Apple Reminds Everybody That It Controls The iPhone Ecosystem
from the from-the-do-you-have-permission-for-that?-dept. dept
Last week, when Apple announced version 4.0 of the iPhone OS, it also made a significant change to the license agreement for its iPhone developer program. One section of the agreement was changed to say that iPhone "Applications must be originally written in Objective-C, C, C++, or JavaScript as executed by the iPhone OS WebKit engine" -- a move that blocks developers from using cross-platform development tools and third-party development environments. So, for instance, if a developer already had an app written in .NET, they can no longer use something like Monotouch to port it to the iPhone. There has been a lot of speculation that this was just the latest step in the ongoing spat between Apple and Adobe, since the latter company will soon release a Flash-to-iPhone compiler, triggering a "go screw yourself Apple" from an Adobe employee.But this move is actually bigger than that: it's Apple's attempt to lock developers in solely to the iPhone. Steve Jobs claims "intermediate layers between the platform and the developer ultimately produces sub-standard apps and hinders the progress of the platform", and they do -- from Apple's perspective. By requiring developers to use Apple's tools and follow its rules, the hope is that developers will follow along blindly and develop first for the iPhone, since it's currently the best monetized channel to market for them, and then will develop for other platforms later, if at all. The issue for Apple, though, is that it's not competing in a vacuum. Everybody and their mother are opening app stores, with other major smartphone platforms like Android and BlackBerry building theirs into viable competitors for the Apple channel. And as the App Store continues to get flooded with apps and becomes more competitive (and it becomes more difficult for developers to earn a living there), its position at the top of the pile is far from assured. At that point, heavy restrictions on developers and the closed ecosystem becomes a real burden for the company, not a benefit.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: developers, development, iphone
Companies: adobe, apple
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Substandard Apps Should Take Care of Themselves
If I can write code once for many platforms I'd prefer to go that route. Programmers and developers, good ones at least are lazy and don't like to keep building the wheel. That's why these tools are so popular and exist for so many platforms. Any good programmer could use a text editor to create apps from scratch, but why would they want to?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Substandard Apps Should Take Care of Themselves
Guess what? If a consumer wants the wild west of open phones and software, it already exist as the android ecosystem. Apple is doing something different. Something that the majority of consumers has embraced.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Substandard Apps Should Take Care of Themselves
I have no sympathy for Apple at this point they can (to quote DH) "play hide and go fuck themselves"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apple's Sucker Punch
I’ve been a part of the Flash CS5 beta program and have two iPhone Apps created with Flash. I can say for a fact Adobe is committed to making this work, but if we get blocked by Apple we are screwed.
Apple == fascist bastards
Long live Android!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Apple's Sucker Punch
I'm working on an Android version of an iPhone app, and the Android version requires 12x as many graphic assets as iPhone because of the permutations of ldpi, mdpi, hdpi, and screen sizes. And still, there are devices it won't look quite right on. It is a nightmare.
I'm with you, but until someone comes up with a decent competitor to Apple's products (and by decent I mean easy to use, aesthetically pleasing, and appropriate for non-geeks), Apple has all the leverage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Apple's Sucker Punch
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another viewpoint
http://www.devwhy.com/blog/2010/4/12/its-all-about-the-framework.html
Eric
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
App-Exclusives
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
App Store vs. Android Market
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Job's way or no way
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is it 1985 again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Or not talk about them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Corporations are all toddlers.
"Strong copyright" isn't just about them "preserving what's theirs" but it's also about them "taking what's yours" too.
Far too many people are willing to make excuses for that sort of nonsense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Corporations are all toddlers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vendor lock-in
Every bit of news I hear about Apple makes me happy that I have an Android phone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1984
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 1984
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 1984
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 1984
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nY2dBfYqyaY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 1984
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is really got to be irritating to the developers
No, this is just a control-freak move on Job's part.
Jailbreaking: No, mjb5406, no significant fraction of the iPhone owners is ever going to jailbreak. If you actually need a phone that works, jailbreaking isn't a good bet: Both AT&T and Apple would use the fact that you jailbroke the phone as an excuse not to live up to their end of any service issues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is really got to be irritating to the developers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't like it? TFB!
FLASH IS DEAD - JOIN THE HTML5 REVOLUTION!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't like it? TFB!
I am SICK AND TIRED of hearing fanboys decry the worthlessness of Flash, when THEY ARE TOTALLY MISSING THE POINT!
The point is not buggy code, battery life, or even an ego trip against Adobe.
THE POINT IS CONTROL!
Apple wants you to program ON A MAC, with their tools, SO YOU CANT EASILY MAKE A PORT! They are tired of seeing their great apps migrate to Android (or even WebOS...there are some tasty game ports coming out lately). They want Apple apps to be ONLY on Apple, and this is one way they can make it harder to port over to another platform.
Next time, try to make an INTELLIGENT comment, instead of a fanboy rant!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't like it? TFB!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why would you write native apps anyway?
The day Jobs decides to stop the iPhone being approximately standards compliant in the browser, will be the day he cripples the iPhone for good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
However....
Doesn't compiling a program vs. natively programming in the iPhone's base language significantly reduce the file size and glitches in an a program? I always thought that writing a program that doesn't need to be compiled was much smaller and faster and more efficient than one that was written in one language and compiled to another.
Again, I admit I know nothing about programming, but if this is the case, could this be a reason for Apple's decision?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: However....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As cross platform mobile developer...
Saying you can only write in C, C++ and Objective-C leaves a whole heck of a lot of options open. C runs on just about every microprocessor on earth. Our main libraries for our apps are written in C and run fine on Android and iPhone with minor changes for talking to external accessories. Cross platform development for us is relatively painless compared to the alternatives for our goals.
Sure, I have to write different interface code for both apps, but I would do that with or without the restrictions. I am a firm believer that the native UI elements provide the best experience and the only way you get good native UI elements is to write directly against the OS's standard UI libraries. I won't disagree that you can get usable apps from an intermediate layer, but the effort required in achieving a slick, polished UI with an intermediate layer is next to impossible. It's cheaper to just write directly against the built-in UI libs if you want a great experience... and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong! ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
crap
Here's Daring Fireball:
------
Jean-Louis Gassée Gets It ★
Jean-Louise Gassée:
Who, in his right mind, expects Steve Jobs to let Adobe (and other) cross-platform application development tools control his (I mean the iPhone OS) future? Cross-platform tools dangle the old “write once, run everywhere” promise. But, by being cross-platform, they don’t use, they erase “uncommon” features. To Apple, this is anathema as it wants apps developers to use, to promote its differentiation. It’s that simple. Losing differentiation is death by low margins. It’s that simple. It’s business. Apple is right to keep control of its platform’s future.
It really is that simple. That’s a perfect one-paragraph summary of the situation. His detailed analysis (and historical perspective — much of it first-person) is spot-on.
------
Here's Jean-Louis Gassée:
http://www.mondaynote.com/2010/04/11/the-adobe-apple-flame-war/
...and a short excerpt:
-----
There are calmer minds, however. In his highly-recommended blog, Daring Fireball, John Gruber explains why Apple changed the iPhone OS licensing agreement. It’s strategic, really: Apple doesn’t want anyone else to have control over which OS features the applications have or don’t have access to. I’ll explain in a moment why it’s rational for Apple to fend off cross-compilers, and why it’s not too rational for Adobe employees and others to criticize Apple for keeping control of its future.
-----
Now it's me again.
Not everything Apple does is some evil plot to screw the world. Apple makes a product (or a series of interconnected products) that require them to be pretty much Apple produced, and if someone makes a software product to work within that eco-system, they want them to use certain human interaction guidelines to keep the user experience as close to "Apple-like" as possible.
That does require them to exercise a certain amount of control. As a long time Apple customer (and shareholder of ten shares), I approve, since I have seen any number of crappily-written software packages that failed to adhere to those guidelines, and their experience sucked as a result.
Apple's control obsession isn't just for the sake of control, its there to protect their product and how it is experienced by their customers.
Apple's market share is growing. They own the over $1000 computer market, an they bring in 60% of the profits of the ENTIRE computer market. iPhone sales are still moving up, an the new iPad is selling like hotcakes.
If their business practices were as bad as you say, I doubt that any of those figures would be so good, but customers just don't seem to be bothered by Apple's failure to embrace your concepts of open systems.
They seem to like having a product that works as advertised.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: crap
The limited system at the beginning was the way to go, but competition in the market is making it more beneficial to start searching for a way to open it up. Closing it off more is probably the wrong direction to go.
Now, having met Steve Jobs, I can comfortably say that it is very likely that someone sat in a conference room with him and made this point. He then said something like "I don't care what they want. This is MY app store and I make the rules." He's pretty arrogant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: crap
But he has a blind spot with Apple.
Apple adhere's to open protocols and actively advocates for them, as with tcp/ip, open web protocols such as html5, etc. They always have, since these open protocols prevent monopolies such as Microsoft from turning the entire web into a proprietary mess.
What Apple is doing with the App store isn't violating those principles. The app store is Apple's store, they built it, they own it, they run it as part of their eco-system. As such, it has to support that structure, and letting someone like Adobe screw around with it through another proprietary product is insane.
IF Flash were an open standard, I'd agree with Mike, but it is not, it is owned, lock, stock and barrel by Adobe, so why isn't Mike dragging Adobe over the coals for dragging THEIR heels in bringing Flash up to modern standards to work properly with Apple's product?
Just because Flash is used by a large number of sites for ads doesn't make it a standard, it just makes it widespread, like Office, or Windows. Apple has every right to fight that in favor of open standards such as html5.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: crap
" ...but competition in the market is making it more beneficial to start searching for a way to open it up."
Oh? Since when? Is Apple's market share slipping? Are the App Store's numbers dropping? Are developers abandoning it for Android? Are customers leaving in droves?
The answer to all those questions is a resounding NO.
Mike would LIKE for your statement to be correct, but it isn't. There is nothing in the current market to indicate that Apple's moves are bad for its business, in fact, they are correct for what Apple is trying to achieve, which is open standards across the web for all to be able to use equally. That is best for Apple, as is prevents other companies from negatively affecting Apple's use of the web as part of its eco-system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: crap
Look at America Online as an example. This is how the internet worked for most people. There was a locked up, controlled system for accessing everything. More open-access providers started showing up and AOL continued on their business model with their market share growing because their system was "better". And - it was. However, "better" is fickle - and entirely in the eyes of the customer. The open access models eventually grew into something that overtook AOL and it is basically dead now.
For more examples, look at the change in IBM's strategies about open source software. Look at Sony (who has made the same mistakes repeatedly).
I believe Apple is the big game in town right now. They own the market. The have the best product. Nobody is close to them. However, if they continue to alienate developers and force customers to fit their model, they are likely to see their position slip. It's not just standards that are important.
Don't just focus on where Apple is. They have made the right moves up until now. However, they are at the tipping point where many companies in the past have made the mistake of keeping closed up systems too closed up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: crap
The others just had products that may have been sufficient for the purpose, but were expensive and weren't really "good", they were just good enough. As soon as other, better systems came long, yes, they failed, but not to open systems, just better systems.
Apple isn't trying to be a gatekeeper to the internet. Their systems aren't just "good enough", but are stellar for the times. They attract attention, not because they are the only game in town, but they are just better damn products.
Others have tried to do the same thing, even Microsoft with all their billions, and have consistently failed. Why? Not because they were open or closed but because they offered poor customer experience. Apple's iPod wasn't closed, you could play songs on it bought from other online sources. Today, you can move songs bought in iTunes to other mp3 players.
Android has an open app store, but it hasn't taken off like the Apple app store did. Why? In part because of the huge numbers of devices that exist to buy from the Apple app store, but also because Apple's experience is better, and people notice.
Apple's app store isn't closed in the sense that only certain people can play. Anybody can plunk down that $99 developer's fee and play. Sure, you have to play by Apple's rules, but you can PLAY and are not prevented from doing just that. It IS closed in the sense that apps developed for the iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad only play on those devices. But Android has that same characteristic. The difference is that Apple is more strict in applying rules as to how those apps can be written, and they restrict certain content.
Those rules exist to enforce a user experience, and ensuring that experience is good for developers as well. The umbrella is wide and the sheer numbers of apps ranging from stupid to excellent shows that anybody CAN play, and a vibrant market exists to buy them.
I really think that as long as Apple has a superior product, as defined as their entire line of interconnected devices and eco-system, they will prosper. If they fail, it won't be because their system is closed, but because it is supplanted by a better alternative.
Neither IBM nor Sony have failed due to competition from open systems. They failed because a better product came along and supplanted them in the market.
AOL didn't fail because their competitors were "open" systems, they failed because they made bad business decisions regarding how they served their customers. Their competitors were also "closed", in the sense that everybody required customers to cough up money to play. AOL didn't prevent you from getting to the internet, they just cost too damn much and they failed to expand their physical plant fast enough to allow for a rapid expansion in the customer base of the industry, and customers had a bad experience with slow connections, dropped connections and frequent busy signals. They then failed to expand into DSL when it came along and people moved to ISP's that provided a faster connection.
Whether their system was "closed" or not had nothing to do with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: crap
The answer to all those questions is a resounding NO.
The answer to all those questions is a resounding not yet.
FTFY.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: crap
EVERY company eventually declines. My bet is that Apple's time to decline is a bit further down the road than you think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Does MonoAppleLy Sound Strange
I believe in the end, apple will have to dish out loads of billions - in settlement - after a competent court nails them for their nefarious and anti-American ways.
Ohh, it is big business. If you can collect - with impunity, 30% royalty for the sweat of a poor programmer to build your illegal empire, it is american to continue until forced to PAYBACK. That payback will be loads of it, and Apple stocks, I will shy away from - THEY WILL BE FALLING THROUGH THE ROOF FOR THE AFOREMENTIONED SIN.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Does MonoAppleLy Sound Strange
At the time of the Justice Department suit Microsoft controlled about 97% of the desktop computing market. How did they get there? By using tactics that made if difficult if not impossible for computer companies to offer another operating system on their products. For example, every CPU sold had to have a copy of Windows licensed for it. Even if that PC was not going to even have Windows installed on it. So if you were forced to pay for a copy of Windows on the PC you're selling, why would you pay for a license of another operating system? That would just increase the price of two computers with identical hardware and make the computer that ran Windows only artificially cheap.
Tactics like these are what made a company with 97% market share a monopoly. Apple has roughly 30% of the smartphone market and there are at least 4 other major smartphone makers/mobile OS makers for the consumer to choose from. Where is the monopoly there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Does MonoAppleLy Sound Strange
You can, as well, argue that the Mac was an option to Windows. Didn't Apple kill the ONLY alternate Mac desktop maker with their draconian noncompetitive doctrine?
To control what I install on my iPhone/iPad and stealing 30% of app revenues is criminal and should not be allowed. Allow competition - allow the freedom to use flash; allow alternate AppStores and don't punitively erase my mods in the name of upgrades. You sold the hardware, so let me use it (freely) as I see fit. That's the American way.
Adobe is reportedly going to court to rightly protest the new SDK restriction in 04. Good - like I preempted their action.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cutting off your nose?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cutting off your nose?
When the numbers in the market begin to show that decline, I'll believe it, in the meantime, the numbers show you are wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The reason Safari can still play music in the background is because from iPhone OS versions 1 through 3 only Apple made apps could run in the background. This was to preserve battery life and prevent users have to manage there apps with a task manager. A task manager is fine for geeks but most people would respond to this in one of two ways: "Why do I need a task manager on my cell phone?" or "What the hell is a task manager?"
With iPhone OS 4 Apple has come up with a simple and elegant way to multitask. Opera will be free to continue playing music in the background if they so choose in the next OS.
One last thing, I don't think you can defend the Android market in terms of being young. The App Store launched July 11, 2008. The Android Market launched October 22, 2008. I'd also take issue with the Android Market gaining ground comment. According to the iPad introduction on January 27 the App Store had 150,000 apps. According to the iPhone OS 4 introduction on April 8 the App Store had 185,000 apps. And that was with the removal of around 7 to 10,000 apps between those two dates. I'd argue that the Android Market isn't gaining ground, rather, App Store growth is accelerating.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sounds
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]