
Watching Apple win - richardburton
http://37signals.com/svn/posts/3084-watching-apple-win
======
barranger
It's articles like this that basically sum up perfectly why I refuse to
discuss anything Apple with people.

Don't get me wrong, I like many of the products that Apple make (I'm currently
typing this up with a MBP), however the personal connection that people have
with Apple is not something I share.

For many people there exists a strange bond with Apple where they take any
negative comment about one of their products or services as a personal affront
against themselves.

It's a corporation folks, a wildly successful one, but that's it. It's not
your buddy, your soulmate, nor your friend.

~~~
jonnathanson
It's called marketing. Apple understands branding and marketing; very few
other hardware makers do. What's remarkable is that Apple has been using the
same playbook for decades now, and nobody else has quite figured it out.

It's the Nike playbook (Steve Jobs once said that he learned a lot from Nike's
example). Don't market your tech specs; market your lifestyle. Apple's
competitors are still running commercials about the dimensions,
specifications, and miscellaneous stats of their devices. Such commercials
basically announce "Hey consumers, here's a commodity. For the time being,
it's slightly differentiated from other, more or less interchangeable
commodities by way of some wonky stats you don't understand. Please buy it."

Apple commercials, by contrast, show _use cases_ and lifestyles. They use
metaphorical and superlative language. That stuff works. It establishes an
emotional bond with the consumer. Apple commercials aren't even really about
Apple; they're about making consumers feel cool, special, hip, and creative
_because they use Apple products_. It's the ultimate in feel-good messaging.

Seriously: watch a Motorola Droid RAZR commercial, then watch an iPhone
commercial. The difference is extraordinary.

~~~
pinaceae
you're wrong. your comment is typical for tech-circles, but completely wrong.

Apple understands products. Apple invests heavily into really good design,
usability and compatibility. Their stuff WORKS, out of the box, without any
fiddling. their products stay useful for a long time, longer than any crap of
their competitors.

This is what makes Apple successful.

And it is clear why many "nerds" just don't get it - cause it means in reverse
that they are wrong and the tools hey're building are second rate.

such a nerdy thing to reduce apple to "good marketing". just like SJ was just
a great "showman".

It is people like you (sorry) that make Apple's competition looks like the
clowns they are. You think a great ad would suddenly make Motorola sell more
than Apple?

Consumers are NOT idiots. They understand quality and value. They reward that
with loyalty and word of mouth advertising.

MS has understood this now and is trying hard with WP7. Let's see how that
goes. They are lucky XBox 360 competed against Sony, not Apple.

~~~
jonnathanson
_"Apple understands products. Apple invests heavily into really good design,
usability and compatibility. Their stuff WORKS, out of the box, without any
fiddling. their products stay useful for a long time, longer than any crap of
their competitors."_

This is not mutually exclusive with what I am saying. The two go hand in hand.
Of course Apple focuses on product. But as far as its consumer messaging
strategy goes, it talks about that product in a very specific, lifestyle-
oriented way. Obviously it wouldn't be able to talk that way about its
products if it products weren't great.

 _"such a nerdy thing to reduce apple to "good marketing". just like SJ was
just a great "showman"._

This is not at all what I said, and if that's the impression I gave you, then
I'm sorry for not having been clear enough. But you're taking what I said in a
tangent that was never intended. I am not "reducing" Apple's success to
marketing, but rather, am explaining why consumers seem to have a love for
Apple that they don't for its competitors (in response to the grandparent
comment about not understanding why consumers have an emotional bond with
Apple).

Marketing and product reinforce one another for Apple; it's not one to the
exclusion of the other.

 _"think a great ad would suddenly make Motorola sell more than Apple?"_

Again, you're pretty wildly misinterpreting my post and making inferences that
just aren't there. I'm not sure what else to tell you. Either I wasn't being
clear enough, or you misread me, or some combination of the two. But I'm not
saying any of what you're accusing me of saying. At all.

~~~
pinaceae
consumers don't really care about marketing at the end of the day.

i live in austria.

no official apple store. no apple billboards, tv ads, etc. apple marketing is
non-existent.

and still they sell. like hotcakes. die-hard apple haters succumb and by an
iMac. because the products are great. great value for their money.

and i don't get your backpedalling. your comment starts with "it's called
marketing" and then you're piling on.

no consumer "bonds" with a company because of marketing. that's pure drivel.
consumers bond with value. if they feel they are treated nice, that they get
value for their money.

that's the "secret". classic marketing hates it, MBAs too. products matter?
wtf.

Zappos understands this. Porsche, BMW, etc too.

~~~
jonnathanson
_"and i don't get your backpedalling. your comment starts with "it's called
marketing" and then you're piling on."_

I'm not "backpeddling." I'm clarifying in response to your misreading of my
post. You and I are actually in total agreement as regards the quality, and
emphasis on quality, of Apple's products. It just so happens that I didn't
bring up product quality in my original post, because it wasn't the point I
was responding to in the grandparent comment.

 _"no consumer "bonds" with a company because of marketing. that's pure
drivel. consumers bond with value. if they feel they are treated nice, that
they get value for their money."_

Here I disagree. I think you're creating a false dichotomy between value and
messaging. If "value" is all that matters to a consumer, then a lot of
companies would be more successful than they are today.

Apple, for instance, has been making great products for more than 30 years.
But it hasn't been wildly successful for all of those 30 years. If you're
telling me that Apple's marketing turnaround circa the late 90s had nothing to
do with its success, you're way off the mark. Product has always played a huge
role in Apple's success, but so has its marketing. Steve Jobs himself has said
as much in countless interviews, in his biography, and elsewhere. Apple's
product design _and_ Apple's marketing have been crucial to Apple's success,
but to subtract marketing from that equation is silly. (Full disclosure: I am
a former Apple employee who worked in both product and in marketing).

Finally, I don't understand the need for your hostility here. I'm a "nerd,"
I'm "nerdy," it's "people like me" who make the world a terrible place, etc.,
etc., etc. Can we lay off the personal attacks and converse like civil adults?
If you took the time to read what I'm saying more carefully, you'd see that
you and I are in a lot more agreement than disagreement.

Let's have fun with these discussions. I suspect we're all fairly nerdy, to be
honest. I know I am. I probably wouldn't be coming to a site called "Hacker
News" if I weren't!

~~~
kahawe
I do not really understand what the dis-agreement here is about. For me it is
very clear that Apple was one of the first (or at least few) PC companies that
really understood how to both engineer AND market to a broader range of
customers. And I completely agree, most manufacturers and companies were and
some still are selling you specs - while Apple sold you a shiny iPod, an easy
way to buy a single song instead of a whole album and the passion of listening
to music and being able to take your whole collection with you. And this is
where they finally got decent market penetration and with enough market
penetration, the iPod was selling practically automatically because everybody
wanted one.

And then they applied that same principles and came up with a shiny smartphone
and single-handedly created the smartphone hype we see now. And then they did
it again with the iPad, even created a new market that has not existed before.
And again, those devices ended up selling like crazy.

By no means were those ground-breaking innovations but they were the first
ones in those three markets to offer something that ultimately "everybody"
wants. They have shown how to elegantly bypass that specs-war and engineer and
market on a completely different dimension thus catching every single
competitor off-guard. (see also Nintendo and Wii) And they knew and understood
very well what the majority of customers really like or care about: how it
looks, feels and how you interact with it.

------
kbutler
When Microsoft was dominant, it was eviscerated for the "embrace, extend,
extinguish" approach to protecting its monopoly.

Apple shows every indication of being a much worse monopolist than Microsoft
ever was. Apple seeks to control the whole stack and eliminate competition at
every layer - from controlling the apps that can be installed, to restricting
expansion and peripherals, to controlling the tools used to develop for the
platform. They are also quite adept at "capturing the consumer surplus" using
tiered pricing, etc., to maximize their profit.

The overreaching terms in developer agreements, very aggressive (and
overreaching) patent lawsuits, and restrictive shrink-wrap licensing are all
efforts to protect and extend their control.

TL;DR: Apple is not your friend.

~~~
grecy
>very aggressive (and overreaching) patent lawsuits

I'm not going to disagree with you, but every time I hear people complain
about Apple and patent lawsuits, I recommend the following: Watch the iPhone
introduction video on YouTube. If you don't have time to watch the whole
thing, skip to 3.40 in Part 1, and see the state of affairs, then watch at
4.00 in Part 2 [2]. Listen to the crowd reaction when Steve "Slides to unlock"
for the first time in the world.

It doesn't matter who you are, or what your background is, _nobody_ had ever
seen anything like that before.

In my opinion, Apple clearly invented something "brand new" and they are
defending the patents that have on that in court. What's wrong with that?

I don't think anyone can deny successful smartphones today have almost nothing
in common with the phones at 3.40 in Part 1 [1], though they look and behave a
hell of a lot like the one shown at 4.00 in Part 2 [2].

1\. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5VTB7Lj_NA>

2\. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VLb5XdxRm8>

EDIT: I need to clarify: I'm not just talking about "slide to unlock" being
brand new and patentable.. I'm talking about the whole phone..

~~~
qdog
I'm not sure that was the first slide to unlock, it certainly wasn't the first
touchscreen device. [http://www.androidcentral.com/apple-granted-patent-slide-
unl...](http://www.androidcentral.com/apple-granted-patent-slide-unlock-even-
though-it-existed-2-years-they-invented-it)

I tried to like Apple, after receiving an Apple Tv 2, but it doesn't work
seamlessly with anything else I own. As one co-worker put it "You need an
Apple House for that."

I'm glad all the Apple fans have lovely walls in their garden, but I'm not
hanging out there. I don't like them trying to patent me into hanging out
there for trivial items like "slide to unlock", either. I don't even like
slide to unlock! I much prefer just punching the physical button unlock my
phone, but I guess that just means I'm old and you damn kids better get off my
lawn.

~~~
r00fus
Can you clarify in your video where it shows the similar slide-to-unlock as in
the iPhone? I can't see that at all.

edit: qdog, I can't reply to this thread or your response, so I'm going to
edit my comment with a link to an article with referencing the _specific
patent_ Apple applied for (and was granted) [1].

If you look at the diagrams, it is completely different than what is shown, as
there is immediate visual response where there is none in this device... that
is a key part of the patent (and requires a capacitive touchscreen).

[1] <http://9to5mac.com/2011/10/25/slide-to-unlock-patented/>

~~~
qdog
It's about the 4:00 minute mark. There isn't a slider bar graphic, but he has
to slide left-to-right to unlock.

Apple products work well for a lot of people, I'm just not one of them, and I
don't think having to 'slide to unlock' make my Android phone an iPhone clone.
Nor is it the type of thing that should be patentable, imho. It'd be like he
first company to have a link to a web browser on the main phone screen
patenting that concept, it's a pretty obvious idea once you have a phone.

~~~
nirvana
Nothing in that video invalidates the patent in question. If you're going to
claim that the patent is bogus, you should read the patent first, understand
what is actually being claimed, and then if you want to show prior art,
specifically show which claims are being undermined.

Near as I can tell, you guys think that anything that vaguely resembles the
representation of what the patent covers (which usually isn't correct in the
first place-- Amazon didn't patent a "one click" at all) -- counts as prior
art. Someone once told me that the movie 2001 is prior art! (If you know
anything about patents, you know that a movie can never be prior art, except
maybe about a movie technique. A movie is a fictional representation of an
idea, not an _invention_ that has been _reduced to practice_.)

~~~
qdog
I claimed that this device already had "slide to unlock", I didn't
specifically say it invalidated the patent. I don't believe the patent should
have been granted in the first place for a few reasons.

A dutch court, however, has said this invalidates Apple's patent.

In my opinion, just adding a 'graphic' to the slide to unlock is bullshit.
There's any number of ways to slightly alter slide to unlock, add a ding,
whatever, do you think they all deserve government monopoly status? I don't.

The patent from 2001 is a design patent, and I'm not a lawyer, so I won't say
whether it will be invalidated. I don't really see anything clearly patentable
in the idea of a touchscreen device with rounded corners. I used to have one
of these: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compaq_Concerto> back in 1993.

I'm not a lawyer, I don't try patent cases, I don't intend to. These may be
perfectly valid patents in the current system, but I don't agree with the
system. I make no claims as to validity or invalidity WITHIN THE CURRENT
SYSTEM.

------
loso
Sometimes I see programmers, or people in the tech world in general, bash
people who go crazy over sports teams. There will probably be more than a few
condescending comments about the SuperBowl hype over the next two weeks. I see
a post like this as no different. It's someone cheering for their favorite
team.

I don't really care if people love a certain software/hardware product (even
though its annoying when they bash other products to show that love). I just
hate that this same community will bash sports fans for the same kind of
devotion. For the most part both are harmless even though the devotion may be
a little nutty.

~~~
code_duck
The difference is the rather important fact that sports teams, unlike most
technology companies, accomplish absolutely nothing useful or productive other
than to provide entertainment.

~~~
tpatke
By that measure the movie, television and music industries also accomplish
abosolutely nothing. ...oh, and also facebook and video games.

I wish I could accomplish so little. :-)

~~~
code_duck
It's a bizarre stretch to compare sports to those important communication
media.

Facebook connects people. Television can inform. Movies can inform.

Yes, video games are almost as useless, but at least the consumer is actively
involved... I love sports when people play them. When they watch overpaid
idiots play them and obsess about it? Not so much.

------
potatolicious
> _"When you hear regular people talk about how much they love their iPhone or
> iPad, it really hammers home what Apple has done not just for themselves but
> for anyone trying to create better products and hoping to win markets
> because of them."_

As an app developer this rings true to me. Apple certainly has raised the bar,
and public expectation, of end-user software. I think back to the late 90s (or
even early 00s) and the shite software we'd all put up with, compared to great
Android and iOS apps now...

It's gratifying for reality to finally match your values as a developer. I get
a sick glee when I see WebView-wrapped apps on the App Store get absolutely
eviscerated in its reviews and stumble out with a 1.5 star rating. I love that
people not only appreciate beautiful design, now, but they practically
_demand_ it.

It's glorious.

~~~
code_duck
Finally, we're getting out of the quality hole that Microsoft dug for the
entire tech industry.

~~~
tptacek
Facile. The Microsoft of the '90s was famous for spending on software quality.
They didn't have the design mojo of Apple or Adobe, but still produced
extraordinarily well designed software that caught on because of its intrinsic
value and not just marketing --- Excel and Word, for instance, were simply
good pieces of software.

I suspect any narrative that looks at Microsoft as the reason the '90s didn't
look like Steve Job's aught's has rose-colored glasses on about the "quality"
of (pick any:) Linux desktop software, Nullsoft, Netscape Navigator, NCSA
HTTPD, Eudora, Forte FreeAgent.

I think the reality has more to do with technology progressing to a point
where it's cost effective to build products with high production values ---
handheld computers with a BOM in the low hundreds of dollars can do hardware-
accelerated OpenGL compositing for a vector-based GUI.

That doesn't mean Apple didn't do something to carry the industry forward;
they did: they noticed the coming new reality first, and did the best job of
capitalizing on it by designing new kinds of products that executed a few core
features better than anything could have in the '90s, and so didn't need to
crud themselves up with 1,000 extra features to make up for deficits in their
core.

~~~
code_duck
Do you recall using non-microsoft software from the same period? I don't mean
the university software like Mosaic. I had an Amiga, and there is very little
that seems well designed to me about Windows 3.1 or Windows 95 compared to
AmigaDOS 2.0.

They may have spent large sums on well designed software, but as far as I can
tell this did not have the intended effect.

I owned a DOS machine in the late 80s. The interface was tragically poor,
compared to just about anything else available. Stability was poor as well. 10
years later, I bought a Windows 98 machine, thinking 'oh surely Microsoft has
worked this out!'. Alas, it featured a rather limited, poorly thought out
interface and had all the stability of an inflatable boat on the high seas.
This is to what I refer.

------
sdoering
A posting like this is (for me) absolutely a reason not to use any of the
37sig-products.

Seldom I have seen such a quasi-religious, non-critical hailing of an
international cooperation.

Working-conditions in china? Who cares? Steve jobs takes over and kills the
till then legitimately produced Mac-Clones, because they were technically
superior (killing companies is not so good for US-jobs)? Who cares? Ripping of
ideas from developers of Apps? Who cares? Well maybe fellow-developers should
care.

It seems, that as long, as apple is able to whitewash itself in front of its
fanboys the will sing in tune as one big choir and hail their spiritual leader
Steve, come what may.

~~~
atirip
"Working-conditions in china? Who cares?" Let's start with you. I assume, you
wrote that comment on the computer. There's 100% probability that this
computer was manufactured in China. So its you. You do not fucking care.

~~~
Vivtek
I'm not the one that made 13 billion dollars in a single quarter while the
13-year-olds who assembled my product are driven to suicide and are praised in
the New York Times for getting up at midnight with a bun and coffee to make up
for the poor planning of my design team.

Apple sucks. So does every other electronics manufacturer in the world, but
Apple sucks more because they're sitting on huge mountains of cash that could
reduce the suffering of their workers if they could manage to give a shit
about human concerns.

------
Tichy
The thing is: Apple is not your friend. OK, maybe it is dhh's friend, but not
Joe Average's friend. As such I just can't see any rational explanation for
fawning over Apple. To me it is the equivalent to fawning over the billionaire
who buys the playground I used to play in, tears it down and builds apartment
buildings in it's place.

Yeah, it's cool that they are so successful, but the bottom line is that my
playground is gone. Why should I consider that cool? It is their success, not
my success. Or maybe they build a theme park in place of the playground and
admit me to play there for a regular fee, if I stick to their rules.

Also, somehow I still don't believe that Apple will continue to be successful
without Steve Jobs. Already I heard rumors that the iPad 3 will be thicker
again, presumably because they need more LEDs to light the high resolution
display. iBook Author doesn't seem to have made many friends, either.

------
guelo
To me watching Apple rake in so much cash just points to how disgusting their
pettiness is. A company with almost $100 billion in the bank should not be
crushing small publishers by demanding 30% of all their revenues which will
add .001% to their bottom line, or suing all other phone manufacturers for
some stupid UI element. The bigger their profit the more they come across as
grossly petty and greedy.

~~~
nirvana
>should not be crushing small publishers by demanding 30% of all their
revenues

Apple has never demanded %30 of all of anyone's revenue.

Apple has never crushed anybody small with their iTunes stores-- on the
contrary, they've created a massive boom in small software publishing, and
soon small book publishing.

>suing all other phone manufacturers for some stupid UI element.

All those phone manufacturers stole patented inventions. They cheated, and
they deserve to pay. If you don't like the patent system, work to get it
reformed... but I promise you you haven't thought out the consequences of
that, and you wouldn't like the results.

>The bigger their profit the more they come across as grossly petty and
greedy.

People like you have been hating on Apple for the past 3 decades. Always
hating with lies and misrepresentations.

Its not any different now that Apple is successful, only one thing is true--
Apple's success has proven your predictions wrong, year after year.

Remember when you said the iPad was "just a bigger iPhone"?

Remember when you said the iPhone would flop without a physical keyboard?

Remember when you said the iPod was lame?

Whose laughing now?

Serioulsy, I'm tired of these ignorant apple bashing posts. HN is going to
hell because its overrun with people who practice an ideology of socialism--
pro-google because its "Free" and anti-Apple because they actually innovate
and have the audacity to charge for their products.

~~~
subsection1h

        HN is going to hell because its overrun with
        people who practice an ideology of socialism
    

What the hell does collective ownership of the factors of production have to
do with any comment on this story? Yours may very well be the stupidest
comment I've read on this site.

------
randall
"I’m just so proud of Apple that I’m willing to look foolish saying so."

Mission accomplished.

------
c1sc0
This is starting to feel like Microsoft in the 90s or IBM in the 80s. IBM
brought a computer in every business. Microsoft took it from the server-room
and put it on your desk. Apple took it from your desk and put it in your
pocket. They are winning for now, but what goes up must come down.

~~~
ryandvm
Agreed. Apple has come full circle to perfectly embody the image they
protested in their classic Super Bowel commercial. Millions of souls
mindlessly catapulting birds on their little devices while fed a steady diet
of carefully curated media and apps.

Rescue us, lady with the sledgehammer...

~~~
shmerl
Yep, it's ironic how things changed. The big brother in that clip is exactly
Apple today.

Someone even made a parody: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdVzboF2E2Q>

------
krelian
As someone who used Windows all their life I can appreciate the unified
hardware/software/simplicity model that Apple is offering and can easily see
how why the average user would prefer it. After reading Steve Jobs biography I
am baffled as to why Apple didn't succeed earlier (at the magnitude they are
succeeding now). Were their earlier products really just "not there yet" or
was it a marketing problem that got solved by the ipod introducing the Apple
way to the masses?

~~~
nirvana
The simple answer is that after Jobs brought Scully in, he didn't have the
power to do the right thing with the company.

But its also the case that people were a lot more ignorant of computers then
than they are now. People actually believed that Macs were not as good as
windows machines because that's what the teenager at the local computer store
told them.

------
ryandvm
The most heartwarming part is knowing how much wonderful charity work the most
valuable and successful corporation in the world must be engaging in.

I mean, sure the old school giants like Exxon, Walmart, Microsoft, et al. give
incredible sums of money to charities. Hell, even Goldman Sachs gave over $300
million in 2010. But just imagine how much money the Apple corporation must be
contributing...

~~~
brudgers
Well, in fairness, Apple could be criticized for it's recent pursuit of an
ebook publishing strategy which will tend to lock teachers' course materials
to the iPad via a click through EULA.

------
joejohnson
It's true, Apple computers are better than almost all of the competition in so
many ways. However, as they become the dominant consumer computer
manufacturer, I hope they continue to make smart and daring choices to stay
ahead. I really like Apple's products, but I'm scared that their ingenuity was
a product of being an underdog for so long; hopefully their newfound uber-
success won't halt innovation.

~~~
jarcoal
I hope so as well. Something Tim said in the conference call yesterday made me
pretty hopeful. He implied that the iPad was cannibalizing their own laptop
sales, but that he didn't really care.

Apple has done a fantastic job in the past of destroying their cash cows if
they feel that have an even more awesome cash cow in the pipeline. This is a
mark of a well run business.

------
shmerl
More important is a battle of open vs closed, DRM and control encumbered vs
free. Both MS and Apple are on the dark side of this, so watching the Apple
win isn't something that society will benefit from.

~~~
ddagradi
Not to troll, but who's on the light side?

~~~
jpadkins
EFF? FSF?

~~~
shmerl
If I guess correctly, the question above was intending to ask which companies
fall under that category. So there are a bunch who promote all or some of
those values (my favorite being Mozilla for example). In general open source
related companies promote open standards and stand up against software patents
and DRM.

(On a side note, Apple didn't say anything on the latest development around
SOPA/PIPA, simply because Apple is strongly pro DRM and they would probably
support these kind of laws willingly).

~~~
falling
_> simply because Apple is strongly pro DRM_

<http://www.apple.com/fr/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/>

I would argue that iTunes' strong success (with DRM forced by the music
labels) helped Amazon negotiate the deal to sell DRM-free music, which in turn
allowed Apple to drop them too (all music on iTunes is DRM-free since 2009).

Movies and TV shows still have DRMs, sure, but nobody, as far as I know, is
distributing DRM-free video content, not Apple, not Amazon, not Netflix and
not Google. That means that either all of these companies are “strongly pro
DRM” or the content owners are.

~~~
shmerl
DRM doesn't only apply to the media content, but to software and operating
systems as well. While SOPA is mostly associated with media, DRM in essence is
a broader issue.

------
exolab
Bad case of fan-boyism. Go see a doctor.

JFTR: I like many Apple products, but come on.

------
bwarp
I've learned not to trust big corporate IT companies. Apple is one.

I've been through the IBM/Sun/Oracle era, the Microsoft era and am now living
in the Apple era. It's like a perpetual screwing ground extracting cash
however they can. The products look good but aren't and are primarily fad
based. It's the same tactics but different medium.

The only constant good, trouble free, ground levelling force has been Linux so
far which solves problems and gets out of the way.

------
nirvana
Its interesting that he wrote this post praising Apple, but seems to have
missed completely what Apple's guiding principle is.

In fact, Apple's guiding principle is almost a secret to hear the way many
people talk about them, but it shouldn't be.

Apple's guiding principle is to do right by the customer. That's it.

For instance: "Apple seeks to control the whole stack and eliminate
competition at every layer - from controlling the apps that can be installed,
to restricting expansion and peripherals, to controlling the tools used to
develop for the platform."

If you want to see Apple as evil, its very easy to interpret them doing right
by the customer as somehow having nefarious intent.

They want to control what apps can be installed simply to keep out malware and
porn, so that they can do right by their customers who don't want malware and
the parents who don't want porn apps. (They leave Safari open and give it
effectively native app capabilities, for people who want to deliver porn. They
even do right by that customer, though its a shame that so few people make use
of this completely open and unregulated way to install apps on iOS devices. In
fact, many people don't seem to know that you can have apps written in
javascript, download them from the web, save them on the device and run them
offline.)

Apple doesn't want to restrict expansion and peripherals. Far from it. For iOS
devices they've created an API and a completely reasonable licensing agreement
so that you can make your peripherals for iOS to do just about anything you
want-- except harm the device. Again, they do right by the customer by having
a very vibrant and active peripheral and accessory market-- which they do, and
its quite massive-- and they do right by the customer by ensuring these
devices work together. Its the same as WiFi or any other branded protocol with
a licensing scheme that requires interoperability.

As for "controlling the tools used to develop for their platform", that one
simply isn't true. Unity Technologies makes a development tool to build 3D
games for the platform. Coronoa makes a flash like platform to develop apps
for iOS. In both cases, these third party products simply use Xcode for the
code signing or compilation steps. I don't see Apple stopping anyone from
making tools to develop for their platform, and I certainly can't fault Apple
for providing free tools to develop for their platform.

Of course, when you're large and successful, you'll naturally attract people
who don't like you for whatever reason.

But, by definition, doing right by your customer means putting the customer
first. That doesn't mean compromising that principle in order to comply with
the beliefs of non-customers. This is why Apple doesn't ship Windows as their
core operating system, for instance. Apple chose to ship an operating system
that is better for their customers, to the continued derision of non-customers
who claim that Windows is the industry standard (not, notably, that it is
actually better.)

It is gratifying to see a company win in the marketplace by sticking to a
principle like this.

~~~
theBobMcCormick
> They want to control what apps can be installed simply to keep out malware
> and porn, so that they can do right by their customers who don't want
> malware and the parents who don't want porn apps.

That's simply untrue. Many apps have been blocked from the iPhone apps store
that were neither "porn" nor malware. If it were just about blocking "porn"
and malware then they would continue with their (excellent BTW) curated apps
store, but could still allow side-loaded apps for those who wish to use them.
Instead they block sideloaded apps to ensure complete control of the iOS
ecosystem and render impossible any kind of credible competing app store (like
the Amazon App store) on iOS.

~~~
shmerl
Agreed. For example ban on competing browsers embedded in the iOS SDK is
simply a monopoly protection, and has nothing to do with customers' interests.

~~~
gte910h
As people have seen to downvote this:

The reason why competing browsers aren't prevalent is that they don't want any
executable code downloadable that isn't in their sandboxes.

Browsers have executable systems (Javascript, being the biggest issue), so
they aren't allowed.

~~~
shmerl
By this logic any browser should be banned from the system, including their
own, since their sandboxes have vulnerabilities as well. So I'm not buying
this argument. Using security arguments to hide anti competitive intentions
just doesn't cut it.

~~~
gte910h
It's not about vulnerabilities. It's a line in the sand that says "you can't
have executable code in your app which is not signed and vetted before
release".

They actually DON'T let you have the optimized javascript engine they use in
their browser in your app either, probably for the same reason (security
loopholes).

~~~
shmerl
The last time I checked their SDK license, it let you use their JavaScript VM
for the dynamic code (unless this changed recently):

===> 3.3.2 An Application may not itself install or launch other executable
code by any means, including without limitation through the use of a plug-in
architecture, calling other frameworks, other APIs or otherwise. No
interpreted code may be downloaded and used in an Application except for code
that is interpreted and run by Apple's Published APIs and builtin
interpreter(s). <===

So the argument that they ban any interpreted code is hypocritical. They ban
competing browsers through banning JavaScript VMs.

~~~
gte910h
No, there is an optimized Javascript interpreter only in safari, then there is
the UIWebView control which you can use a less-optimized javascript
interpreter in your app.

[http://www.quora.com/JavaScript/Why-has-Apple-limited-the-
Ni...](http://www.quora.com/JavaScript/Why-has-Apple-limited-the-Nitro-
JavaScript-engine-in-iOS-4-3-to-Safari)

Here is the why: <http://daringfireball.net/2011/03/nitro_ios_43>

>It’s a trade-off. Most OSes allow marking memory pages as executable for
performance reasons. iOS disallows it for security reasons. If you allow for
pages of memory to be escalated from writable to executable (even if you
require the page be made permanently read-only first), then you are enabling
the execution of unsigned native code. It breaks the chain of trust. Allowing
remote code to execute locally turns every locally exploitable security flaw
into a remotely exploitable one.

~~~
shmerl
Great, so they just know that there are more vulnerabilities in their own
optimized engine, still they use it in their own browser. At the same time
they ban anything else on the system, claiming that it promotes security.
Doesn't sound convincing to me at all. Meaning, that if I, as user will find a
more secure browser - I won't be able to use it, since it's banned on pretense
that it'll compromise security (hypothetically, not that I use iOS as a user
anyway).

~~~
nirvana
The entire premise of this thread is false. UIWebView uses the optimized
engine as of iOS 5.

This is just an example of Apple releasing new code in the browser first
before extending it into other apps being turned into an excuse for people to
ignorantly or dishonestly bash Apple.

The reason it was put in Mobile Safari first is obvious-- Apple controls the
source code there. Thus they can deal with any instability caused by the
engine in the wild there.

If they immediately put it in all the UIWebViews in the system then many third
party developers apps would become unstable due to these bugs.

I find it quite astounding that people are trying to make hay out of Apple
using a phased roll out for a key piece of technology.

It just shows how any opportunity that can be used to mischaracterize Apple is
seized upon, and even when the situation that led to the original issue is
long resolved, people continue to report it as fact.

