submitted as “iPhoto”, the application was quickly rejected because it reproduced functionality available in the Apple product line and infringed on an Apple trademark.

In order to increase his chances, the developer decided to cut the application in two and offer them as separate ones that would hopefully go to different app-rovers. Little did he know that all applications are treated equally in the world of Apple approvals and denials.

In the case of Camera, the application was initially rejected because it could be used to take pictures of future Apple products. After code was changed to ensure that the iPhone was explode if such pictures were taken, the Application was approved.

Photos was a little trickier. It was thought that “naughty pictures” could be stored using it, which make endanger the fragile nature of some iPod and iPhone customers. But after the developer explained that the limited space available on an iPod or iPhone would primarily be taken by illegally copied music, leaving little space to such naughty content, the application was approved.

YouTube

The primary product of YouTube is to show user generated content. But few people know that the initial YouTube application allowed users to upload videos of their cats to YouTube. Because that “upload” feature was included into the application, it was initially decided that it would endanger AT&T’s network, end the world as we know it, and probably destroy the very fiber of society. As a result, it is only natural that such application would initially be rejected.

Apple’s legal department stepped into the fray to help rescue this application based on the little known legal statute establishing the tattle doctrine. The legal department assumed that if the RIAA or MPAA were to come after them for the amount of illegal content they’ve enabled users to use without controls, they could always point out to YouTube as being even worse, therefore driving the RIAA or MPAA lawyers away for a long period of time (or at least until everyone in the world had bought an iPod and subsequently upgraded to an iPhone.)

Maps

Due to Apple’s close relationship with Google (at least, at the time), Maps was seen as an easy thing to implement. Not only would it demonstrate the greatness of the iPhone but it would also show developers that there were two classes of citizens in the Apple development community: those who have a market capitalization still north of Apple’s and are not named Microsoft, and everybody else. Members of the first class could initially have applications available on the device. Smelly developers (aka everyone else) could develop web applications. This only worked for the first release and eventually, Apple had to relent to offer the App store we’ve all come to know and love, freeing the Apple development from the shackles of… oh nevermind.

So back to the Maps. They were initially rejected because certain towns had names that cannot be repeated in polite conversation. After Austria and Pennsylvania were removed from the maps, the application was approved.

Stocks

This application was considered dangerous to many users as it might lead them to invest in companies other than Apple. Submitting the application, the developer figured that he would default choices to Apple and Google. The choice of Apple helped internal discussion but the application was initially rejected on other grounds, as can be attested by the following rejection letter:

We’ve reviewed your application Stocks. Because the stock market has been on a downward cycle and tends to make our users cry, we have determined that this application is of limited utility to the broad iPhone and iPod touch user community, and will not be published on the iPhone.
If you choose to provide additional features that utilize iPhone functionality while tending to the mental well-being of our customers, your application can be reconsidered for reinclusion on the iPhone deck after you resubmit a new binary to us.

After agreeing that the only stocks that can be listed in the application are stocks that go up, the application was approved.

Weather

Sometimes, the weather can get you into trouble. When the developer of this application submitted it, it was assumed that few things could be consider as plain and boring as the weather. The rejection came in less than an hour after the application was submitted. Here’s the text in full, with attributions being removed:

Thank you for submitting weather to the iPhone approval process. We’ve reviewed your application and determined that we cannot include this version of your iPhone application at this time because it contains objectionable content which is in violation of Section 3.3.12 from the iPhone SDK Agreement which states:

“Applications must not contain any obscene, pornographic, offensive or defamatory content or materials of any kind (text, graphics, images, photographs, etc.), or other content or materials that in Apple’s reasonable judgement may be found objectionable by iPhone or iPod touch users.”

The objectionable content referenced in this email is the use of the words “Hot and Wet”. These words tend to appear in many salacious sites on the internet so we suspect that your application would fit into that cesspool. Since the app is already available on any iPhone, please make the necessary changes to the application as soon as possible, and resubmit your binary to us. Thank you

After many emails going back and forth, it was agreed that weather could be hot or humid but never at the same time.

Clock

Apple’s unfortunate history of collusion with terrorist was responsible for the rejection of the clock, because the timer function was felt to look too much like the timer on bombs in many Hollywood movies.

After ticking sound was removed from the application, it was approved.

Calculator

Deep in the heart of every iPod user is someone looking to hide collections of pictures you do not want to see. It has been documented that the iPod and iPhone calculators are really just secret doorways to Sodom and Gomorrah. Unbeknowst to the developer who initially submitted the innocuous (or is it?) calculator, the approver assumed that nothing as boring as a calculator would be included on an iPhone and that, therefore, it must be an application that nefariously hid its true intent. Since such intent was not specified, it could only be bad so the approver rejected the application.

As was the case for Calendar, it is unclear how Calculator ended up approved. Through what appears to be purely coincidences, any witnesses we tried to discuss this with died within seconds of agreeing to talk with us.

Notes

This one was caught into the unfortunate Snafu that allowed Text to be approved. As approvers assumed that Text was a notes taking application, due to the fiendish way in which its developer had managed approval, they just assumed that Notes was providing duplicate functionality and rejected it.

The application developer then resubmitted it, claiming it was a tool for making shopping list. That was enough to get it approved.

Settings

When this application was submitted, the iPod shuffle was a great success. It was thus decided that providing settings was “of limited use to iPod and iPhone users.”

However, when someone pointed out that this could be used to sell users ringtones from the iTunes store (and allow them to change them), it was approved.

iTunes and the App Store

Nah, just kidding on those two. They were always part of the phone and always approved. However, it is interesting to note that iTunes came first, followed by the App Store later. The initial application called “Send more money to Apple” was judged to have to lengthy a name.

Tristan Louis is the founder and CEO of Keepskor and writes the influential tnl.net weblog, where this was initially posted under the title Unexpected iPhone apps rejections — Part 2. You can follow him on twitter here or receive his weekly newsletter by subscribing here.

Following is the first part of a list of the first 18 applications to have been initially banned on the iPhone, along with relevant information related to the rejections. Those bans were eventually reversed, allowing applications to make their ways into the phone. In this first part, we will look at the big 4: Phone, Mail, Safari, and the iPod (the next entry will examine the other ones).

Phone

It comes as a little known fact that the approval process almost killed phone functionality on the iPhone. The original developers had a hard time getting the application approved, as can be seen in this initial rejection letter:

Thank you for submitting Phone to the iPhone approval process. We’ve reviewed your application and determined that we cannot include this version of your iPhone application at this time because it contains objectionable content which is in violation of Section 3.3.12 from the iPhone SDK Agreement which states:

“Applications must not contain any obscene, pornographic, offensive or defamatory content or materials of any kind (text, graphics, images, photographs, etc.), or other content or materials that in Apple’s reasonable judgement may be found objectionable by iPhone or iPod touch users.”

We have heard that so called “phones” can be used in a number of ways including communicating secrets related to the internal working of large Cupertino-based companies located on Infinite Loop to people outside said companies. Please make the necessary changes to the application as soon as possible, and resubmit your binary to us. Thank you

After many emails going back and forth, it was agreed that any mention of words picked from a still secret list of product names and companies names would result in the phone immediately losing signal and the call being dropped. A secret message would also be sent to an undisclosed location identifying the people involved with that call.

Mail

The second rejected iPhone application was a little more understandable. After all, Apple is known for its simplicity and the fact that the company tends to remove redundant functionality from its devices in order to ensure the best user experience. While little visibility is given into the decision process around defining what what gets approved or banned, TNL.net got hold of internal transcripts of the discussion that led to eventual ban of the Mail application. Here is the abridged version, as we wanted to protect sensitive information:

Reviewer 1: Hey, we’ve got this mail application here, looks like it does (shuffle of paperwork to review what information has been submitted)… uh e-mail.

Reviewer 2: I’ve heard of that. I understand you can contact your friends with that and write them notes.

Reviewer 1: Why would you want to do something like that.

Reviewer 2: (pauses) uh.. well, let’s say you wanted to tell a friend a joke

Reviewer 1: You mean like call them on the phone and tell them a joke, looks like it’s reproducing existing functionality.

Reviewer 2: Hmmmm. Maybe but you could also use it to communicate information to a lot of people in one shot. For example, if you were a Nigerian prince looking for someone to help you move money out of your country…

Reviewer 1: Why wouldn’t you use a phone for that?

Reviewer 2: Well, long distance costs, for starter. And then, it would take a lot of time to call people individually.

Reviewer 1: (looks up list of countries in which the iPhone is slated to be sold) Well, Nigeria doesn’t appear on the list so let’s reject this.

Reviewer 2: Oh, I didn’t realize Nigeria was not on the list. Definitely reject then.

After several phone conversations, three international meetings and sign-off from half of the company, it was agreed that mail should be allowed because pictures of lolcat just don’t seem as good when recounted over the telephone.

Safari

At this point in the iPhone’s development cycle, getting applications approved was still getting tough but Safari, slated to be the third icon on the device also had its own uphill battle. The submission of this application came to established the short-lived record of being denied in under 10 minutes. The denial did not even come by email but was delivered in the form of a message on the developer’s voice mail system:

Reviewer’s Manager: Thank you for submitting Safari, your “web browser” for inclusion on the iPhone. After researching this web thing via our macs, we have come to the conclusion that it is too obscene, offensive, riddled with pornographic and other useless material to warrant use by iPod and iPhone users. Furthermore, we have discovered that some of the content seen there is replicated content that can be bought in the iTunes store and stored on iPods. Should you make changes to the application that would ensure this internet thing is sectioned off, we would be happy to re-review after you submit a binary to us.

In this particular case, Steve Jobs himself intervened, providing a note in an internal memo (and reiterating the point when the device was released):

We have been trying to come up with a solution to expand the capabilities of the iPhone so developers can write great apps for it, but keep the iPhone secure. And we’ve come up with a very. Sweet. Solution. Let me tell you about it. An innovative new way to create applications for mobile devices… it’s all based on the fact that we have the full Safari engine in the iPhone.  You can write amazing Web 2.0 and AJAX apps that look and behave exactly like apps on the iPhone, and these apps can integrate perfectly with iPhone services. They can make a call, check email, look up a location on Gmaps… don’t worry about distribution, just put ‘em on an internet server. They’re easy to update, just update it on your server. They’re secure, and they run securely sandboxed on the iPhone. And guess what, there’s no SDK you need! You’ve got everything you need if you can write modern web apps…”

With Steve’s seal of approval, the app was approved.

iPod

The last of the big 4 to be issued such rejection was unsurprisingly the iPod functionality. It has long been rumored that the reason for such rejection was largely due to the head of the iPod division sending out a company-wide voicemail to express his frustration at the inclusion of iPod functionality. However, due to the offensive nature of the language used in that message, few have been willing to provide any information about it. An iPod-compliant file was provided to TNL.net and, after spending several months trying to clean up the language, we are providing the cleanest excerpt we could, blanking out offensive words (reader’s discretion is advised):

iPod division head: Why you #### ##### ##### ##### ######## ######### ###### ####### ####### ######### cannibalize the iPod market #### ###### ############### ####### ###### hurt margins ######## ####### ###### kill the company ####### ####### Steve will hear about this.

While we do not traffic in rumors, some people sayhat, after his meeting with Steve Jobs, the manager was never heard of again.

In the next entry, we will review some of the other applications that felt the sharp edge of the reviewer’s pen, providing even further visibility into the otherwise opaque approach.

Update: Part 2 is now available.

Tristan Louis is the founder and CEO of Keepskor and writes the influential tnl.net weblog, where this was initially posted under the title Unexpected iPhone apps rejections — Part 1. You can follow him on twitter here or receive his weekly newsletter by subscribing here.