
Apple: The Obstacle to America's Future? - canweriotnow
http://decomplecting.org/blog/2013/12/09/apple-the-obstacle-to-americas-future/
======
BadassFractal
The App store is a big step back for developers as far as healthy rapid
iteration practices go. Week-long byzantine review cycles, expensive closed-
source tools segregated to one platform, a single source for all downloads,
inability to beta your product etc. This all set us back considerably with
regards to where we are now on the web. For now Apple can get away with this,
their lead is massive and the customers are very passionate about their
products, but they won't be at the top forever.

It "may" be for the better of the consumer, but that's also not clear. The
only effect is likely that Apple doesn't offer half-baked apps, which affects
only the perception of their store, and doesn't add much value to either
consumers or developers.

~~~
tzs
Why would the speed of App Store review affect rapid iteration? You distribute
test versions during iterative development directly to testers. The App Store
is for release versions.

~~~
BadassFractal
Modern day web companies push changes into production dozens of times a day,
if not more often (see the illustrious etsy example). We have continuous
integration and delivery for that reason. Having to wait a week for something
to make it into production or to fix a bug is no longer acceptable.

~~~
tzs
Apps are not web sites. Consumers expect a higher level of stability and
quality from their apps than they do from web sites.

------
bilbo0s
So have the kids learn to code on Android.

Problem solved.

There is no "Obstacle to America's Future" here. The point is for every kid to
learn to code... not for every kid to build a business publishing iPhone Apps.
Why does it matter WHAT they code on???

I learned on an Apple II e, why? Because that's the computer that was donated
to my school. It was old and haggared and no... my programs were not
compatible with the PC dos or that cool, slick new "Windows" thingy everyone
was talking about at the time. And CERTAINLY nothing compared to the little
Mac that was out.

But so what?

I still made a pretty cool Angry Birds style game on it using only hline and
vline. It taught me the basics... that was the point.

If kids want to publish apps... well... publish them to Android. There is
nothing wrong with that.

~~~
canweriotnow
Problem solved, if kids have access to Android. Apple is aggressively pursuing
the edu market, and seems to be winning there. This is antithetical to the
"kids learning to code" ideal.

I don't care what kids code on, I care about access. And forcing people to pay
$99 to run their own code on their own devices is beyond unconscionable.

~~~
stephenr
The $99 is to publish apps - I've made a couple of little quick fix utils for
work projects by building and deploying straight to the phone via USB, no
subscription required.

~~~
canweriotnow
Without jailbreaking?

~~~
stephenr
Of course without jailbreaking

------
bsirkia
Interesting take. I'm curious how you respond to the counterpoints I usually
hear to this argument:

1) Apple is creating a quality filter for $99, one that seems to be successful
comparing the aggregate quality of apps on iOS vs. Android.

2) Yes, to test on your own device it's $99, but XCode is free and has all the
simulators you need. If you're willing to build an entire app from scratch and
invest that much time, $99 doesn't seem like a terrible investment to publish
all the apps you want for a year.

3) In terms of their nitpicking your apps, again, that seems to just be basic
quality filtering that isn't in the Android space.

~~~
amartya916
Apple can do a lot better, in fact all these counterpoints you mention are
tripe, let me elaborate:

a. $100 (this _99_ bullshit annoys me) is a pretty big investment for a
student. A common argument is that if one is able to afford Apple hardware --
i.e. the Mac and a mobile device -- this $100 fee is puny in comparison. Not
true. One can get an iPod touch for $200 and a Mac for $600 (Mac Mini). With a
little more effort, e.g. trawling classifieds, one can get second hand
hardware for cheaper. So the developer fee ends up being north of 12.5% of
cost of ownership, and that's just for a year, it doubles to 25% if you use
the hardware for 2 years, and so on. N.B. Even when parents buy kids their
computers, this percentage argument stands. The simple point is, if someone
wants to program _their_ own device, why not let them do it? Why should they
have to pay a 100 bucks?

b. The owner of the device (talking mobile here), should have the right to
install whatever the fuck he or she wishes to install. Okay, do not open the
door for people to do so by mistake, and have basic authentication. It should
be trivial for Apple. Any device with an apple id tied to it, can and should
allow the owner to plug in a cable to install a custom app. Make people enter
Apple id's twice, once on XCode and once on the device itself, if that's what
it takes (I bet there are easier solutions, but this came to mind first)

c. Now, for someone wishing to sell an App in the App Store, charge the $99. I
think taking care of App distribution, developer documentation/videos, app
vetting by App Store employees etc. would _then_ justify the $99 fee and
perhaps act as a filter.

P.S. I don't buy the filter thing either. Over time, the Android App store now
has the same high quality popular apps as the Apple App Store (hold on, I know
that tablet apps are still better on the iOS platform, but the big names are
getting there)

~~~
bsirkia
a) $100 is steep, but $25 on Android seems percentage-wise much higher,
considering you can get Android devices for so little (you can probably get an
old device for less than $25 on classifieds). I don't think the device-to-
development percentage fee really holds up. Absolutely, yes, $100 is more than
$25, and I think Apple should lower it just to encourage more people to try it
out. But then again, free XCode with all simulators isn't enough to try it
out?

b) I totally agree with this point, this does really bother me. If I'm willing
to take the chance of bricking my iPhone, that should be my right. I've also
been trying to do some testing with the new Bluetooth Low Energy tech, and not
being able to unplug my phone from Xcode is pretty damn annoying.

c) I can dig it.

~~~
Nerdfest
The $25 mentioned for distributing apps to friends is actually only if you
want to do it through the Google Play store. Your friends can install any app
you give them as an APK file free.

------
insaneirish
Why is "learning to code" equated with "writing an app for iOS"?

Walk before you run. There is more opportunity than ever for someone to get
access to free software (BSD, illumos, Linux) and cheap hardware (Raspberry
Pi, BeagleBoard) and do whatever the heck they want. "Coding" needn't be
synonymous with an iPhone or iPad.

~~~
stbullard
For that matter, write some HTML and JavaScript and make a thing that works on
just about anything. Distribute it to your friends for free. "Coding" needn't
be synonymous with native app development.

~~~
canweriotnow
Yeah, but if you want to run that code on a device you own, why should you
have to pay Apple a $99 ransom?

~~~
davidedicillo
Good thing he didn't say "Build apps for your Playstation or xbox", you should
see those ransoms...

Edit: Also, if you dad buys you a $500 phone, I'm sure he can spend $99 to for
educational purposes.

------
peteforde
I'm sorry, but if you think iOS lock-in is the obstacle to America's future —
not pathological consumerism, not Tea Party politics and a government that
can't function well enough to pass laws, not your disappearing middle class —
then you're not seeing the forest for the trees.

Sure, vendor lock-in is a drag. But let's not forget that open source software
and increasingly hardware have never been stronger as a cultural movement.

------
gbog
Many seem to dismiss the issue too quickly. You can't tell kids to learn to
hack their devices if you do not do it yourself. I'd say 80% of education is
just giving the example.

If father and mother both have locked devices or computers and have no
interest in fiddling with them because "it just work" and "no time (to lose)
with configuring/tweaking", then the kids will often follow the same tracks.

I have a 4yo boy and when I play with my adult toys (grinder, drill) he will
very quickly find a toy with enough ressemblance with a grinder or a drill and
just mimic me.

I would say it is the same for any kind of activities you wish kids would do
(reading books, eating fruits, finishing whatever they started, play lego,
hacking things), the best way is to just do it yourself first. (I'm giving no
lessons here, I never eat fruit and now my boy decided he do not like them
too, shame on me)

So I will agree with the article, the tendency to require all devices to just
work, to be sexy design (but closed), to require no config, no fixing, to be
replaced with a new one when broken, etc, all these which are kind of the
signature of recent Apple devices, are bad for the future (i.e. bad for kids
education).

------
navs
Is $100 really that expensive? I'm quite broke, being a freelancer with
irregular income, but even I could save $100. It's $100/yr not $100/app or per
month. Also, it's one ecosystem out of many. Don't like it...can't afford
it...don't build for it. You can still code without having to build a product
or create a startup.

~~~
Nerdfest
... and seeing as you're defending Apple, I'm assuming you already had a Mac,
which is also required.

~~~
ttflee
Practically, you can still install(, or STEAL from Apple's perspective,) a
Hackintosh if you have plenty of time and energy to do the homework. If you
have already secured a job and have a salary higher than the price of a Mac
Mini divided by the time you need to invest for Hackintosh, just buy a Mac
Mini. It's simple and straightforward economics.

------
snowwrestler
My siblings, all younger, have Macs. They can download Xcode for free and mess
around with building apps--mobile or otherwise--all they want.

Their computers ship with a Terminal app that implements a fully Posix-
compliant Unix shell, so they can learn shell scripting.

It comes with a LAMP stack, so they can learn basic web development.

It runs C, Objective C, Ruby, and Python programs, so they can work on more
advanced programming.

And of course it can run the Java VM and Javascript V8, which confusingly have
nothing to do with one another.

How is any of this an obstacle to America's future?

~~~
axman6
Weren't you listening? Apple is involved, so it's obvious all evil. Apple has
never done anything at all without an evil ulterior motive; don't you read HN?

------
x0054
This is idiotic! Apple is not THE obstacle, it's just another platform. People
who love apple get accused of being fanboys. What is the opposite of that?
Some one who drags in Apple into any an all argument, and figures out a way to
blame them for anything and everything. Teenagers who can't afford to pay $99
have a clear option, Android.

It's like arguing that Ferrari is preventing kinds from chasing their dreams
of becoming race car drivers because they charge too damn much for their cars.

~~~
canweriotnow
When you're talking about K-12 edtech education, in many cases the kids have
the patforms their schools/districts endorse. And in many, if not most cases,
that's iOS.

plus, we're not talking about $99 to publish, we're talking about $99 just to
run your own code on your own device. I don't know about you, but when I was a
10yr hacker, that would have been a deal breaker.

~~~
cpleppert
>> When you're talking about K-12 edtech education, in many cases the kids
have the patforms their schools/districts endorse. And in many, if not most
cases, that's iOS.

It seems that what you are asking is whether the school should take steps to
ensure that kids can develop mobile applications. If that is the case then the
school could just set up a single app store account as part of a mobile
development course. If the school really wants people to develop mobile
applications then the $99 fee is meaningless. I doubt that there is any
overwhelming demand to do that on the part of students or teachers.

Of course, any kid can develop a whole plethora of applications for a variety
of platforms at very low cost if they really want too. Considering that it
wasn't too long ago that it took thousands of dollars to even get a
computer(and many people I know didn't grow up having access to a computer of
their own) your criticism is essentially looking a gift horse in the mouth.
There are a lot of factors that come into play with encouraging kids to get
into computers, a $99 deployment requirement for an expensive device isn't one
of them.

------
w1ntermute
This is absurd. I've done a lot of PC, web, and mobile programming in a
variety of contexts, yet I've never owned or extensively used an iOS device.
You can absolutely ignore Apple and their ecosystem and still learn how to
code.

------
xdissent
Article was poorly written lament from current android developer that wishes
he was an iPhone dev but on principle doesn't have $100 to take his developed
app to market. Overall, proud of Obama and I hope youth hears his call.

~~~
canweriotnow
OP here, current iOS and Android developer with active accounts on both.
Difference being: I'm happy to be an Android developer (will be happier when
the Clojure/Android project reaches fruition); every time I have to dip my
toes in Apple's filthy ichor of an app ecosystem I want to vomit.

Not about money for me, but if I was a little kid hacker again, money would
have been a big deal.

~~~
axman6
Why do kids have to learn to code for iOS? I learnt to program on a mac and
have never written anything more than the most basic Mac os iOS apps; it's
just never interested me. I've spent most of my time writing Haskell and C,
among others, both of which new coders could learn relatively easily and both
of which work on many platforms. New coders don't need to know anything about
any company's ecosystem, they need to know how to code in the language they've
chosen, be it C, python, Haskell, ruby, C++, java, brainfuck, Modula-2, Ada
(highly recommended) or anything else.

------
Mikeb85
When it comes to 'learning to code' I'll have to go with the Stallmans of this
world - open systems are better.

You know what would be awesome? If kids learned to code on and tinker with
Raspberry Pis. They could learn to code, turn them into robots, do all sorts
of cool things. If a few break, no big deal, a 35$ pi is a drop in the ocean
compared to how much schools spend on Macs...

For mobile, Firefox OS seems to be the only choice for a truly open platform,
and it doesn't hurt that Javascript is the single most accessible programming
language to learn (in that you don't need to install anything, just fire up a
browser and a scratchpad).

------
cageface
I started coding on vintage Atari and Commodore PCs, where the first thing you
saw after powering up your machine was a flashing cursor ready to accept basic
code. The whole machine was an open slate, and it was easy to drop into
assembly and call into the system directly.

Making coding this easy and this immediate was definitely an incentive to
start hacking around and experimenting. Javascript + HTML hacking now is
almost as easy but being able to hack the same hardware all your friends use
as their main computing platform was cool. Now that mobile is becoming more
and more the primary, if not only, way people interact with computers, the
hackability of mobile platforms does matter.

------
canweriotnow
OP here... I think my tongue-in-cheek intent might have been lost in dry
prose.

That being said... I meant what I said about apple's mindshare. Take, for
instance, LA County's iPad boondoggle[1]. EdTech is a particularly gnarly
sector, and the fact that districts are going after iOS to this degree is a
damn shame.

[1] [http://pando.com/2013/11/29/ihave-a-dream-the-unanswered-
que...](http://pando.com/2013/11/29/ihave-a-dream-the-unanswered-questions-
behind-las-edtech-fiasco/)

------
peapicker
100 bucks isn't that much. My 13 yr old son has quadruple that saved up from
odd jobs, chores, and gifts, and can't decide what to do with it. If he wanted
to get a license for Apple Dev, it'd be no big whoop. Seriously, 100 ain't
what it used to be.

(he's already bought an iPod touch using the same sources, and easily could
use one of my Macs as the dev env)

Plus I have a RaspPi i bought for him to learn to code. He's picked up some
Python so far...

------
davidedicillo
I completely disagree for several reasons: 1- 99% of the people who learn how
to program nowadays starts from web development, not Java or Obj-C 2- I
decided to learn Ruby on Rails because I like to build things, being an
extensive Apple user didn't slow me down a bit (actually made it easier in
some ways). 3- Only because I know how to develop doesn't mean I want any type
of crap on my phone or something I'd enjoy less to use.

------
gwu78
Why do you need to pay $25 in order to share code with your friends?

Why can't someone wipe the phone's storage clean and install their own version
of Android, or some other OS?

Think back to the days before "smartphones", when your smallest computer was
your laptop. Imagine if you had to pay Microsoft to be able to share a program
you wrote with anyone else. Or if MS made it infeasible to remove Windows
without making the laptop unusable.

~~~
canweriotnow
You don't. It's $25 to publish on Google Play; you can share a *.apk with
whomever you wish.

On iOS, on the other hand, it's $99/yr if you even want to run your own code
on your own device. And you have to 'provision' your friends' devices if you
want to share with them. It's extortion, it's stupid, it's immoral.

