

Apple to developers: We're no longer suicidal - ahoyhere
http://counternotions.com/2010/04/13/suicidal/

======
qeorge
Perhaps nitpicky, but I took issue with this:

 _"No other vendor dominates mobile games like Apple now. With over 50,000
games in the App Store, it has 10 and 20 times what Nintendo and Sony offers
respectively, and this before Apple’s Game Center has even shipped."_

The Nintendo DS is the best selling gaming system of all time, mobile or not.
Its not even a competition - they've sold over 2x as many DS's as Apple has
sold iPhones.

Not to discredit the iPhone's success in any way, but no one has come close to
toppling Nintendo off the gaming throne.

~~~
Linear
To add to this, consider the number of online flash games there are. By the
same logic the author is using, the best mobile gaming platform would be a
laptop/netbook.

This of course completely ignores the quality of these games and the
advantages that dedicated gaming platforms like the DS and PSP have.

~~~
izendejas
Exactly! Quality not quantity, please. I'm not a big gamer, but it bothers me
to read nonsense like the quote above.

Some of the iphone/itouch games (or for that matter, other smartphone-based
games) are garbage.

------
chc
This isn't a bad article, but it's not a very smart article either. The ideas
are essentially the same ones people have been repeating for days, it takes a
long time to express these ideas we've already heard and it employs even less
logic and methodology than many writers (for example, John Gruber) in coming
to its conclusions. Not trying to be excessively negative or anything — it
just seems very much like a "me too." Does anybody else see an original idea
here?

~~~
Psyonic
I thought the article was mostly useless.

It's summed up by this paragraph, "Today, Apple is more concerned about having
to re-live its recent history — getting jerked around by Microsoft or held
hostage by Adobe — than what it thinks would be manageable damage by a few
developers that may leave its platform. Some may regard that as being
arrogant. For Apple it’s the price of being in charge of its own destiny. To
capitulate at the height of its newly found vigor would be suicidal."

Which doesn't even attempt to address why requiring all programs be originally
developed in objc,c, or c++ is a good way to prevent being held hostage by
Adobe, and nor does it address the huge repercussions it could have. It's not
a "few" developers that would be effected by this change if its strictly
enforced. It's practically every 3d game on the market.

In short, a lot of words, not a lot of content.

~~~
ynniv
_doesn't even attempt to address why requiring all programs be originally
developed in objc,c, or c++ is a good way to prevent being held hostage by
Adobe_

Sure it does - it provides a legal footing for denying apps based on Flash.
That pretty much prevents Adobe and Microsoft from establishing a mobile
platform that would

 _nor does it address the huge repercussions it could have._

There have been a lot of keys struck in anger since this was announced, and I
find it to be too naïve. Apple would never enforce such a clause against
something that was beneficial to them. So far, there have been no killer apps
in the mobile space (sorry guys). While I enjoy the massively discounted
offerings on the AppStore, the core OS and applications that Apple provides
are _the only things that affect my device buying decision_.

When someone makes a killer app that cannot be released on the AppStore, then
this will matter. Until then... Sorry, no one was going to buy your Scheme-
based app anyway.

~~~
chc
I'm having trouble following your logic.

How do I determine whether a useful and nonthreatening program in the App
Store is beneficial to Apple? It seems like it would go without saying that
every good app is a boon, but you appear to imply that there's some threshold
of "killer"-ness that needs to be breached before your contribution is
beneficial (and by extension you are allowed to use whatever language you
want). How is this determined?

Further, since you state that an app must be "killer" to be beneficial, and
that there are no killer apps in the store, does this mean that Apple derives
no benefit at all from the App Store? Because that seems like a pretty absurd
claim.

------
jxcole
Could they at least acknowledge the fact that they intentionally destroyed an
adobe product for no real reason? I would be much more interested in hearing
why they thought Flash CS5's export to IPhone capability shouldn't go to
market rather than about how apple is "the good guy". The laundry list of
things apple has done well were particularly infuriating. Take any company, no
matter how destitute, and they could easily have marketers spin up a list such
as this. Microsoft, Adobe, and Google have done at least as many things right
over the years. In either case, they really skirted the issue at hand.

It is true that adobe literally said "Screw you apple". But sticks and stones
can only do so much. Just consider what Apple threw their way. And we
shouldn't forget all of the open source projects that have gone down because
of Apple's lazy cannon ball.

~~~
chc
Considering how poorly Adobe has treated non-Windows platforms for the past
several years, I would accept "sheer spite" as an answer to why they're
screwing over Adobe. The better question is why Apple would do this to all
other developers as well.

~~~
pyre
I'm more interested in how Adobe is a competitor to Apple (in a Windows-vs-Mac
way). Though there are a couple of areas that Apple and Adobe products
compete, I would hardly say that it's in Apple's best interests to screw over
Adobe. Do you think that the Apple faithful will be especially pleased if
Adobe pulled all of their products from the Mac platform? I'm betting that it
would tick off a fair amount of Apple users, who could direct their anger at
Apple if they feel that Apple started the whole thing.

~~~
chc
Do you think Adobe stockholders would be particularly pleased if they pulled
all of their products from the Mac platform? They would be burned at the
stake. Apple isn't afraid of that happening because it isn't going to.

~~~
pyre
I'm not saying that Adobe actually _would_ pull their products from Macs, but
I'm kind of surprised by the responses from the 'Mac faithful.' A good portion
of Mac users rely on Adobe products for their livelihood, yet they rally
behind Apple. I'm just wondering if they would actually change their tune if
Photoshop was no longer available for the Mac, or would they just change
careers so that they could stay on the platform.

------
Zak
Apple's troubles in the mid '90s were not the fault of third-party developers.
Windows NT _was_ a better OS than classic Mac OS (and I was a Mac guy at the
time). Macs of the day were uninspired and expensive. The recent switch to
PowerPC had caused issues with a number of applications; most still worked,
but it wasn't exactly fast. The phased introduction of PowerPC meant a lot of
people considering new Macs waited, and some jumped ship.

Apple's recovery didn't have anything to do with playing hardball with
developers. Apple recovered because it started making better products. Apple
can retain its position in the smartphone market by continuing to make the
best product. All they'll get from acting like a bully is ill will.

~~~
acg
_Apple can retain its position in the smartphone market by continuing to make
the best product. All they'll get from acting like a bully is ill will._

I disagree, I think blocking flash is a good strategy for Apple. They stand to
gain a lot and Ill will passes.

If they are able to block the platform and kill it then people will quickly
forget if they continue to grow their market share. Apple is not interested in
allowing development multiple mobile operating systems easily. Apple sells a
platform and they want as many exclusive applications as possible. Exclusive
applications retains the value in the handset rather than elsewhere (for
example the network). Apple does not the handset to be commodity hardware
driving down profits. The applications and their delivery is the unique
selling point: hence the advert "there's an app for everything".

The hardware can be emulated.

------
tpiddy
the only reason i'm jealous of people with iphones is they can play words with
friends and turf wars, which all my friends play. apple knows if popular apps
are easy to release on multiple systems at once, it will make their exclusive
offerings less compelling.

------
itistoday
Like all of the articles praising Apple's actions, this one focuses solely on
the conflict between Apple and Adobe, as if that's all there was to it, as if
those decrying Apple's actions are doing it out of love for Adobe and not
because Apple's actions and public statements on the matter are inconsistent,
hypocritical and are causing huge collateral damage to various companies and
individuals who have nothing to do with Adobe or Flash or Microsoft and have
only been adding value to the App Store.

I found this piece on Ars Technica to be more insightful and closer to reality
(i.e., outside of the Reality Distortion Field):

[http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/04/steve-jobs-
weighs-...](http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/04/steve-jobs-weighs-on-
iphone-os-dev-controversy.ars)

~~~
wdewind
I agree with what was said below, it wasn't a great article, but you must not
have read the entire thing. His main point is actually that Apple is providing
a hell of a distribution platform for developers that is going to be very
expensive to leave.

~~~
itistoday
I did read it, but you're right about what his main point was. I was mainly
referring to the last two paragraphs.

His main point boils down to, "Baby, look how sweet it is up in here, look at
this bling bling, now shut up while I smack you about." Sure, I agree, Apple
has a wonderful, beautiful setup. I don't think anyone disputes that, but I
fail to see how that's supposed to make me respect their actions.

~~~
wdewind
Apple doesn't have a quantity problem, they have a quality problem.

You don't have to respect anything, but not at a certain point it's like being
pissed that you can't say fuck in an ad on television. These guys paid a lot
of money to build an audience (of extremely high demographic value, mind you),
and a platform for you to talk to it on and make money from it directly, sorry
but you have to follow their rules.

~~~
itistoday
1) The quality argument has been shown to be utter hogwash. Simply untrue,
utterly devoid of rational backing. Read the Ars link I posted for details.

2) All of these companies and developers have been following the rules only to
just now have them changed on them for utterly shitty reasons.

3) Apple isn't enforcing their own rules. Lots of apps break the rules yet are
allowed on the store. Their rules, at this point, amount to: we're gonna let
you in if we like you. That's a pretty crummy rule; hope your business plan
doesn't depend on it.

4) You're missing half the perspective. Apple should be grateful to the
developers who have worked their asses off and bent over backwards to satisfy
Apple's various restrictions to fill their store with lots of software. If
Apple treats them poorly, they'll find developers choosing other platforms.

~~~
wdewind
1) The quality argument has been shown to be utter hogwash. Simply untrue,
utterly devoid of rational backing. Read the Ars link I posted for details.

Totally true, one is not better than the other. But when you've got a ton of
developers and you want to raise the barrier to entry (and they do) how else
should they be doing it? Choosing the apps themselves?

2) All of these companies and developers have been following the rules only to
just now have them changed on them for utterly shitty reasons.

Yes that's true. At the same time, that's life. You play in someone else's
playground they make the rules. No one forced anyone to be an iphone
developer. It's not your RIGHT to be an iphone developer in the same way it's
your RIGHT to be a web developer. Remember when the facebook app developer
stopped developing for the app store? That wasn't just for show.

3) Apple isn't enforcing their own rules. Lots of apps break the rules yet are
allowed on the store. Their rules, at this point, amount to: we're gonna let
you in if we like you. That's a pretty crummy rule; hope your business plan
doesn't depend on it.

Again, I'm not saying any of this is nice for developers, but hope your
business plan doesn't depend on someone else's marketplace.

4) You're missing half the perspective. Apple should be grateful to the
developers who have worked their asses off and bent over backwards to satisfy
Apple's various restrictions to fill their store with lots of software. If
Apple treats them poorly, they'll find developers choosing other platforms.

Sorry but even without the app store the iPhone would still be the number one
selling phone. No question about it. The app store is great, but Apple easily
could've done it without it. And please don't forget that all of these
developers were chasing what was called a "modern day gold rush" - they
weren't volunteering their time for Apple. They bent over backwards more than
willingly, and continue to do so.

This is software companies outsourcing their marketing to Apple and
complaining when the service changes. This is what happens when you don't have
control over your business. It sucks.

------
araneae
This article says absolutely nothing about suicidal tendencies. His entire
argument is that the iPhone is well-established. But plenty of people who seem
to have it going for them are suicidal; just look at celebrities.

~~~
cubicle67
er, I think you may have missed the point slightly

~~~
cubicle67
[edit: or that's some sort of bizarre sarcasm you're using]

