October 1 was a happy day in developer land -- Apple finally dropped the Non-Disclosure Agreement that coders had to agree to abide by if they wanted to create apps for the iPhone and iPod touch.

That NDA essentially forced developers to re-create the wheel over and over again. If they wanted to implement something that was not obvious, or well documented in Apple's SDK, they couldn’t reach out to a community of skilled developers to find out how others dealt with the issue. A resource pool of skilled developers sharing information translates into saved time and lower frustration for coders. And we all know happy coders result in better applications for everyone.

“I'm sure the information that’s now flowing online will be like a rising tide lifting all boats in this space,” said Simon Dawlat, founder of iToonzlive a virtual pet application for the iPhone and iPod touch.

“I can think of two instances, right off the top of my head, where a good community resource would have saved us a sleepless night,” added Jason Citron, co-founder of Aurora Feint Inc and developer of multiplayer adventure games for the iPhone and iPod touch.

Jettisoning the ‘loose lips will sink our ship’ policy -- Apple noted in a rather cranky little note on its developers’ website that the NDA was instituted “so that others don’t steal our work. It has happened before” -- is a good step in the right direction. But Apple needs to drop a few more of their veils of secrecy if the company truly wants to support its developers.

Last spring Steve Jobs announced at the iPhone roadmap event that the goal was to get “as many apps out in front of as many iPhone users as possible,"with the utterly understandable exceptions of apps that are malicious, illegal, porn, violate people’s privacy or are bandwidth hogs … and -- here’s where it gets less understandable -- the rather vague "unforeseen."

Apple should have the ultimate say-so over what they will and won’t put into their App Store. The problem is that, according to the buzz online, the rejection process seems to be a little too random for developers comfort. So far it seems that your app is likely to be rejected if -- in the official App reviewer’s judgment -- it’s too similar to other applications, or perhaps if it does things that Apple may want to do themselves at some point.

Nobody really seems to know why some apps are accepted and similar ones are rejected. It seems unfair to expect developers to pour their time and money into developing an app that may not be accepted for ‘unforeseen’ reasons. The vagueness is making some developers twitchy and less than enthusiastic about making apps that stray a little outside of the mainstream.

“I have a few interesting ideas in my bucket that I won't start developing until I'm sure these apps will be accepted. I think this is a common compliant with many developers, it’s an extremely annoying situation,” said Dawlat.

Apple could also do better at communicating clearly with developers throughout the entire process. As an example, Citron’s game was removed for a time from the App store. When the game was pulled, he and his partner weren’t sure what the problem was, they eventually discovered the issue was that the game was transferring multiple player data unencrypted in one play mode. The problem was addressed with input from their user community.

Apple does have a streamlined re-review process for rejected apps, but clearer guidelines and communications processes would benefit developers.

“Their application submission process is very poor. I would love to see better error messages. They have this automatic verifier that runs on applications to make sure they have their digital signatures in place properly. We've spent countless nights tweaking settings in my compiler to try and get it to sign the app properly,” said Citron.

“Also, their streaming audio system is ridiculously complicated. It would be nice if they simplified that and made it easier to play music in games,” Citron added.

One of the ways that Apple differentiates itself is by providing the optimum user experience, and part of the way they provide this is by micromanaging. This hands-on approach has proven to be beneficial to Mac users in many cases, but the paternalistic protectionism can go too far. Closed systems tend not to prosper in the long run, maybe Apple should do as Ronnie Regan advised and tear down the wall. Sure, some junk programs may sneak into the App store, but the occasional piece of crap app will function as manure that helps everything else to grow and flourish.