

An Open Letter to Apple Computer, Inc. - chrisrhoden

Apple Computer, Inc.,<p>I have watched, with a certain amount of surprise and agreement, as the nerd elite have rallied in response to your announcement of the Mac App Store. I will summarize their concerns here, for your benefit: First, if you ever decide to distribute software <i>solely</i> through the Mac App Store for Apple Computers, independent software producers will not have an easy way to distribute their software on their own terms. Second, A lot of software licensing requires that it be redistributable, but if the only way to load software onto a machine is through a third party, that licensing is not satisfied even when the software is free of charge.<p>That's it. That's the whole reason that people are upset. Other people can talk about various other issues with your approval process, but they would frankly get over it if there was an assurance that it will always remain as easy as it currently is to install software on a Mac outside of the App Store channel.<p>To be honest, your assurance would probably not mean very much. Apple made it very clear that they would never make a netbook, and now we have the new MacBook Air, which absolutely meets the requirements to be described as such. This is but the last in a long string of what I will generously call misdirections.<p>I have a solution which will, however, satisfy the nerds and make them happier than you have likely considered possible. It's a solution that will lessen the load of your approval team, not cut into your revenue streams, and lower your bandwidth and infrastructure costs. I'm asking you to harness the power of open standards and the internet, something that you have spoken in favor of a number of times, but in a slightly different light.<p>Open your App Store protocol. Allow people to host their own App Store servers. Provide a single, buried configuration dialog that allows people to add the urls of these servers. Don't even worry about payment, because the nerds want to distribute their software for free. When you have done this, you win.<p>Of course, it would mean one more dialog, one that would likely be very confusing to some of your users. But then, I might consider buying another Mac or 50 over the course of my life, and I am fairly confident that there are others who feel the same way. Please don't underestimate how many of your customers care about their computers.<p>Thanks very much for your time,<p>Chris Rhoden
======
saurik
So, there is a lot of confusion over these issues, and I always find that very
distress distressing, so let me make this clear: Apple's application approval
process on the iPhone, and soon on Mac OS X with the Mac App Store, is a small
part of the story, and frankly I will say it is the least interesting part.

I recently gave a talk at TEDxAmericanRiviera that touched on this subject: I
think it is an enjoyable and understandable explanation of what it means that
the ecosystem of software on the iPhone is limited to "applications", and how
that is not what consumers want.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReKCp9K_Jqw>

As some people may not wish to watch a video, I will go ahead and attempt to
provide a little context here, in text. The idea is that the App Store is
designed to install "applications": units of software that typically involve
an icon on some kind of launcher that opens a window into some new
functionality the device previously did not have.

However, is that really all that users want to be able to do with their
devices? If we just look at the stories posted to Hacker News about Android
software we already see that would be a flawed premise: there is a long train
of "cool" surrounding products like Swype and 8pen. These programs replace the
system input manager, aka the keyboard, for all applications.

These programs are not just apps: they are extensions to other applications on
the device. We also see this in the form of custom launchers, dialers, and
widgets: Android has numerous ways that developers can extend the core
functionality of the handset in ways that escape the trap that is the icon.

Now, before you start thinking "woah, Android is awesome", you still can't add
functionality to the address book, the notification area, or the task
switcher... or any of the other insanely large number of things that the
device is capable of doing. Every time you add a little bit more ability there
is still going to be a ton of things that are not exposed.

You may now ask: what else is there? Go look at your average jailbroken
iPhone: the stuff people are developing and installing is /amazing/. There are
almost no limits to what you can change on the device; it isn't open source,
but it is damned close. No system feature or application is immune to the
influence of small and large changes. (For some cool examples and screenshots,
watch the aforementioned talk.) And, if you really insist that open isn't open
until it is open source you can gut the bootloader and install Android on the
thing thanks to the iDroid project.

This is why I absolutely hate it when I read people focusing on rejected
applications or "opening up" the app store. In a future where Apple did
/exactly what you are asking them to do/ almost nothing will have changed:
people will still need to jailbreak their phones and developers will still be
writing and distributing all of this cool software using Cydia.

Seriously: Apple doesn't actually deny much from their App Store. They are
occasionally a little anti-competitive, and that sucks, but these really boil
down to a handful of high-profile cases: the effect on the market is minimal.
Most of what they deny either a) doesn't work or b) is illegal or morally
objectionable to your average American.

I say "American", as that's key: by having Apple, a US company, be the
gatekeeper of content, there is a plethora of software involving aspects of
copyright or slander law that is simply illegal for them to distribute.
Meanwhile, things like pornography are a nigh-unto-no-go for their business
model.

But please understand: that's the /only/ important issue with Apple being the
shepherd, that is not an issue that your average iPhone jailbreaker or Android
rooter (the classes of user that I think are central to this discussion as
they are the poster child of a user affected by the closed policies of these
companies enough to take matters into their own hand) gives a care in the
world to.

Really, if you browse through Cydia, you will find only a small handful of
applications. The number of applications that are in Cydia as "refugees" from
the App Store was always low, and it is dwindling very rapidly as Apple slowly
opens up their Store more (thanks to some nice efforts by companies like
Adobe). Everything people jailbreak for is fundamentally not deployable by the
App Store applications they /are not apps/.

So please... PLEASE... I /implore/ you: drop the battle to get Apple to open
up their App Store(s). Instead, work on getting Apple to open up their
/device/ (and, in the case of desktop Mac OS X, to maintain the reasonable
open-ness of their MacBook line of computers). Until users are able to install
whatever software they wish on the hardware that they own we will not truly
have won back any of our freedom.

~~~
WaltFrench
I've had a Mac since the original 64KB model. I remember the FIRST PARAGRAPH
of the programmer's manual listing it as a single-user, single-task OS.

Third-party devs led the way, first with installable drivers that munged
keyboard, disk, ... and an amazing task-switcher. But those became the bad old
days of Macs: OS9 was falling apart due to overload. At huge expense -- Apple
almost died from not tackling the issue well -- OSX started with a clean
slate. Apple finally took control of the feature set that users wanted: pre-
emptive multitasking, multi users, control of various daemons, etc.

Over time, that, too, got overlaid with all sorts of cruft. My upgrade this
spring to a new MBP caused me a day's worth of debugging after I migrated
files: some long-forgotten and actually no-longer-used third-party system
extension conflicted with another module on the new hardware. Over a day's
worth of debugging and cleanup, including an hour's worth of tech support
(fortunately bundled with the hardware). Cost (very roughly) a thousand
dollars.

So I think it's a bit disingenuous to advocate all these "neat" iOS hacks
without acknowledging the possibly of really badly busting iOS, even for
expert users, and "it just works" -- already a bit tenuous -- with it.
Especially stuff running in non-user space can cause issues far-removed from
the source of trouble. And unexpected software can either cause bugs or expose
OS bugs that were otherwise benign or devs had worked around. A program that
was tested only with Apple keyboard features can suddenly fail to work,
tarnishing the app developer AND the platform. And like my incident,
resolution can be very difficult and expensive for all concerned.

As my history indicates, I've been a big fan of hacks. But I already have seen
enough issues with "good" apps such as the NYT crashing, or calendar entries
failing to synch, that if I were still a developer, I would NOT want the added
burden/expense of the sort of unstable OS that hacks have caused Apple in the
past. Especially given the rather modest rewards for so many developers.

~~~
saurik
I will not say I don't feel for Apple. However, I believe this is a relatively
minor and, at this point, quite well understood cost that Apple must support.
Users, and I mean end users, want features like multitasking on OS9, and a lot
of progress was being made in the world because it existed. Allowing companies
like Apple to hold back potential markets because it is inconvenient to them
is the kind of thing that should be frowned upon (and luckily it is: that's
the kind of argument that must be made to get the explicit DMCA exemption that
we managed to win).

------
arn
fwiw, Apple never said they would never make a netbook. I believe the relevant
quote was "We don't know how to build a sub-$500 computer that is not a piece
of junk." (And, the MacBook Air is still not sub-$500.)

[http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_47/b41560003...](http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_47/b4156000345421.htm)

------
huntero
That would be nice for the power users, but opening the App Store protocol
seems opposite to Apple's entire vision for their mobile iOS and OSX app
stores. Apple doesn't water down their products with compromise and while that
upsets a lot of users, it's also the entire reason why a lot of Apple software
and hardware feels an entire generation above competitors products.

Apple's choices and thick-headedness bugs me, but I'm happy there is a major
player out there who doesn't give in to the loud minority of power-users.

------
lylejohnson
> An Open Letter to Apple Computer, Inc.

It's been almost four years since the company was named "Apple Computer". A
lot of words were written at the time about what the name change signified,
but I think it's reasonable to say that making the "nerd elite" happy has
taken a back seat to producing more locked-down, consumer-oriented products.
Apple has hit on a pretty successful model with the iPhone app store and I'd
be surprised if they move towards opening that up with the Mac App Store.

------
ceejayoz
If you're paranoid enough to think Apple is going to make the Mac App Store
the only way to install software (not going to happen, but whatever)...

... why on earth would you trust Apple not to remove the third-party app store
support in some future release?

------
chc
There are so many problems in the world right now — big problems, small
problems, even problems that people don't know they have. Why would you waste
time on a problem that you admit in your very first paragraph _does not
exist_?

------
zoomzoom
All this does is make it easy for someone to package an app server full of
malware for grandma to download. Never gonna happen.

~~~
chrisrhoden
If you opt to add a repository that is full of malware, that is no different
from downloading a piece of software from an unreputable website. I don't
really see the issue here, especially since most users will not every find a
need to use this.

~~~
Xuzz
Or even find the option -- hiding it well is important.

------
some1else
Your proposition has merit. I think this is another place where Apple's
ideology might be counterproductive. But as we all know, they tend to stick to
it regardless :-I

I hope the least they do is leave ordinary install options in tact. Other App
Stores will probably emerge just like the Android Store clones.

------
JustinD
Just stop. Really.

