The iPhone is Not a Platform
A post on the NY Times’ “Bits” blog describes the trevails of a developer who went to the trouble to build an iPhone podcasting application only to have the application rejected because it duplicates functionality found in iTunes (which is to say, the developer’s product is competitive with Apple’s own software).
This violates our first rule of platforms (”A ‘proprietary platform’ isn’t a platform”). Put another way, if you have to ask permission to develop a piece of software on a platform, that platform isn’t open — it isn’t even a platform (it’s a walled garden or a collection of integration points). If you attempt to build a business on such a product, you run the risk that the company that owns the product can destroy your business at any time, for essentially any reason. You are, in essence, a sharecropper.
The amount of revenue that Apple will lose from a third-party podcasting application is zero. The number of developers who will think twice about developing for the iPhone because of these capricious policies is almost certainly more significant.
Update: It’ll be interesting to see if Apple relaxes their rules in response to today’s release of the Android Market, the open application store for the new Android phone.
Related posts:
“Some developers demand Apple try to communicate better, lest they assume the worst of the platform vendor. While that sounds plenty reasonable at face value, given the curatorial demands on the fledgling state of the App Store platform and Apple’s overall reliance on product-plan secrecy, we shouldn’t realistically expect Apple to ‘open up’ anytime soon,” as I explain in:
Resolved: Apple is right to curate the App Store
http://counternotions.com/2008/09/15/app-store/
I read your definition. What do you consider platforms then? The Web and Linux? Even there, isn’t your platform vulnerable since, at least in on the Web, the majority client is not open?
“Curatorial demands”? That’s a hot one. You’re basically saying that Apple has to say no to some developers because there are so many developers. But they engage in a revenue share with their developers; the app store is a business to them. So throttling developers makes about as much sense as a grocery store refusing to open another checkout when there are 50 people in line.
In your post you say “people either trust the platform vendor, or they don’t.” Totally agree. But the problem is that I should only have to trust the platform provide to provide a stable and functional platform. Right now, Apple is proving themselves to be untrustworthy. If the platform provider gets to make capricious decisions about who gets to play, that introduces an instability in the platform. When that happens, everyone loses (including Apple).
@Dave “Open” is an overloaded term and as a result I always use it with caution. In this context my definition of open isn’t the same as “open-source” but has more to do with providing a level playing field and not forcing people to ask permission before getting started or deploying their apps. In this regard, Windows Mobile is (embarassingly) more open than the iPhone.
You’ve got a very limited definition of the term platform. A “platform” is something built for other things to stand on. In software, it’s anything that serves as a common installation onto which smaller pieces of software can be deployed.
If you want to modify the word “platform” with some other descriptor, like “open platform” or “software business platform” or “viable software platform” you are free to set the definition of that term to whatever you’d like. But please don’t try to change the definition of existing technical wording… it’s hard enough to communicate as it is.
Sorry, no. I’m clarifying the difference between a platform and other stuff (like “integration points” or “a partner program”) here.
The iPhone is a platform like a table with two legs is a platform.
“The iPhone is a platform like a table with two legs is a platform.”
Not a good analogy. There are many solid, stable tables that have two legs, but four feet.
Why would Apple allow any app onto the iPhone? It would end up like windows and linux. These platforms suffer because of the crap applications written by amateurs.
@jeffrey
You do not have to ask MS before building something for Windows Mobile, but MS asks a pretty good price for VS 2008 Pro, $669 on Amazon, though others have it for around $500. You have already paid your way onto their fields. Apple ask $100 and that you have a Mac, reusable if you give up on iPhone dev, not a useless license to VS if you give up on WinMo development. You might also need test devices for WinMo or iPhone OS.
Getting your crops to market with WinMo, totally up to you. Apple has their own farmers market, and it’s the only one you can sell at. They decide if your crops are high enough quality, or if they want them for any reason, at their market. They do pretty much guarantee to shoppers at their market that crops bought there will be disease free.
I don’t agree with what they have done with Podcaster. It is risky if you don’t have a lot of clout that the rules can change at any time, and thus obviously your business is at risk. But I don’t think its as black and white as the the App Store ecosystem being less open than Windows Mobile because the App Store is unique. Until App Stores are common across all mobile platforms, there is probably not enough pressure on Apple to clarify the situation. And that is unfortunate because if the current status quo isn’t fixed soon, it will give developers pause, and eventually drive them to Android or WinMo.
@mark You’re torturing semantics here. What’s your point?
@robert Why would Apple allow any app on the iPhone? I dunno, because their customers might want it?
@dave I think your argument might stem from the use of “open” as an unfortunate synonym for “cost-free,” which was also not my point. My point is not that you have to pay to play. Visual Studio is a piece of commercial software and people who want to use it should pay for it (or use an alternative). My point is whether you have to ask permission or not. With Windows the answer is no, with Apple the answer is “build your application first then we’ll see.”
@jeffrey
I was saying that having to “pay to play” is having to ask for permission, its a gate up front, but the rule is obvious, if you can afford the purchase price, you get onto the platform. I wasn’t saying its the same kind of permission Apple is wielding, which is the worst kind, all the way at the end. But it does make it a tad more gray.
Does Apple need to clarify the rules and regulations in regards to the iPhone—Heck yea! They should have a very clear set of guidelines and and ongoing communication/blogs regarding potential apps on the iPhone.
Is Apple ever going to open up the iPhone platform like some software wild west? Heck No.
iTunes is THE gateway to the iPhone/iPod Touch—anybody with half a brain ought to know that Apple is not going to let you circumvent the main functions of iTunes:
Software/music/movie/podcast delivery and management, regardless of the fine print in the NDA.
Is this really that hard to figure out?
Remember that companies that exploited the openness of the Mac platform? Microsoft, Adobe, Quark, etc. then as soon as they had the chance, they turned around and ditched it leaving Apple in the lurch.
Apple will not let the iPhone universe become dependent on or be hijacked by anybody else’s software.
Is it “fair?” Maybe, maybe not. But it’s no different than the PS3 or X-Box. Apple doesn’t want totalitarian control over the iPhone but it WILL set the rules, arbitrary or otherwise.
Let me guess, you voted for George Bush in 2004, too, right?
Whether or not I agree or disagree with your statement that ‘The iPhone is Not a Platform’ is really semantics to use your word; most people get the gist of your intent. My response would be so what, and question would be, is a platform better than a ‘proprietary platform’? Basically, is open better than regulated when it comes to an app store or consumer electronics?
I think it is idealistic to think than simply being open is superior when it comes to consumer software. Openness can lead to both freedom and chaos. Apple has basically built its Brand on managing user expectations, experience and environment. They do this by having tight control over a broad range of the user experience from the hardware to the software. It is hard to argue that Apples Brand isn’t very strong and desirable even though it is not technically open.
I think, openness is a balancing act and neither extreme is ideal.
To me the real problem here is the lack of guidelines not the presence of Apple’s oversight. It is a shame that a developer wasted so much of his time on an app when simple guidelines would have told him to steer clear. I am not convinced that oversight is bad. Sure people are discouraged by the process, but people also rise to the challenge because they know someone is watching and judging. Ultimately you may get fewer entries but with higher quality.
Apple has very clear guidelines in the developer agreement that every iPhone App developer signed.
The only App that was rejected that may not have broken the developer agreement is that $999 agreement that said, in effect, “I am too rich and too stupid for my own good”. It did denigrate the whole App-iPhone system so it may also have been breaking the developer agreement.
Sign up as a developer and read the agreement yourselves.
“In computing, a platform describes some sort of hardware architecture or software framework (including application frameworks), that allows software to run.” -from Wikipedia’s ‘Computing Platform’
By this definition the iPhone certainly is a platform, different definition, different result.
As for the amount of revenue Apple will lose, that is a strong argument in Apple’s favor. Every time someone downloads a free podcast from the iTunes Music Store, Apple loses money. Even .99¢ song downloads probably are money losers for Apple. With .70¢ going to the record company, .25¢ going to pay the minimum credit card transaction fee, Apple is left with .04¢ to pay bandwith, maintenance, salaries, software development and overhead of every description. With (often) free podcasts, the overhead remains, without the .04¢. If Apple was worried about the money they would thank Podcaster and embrace it with both arms. If on the other hand they are worried about a program that allows podcasts to be downloaded directly to the iPhone from unknown sources, potentially carrying malicious code, which users may not perceive as operating differently than the iTunes Music Store, Apple’s behavior makes more sense.
Just as an aside, as someone who _never_ voted for George W. Bush, what does Synthmeisters presidential politics have to do with whether his argument or historical analogy is accurate?
You missed the whole point of this discussion. The whole problem here is that Apple isn’t “allowing software to run”.
No idea where you get your figures on iTunes sales, but they seem vanishingly unlikely.
No, Jeffrey, he didn’t miss the the whole point of the discussion.
Your topic declares the iPhone is not a platform. That is the whole point of the discussion.
You assert that it’s not a platform by referencing some obscure website. Michael referenced another website to counter your assertion. Right to the point!
If you want to claim it’s a problem that Apple is acting as a gate keeper, then let that be your topic. You try to spread fear by claiming that Apple will destroy your business at any time, for any reason? How many businesses have Microsoft destroyed? Long term developers for the Microsoft windows “Platform” have had their businesses devastated when the platform provider decides to compete with them. Who wants to take a chance on Windows Mobile?
Godwin’s law of Apple fanboy discussions: every online argument will eventually require the fanboys to trot out the Microsoft fright wig.
Platform providers competing with their developers is a whole different issue. It’s a problem with Microsoft. It’s a problem with Apple. It’s a problem with Salesforce.com. But that doesn’t support or refute my assertion, which is that any platform with a gatekeeper (that is, a platform where you have to get permission to develop an app) isn’t a platform.