
We Are the App Store - sstarr
http://alexyoung.org/2011/02/22/subscriptions/
======
InclinedPlane
Walled gardens are great when a medium is brand new. Without history and
without a critical mass of knowledgeable individuals it's very much more
difficult for individuals to find offerings of sufficient quality, and then
from there to filter based on individual preferences and needs. Such was the
case with mobile apps when the iphone came around. The quality of mobile apps
tended to be rather poor at the time and there was a bewildering array of
them. The iphone introduced a huge new chunk of people to smartphones, the
appstore model was an attempt to raise the quality bar of mobile apps and to
make it easier for users to find and buy apps. And it worked spectacularly
well, propelling a once questionable development arena to enormous heights of
popularity (and in some cases profitability).

If you look back on, for example, video game development you can see the
problems that can occur without such walled gardens. The home video game
market boomed in the late 70s and early 80s, with families buying new games
like hotcakes. A lot of game makers jumped on the bandwagon and pumped the
market full of low quality games. Whereas in previous years the total number
of games for the Atari 2600, for example, had been in the low dozens in
1982/83 this number ballooned to _hundreds_. Consumers could no longer have
much confidence in which games to buy and so they stopped buying, leading to a
massive crash of the video game industry in the US that lasted until Nintendo
came along with its own walled garden approach.

However, the video game industry has matured since then, and walled gardens
are no longer very helpful (there are far more than sufficient resources these
days to determine which games to buy and which to avoid based on individual
preferences).

As the mobile app market continues to mature it will strain against its walled
garden confines more and more. Increasingly such hand-holding is less
necessary and more and more restrictive. Apple has a choice to recognize that
the market is changing and to adapt or to ignore the changes and pretend as
though it's still 2008 while the world passes them by.

~~~
bryanlarsen
I'm having trouble with your argument. After all, the 2600 was the original
walled garden from which all others have sprung. It was also the source of
court cases which set precedent for walled gardens. If I remember correctly,
Atari ROMs had an image in them that the firmware checked for before allowing
the ROM to run. But the image was copyrighted, so you couldn't sell Atari ROMs
without giving a cut to Atari. The only exception was Tengen, who had a
historical license due to being a spin-off of Atari.

~~~
T-hawk
What you say is true for the Atari 7800, not the 2600. The 2600 had no
protection or verification at all; it wasn't remotely thought of when the 2600
was designed in 1977. The 2600 happily runs any ROM at all containing
executable 6502 machine code. There isn't even any BIOS in the 2600. Literally
all it does at startup is point the program counter to an address within the
ROM address space.

The 2600 was walled-by-obscurity for its first several years, since the video
chip was custom designed by Atari and not documented publicly, plus the tools
to write and compile and run 6502 assembler were fairly primitive. But by 1982
or so, enough reverse-engineering had been done and the tools had matured and
enough Atari expertise was available on the hiring market that the system was
essentially fully open.

(I've been there - I wrote an Atari 2600 game my freshman year of college in
1997.)

~~~
bryanlarsen
OK, so I didn't remember correctly. I'm glad I put that disclaimer in my first
comment! I tried to Google for it, but the late 70s is prehistory for Google.

I'm still having trouble buying the collapse of the walled garden as the
reason for the video game crash of 83-84. Pac-man and ET are widely cited as
two of the major causes of the crash, and those were in-house Atari
productions so the walled garden wouldn't have helped there.

~~~
T-hawk
Well, garden collapse was one factor among many. It could be argued that Atari
had to rush their shoddy Pac-man to market lest a competitor jump in with a
clone first. Another factor was the appearance of pornographic games (Rule 34
applied even then) which hurt the field's reputation.

But there were plenty of other management and business causes of the crash
too. Atari reportedly produced more ET cartridges than existed 2600 systems,
hubristically deciding that ET would drive a wave of system buying. That sort
of financial wizardry won't be saved by any amount of ecosystem walls.

I'd say that the openness of the system caused the failure of Atari itself
more so than it caused the industrywide crash. Atari couldn't maintain premium
game prices and volume against the flood of competition. (If better games
weren't available, ET would have sold more in the vacuum.) A similar story
played out in the PC market over the next decade: IBM created an open system,
then got marginalized out of their own industry in a race to the bottom. But
the whole PC industry always thrived.

I also think the crash itself is overblown in latter-day coverage. I was a kid
and didn't notice anything at the time; Toys R Us still had shelves full of
Atari games right up until the NES caught on. The bankruptcy of invincible
titan Atari itself was a big event, but Coleco didn't fold until 1988 and
Mattel and Magnavox trucked right on in other fields of business.

So tying all this back to the topic, remember that Apple's interest is Apple's
own survivability and profitability. Apple's responsibility is not to maximize
the adoption and utility of the mobile phone app market in general. Apple's
goal is to capture the biggest slice of the pie for itself, and it perceives
that it has the clout to do that by dictating terms. Whether they will go the
way of the NES to market domination or the way of IBM's Micro Channel to
obscurity is up to the market.

------
rodh257
"Both Apple and Google have demonstrated that they want to be the only source
of commercial apps for their platform."

Have Google really done this? Isn't there soon to be Playstation app store
among others? And you can always download files away from the Market?

~~~
alexyoung
The example in my mind was Kongregate being removed from the Market. It got
back on, but the comments from Kongregate referenced "competing app stores".

~~~
NickPollard
Kongregate was removed from Google Market, but that does not prevent it from
being distributed separately (On Android you can download apps directly from
the web and install them, without using the app store).

~~~
lukeschlather
Unless you're on AT&T.

Suddenly I'm sensing a pattern...

~~~
warfangle
That's funky. I just downloaded an apk and installed it on my phone.

On, uh, AT&T.

~~~
lukeschlather
So you're using a custom rom or you're rooted. I thought it was obvious I was
referring to stock. You can also run whatever you want on an iPhone if you
root.

~~~
warfangle
Stock 2.2. Not rooted. Settings > Applications > [checked] Unknown sources.

~~~
lukeschlather
Which phones allow this? I'm honestly curious, I thought AT&T had switched
that off on all models. Is yours grandfathered in or are they releasing new
models with unknown sources enabled?

~~~
kylec
Given his "Stock 2.2" comment, best guess would be the Nexus One with AT&T
bands. Since it wasn't sold by AT&T, it doesn't have the APK installation
locked down.

------
EnderMB
As bad as this sounds, I think that those who wish to get in bed with Apple
deserve what they get. There are plenty of other platforms that can make
money, and after my post on the lack HN thread regarding why people don't move
over to Android produced few answers. It is also a topic of much discussion on
the Readability blog post; a topic the author has yet to address.

The App Store can be very good for those who work with it, but in the same way
that using Adsense can be good for those who use it. There are other options;
they may not be the industry leaders, but they are viable options and you'd be
a fool to turn down a platform with 100 users just because a tough platform
with 110 users is better known.

In the same way that some men are attracted to insane girls, it seems that
some developers simply cannot get enough of Apple's tough, kinky, anti-trust-
bound love.

~~~
brk
_There are plenty of other platforms that can make money_

List them, please.

Winmo has been a complete failure so far.

Android has shipped a lot of handsets, but the users don't seem to like to pay
for apps.

Nokia is dead.

Palm is dead.

The next closest competitor to the Apple App Store is still nothing more than
a tiny dot on the horizon. Maybe that will change, but most developers want to
get paid TODAY.

~~~
EnderMB
> Winmo has been a complete failure so far.

I don't expect WP7 to immediately take the market by storm. If anything,
Microsoft showed what they do with the Zune; they don't care for market
dominance, just a share of that market will do them just fine. WP7 won't be
the dominant phone, but I can see it being the new Blackberry and finding a
great niche of paying customers.

> Android has shipped a lot of handsets, but the users don't seem to like to
> pay for apps.

This is the attitude I cannot understand. People won't pay money for things
that don't provide value, regardless of platform. Choosing Apple because
"iPhone users pay for stuff" is like opening a McDonalds by a public school
because "they've got the money to buy things". The Android market isn't
perfect, but it's getting better and better and people that make good apps for
Android will likely be rewarded by great sales.

~~~
brk
_people that make good apps for Android will likely be rewarded by great
sales._

Except that it seems most developers who have an iOS app and and Android app
report far better sales from the iOS version of their apps.

In some sense you are correct, people will buy things that provide value to
them. What is unclear is if the "value" in their Android handsets is the
availability of apps, or the greater availability of _free_ apps. People
buying iPhones seem to expect to pay for additional apps. It's unclear if
people buying Android devices expect to pay for apps, or if they expect it to
be FOSS, where the majority of the apps are free. If it's the latter case,
then Android may never be a profitable primary distribution source for
developers, though it can be potentially monetized in other ways.

~~~
EnderMB
To my knowledge most developers aren't exactly earning a mint from either
platform. There are success stories on each platform, although as the iPhone
at one time had more users it seemed only logical to go for that market.

Android is now at a point where the average user couldn't care less about OS
having open-source aspects. The reason few people buy apps for Android is
because while there are a lot of apps most of them are awful or have free
alternatives. This is what separates the iPhone experience from the Android
experience, and in my mind this is why people don't spend big on Android, and
why people would if the right app came along.

------
dpcan
A year ago I would have laughed at the final statement that people will dump
their iPhones faster than Apple is ready for.

Today, after working with Android for a year, I could care less if I had an
Android instead of my iPhone. In fact, I find myself carrying around my
development device for various apps and usability reasons.

I'm over angry birds. I'm tired of seeing all the polished over-done games in
the app store. I prefer the simple, indie games of Android, I like the
personality of the Android Market, I like the browser on my Galaxy, etc, etc.

Side note. My kids do not. They think my Android games are stupid.

~~~
megablast
Despite Android's popularity, people are not buying apps. The google app store
is in danger now of getting people relying on free apps, so they may never be
willing to buy apps. This is different to iPhone users. Of course, android app
store may change as time goes on, and it gets new users, but the majority of
apps in the android app store are free.

Also, it is not "I could care less", that makes no sense. It is "I couldn't
care less".

~~~
bonch
I believe Google _wants_ the Android Store to be full of free apps...that just
happen to be supported by Google ads. Otherwise, Google doesn't get anything
out of the Android platform.

~~~
xiongchiamiov
Other than the 30% share of payment for paid apps in the Google Marketplace...

------
saturdaysaint
Well said. I've been using the iPhone since September 2007, but if Apple loses
the Kindle app and Netflix app, I'll have no qualms about jumping to Android.
Strong support from top tier web services companies (Rdio and Amazon come to
mind) is my favorite thing about iOS - Apple underestimates how quickly they
could lose that pivotal advantage.

------
kristiandupont
I don't like the new restriction even though Apple obviously is in their good
right.

But beneath this there is a deeper concern that is now making me consider
choosing the web over learning to develop for iOS: I don't trust Apple. I love
my iPhone and iPad, but these frequent and unpredictable changes to the TOS
makes it quite a liability for me as a developer. Making a product/startup
always involves the what-if-google-does-it risk, but this new what-if-apple-
shuts-you-down risk is more disturbing imo.

~~~
roc
> _"I don't trust Apple."_

You shouldn't trust any platform vendor. If you're too small to get a contract
stipulating that they _can't_ pull the rug out from under you, you should
start developing only after making a careful calculation of risk/reward.

~~~
marshray
For many many years ISVs made money in "the Microsoft ecosystem".

Yes, sometimes MS pulled the rug out from under them and/or directly competed
with them with unfair advantage. But not really that often.

They certainly never "pulled your app from the store". I'm still having a hard
time getting my head around that concept and why anyone would invest
development resources into that kind of platform.

~~~
muhfuhkuh
"But not really that often"

Oh, except for every time that someone made a large enough profit
(wordperfect, visicalc, Corel Office, Peachtree or Quicken) or made a big
enough splash (Netscape/Mozilla, google, more recently mint.com) in their
ecosystem.

"pulled your app from the store"

But, they can if you sell on XBox Live Arcade, or Windows Phone Apps
Marketplace (especially if you have an open source license for your app that
MS doesn't like).

~~~
marshray
Right, we can list a dozen or two Windows products that were possibly competed
with unfairly by MS. Over a period of 20 years.

The vast majority of MS Windows software products fail for reasons other than
the platform vendor screwing them over intentionally. MS has known from the
beginning that the success of Windows was primarily dependent on ISVs
developing for it.

The XBox and MS Phone stuff seem like different things entirely. XBox is
specifically not intended to be a general-purpose application platform. I
can't imagine the MS Phone will ever require more than a free download SDK to
develop for it, although this "marketplace" is likely to be a more reviewed
ecosystem.

 _especially if you have an open source license for your app that MS doesn't
like_

It's not a question of MS not liking it. GPL, especially v3, is designed
specifically to prevent binary-only app distribution which is the app store
business model.

------
code_duck
This is the same sort of thing I've noticed with sites like eBay and Etsy.
Particularly the latter - the administration and a certain brand of users act
like all glory and power derives from the establishment, and you _need_ them
and should be thanking them for their existence. Another group of people feel
that the credit goes to the people who fill empty gray templates with content
and bring the site to life.

This actually works out to be somewhat similar to politics. Reading forums and
blogs, you can observe people's politics in their feelings about companies
like this. Conservatives and religious folks often feel you should give
respect to the site authority, while liberal people feel the customers deserve
more credit and need more power. It's just like unions vs. management.

------
geekosky
Until we have viable alternatives, it seems rather fruitless to complain about
the power that Apple has in terms of dictating App Store policies. I'm a fan
of the HTML5 developments, but it doesn't offer anywhere near the level of
sophistication available to native apps on iOS. To get developers like myself
to abandon the investment we've made in terms of mastering Objective-C and
iOS, a web-based alternative must at least offer comparable functionality.

~~~
cageface
Depending on what kinds of apps you write, this may never happen. How long do
you think it will take, for example, for something like the Accelerate
framework to be available in a usable form in a web api? It's hard enough to
get something relatively simple like local storage standardized.

Unfortunately most of the apps that can be realized as web apps are just more
of the glorified paperwork UIs I burned out on writing as a web dev in the
first place.

~~~
bad_user
Oh, if glorified paperwork UIs would be possible on the iPhone's Safari.

Unfortunately they're disabling the freakin' Upload inputs, so file uploads
aren't possible without native hooks.

------
AbnormalGun
I am currently considering my first smart-phone, and I want really want to go
with Apple because I do like the refinement of iOS and the hardware that runs
it, but their App Store policies are giving me pause. It seems to me that
Apple's greed is getting the better of them.

I really hope that Apple will realize that even if they aren't getting a cut
of in-App purchases, these Apps do add desirability to the iOS platform.

------
ableal
Apropos RefinedPixel's comment (in the post's page) about webapps, the other
day I accidentally found <http://www.apple.com/webapps/>

However, the current 'most recent' entries are dated December 3rd of last
year. The small print does say "Apple is providing links to these applications
as a courtesy [...]"

~~~
alexyoung
I remember this from when the iPhone launched, it was actually how they said
we could build apps before the App Store existed.

------
nopal
It's part of Apple's thinking that if an app can be satisfactorily built as an
HTML5 app, there's no need for it to be in the App Store. If an HTML5 app
meets consumers' needs, then there's no need for a native app.

But the crux of this entire debate is whether users will demand iOS versions
of applications. Apple thinks they will, and they think they deserve a cut for
it.

There are lots of emotional arguments being made right now, but it seems like
this is a simple business decision for developers. If a developer doesn't see
enough value in iOS (given its development costs), then he shouldn't build an
iOS app, end of story.

------
leon_
for every dev who leaves the app store there are 100 waiting to join. that's
the main problem - you can't pressure apple as long as there are masses of
devs willing to play by apple's rules.

~~~
guelo
The level of effort required to create a high-quality professional app is more
than many dev teams are capable of. Despite the numbers you hear about 100s of
thousands of apps the truly valuable apps are few and far between, Apple
squanders those at their peril.

~~~
zoul
While that's true, it's hard to imagine a platform with millions of users
willing to pay for apps and shortage of good developers. With the recent
events it looks like Apple is mistreating all iOS developers, but in practice
I think that most of them really don't have that much to complain about.

