Apple was right, Adobe get over it?

[xh3rv]

The more I read those SDK terms, the more I get the feeling they are vague enough for Apple to backtrack if needed.

Ya, this seems like a risky enough strategy from Apple that I wouldn't be surprised if things play out a little differently than what it might seem like initially.

I'm really divided on whether or not this is the 'right' thing to do in terms of like, ethics of developing stuff for computers. Apple is essentially saying they will kill apps that don't match their business model. Really, that's fine, as a user I'm glad they are willing to do that because part of their business model is making the user experience very pleasant. But the _way_ they are accomplishing this just hurts developers, and could kill stuff that truly merits a place on the iPhone / iPad platform on technicalities. And if the rules are applied only selectively, IMO that's an even bigger offense to developers who may then have to gamble about development decisions, with the stakes possibly being like, financial solvency and the life or death of their business.

[eduardo_b]

The more I read those SDK terms, the more I get the feeling they are vague enough for Apple to backtrack if needed.

Ya, this seems like a risky enough strategy from Apple that I wouldn't be surprised if things play out a little differently than what it might seem like initially.

I'm really divided on whether or not this is the 'right' thing to do in terms of like, ethics of developing stuff for computers. Apple is essentially saying they will kill apps that don't match their business model. Really, that's fine, as a user I'm glad they are willing to do that because part of their business model is making the user experience very pleasant. But the _way_ they are accomplishing this just hurts developers, and could kill stuff that truly merits a place on the iPhone / iPad platform on technicalities. And if the rules are applied only selectively, IMO that's an even bigger offense to developers who may then have to gamble about development decisions, with the stakes possibly being like, financial solvency and the life or death of their business.

But does Apple really need to be concerned with any of this? There are so many developers that winnowing out some or even many would be a small price to pay to prevent cross-platform apps. This seems to indicate that Apple is less than sure it can compete in the market if the same apps are available on other platforms - and they're trying to head off the competition that is coming from many companies in the next couple of years. With less than 10 percent of the market and that representing some two-thirds of their revenue, they are in a precarious position.

[griels]

I really wonder how much huge apps like Copilot or TomTom for iPhone rely on cross-platform abstractions (public or otherwise). The functionality is extremely similar across devices, and I can't imagine these companies rewriting their entire code base. At some point there will be some indirection, if not at run-time, at compile time. I think some big-hitting apps are going to need a major rewrite if Apple is going to take this to its logical conclusion. Some of the moderate-sized apps are going to face a dubious future if the remaining market is larger.

Then again, perhaps Apple is happy to cannibalize the markets taken by the lost devs. The Android platform looks a lot more egalitarian at the moment, but Google is rolling in functionality that competes with its developer base - e.g. Google Navigator.

[eduardo_b]

Then again, perhaps Apple is happy to cannibalize the markets taken by the lost devs.

They have to be quite motivated, knowing as they must have the inevitable negative reaction from the development community to these restrictions.

[Hovmod]

The more I read those SDK terms, the more I get the feeling they are vague enough for Apple to backtrack if needed.

Still you think I'm over-analyzing for my consumer grade needs?

[xh3rv]

(besides the fact, that Mac OS X is full of bugs and users are just kinda used to it... I don't get why, we are not in stone-age anymore...)

... because Apple did something stupid again - changing programming languages for example (yes, even this is possible with Apple!). The developers must obey every stupid step of Apple (which I now believe consists only a few "garage" developers, otherwise this couldn't happen), or they won't support Macs, which is exactly what will happen eventually... So folks, get scared ...

End of line - god bless Microsoft - it's not perfect and there's order. Apple is a pure chaos (and very good businessmen)...

As a Mac user, I was really happy to see that you're doing Mac stuff now, I've heard great things about MDrummer and am going to be demo'ing it soon.

On your post - I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to by bugs in OS X (I'm sure they're out there, but is there some real show-stopper?). By Apple "changing programming languages", are you referring to Objective-C, or something else? I'm just curious what specifically is difficult on the OS X platform ... Like you say, Apple certainly does do business - I happen to like Apple's business because I feel like it ends up working out rather well for me as an end-user. Things like, how I've had the same iTunes library for almost a decade now, across a few different systems, and I've spent maybe 30 minutes managing that.

[griels]

Then again, perhaps Apple is happy to cannibalize the markets taken by the lost devs.

They have to be quite motivated, knowing as they must have the inevitable negative reaction from the development community to these restrictions.

There are certainly precedents for Microsoftian embrace-and-extend type behaviour at Apple, with Final Cut and Logic acquisitions ruffling feathers in the video and music worlds respectively.

[Hovmod]

For me it's not about apple or microsoft, it's about being able to not having to think about shit like this when I buy a device.

[jonnyG]

For me it's not about apple or microsoft, it's about being able to not having to think about shit like this when I buy a device.

...is the right answer.

[griels]

For me it's not about apple or microsoft, it's about being able to not having to think about shit like this when I buy a device.

Oh, indeed. Don't hate the players, hate the game.

[Hovmod]

For me it's not about apple or microsoft, it's about being able to not having to think about shit like this when I buy a device.

Oh, indeed. Don't hate the players, hate the game.

That wasn't what I meant, though.
I hate that this kind of shit is even on the table, but since they're playing ugly, I vote with my money, and I failed with the iPhone purchase.

[griels]

Yeah, I got a second-hand 3G a month or two back (mostly because I couldn't settle on an Android handset, and realtime audio support wasn't there for music apps), but this, plus the crippling of even the limited 'multitasking' OS4 will offer on the 3G, make me hanker for another phone.

[eduardo_b]

For me it's not about apple or microsoft, it's about being able to not having to think about shit like this when I buy a device.

Oh, indeed. Don't hate the players, hate the game.

That wasn't what I meant, though.
I hate that this kind of shit is even on the table, but since they're playing ugly, I vote with my money, and I failed with the iPhone purchase.

I voted when the iPhone came out by ignoring its existence...but I do have three Blackberry Curves. I'll never willingly use a touchscreen keyboard.

[xh3rv]

But does Apple really need to be concerned with any of this?

What you're saying seems really plausible to me, but I just think it's speculative enough that it would be more risky than it has to be for Apple (there's already plenty of buzz about apps they won't approve, why make it so obvious?)

I maybe didn't articulate too clearly in my post, but what I'm getting at is - I think people are reading this as a competitive business strategy thing but I won't be surprised if the language in 3.3.1 gets changed or clarified, as I think it's attempting to prune the app development tree with a chainsaw, in a way that I think is kind of overly harsh to developers according to initial impressions. There are good technical reasons to want developers to not do platform-generic development for devices in the iPhone / iPad class, but the current wording is overkill for that IMO.

[eduardo_b]

But does Apple really need to be concerned with any of this?

What you're saying seems really plausible to me, but I just think it's speculative enough that it would be more risky than it has to be for Apple (there's already plenty of buzz about apps they won't approve, why make it so obvious?)

Well, let me ask you this. When have the lemmings (I mean Apple customers) not lined up for any new product the company releases? Will this new direction regarding app platform conformance cause any customers to turn back? I don't think so. How many devs are going to try and make it work...to keep Apple happy by complying. Some have already publicly indicated they will try, but don't know if they can pull it off. This includes those who have been certifying iPhone apps for performance and conformance. They may also have to find a new business model.

Yet Apple must have known all of this when it formulated and then implemented these new policies. They're betting they will find themselves where they want vis-a-vis their competitors and there will always be enough devs willing to fall in with the party line. I really think Apple sees itself facing an increasingly competitive market that they can only overcome by app exclusivity. Even if most of these are crap.