The control that Apple has over the iPhone and the application distribution channel does contribute greatly to the iPhone's success. It makes the platform easily accessible to people who aren't inclined to search the internet for apps and are, in fact, afraid of doing it for all the malware experiences they have on their PCs. They know the App Store has everything, and that they can reasonably expect that the apps won't harm their device.
But, the iPhone is still just a phone. Most people don't hit the walls of the room Apple has them locked in. Heck, most people don't even do much with their iPhones... They rarely browse the web or use it to do serious email (one line replies in a pinch are not "serious email") because they find the screen too small and the experience too cumbersome when compared to a real computer. They install some apps, but never really use them besides the first few minutes, unless they're games, which also says much about the typical iPhone user: phone calls and games.
The people that complain about lack of openness are the exception.
Now, the iPad is not an iPhone. Nobody will buy it to make phone calls, although they will certainly play games in it. The iPad is more of a computer, and more people will hit the walls of Apple's control. _This_ is what's going to define the iPad's success.
It is a beautiful device, but if the average Joe expects it to behave more like a standard computer than an iPhone, and if Apple doesn't make it more open, it may very well end up a failure.
I like the iPhone, and if I weren't the kind of person that lives fine with just a basic phone, I would prefer one over the alternatives (android et al) even though it is much less open. On the other hand, I won't buy an iPad despite how beautiful it is because it is too expensive for something that's not a real computer.
I voted your comment up but I could not disagree more with your assessment of how people are using their iPhones. We know from real data that the iPhone dominates mobile web usage. We know people are downloading and buying a ton of apps -- it's really unthinkable to believe they don't use any of them more than a couple times. If so they wouldn't keep buying/downloading them.
It is a beautiful device, but if the average Joe expects it to behave more like a standard computer than an iPhone, and if Apple doesn't make it more open, it may very well end up a failure.
Exactly what's appealing to the average Joe about the iPad IS that it acts more like an iPhone than a standard computer.
Yeah, you couldn't install any applications on the device, which is the ultimate control. You can easily argue that the device is much more open now that developers are able to create the 150,000 apps that have been downloaded more than 3 billion times.
You still can't install any application on the device. You could easily argue a lot of things but what on earth are you talking about, as far as the initial success of the iPhone is concerned?
You're confusing the use of the word "any" here. In the previous post, it was used to mean that there were _no_ applications available for the iPhone.
You're using it here to mean "you can't install arbitrary applications" which is something different.
As far as the initial success of the iPhone is concerned, the device gaining traction without "any" applications (in the first sense) is largely important when speaking of the necessity of the App Store.
Hugely successful depends on where you look. Bu anyway, it doesn't really matter to the discussion, unless you are agreeing with me when I say that to most people the iPhone is just a better phone. Which is what the iPad is not.
His thoughts make a lot of sense, but I really wonder if he's not missing the forest for the trees, like a lot of writers on this subject.
It's not the little hacks (e.g., font organizers, window minimizers) that are going to make or break this platform: it's going to be the immersive apps that capture people's imaginations. (And most "real people" don't care about OS hacks.)
I know I've already got way too many killer ideas for this platform, really the first to incorporate touch computing in an intelligent, affordable fashion, and I suspect many others are in the same boat.
So the lack of hackability may simply not be an issue. Within a given app, the world's your oyster; you can do just about anything.
The gatekeeping problem may be the bigger issue, but there are so many great apps waiting to be built that are completely non-controversial from Apple's point of view, and that will fulfill the promise of the platform.
The recent sweep-up of semi-porn and cookie-cutter apps makes complete sense to me; as a retailer, who wants all that crap on their shelves? And as a developer, why would I want to be doing anything in those areas (unless it's simply to exploit people for their money)?
I do have some areas of concern that affect my plans: Will Apple ever permit a full-blown non-Safari browser app in the store? That's a biggie. And will Apple ever permit an interactive programming tool like Smalltalk adapted for the touch screen, or (one of my ideas) a graphical meta-calculator building tool that ultimately allows the user to do "real" programming?
Ultimately, I think the answers are yes and yes, but the unsureness of those answers is troubling.
Will Apple ever permit a full-blown non-Safari browser app in the store?
If it's just a WebKit wrapper, probably. If it's a different rendering engine, not a chance.
And will Apple ever permit an interactive programming tool like Smalltalk adapted for the touch screen, or (one of my ideas) a graphical meta-calculator building tool that ultimately allows the user to do "real" programming?
Smalltalk, no. Graphing calculators with variable assignments and stuff, sure as long as you can't create things that resemble real applications.
Ultimately, I think the answers are yes and yes, but the unsureness of those answers is troubling.
I'd be looking at developing for Android tablets, where you don't have to give the manufacturer a kill switch to your ideas. Or HTML5 if possible.
The worst enemy of freedom in software is not Microsoft, it's Apple. You're pretty free to develop and distribute software as you want on Windows. On new Apple devices, they control the way the software is distributed, they tax you, they make you obey their rules. Imagine a world with appstore as the main way of distributing software for any kind of devices. This would be hell. This is where Apple is going.
Stop using Apple. Use Linux, or if you can't, use Microsoft.
Sad to see so logically flawed argument getting upvoted—that means many of us don't bother to think any more and vote purely on "four legs good, two legs bad" mentality.
The worst enemy of freedom in software is not Microsoft,
it's Apple.
Makes no sense. Neither MS nor Apple are enemies of freedom of software. Apple is using a lot of OSS, contributes a lot to several projects, pushes for open web.
You're pretty free to develop and distribute software as you want on Windows.
And? You are just as free on OS X. And OS X kernel is open source. Can you get Windows kernel source?
On new Apple devices, they control the way the software
is distributed
Yes. And that's because it's a win for majority of the users of said devices, not because Apple is "the enemy of free software".
BTW, how does an Apple App Store compares to Zune marketplace? I guess the latter gives you more freedom?
they tax you,
Huh?
they make you obey their rules
And who doesn't? If you don't like the rules, don't buy Apple is as simple as that.
Imagine a world with appstore as the main way of
distributing software for any kind of devices.
This would be hell.
That would be hell because? That would be hell to whom? To those who want to have a convenient way to buy apps, without worries about making backups, with easy way to get upgrades, without a fear of getting malware?
Stop using Apple.
No, I won't. It gives me the biggest freedom so far.
Use Linux
Then worry more about making linux more useable to ordinary people, who care about usability, not some fuzzy freedom ideals.
or if you can't, use Microsoft.
Thank you, but no thank you. You don't need Apple to tell how you use your devices, I don't need you to tell what I should or should not use.
I'm pretty sure he means they tax developers at 30% of each sale, whereas you could just sell your shit independently and save yourself that 30%.
Just say you sell an application for $4.99, this means Apple takes around $1.50. If you sell 100k copies, Apple is gouging you $150,000.
Great, you don't really care because you made $350,000. Not so; You're going to lose a shitload of that to the IRS. In essence we're looking at being double-taxed. It sucks.
I think it sucks too, but the truth is that without the app store you would have to pay a lot to match their billing system and exposure (top app lists, what's new, featured apps, etc). I mean, it's too easy to buy apps on the app store. Customers lined up hungry for apps with their CC on file ready to pay. Also you get to use their CDN. It makes it easy for the little guy to sell 100k apps on the same playing field as the big dev houses. That shouldn't be overlooked.
The downside to the 30% is that a chunk goes to the review process. It's nice when it catches legitimate bugs but sucks that in a way you're paying to be censored.
If you don't like it, you can always develop for another platform though. You might not make as much but if you value ideals over making money, you have options.
70% of 100k sales is better than 100% of 1000 sales.
The 30% is a value proposition you can take or leave (develop somewhere else). I like it since I don't have to pay bandwidth or credit card processing fees. Ignoring bandwidth, it isn't that different from going through other credit card processors or PayPal.
As to taxes, I only get taxed on the portion I receive (Apple gets taxed on their 30%) so I have no idea where this "double-taxed" stuff is coming from.
Heck, if my app is really good, I might get on the front page of iTunes or in a commercial.
Considering that the app store is barely profitable, even with that 30% currently, you can hardly call it "gouging". And hey, if you don't like it, umm. Don't develop for the iP[hone/ad].
This is only true of the iPad/iPhone ecosystem. For OSX, they give away development tools better than the ones microsoft charges ridiculous amounts of money for. Almost all apple-made software (even the kind they sell) doesn't even make you enter a license key. If you are honestly worried about a closed app store coming to OSX based on what Apple does with phones and devices that they clearly think of as large phones, you are paranoid.
Sorry, but having worked with both, Visual Studio is miles ahead of Xcode. I even did an app for a client in C++/Qt that wanted it running in OS X ... developed 100% in Visual Studio. That's because at the time (at least) Xcode wasn't even having Intellisense (and Visual C++ does have the best intellisense available).
Visual Studio Express is free to use ... and it's enough for almost every need you might have. And before that you could use the #Develop which is an open-source IDE for C#/VB.NET.
And while Xcode doesn't even support intellisense properly, Visual Studio is in a different category altogether considering that you can also develop with it web applications / Silverlight clips, supports many more languages and has a really healthy plugins ecosystem.
Not to nitpick, but Microsoft is endorsing Mono lately as THE Linux/FreeBSD/OS X alternative. On Linux I can have a dotNet app that uses Windows Forms running ... can you do the same with Cocoa?
Of course Mono for Apple would be an abomination that had to be destroyed (considering how they sued Psystar and even Wired on publishing an article about hackitoshes)
(pretty ironic I'm defending Microsoft, since I've been badmouthing them for years, but compared to Apple they start looking like saints)
> Of course Mono for Apple would be an abomination that had to be destroyed (considering how they sued Psystar and even Wired on publishing an article about hackitoshes)
Cocoa is a direct descendent of NEXTStep which is an open spec. Hence the NS prefix on class names. Here's "Mono for Apple":
Yes it means something ... it shows good will, it shows they are probably not going to sue, and their developers are also contributing/helping out Mono.
> Cocoa is a direct descendent of NEXTStep
Oh please, take any Cocoa app and try running it in Gnustep.
VS is the best IDE out there, hands down. I read a nice rant about how it causes brain damage (by Intellisense pushing you into bottom-up design), but it's great at what it does.
"For OSX, they give away development tools better than the ones microsoft charges ridiculous amounts of money for."
People tend to make this claim and I just don't understand where it comes from. Microsoft has made available the express editions of Visual Studio for the last several years and they are pretty damn good.
I've been a windows developer for more than 15 years and I'd be hard pressed to find an app that I couldn't build with the express tools. The components missing are things I wouldn't use anyhow, that being the integration of Microsoft's version of unit testing, source control, etc... Granted I've only used XCode for the last year and a half or so, but I'd choose VS Express over XCode any day. Aside from that fact, I can't believe that any company puts more effort into their development tools than Microsoft and I think it shows, so if they want to charge for a product that is years beyond anything anyone else offers then that's fine by me.
If you are honestly worried about a closed app store coming to OSX based on what Apple does with phones and devices that they clearly think of as large phones, you are paranoid.
Then I'm paranoid. Like Mark Pilgrim (http://diveintomark.org/archives/2010/01/29/tinkerers-sunset), I don't believe Apple will be selling general purpose computers to consumers in 10 years. Remember Steve Jobs's plan for Apple: "milk the Mac for all it's worth and then move on the next big thing". The next big thing is mobile computing, and Apple has made it clear that they want absolute control.
I've seen that argument before, and I have to tell you, it's a bit of overdramatization from someone I respect a lot, who should know better. Apple has to sell unlocked Macs, because that's how you develop software for their closed platforms. Nobody mentions this much, but if you want to develop an iPhone app, you need a Mac, and you need the iPhone SDK, compilers, etc. The average person does not need an unlocked Mac. Developers like us do, and Apple will have to provide that. Choice is great for consumers, and not everyone needs a computer to write code on. We developers do, and we're really the only ones constantly beating this dead horse. Consumers don't want to hack their own devices, they just expect it to work.
Apple isn't the only one doing this. I don't know much C# and I don't run Windows anymore, but I want to write XBOX games. Should I be mad at MS for making me buy Windows, learn Visual Studio + C#, and pay a membership fee to write games for my XBOX? They have a developer program too, and a completely closed system. They take a cut of sales. They don't review your apps though, but honestly I like the fact that through the Appstore on my iPod, stuff isn't gonna trash my iPod like it did when I used to have it jailbroken.
It's all about money - if they start making more money on ipad-type devices, and less on osx-based devices, they'll start making more ipad-type devices. Follow that line of logic and you'd end up in the more restrictive world of the ipad-type devices. But I did say if.
Windows 7 isn't out yet (and, if Zune HDs Marketplace for apps is any indication, it will be just as closed as Apple's), and WinMo 6.x has approximately no real app store. Look:
It's been that way since early 2009. Is it going to be yet another thing like Origami, Courier, Surface, et al. that Microsoft hypes up only to abandon or leave stillborn?
Bottom line, Apple, not without corner-case controversies, is far more flexible in 3rd party Smartphone development than Microsoft has or could ever be.
Now, Google Android, on the other hand... that's like the Wild Wild West of device freedom. So much so, that hardly anyone makes money. Where are the big-time devs creating world-beating technology on the platform and sopping up revenue like crusty bread at the bottom of a steak dish? I've looked EVERYWHERE for it, I even have "android marketplace revenue" bookmarked in Google News and check that every once in awhile. I see people selling 20k units a month at #1 on the entire Android store, which is what Apple top tens sell in less than a week or even a days worth of sales. That's a marketplace estimated at 10 Million users, and only a few hundred thousand are actually buying anything. In fact, android users buy about $1 on average of apps per month, while iPhone/iPod Touch users spend about $5 a month, and that's an ecosystem with fast-approaching 100 Million users hungry (and more importantly, willing to pay) for content. It's a no-brainer for any developer.
Couldn't agree more. Though I'm waiting to see what new Mac Pro will bring. Tuth is I can't find dual processor machine for same money/quality as apple makes it, even though I'm installing windows on it (mostly for applications I'm using). Mac Pro is one damn nice Windows box.
Imagine a world with appstore as the main way of distributing software for any kind of devices.
I think such a world would be much better for most end users. And a lot of people have already voted with their wallet that this is so.
If there were many App Stores, then market forces would come into play. Someone would figure out how to get developers paid without mistreating them. Then really smart devs would start flocking to the other App Store, forcing Apple to reform or lose mindshare.
You should include Google along with Apple. I understand that Chrome OS won't allow any native apps whatsoever. The only native apps that will run are Google developed apps. So by your logic, Google is even more evil than Apple, right?
Unfortunately I don't think these private individual political boycotts are very effective. If you want to stop Apple, you need to bring something clearly better to the market, and that thing needs to have the underlying structure necessary to reach Apple's core audience and tell them how much better the new thing is and why you don't need Apple's crap anymore.
If you want to stop Apple, you need to bring something
clearly better to the market,
Oh, please, someone crying how evil Apple is do that. I guess that's the only way for you to understand what real
users want, what Apple does, and why it does it.
is and why you don't need Apple's crap anymore.
I won't need "Apple's crap" when someone will finally get what usability and user experience means.
The worst enemy of freedom in software is not Apple, it's Nintendo. You're pretty free to develop and distribute software as you want on OS X. On new Nintendo devices, they control the way software is distributed, they tax you, they make you obey their rules. Imagine a world where all applications must be licensed and vetted by Nintendo, for all their devices. This would be hell. This is where Nintendo is going. Stop using Nintendo. Use Ball on a String, or if you can't, use Apple.
The iPad will sell like hotcakes and while some preach doomsday for freedom others will make millions developing for it.
At the end, pops and moms will be happier than ever with their new computing experience that doesn't crash every day and has to be formatted and reinstalled every other month.
"Hi mum. Plug your iPad into iTunes and click 'add device to authorized list' under the Advanced menu when dad is logged into his iTunes account."
That one actually isn't too hard to walk people through on the phone. I did it with my mom and dad for their iPod's a few months back. Took all of five minutes; most of which was waiting for the iPod's to finish syncing.
My dad uses his GPS software almost every day (his GPS has Windows software) and likes 1st person shooters. My mom uses her quilting software almost every day. My uncle, a farmer in Iowa, uses QuickBooks for accounting. People have shelves of software that they use/love even if they aren't fans of Windows or OS X. Presuming they buy an iPad and lug their Windows boxes (which neither crash every day nor require reinstallation every month) to the garage, what are they going to do to?
Eventually there might be good software to fill up these niches, but it's going to take quite a while. And people will constantly be assailed with web sites and software boxes that have GOOD SOFTWARE that they can't put on an iPad. The App Store Apple is competing against is the rest of the world--- millions of Apps (some of which are really good!) and gazillions in marketing dollars.
That's why Apple (so far, at least) talks about iPad exclusively in the context of being an addition to a PC or Mac. In fact, it requires a computer for backup and OS upgrades.
The fact that your mom can't run her quilting software on it (so far) doesn't mean it can't do all the other things well and be a very welcome addition to her life. It just means she has to keep using her PC for quilting. At least until somebody realizes there's an opportunity for a good quilting app.
The iPad and iPhone puts the needs of the user over the needs of the developer. I agree that the whole "take down the network" line is ridiculous -- but "take down your phone" is not at all ridiculous. Most of the apps I have bought are from unknown (to me) developers -- I would never download a Mac OSX app from any of them without doing a little research to get some confidence that it wasn't going to be malware. Most of the time, it isn't worth the trouble -- I buy OSX software all of the time, but only from established vendors.
With the app developer program, approval process and store, there is a pretty good chance (better than ever) that your device will keep working and that apps you use can't (won't try to) do anything malicious. It lets single developers get access to a market that is very hard to break into.
Certainly, there are decisions Apple has made with the AppStore and approvals that are ridiculous. But, in the history of all human endeavor, there is no complex operation that doesn't have problems. The vast majority of apps are approved without incident. Apple has solved many more worse problems with app distribution than the ones they created.
My main gripes are lack of transparency of the process (and your progression through it) and no way to revert to a previously approved version (or fast track a bug fix). Also, the lack of any way to offer paid updates is a big issue for funding future versions of apps. The control over the platform doesn't bother me at all (as a user or developer).
To use an example, if things “just worked” then I'd be able
to copy music from my iPod back to my laptop, or from one
machine that I own to another.
True for the first part, as for the second: this feature is built in into iTunes, it even allows you to see the music that's not on your computer and copy it with a simple drag and drop.
The thing that will be interesting about the iPad is the experience
of using it — something that nobody has had except for the folks at
Apple — and as is always the case when dealing with a different type
of interface, you're always going to be wrong.
Not sure what he has in mind talking about experience. I gather few folks had a chance to try it out after it was presented and all were raving how fast that thing is.
Then a lot of folks keep saying "it's just a bigger iPhone", but don't know what the UX will be. Well, if it just a bigger iPhone (it's not) user experience is going to be as good, only better.
Then people cry and predict the end of hacking, tinkering and programming. Folks, don't forget: with iPad also comes out new free SDK. But maybe shouting about freedom is just a tad easier than using it.
But, the iPhone is still just a phone. Most people don't hit the walls of the room Apple has them locked in. Heck, most people don't even do much with their iPhones... They rarely browse the web or use it to do serious email (one line replies in a pinch are not "serious email") because they find the screen too small and the experience too cumbersome when compared to a real computer. They install some apps, but never really use them besides the first few minutes, unless they're games, which also says much about the typical iPhone user: phone calls and games.
The people that complain about lack of openness are the exception.
Now, the iPad is not an iPhone. Nobody will buy it to make phone calls, although they will certainly play games in it. The iPad is more of a computer, and more people will hit the walls of Apple's control. _This_ is what's going to define the iPad's success.
It is a beautiful device, but if the average Joe expects it to behave more like a standard computer than an iPhone, and if Apple doesn't make it more open, it may very well end up a failure.
I like the iPhone, and if I weren't the kind of person that lives fine with just a basic phone, I would prefer one over the alternatives (android et al) even though it is much less open. On the other hand, I won't buy an iPad despite how beautiful it is because it is too expensive for something that's not a real computer.