
The Apple Strategy Tax - ugh
http://arstechnica.com/staff/fatbits/2011/03/the-apple-strategy-tax.ars
======
chapel
The way the OP is presented is a little confusing, comparing Microsoft and
it's internal applications having a 'strategy tax' versus Apple and their
internal and 3rd party applications. I do agree with the closing argument, it
definitely could have been presented in a less confusing way.

Apple is in every right to charge whatever they want, but that doesn't mean
they should. I would hope that everyone that is affected by the policy change
will jump ship and show Apple that they are important to the iOS ecosystem.
Maybe even causing Apple to change their policy to be more developer friendly.
It is crazy to me that Apple lauds their iOS app ecosystem as a reason to buy
iOS devices but then punishes the developers that make those apps.

~~~
georgemcbay
I didn't find the article to be confusing.

As it explains, Apple is the arbiter of every application that appears on the
App Store, both internally or externally developed, creating a situation in
which 3rd party developers are loosely similar to internal teams at Microsoft.

Microsoft never tried to be gatekeeper of what could or couldn't be published
on Windows, thus it could only control the fate of its internal apps, whereas
Apple can control both internal and external apps equally, thus the loosely
parallel situation even though in Apple's case their strategy tax can be used
to kneecap external developers just as much as internal ones.

~~~
jcsiracusa
That was one of the connections I was trying to make, though I agree it's not
spelled out as well as it could be. The other is that Microsoft's decision to
expand into so many different markets parallels Apple's decision to do the
same. When you're a platform owner and you also want to build businesses on
that platform, the "success" scenario for your businesses can end up looking
like a failure scenario for your platform, and vice versa.

For example, it's some person's job at Apple to make the iBooks store the most
successful ebook store, but it's another person's job to make the iOS platform
the most attractive, popular platform. My point in the final paragraph was
that the only way for Apple to reconcile this tension may be to decide that
the complete domination of Apple's businesses built on the iOS platform
actually would make iOS the most attractive, possible platform. Ergo, the
"What's good for Apple is good for America" reference. But when Apple's
businesses have so many practical and now financial advantages versus
competitors, how sure can Apple really be that its iOS content businesses
would be winning based on their merits and not because of their "unfair"
advantages? (That is, assuming the platform isn't stunted even sooner by
customers abandoning it as their favorite non-Apple businesses decide they
can't or won't agree to Apple's latest round of policy changes.)

~~~
po
In my view, Webkit is the canary in the coal mine for the strategy tax. The
most viable competition for iOS native apps is HTML5/Javascript applications.

If I ever feel like the webkit team isn't pushing into new technologies as
aggressively as possible, I get nervous. For example, it would probably be in
Apple's best interest for Mobile Safari not to support offline storage. It
would force developers who need offline features into creating native apps
instead.

In this way, I think the Google Chrome team is giving us a good yardstick for
measuring Apple's willingness to compete.

~~~
danssig
Apple was pushing HTML5 as much as anyone else if not more. To claim that it
was only ever because of Google is unfair at best.

~~~
zmonkeyz
I think people forget that the original intention of the IPhone was to run web
apps. Once the clamoring for native app development became too big the beast
known as the app store was born.

~~~
podperson
I think you're confusing Apple's public stances with their actual intentions.
Did Apple plan to release the SDK originally? We don't know. Do you?

------
6ren
One effect is to encourage competitors to use non-iOS platforms, including
webapps on iOS, or android. The consumer downside is if these are not also
available for iOS.

However, if Apple quickly copies those features, or buys the company (as it
often does), then its customers aren't harmed. And, in fact, Apple's apps are
often leading anyway.

I think the place for a real downside is for apps that would be better or more
quickly developed on the iOS platform, or would be more attractive to
developers there (because more profitable or more users). These apps would
appear more slowly for other platforms, if at all. Because native iOS apps are
faster than webapps, and because iOS customers seem willing to pay more than
Android users, this downside seems realistic - and invisible.

------
trout
Until more official news about the fee is released, I'm done reading these
articles. The speculation and thinking-four-steps-ahead chess moves are not
convincing.

------
sacrilicious
I can't really reconcile the hope in this argument that apple could
enable/allow more constructive and innovative business models to flourish...
with the(at this point) unconvincing menace it's being to itself and others. I
don't see the subscription move as trying to directly favor Apple's stores:
they _don't_do_subscriptions_.

I honestly can see this move as being more 'in bed' with old media than a type
of not-invented-here syndrome. In the iMovie intro yesterday the CEO of Apple
said they're trying to do the platform right with an app they like developing,
but also raises the bar to a place other developers should shoot for. I'm not
saying to take that as parallel to 'the brand of capitalism we foster is
naturally better', but who knows if there couldn't be an upside(once things
get clarified) that's natural for the market and doesn't smack of greed.

------
joebadmo
Did anyone else think of Twitter while reading this article? Specifically re
providing a platform and then competing on that platform.

