Thats true-you don't have to respect or understand their point of view. If you don't respect or want to understand their reasons for the decisions they're making, perhaps you shouldn't be developing apps for the platform. And if you're not developing apps for the platform then you have no grounds on which to bitch and moan.
Thats true-you don't have to respect or understand their point of view. If you don't respect or want to understand their reasons for the decisions they're making, perhaps you shouldn't be developing apps for the platform. And if you're not developing apps for the platform then you have no grounds on which to bitch and moan.
Great example of yes-yes persuasion technique. You made two statements few people can disagree with. Then you threw in a third one that is controversial YET appears to be just as logical as the previous two:
And if you're not developing apps for the platform then you have no grounds on which to bitch and moan.
The same could have been said about sharecroppers, but it would have been wrong. Some uses of power are unethical and threaten our ability to coexist, even if that power was gained legitimately. (This is my one problem with libertarianism.)
Only unlike 20 years ago, consumers are tired of computers that confuse them and break, and don't want to be at the mercy of tech-savvy people. That, and Apple have both the market share and the number of developers in their favor.
Hmm, I didn't see exactly how the article fit the headline, except that he thinks we should stop crying fowl about Apple telling us how to do our jobs.
BULL!!
Apple has been using "Apps" to sell its super successful phone. Without its developers and robust App store, the iPhone would hardly be in second place IMO.
Apple OWES US EVERYTHING!
I don't own an iPhone because I like the shitty keyboard or because of AT&T and its limited 3G service. I own one because their app store rocks. That's it really.
So, Apple should be jumping through hoops to help their developers. Sure devs make money, but that's part of the give and take.
Apple has been jumping through hoops to help their developers, but the developers are acting like spoiled brats who see the iPhone as just a small Mac.
No, not really. Not at all. Microsoft is developer friendly. Microsoft jumps through hoops to help their developers. Apple has a LONG history of not working with developers the way MS does. Apple doesn't work with developers, it tolerates them. If Apple could do it all in house, they would.
If there's a lack of understanding, then help us understand. What are some examples of Apple jumping through hoops to help their developers, that is either above and beyond what another company (who does NOT piss off their developers like this) would do, or that is not brought about by massive complaining?
The app store process has greatly improved over the last year (after massive complaining), but in my experience Apple puts their interests first in every instance. This is of course their right, and even to be expected, but I am blind to the hoops they've been jumping through.
Considering what kind of experience Apple wants iPhone owners to have, they've extended an enormous amount of effort to help developers.
1) The existence of the App Store and its one-click purchasing, for example, has created business opportunities and revenue that are unprecedented for the amount of effort it takes to enter that market. Guys are making tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars by coding up games on their couch. That everyone is now taking this for granted means one thing: Apple's execution was flawless.
2) The protection of the market so that it remains an impulse-buyers paradise relatively free of buggy software, and completely free of malware, requires an enormous investment in hiring and training reviewers. Sure, developers hate the wait and the uncertainty of approval, but this process is what has made the market as profitable as it is. I can buy an app without fear that it'll steal my bank account #, which apparently can't be said for everything in the Android marketplace.
As you've said, the process has greatly improved over the last year. Consider the fact that this is the first time Apple has done this, and the first time anyone's done it on this scale. That the process has improved even as the submission rate scaled up to thousands of apps per day is incredible.
3) The controlled deployment of APIs, released when they're ready rather than when developers whine for them. This requires restraint and planning that almost no other vendor can pull off. Anyone who's had to re-write entire codebases because Microsoft couldn't decide if today's flavor was COM, DCOM, ActiveX, or .Net can appreciate this.
I doubt that any of the crybabies will appreciate the above, because they think it's all irrelevant if they can't port their Flash game with a mouseclick or write in C#. But they're also only seeing it from their point of view. In the dozens of outraged blog entries that have ascended HN's front page this week, very few show any evidence of looking at it from other points of view, and arguably the most important points of view: Apple's and their customer's.
How about this? Apple only owes me what I paid them for. Apple can do whatever it wants with its device otherwise. It can set any rules it wants for its app store. It can build phones and tablets so that only signed code will run on them. I have no problem with any of that...
..so long as _I_ can do whatever I want with _my_ device. I want to setup a business around breaking phones out of Apple's jail? No problem. I want to create an app store to compete directly with Apple's own? No problem. I want to sell apps directly to users through my website? No problem.
The app store is Apple's service, so they can do whatever they want with it. If they want to lock out competing app stores through software, that's fine. I have a problem with the laws that make circumventing those software locks a crime. Jailbreaking is legally questionable; developing for jailbroken phones is risky, so very few people get in on it. Without those foolish laws, I'm sure we'd have a number of alternatives to Apple's app store, and this whole thing would be a non-issue.
There is such a thing as trust and reputation, though. I don't owe Apple anything, either. And if I can't have faith in them approving my app in the future, I'll think twice about investing in their platform. That is not moaning and complaining, it is simply business.
While I agree with the author that "Apple doesn't owe me anything," reading past the title I didn't find that more words added value to what ought to be a tweet, not an essay.
I will never understand this mentality. If there's a situation I don't like, I shouldn't do whatever I can to improve it? If someone does something I think is wrong, I should keep my mouth shut because they "don't owe me anything"? After all, there are plenty of other people in the world, I should just associate with the other ones.
Apple is looking after their self-interest, and I am looking after mine. I don't see why it falls on a random blogger to tell me whether my self-interests are best served by complaining online or not.
Ok here's the thing. The main difference between a government and a corporation is size. The bigger a corporation gets, the more its power approaches that of governments, and accordingly the more responsibility it is supposed to have like that of what we would like government to be like, such as supporting equal opportunity and free competition and basic human rights, stuff like that. Right now Apple does not have the power to destroy the First Amendment. It is not big enough yet. But it is putting in place a system now where, if it does get big enough, and eliminates its competitors the same way Microsoft did back in the day, then it will be able to basically dictate what kind of information you are going to have access to. Apple's current behavior has shown that not only is it going to be able to do this, but that they are entirely willing to do it, and not just censor for the purposes of "protecting" it's consumers, whatever their own interpretation of that might be, but censor for the purposes of advancing their own self interest and stifling innovation and competition.
25 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 63.6 ms ] threadExcept in the case when Apple has a monopoly that holds back other mobile platforms for which you would like to develop for.
This is not the case, not yet, but some can see it coming, although for obvious reasons I don't think it will ever be a monopoly.
Great example of yes-yes persuasion technique. You made two statements few people can disagree with. Then you threw in a third one that is controversial YET appears to be just as logical as the previous two:
And if you're not developing apps for the platform then you have no grounds on which to bitch and moan.
How come?
iPhone and iPad will eventually be dominated by cheaper and more open commodities and they can keep their "we don't owe anyone anything" mentality
BULL!!
Apple has been using "Apps" to sell its super successful phone. Without its developers and robust App store, the iPhone would hardly be in second place IMO.
Apple OWES US EVERYTHING!
I don't own an iPhone because I like the shitty keyboard or because of AT&T and its limited 3G service. I own one because their app store rocks. That's it really.
So, Apple should be jumping through hoops to help their developers. Sure devs make money, but that's part of the give and take.
We scratch your back, you scratch ours.
The app store process has greatly improved over the last year (after massive complaining), but in my experience Apple puts their interests first in every instance. This is of course their right, and even to be expected, but I am blind to the hoops they've been jumping through.
1) The existence of the App Store and its one-click purchasing, for example, has created business opportunities and revenue that are unprecedented for the amount of effort it takes to enter that market. Guys are making tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars by coding up games on their couch. That everyone is now taking this for granted means one thing: Apple's execution was flawless.
2) The protection of the market so that it remains an impulse-buyers paradise relatively free of buggy software, and completely free of malware, requires an enormous investment in hiring and training reviewers. Sure, developers hate the wait and the uncertainty of approval, but this process is what has made the market as profitable as it is. I can buy an app without fear that it'll steal my bank account #, which apparently can't be said for everything in the Android marketplace.
As you've said, the process has greatly improved over the last year. Consider the fact that this is the first time Apple has done this, and the first time anyone's done it on this scale. That the process has improved even as the submission rate scaled up to thousands of apps per day is incredible.
3) The controlled deployment of APIs, released when they're ready rather than when developers whine for them. This requires restraint and planning that almost no other vendor can pull off. Anyone who's had to re-write entire codebases because Microsoft couldn't decide if today's flavor was COM, DCOM, ActiveX, or .Net can appreciate this.
I doubt that any of the crybabies will appreciate the above, because they think it's all irrelevant if they can't port their Flash game with a mouseclick or write in C#. But they're also only seeing it from their point of view. In the dozens of outraged blog entries that have ascended HN's front page this week, very few show any evidence of looking at it from other points of view, and arguably the most important points of view: Apple's and their customer's.
..so long as _I_ can do whatever I want with _my_ device. I want to setup a business around breaking phones out of Apple's jail? No problem. I want to create an app store to compete directly with Apple's own? No problem. I want to sell apps directly to users through my website? No problem.
The app store is Apple's service, so they can do whatever they want with it. If they want to lock out competing app stores through software, that's fine. I have a problem with the laws that make circumventing those software locks a crime. Jailbreaking is legally questionable; developing for jailbroken phones is risky, so very few people get in on it. Without those foolish laws, I'm sure we'd have a number of alternatives to Apple's app store, and this whole thing would be a non-issue.
Apple is looking after their self-interest, and I am looking after mine. I don't see why it falls on a random blogger to tell me whether my self-interests are best served by complaining online or not.