"Apple is undeniably the most proprietary and closed technology company in the software industry. In fact, Apple makes companies like Microsoft and Adobe look like nonprofit open source organizations in comparison"
Are you really falling for this marketing scam? Every company does open source or have something prefixed with "open" nowadays.
Apple is the only software company that lock the service, software, and hardware together. Microsoft would have never been able to pull the iStore market scam. But somehow, Apple can do it. Apple can create an ecosystem where they are the only gate keeper of what people can create and distribute.
I really like Software, and for what I am concern, Apple's iPhone/iStore system is a disease for the software and Internet industry. If Microsoft, Palm, and Android, would start doing the same, then we would be in a world where innovation will be gated by the incumbents. No more Firefox, no more Skype.
They're really not that different if you look at a wider perspective than just mobile phones. Microsoft's Xbox is as closed a system, if not even more so. Not so coincidentally, their Xbox is also far more robust and less bug prone than their PC counterpart. That's the nature of closed systems.
Apple are not interested in doing anything lackluster — from their perspective and according to their priorities, that is. It's just not in their nature to compromise with quality, hence you get a bunch of other compromises instead, all of which are well-known.
"It's just not in their nature to compromise with quality" points to the key distinction here. Apple is more open than most with output, but as closed as they reasonably can be with input. They are the gatekeepers for their ecosystem.
Not exactly. The console market was already closed.
The mobile market was opening up. Windows Mobile, Palm, J2ME devices lead the way of openness by allowing users to install new application on their devices as they did on PC. This was quite step forward given the fact that service providers wanted to charge for everything.
And here we go, Apple with their cute bouncing pixels comes and tells us that we need to live in a world where only one organization can decide what application we can use. And while everybody argue about applications should have been approved or not, nobody is asking the right question "do we want a gate keeper or not?". This is a huge step backward in the software industry. But somehow, people think that innovation is about flying pixels and forget that the ecosystem around a product is as important as the product in itself.
Do you seriously think that "cute bouncing pixels" is what made the iPhone the fastest selling piece of consumer electronic of all time? No, of course not! That's just silly.
Clearly, the iPhone has a number of very attractive attributes, as is evident not only from the fact that it's selling unprecedentedly well, but also from the fact that it's changed the direction of the entire industry.
Apple made a number of choices with the iPhone, and certainly they can't be all that bad, given the phenomenal success they've had. Even if you just limit the argument to the AppStore, the fact that they've also had unprecedented success in bringing developers on board should give you a hint or two that it's not as one-sided as you make it out to be.
Before you can bring anything constructive to a discussion on this subject, you really need to stop lying to yourself. Take a sober look at the choices Apple has made, and realize that each of them has both advantages and disadvantages.
Ok, not only "cute bouncing pixels." I think that 3 things made Apple the kind of the smart phone market:
1) Great product ahead of any other existing product at the time (not anymore though).
2) Understand that the mobile market value chain was vastly different than the PC one and architected a platform that would be attracting existing market players while creating a exclusive new market for themselves (this was so bold and smart).
3) Steve Jobs genius.
Now, the only thing that scares me is that they did it in the most proprietary way that any software companies have ever dare doing. Apple is the living proof that openness is not a required ingredient to create new technology based markets.
So, again, kudos to Apple to revolutionize a market that have been frozen for years. However, they are doing it in such as way that it could set a very bad precedence to the software industry.
I do not want to have to go through a iMicrosoftStore to publish my Windows application, a iGoogleStore to publish a Web Site, a iAndroidStore to publish a mobile application.
I have nothing against software stores, but they should be optional not required.
> I have nothing against software stores, but they should be optional not required.
I agree completely. My hope is that AppStore will become optional, rather than the exclusive way to get apps on the iPhone.
But I do think it was a wise decision to start out with the AppStore as the one exclusive way to get on it, and judging from their phenomenal success in both sales and attracting developers, it was probably a smart choice.
Lest not forget, the AppStore makes it extraordinarily easy to buy and download apps. Only by making it the exclusive way to get apps on the iPhone were they able to make sure that users found the experience of buying and downloading apps so effortless that it makes impulse purchases super simple. And, safe! iPhone users do not worry about anything on the AppStore containing viruses or malware.
Now, as what they refer to as a "power user", I'd like to be able to just download any app from anywhere and take my chances. But I understand that Apple has to take more than just my preferences into consideration. I believe it is actually not in their best interest to do that — even though it would suit me better. If I were Apple, I'd keep the AppStore the exclusive way to get apps on the AppStore. I'd work on continuously improving the experience and interaction with developers, of course, but I'd keep it a walled garden, approval process and all.
Pleasing power users such as you and me simply doesn't make sense in the big picture, because it would fracture the developer community. Some apps would be on the app store, some on the web. Users would feel safer getting apps from the AppStore, but as recommendations come from friends using apps from the web, soon enough you'd have regular users downloading apps from the web too. And following that you'd have viruses and malware. While users could still just stick to downloading from the AppStore if they wanted to be safe, Apple would still have to deal with malicious apps, problems and trust issues. This, they just don't need, and pleasing the relatively few power users just doesn't make any sense, considering the sacrifice.
Though I'd be just fine with it, I understand very well why Apple does not prioritize my needs in this.
I don't think its about arguing against Apple, I sure as hell don't feel I'm arguing for Apple. Just allow yourself to see that there are many many aspects to this, it's not as simple as you made it out to be (and it's not just about your preferences, it's about balancing everybody's). If you write fawning fanboy posts you'll be voted down just the same.
Again, I give lot of credits to Apple, but having the Device/OS provider exclusively owning what can get distributed or not on this OS is a big step backwards. True, consoles and closed devices have this model, but Mobile was opening up.
If you step back and look at the consequence of having iStore model (exclusive control on application distribution) in the software industry, you cannot conclude that this is a good step forward.
The fact that Apple made the iStore the only way to distribute application is not about maintaining quality, experience, ..., it is about controlling the distribution. And this control does not exist in the PC world, and was going to disappear in the mobile world.
But point taken, I will be more diplomatic in my answers.
And of course it's also about controlling quality, are you kidding? Don't reduce this to only being about either one thing or the other — like you apparently love to do — it's obviously a multifaceted issue.
Quality has got to be one of the very primary concerns, Apple would absolutely hate for the iPhone to become a malware infested platform which consumers are afraid to download apps for, always on the look out for viruses, wondering if every unexpected behaviour is the fault of a trojan — like on a certain other platform.
Don't get me wrong, Apple don't just want quality because they're knights in shining armor — they want to make money. And how do you make money? First, make sure your customers feel completely secure and don't hesitate about downloading a new app for even a second. You cannot do that without very high quality apps, distributed in a very secure way. It's not malice, it's a win-win strategy. As has been proven in a plethora of ways.
While the walled garden of AppStore can definitely and be seen as a step backwards, don't you think that the unprecedented amount of apps AppStore makes available for a mobile phone — and the unprecedented amount of developers finally being able to make a living from developing mobile apps — represent a gigantic step forwards?
Once again it's ridiculous to reduce this complex setup to being just one of two things.
Don't be diplomatic. Be open to the fact that things aren't that simple. You'll never understand another's perspective if you don't even make an attempt to.
Ok, we are getting nowhere with your "not as simple & multifaceted" counter arguments. In an argument, don't patronize your opponent, just focus on defending and making your points.
Obviously things are not as simple as they look, otherwise, we would not be talking about it.
Now that this is out of the way. I think that quality is a pretext. Apple could have let developers distribute their application by other mean, and keep the same AppStore quality. The fact that AppStore is the only way to distribute an iPhone app does not make it higher quality. I would actually argue the opposite. If developers had other means to distribute their mobile application, Apple could fairly refuse the "iFart" type of applications and accept only applications that have real entertainment or productivity value.
Also, I know people developing iPhone apps, and while they welcome the additional income, it is not that easy to make a living out of it. Some might, but I do not think it is as big as people think it is.
If you don't think the AppStore approval process squashes bugs then you're simply ignorant about the feedback developers get from them.
Sure, not everybody doing iPhone apps are bathing in cash. But before the iPhone came along, there was no mobile development business to speak of. It barely even existed. Now it's huge. That's not a step forward in your single-faceted view?
What matters is that the items Apple hangs the "open source" sign on are the fundaments. MS not so.
e.g. Apple has open sourced the core OS and WebKit (Safari's html engine). MS has open sourced neither.
Nokia uses WebKit. Android does. etc. Nobody uses IEmobile unless forced to.
Oh, and didn't MS actually pull the iStore scam with Zune, and only lost due to low markedshare of the Zune and being unable to come to proper terms with the RIAA because MS was too focused on DRM?
That isn't true: Xbox/PlayStation/Nintendo control what software can be run as well. They always point to the crappy titles that the Atari 2600 ended up with and claim quality control.
"Apple is undeniably the most proprietary and closed technology company in the software industry. In fact, Apple makes companies like Microsoft and Adobe look like nonprofit open source organizations in comparison"
http://opensource.apple.com/