Gotta say... best post title I've seen in a while.
But still a very valid point. I would really support legislation governing online marketplaces, so that this kind of abuse couldn't take place. A company shouldn't have to be a monopoly, for anticompetitive behavior to become illegal.
Where does that stop? You have a nice little directory of apps you built at http://mjbaldwin.net. If monopoly is no longer a requirement before the government steps in, you could have to list my apps and anyone else's that wants to be included. Why should you have the editorial control over what's included in your site you want to take away from Apple?
I'm not necessarily in favor of government intervention here, but I do like the Android model: there is a sanctioned marketplace as the preferred distribution channel, but it's not the required distribution channel. This allows editorial control without creating a monopoly on app distribution for that platform.
Your definition of 'monopoly' is not helping your argument.
Apple controls a very big portion of the handheld market and that portion is completely roped off by iTunes. Worse, if they see something they are doing, whether it's better or not, you can't get your competing app onto their device. Was this not the same issue with Sun's Java and IE back in the 90s?
Meanwhile, crazygringo has a website. Sure he controls the content of the site but doesn't prevent anyone else from publishing on the internet. If 'mjbaldwin.net' was one of only a couple portals on the internet, you might have an argument there.
I didn't define monopoly or claim he had one. Re-read his suggestion: "a company shouldn't have to be a monopoly for anticompetitive behavior to become illegal".
Monopoly power is only regulated in the context of a relevant market (a term with specific legal meaning). The relevant market the iPhone is operating in is not the iOS market, it's the smartphone market, where there are many alternatives and Apple makes only 18% of the devices. Apple doesn't have monopoly power in the relevant market, so nothing it does can be an abuse of monopoly power, which is what's regulated.
That's like saying "McDonalds controls the Big Mac market". Yes, it does, but the Big Mac is not a relevant market for competition law, it's just a product within one or more relevant markets.
> In competition law the Relevant market defines the market in which one or more goods compete.
There are substitute goods to iOS that compete with it for consumers (Android, Windows, etc). The relevant market is where that competition is occurring: the smartphone and tablet markets.
> That's like saying "McDonalds controls the Big Mac market". Yes, it does, but the Big Mac is not a relevant market for competition law, it's just a product within one or more relevant markets.
But McDonalds is analogous to iTunes, not iOS. iOS is more like.. a city when McDonalds operates. If McDonalds also owned the city and banned all other fast food restaurants.
> The relevant market is where that competition is occurring: the smartphone and tablet markets.
But that's an artificial construct. The competition is there because it's the only place competition is allowed.
The App Store is more like a food court where Apple is the owner of the mall. They built the mall, they promoted it, they clean up the floors and pay the electric bill. And if they want to sign a contract to get McDonald's in their food court but part of the deal for McDonald's is that there's no other cheap burger places then that's up to them.
The owner of the mall decides who else to offer the stalls to and what the terms are and if those terms are too onerous than they will lose business because people will shop elsewhere because of the bad selection.
What we need is to decide whether we, as a society, think what Apple did is OK. That’s it. If we think it’s OK, then we console the developer. And if we don’t, we pass laws to keep Apple (or anyone else in a similar position) from doing that.
All this food court / McDonalds analogizing really can get you only so far.
Nope. Google does not prevent anybody from installing apps outside of the play store. (Device manufacturer may try to make it hard to root devices, but that's outside Android's choice of letting people install whatever they want).
I'm not a legislator, of course, but in my mind it would run something like:
- if you have over x third-party selling participants (say, 50 or 500)
- and the marketplace provides services to the "general public" (e.g. the Apple Store, qualifies, an intranet market would not)
- and the marketplace has revenue over x per day (say, $10,000)
- then participation in the marketplace must be governed by a clear, unambiguous set of rules that gives no advantage to products made/sold by the owner/administrator of the marketplace, and all interpretation of the rules, or challenges to such interpretation, must be made by a neutral, third-party arbitrator without influence from or by the owner/administrator of the marketplace
- and additionally, rules of the marketplace must not be written in order to give any kind of explicit or "implicit" advantage to the owner/administrator of the marketplate (Apple can't always feature its own Maps application over Google's, for example)
These specific rules are totally off the top of my head, but it's just a kind of idea -- once any market reaches a certain size, it's in the general public interest to ensure a level playing field and due process -- I mean, that's what things like court-enforceable contracts, food regulation, stock exchange and public company regulation, etc. are all about.
I agree with you, but apps for games consoles (Wii/PS4/Xbox) are at least as controlled than the iTunes monopoly store.
Heck, Google can cripple or even kill small businesses by excluding them from its search index, and like Apple, it can do exactly what it likes to further its own interests.
There's no penalty for monopolistic behavior unless you are actually found to be a monopoly, in which case stuff you may have thought was legal suddenly becomes illegal and you get dinged for it.
You're trying to solve the problem of "app x/y/z not approved in store" but all you've done is move those goalposts to the third party arbitrator who now has a financial incentive to deny approval to anything.
Just no.
Even worse your solution is effectively a government takeover of any store over size X. Trying to force goods on vendors is not the free market, it's central planning lite.
Apple runs it's store the way it wants to. If you don't like it don't sell your wares there, don't shop there, picket their retail locations, call for boycotts online, etc.
Eh. Nothing that invasive is required. Just mandate that Apple allow sideloading and/or third-party app stores and the rest will take care of itself.
The elegant part is that regulation would target the real problem - the tying of the iPhone to Apple's App Store, which, in my opinion, seems pretty fishy for an allegedly general-purpose device. As I understand it, this tying might theoretically be an antitrust violation even in the absence of an iPhone monopoly, but legal requirements for an illegal tying arrangements have become considerably stricter over time.
Oh we'll just force them to program their machine differently is all so that anyone can free ride on the market they invested hundreds of millions to create. Sounds about as noninvasive as a mandatory trans-vaginal ultrasound.
Freedom of general purpose computing is more important than a company's bottom line. Also restricting anti-competitive behaviours is not equivalent to a forced medical procedure.
First, if you're going to quote me, please do so accurately. I said "Nothing that invasive is required." [emphasis added], comparing to the proposal further above that called for comprehensive regulation of the Apple's App Store itself. However you feel about the invasiveness of my suggestion, surely we can agree that it is less invasive than rewriting the store rules, appointing a third-party arbitrator and the rest?
Second, should Apple find iDevices and their app store subject to government regulation the idea that Apple would be the one entitled to complain about free riding is just... precious. Even if we only look what Apple gets from the legal system itself (copyright and patent rights, injunctions and import bans, blocking unauthorized clones, trademark protection, license enforcement and so on) some regulation of sideloading and/or third-party stores wouldn't even begin to tip the balance.
There are competing products with support for installing apps from outside the platform-vendor-run marketplace. There is no law anywhere requiring any class of device to fit some definition of a general-purpose computer. It's through market demand and questionable contract negotiation on IBM's part that general-purpose computers were successful, not any kind of government regulation.
And then you would have to trust app approval to a government entity.
"Oh what's that, some encryption tool for secure communications? Not gonna happen."
You would have lobbying from the big corps to have advantage over indie developers.
And all those other things that happen every single time the government messes with private matters.
Regulation rarely targets the real problem. It targets a problem, creating another one.
I would draw the line between platforms on the one hand and 3rd party products and services on the other.
Examples of platforms: A phone operating system, a desktop operating system, a browser.
Examples of 3rd party products and services: A site with apps reviewed and upvoted by users, a curated app review site, an app store that's not affiliated with the hardware or OS maker.
Controlling the former offers real opportunities for anticompetitive behavior. You have buyer lock-in, and you can dictate the terms on which others may develop for your platform. You can push people off your platform when their goals conflict with yours. This is a logical place for some regulation designed to protect and promote a free market.
With the latter, there aren't any special ways to be anticompetitive. By special, I mean distinct from the ways in which, say, a chemical company could be anticompetitive. Your example of a "nice little directory of apps you built" would fall into this category. No industry-specific regulation is warranted for this type of product or service, since you're not in a position to hinder the free market.
"This is a logical place for some regulation designed to protect and promote a free market."
The government forcing me to carry your product =/= free market. Let's say I have a platform for kids. Now I can't disapprove adult apps? Are you effing kidding me?
> The government forcing me to carry your product =/= free market.
Preserving a free market sometimes requires regulation of anticompetitive behavior. That necessarily impinges on the economic freedoms of the largest players. But the intent is for such regulation to yield a net increase in market freedom.
> Let's say I have a platform for kids. Now I can't disapprove adult apps? Are you effing kidding me?
Presumably, a good law would make some allowances for things like this. It's not that you have to approve literally anything anyone wants to sell.
Apple should maintain full editorial control. It's their App Store, and they should be able to have it contain whatever they want.
However, it is not their iPhone in my pocket anymore. The ownership changed when they got my money. They should not have any control over what it runs, and yet it only runs those things which Apple puts in their store. This is the real problem.
Unfortunately, this isn't the first time this happened. This also won't be the last time either.
When you build apps on a platform, be ready to run into brick walls if you start to enter (or have already entered) areas that the platform wants to get into -- that goes for Facebook and Twitter as much as it does for Apple as well.
I know people who have been royally screwed by exactly this - they give you an API, devs everywhere come up with ideas, do the hard work - and the platform picks the low hanging fruit. Not only do they get carte blanche to steal peoples ideas but the licenses often give them complete rights to steal your source code as well.
A weather app is really a 3-hour project; a rudimentary exercise in retrieving and parsing some kind of structured data. To say that any part of this supposed app was "hard work" is disingenuous. Furthermore, the concept of photorealistic animations for weather isn't new, so really this person added nothing of value to the Apple ecosystem. And, wouldn't you know it, the App Store rejected this weather app for exactly that reason!
That's not to say that there aren't instances where this has happened to devs, but I feel like your indignation is a bit wasted on an app this inconsequential.
While text based weather app is a 3-hour project, I challenge you to make a well animated one in 3 hours. You would have to be pretty well talented in both coding and design/animation to do it in 3 hours.
I think it'd be hard for me to call them out with much harsher words, if that happened to me.
This stuff is as unfair as it gets, but then again, that's the norm today ain't it?
While I totally understand why you're angry, I'm almost certain Apple's app review team does NOT have access to pre-release versions of iOS, so this probably didn't happen because Apple was working on similar functionality.
I didn't get that he was hinting at that. The problem is what Apple thinks is significant to the platform when they develop it versus when it's an outside developer.
When Steve Jobs was around all the really great ideas probably found their way directly to him. If he then decided to call any of those ideas his own and reject the apps, do you think anybody at Apple would defy him?
Whomever that person is now (Jony Ive?) probably got ahold of this app and did the same thing.
Very easy to hide all of this under the veil of 'we were already working on something like that'. The author even acknowledges as much. So blatant theft is basically impossible to prove. But it's pretty naive to think that does not go on.
That's why I said 'found their way'. It would just be a matter of training and infrastructure to make the process efficient.
Example: an internal 'is this one of the coolest apps you have ever seen?' option given to all app reviewers. One guy whose job it is to review all apps where that box was checked. If he agrees, he sends them on to somebody on Jony Ives team. If they agree, they send it on to Jony.
Frankly, outside of a keynote with an audience expecting to be impressed, I doubt a weather app would get a thunderous reception.
At the end of the day, that is just a weather app with cool graphic and the guy reviewing apps probably sees a shit ton of those per week. It would take something significant or sufficiently unconventional for him to start a buzz inside Apple.
(BTW: not criticising the guy, he is a dedicated developer and Apple let him down. But let's keep stuff in perspective)
If such an option did exist, no way this app would be cause to use it. There are many other weather apps which have similar use of animation, such as Magical Weather. This app is not particularly unique or innovative.
In this case however, if Apple wanted to be fair and demonstrate a consistent behavior, they would give every new version of iOS to their review team and ask them to apply the same logic they use when they (dis)approve 3rd party applications.
Indeed. At first, I thought the use of "literally" was hyperbole. Then it almost sounded like Apple had stolen his thunder graphic (in which case, it would've been an awesome title). But no, so back to hyperbole. I do feel for the OP, but given the number of other animated weather apps, I don't think he had any thunder to steal.
Granted, a bit more than a month ago, Apple rejected a update for it (because the message of it complaining of lack of GPS had a ok button that quit the APP), and it was really weird, because the thing they complained always existed on the app, and I on purpose proposed a terrible alternative, and they said they wanted THAT. So I DID made the terrible alternative on my point of view, and now the app uses that...
The iOS 7 weather app looks like they just told Yahoo! to build the new app. Almost everything is the same down the typography, which isn't to say they stole it, seeing how iOS' weather is powered by Yahoo!
That said, I'm not sure there are too many ways you can innovate a weather app. HTC Sense has been doing animated conditions for over 4 years now.
This is why mobile apps just don't appeal to me -- the "approval" of what I create by any committee other than the actual-end-user marketplace. Having grown up sharing one's programs and work in a simple, radically open (if slightly risky for somewhat naive users) "download and install" or "install from floppy/CD" or "build from source" exploratory environment, I'd feel extremely foolish submitting my stuff for approval. I'd feel submissive. I don't want Apple's or Google's or Microsoft's or Facebook's permission to share software I make, only their users' choice for or against.
Firefox OS is my only hope but in mobile, they'd also need to get some significant traction going fast.
Chrome Apps are cool, Android is cool, but "Play Store" -- if it's just remotely as "submit for approval" as Apple, then thanks but no thanks.
Thankfully, we still have web dev, mobile web, and a huge base of non-mobile "desktop-OS" software users.
That's what you get for submitting to the development model controlled by faceless bureaucracy invested with monopoly power.
And now people are calling for government intervention there - because if you have a faceless bureaucracy with kafkian rules and rampant rumors of abuse, adding government to it always helps.
Putting fear into people is, of course, a worthy goal. But I'd prefer making situation better instead, and making one bureaucracy fear another... well, you can see how well it is working now. No way two layers of stupid, obtuse and possibly corrupt bureaucracy can be worse than one for the people having to deal with them, right?
>>> The only problem with the above is that it requires sane and non-corrupt legislators.
Yeah, there's a tiny-tiny problem with that... As soon as we solve it, everything else would be just peachy.
It always makes me sigh when I read stories like this.
For decades Microsoft was bashed for offering up a closed system, yet the reality was Microsoft would let you sell any type of software for Windows and they couldn't care less.
Then along comes Apple with it's tightly closed, highly controlled platform and no one raises a murmur, but rather everyone seems to celebrate the idea.
Watching on are the rest of the big players and they see how successful Apple has been, so they all start madly creating their own closed systems.
The reality is none of these issues existed in the old style Windows system, but thanks to the success of Apple, those days are now gone :(
Developers are now forever beholden to the big corporates.
People throw out their privacy for the ability to share cat pictures. I'm not surprised they would move from a bad platform (M$) to a worse one (Apple) because of shiny graphics.
Ok, but the barrier to putting other apps on an Android device is a good deal lower than on iOS. Typically just changing a setting. Hell, as Amazon has demonstrated, you can release entire other App Stores in this manner.
You don't need root to install arbitrary APKs, and I don't understand #1. How is this any different from, e.g. apt-get? It's just a mechanism for easily obtaining and updating some vetted packages.
99%+ of people willing to pay money for software have no idea what an APK is, what apt-get is, etc.. "App stores" serve a purpose. They are software catalogs for the general public, and the vast majority of the time if your app isn't in one of the major app stores it means it won't get purchased/downloaded.
Anyone who wants to install a non-Play Store app, can. If you're someone looking at a piece of software on the internet, the application's website can easily offer you instructions on how to download and install their software. This is exactly how Windows has always operated.
A perfect example of this working well on Android is the Amazon Appstore. Disregarding for a second the meta-ness of it being another app market, they do a great job of explaining to the average user how to download their software (by pushing it to them through email, text, etc.), "allow non-Market applications" and install the APK. Sure, not every user is capable of doing this, but I think anyone who has helped non-technical family can attest to the fact that the same is true on Windows.
The general public doesn't know how to side-load, just as they have no idea what apt-get is. Being blocked from the market is a sufficient barrier to effectively kill an app from broad distribution.
Which applies to any centralized 'marketplace' for apps that's popular enough; whether that's Apple's App Store, Google Play, Valve's Steam, or Ubuntu's Software Center (and all other linux package managers for that matter). So, I'm not entirely sure what the argument is here...? If people wan't to define that as 'closed', that's cool, conceptually I could see how that makes sense. But again, I never hear that term being used to describe Linux package managers like I mentioned above, so I'm not sure what the distinction might be between them and something as lenient for acceptance as the Play store. Is it the 'killswitch' that makes a system closed or what?
Windows never had a repository system so devs had to advertise and distribute their .exe's independently, giving the ecosystem that feel of 'open-ness'. But the second you have a semi-curated centralized repository system available like on Ubuntu or Android, the system becomes 'closed' because it effectively creates this 'barrier' you mentioned due to the new convenience. So is there no middle-ground here?
Yes but you can create your own App Store, and people do. There is nothing stopping new ones popping up if the Play Store starts rejecting a lot of apps.
Re 1: In the case of the general public, I don't see this as such a bad thing -- so long as the app store is free of malware. The point is that they can sideload apps if they desire to do so.
Re 3: Sad, yes, but it doesn't prevent sideloading as far as I know.
people are not stupid , if you tell them they can have stuffs for free outside the app store they will. People have softs to sync phones and desktop folders, dont worry, they know what is a apk.
The general public won't install an APK outside of an "App Store" equivalent
True as this may be, it's also not as bad as it sounds. Take a look at what Humble Bundle did -- a very lightweight appstore-like thing, with very clear instructions for installing it once. They seem to have done okay with that.
No, it really isn't. Facebook offered something that users want that MySpace didn't. Diaspora offers nothing that users--not privacy advocates, users--want.
I was referring to FireFox OS competing with iOS or Android. It's a long shot. I don't know anything about Diaspora -- Facebook will probably do a FF OS version.
It offers a solution to the problem indicated in the post. FireFox OS users can install apps without going through a store. The only thing that Mozilla will maintain control over are apps that use the phone portion of the device.
Not nothing. It offers aspects, which allow you to group your friends into different categories so you can easily choose who to share what content with. Google found them useful -- at least enough to rename them circles...
Aspects were not the feature they touted as the reason to move. That would be decentralization. But the parent post said there were literally no features besides privacy, and I wanted to point out that that isn't strictly true.
What was the chance of FFx browser winning the browser race, when more than 95% computers already had IE pre-installed?
With FFxOS, web designer and developers can leverage their web design & development skills. All system calls are exposed via javascript API (aka open Web APIs). See more details here (https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Firefox_OS)
It wasn't so much that FF was good (although it was), but that IE sucked so unbelievably hard. The difference made the switch a given for anyone with a passing understanding of computers.
Firefox OS ? You mean that OS that basically doesn't allow to do anything at all outside of a browser?
Mozilla has ranted about Microsoft restrictions preventing them from making a decent competing browser in WP8. Well, go make a competing browser in FFOS...
Mozilla has tricked everybody into thinking "Web technologies" meant "open", but this is absolutely not true.
Oh, but maybe it will at least solve distribution of apps you can make? Because, you know, everybody knows there will be no distinctions between apps installed from their store and other places, right?
Yeah... Let me tell you how it actually works. Mozilla has finally figured that mobile security is hard, so they have decided to have permissions. There are two kinds of permissions. The first one is those that they think users can understand (for instance "use the camera"). For them, the device asks the user if they grant them, problem solved.
And then there is the second kind of permissions, those that they think are too hard to explain to the average user. For instance, "make a request to another domain" (systemXHR). For those your app has to be in their app store and validated by Mozilla. Does that ring a bell?
So no, Firefox OS is definitely not the answer. Android way is better on that front, actually. Another interesting project could be Sailfish.
Did you never hear of the Free Software movement? The closed, or non-free nature of Windows was one of the prime motivators for lots of open source projects. See https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/1
What was closed about Windows was the source code for the kernel as well as libraries and APIs. As a very strong supporter of Free Software, this was a huge part of what I railed (and still rail) against.
In terms of the ability to run random bits of code on it, Windows was highly open. Perhaps too open when you take into account not only malware, viruses, and spyware, but the various crapware/bloatware OEMs would pile onto their Windows preloads.
Arguably some Linux distros, with their comprehensive archives, though with rules for what could or couldn't be installed (based on licensing requirements) were more "locked down", though in truth you're more than open to install third party from sources, as binaries, or any other means you care. In practice, I prefer sticking largely to my distro's own archives and installation tools, precisely because the software is both more vetted and generally behaves far better.
it was a closed system... I remember my dad shelling out $500 for MS Visual basic for me, and then $500 for MSVC++. Visual basic was fun, but I didn't do anything with it. I never got past MFC in VC++ and I wound up using borland's C++ instead for my science fair project.
Now, I can put ubuntu linux on my machine - for free (or in my case, preloaded from DELL at a discount over windows) and get a million different toolchains with free documentation online.
a fair criticism. It was de facto closed. Keep in mind during the 90s, the internet was limited (for quite a bit of that time I didn't even have a 2400 baud modem). It wasn't until my second year in college that my friend introduced me to linux, and I still didn't actively start using linux until 2006-ish (I spent 1999-2003 in BeOS and 2004-2006 in FreeBSD)
i guess the part of my complaint that had the most to do with 'closed' was the MFC/developer licensing part. I knew enough to know there were APIs lying underneath that weren't exposed to me that I could do awesome stuff with if I was able to see it. At least with BeOS it "felt" like the most important part of the API were exposed - and with linux I know that they are in principle, even though I never use them.
There are plenty of free and open source toolchains and languages for Windows... in particular the same ones available on your Ubuntu installation (gcc, openjdk, python, etc.).
Microsoft sells and supports development toolkits, and they happen to be better than a lot of the free ones. I bought PyCharm for Linux -- that doesn't make it closed.
You have a funny definition of "none of these issues existed in the old style Windows system" when MS was known to not just one-up third-party apps with built-ins, but to do so without actually ever producing said software (vaporware).
Yes, it absolutely can. Apple may well have rejected software from their Mac App Store, but that doesn't stop an individual from installing any software on the platform. For Windows Phone, Microsoft have similar rules to Apple for their Windows Phone Store.
> Microsoft have similar rules to Apple for their Windows Phone Store.
Only because Microsoft learnt from Apple's success and have moved away from their earlier open Windows model to their new Apple like closed Windows model.
What you said made 100% sense. However, it goes against the core values of the iphone-ipad-ishit-toting cat-gif-downloading html-programming black-rim-glasses-sporting self-described-nerd social-hacking steve-jobs-worshipping nauseating douchebags that infect "hacker" news like a plague.
> Developers are now forever beholden to the big corporates.
Same as it ever was...
Through the 90s and the early part of the 2000s, Microsoft had enough control of the market that it could often kill other vendor's products (or proposed products) simply by announcing that it was going to produce something in the same area of the market. So although the system was technically open, economically the market was controlled: there was only one platform that mattered at the time (Windows) and the prevailing view of the tech press, business buyers and consumers was that Microsoft produced the best software for Windows. So if Microsoft announced it was going to ship something in the future the general consensus was generally that the best decision was to wait and see what Microsoft shipped. It's fanciful to suggest there weren't issues with the old style Windows software market.
But you were allowed to compete and many did that very successfully. Having powerful competitors is fine, but having competitors who can legally block your access to the market is bad for everyone.
Apple, Microsoft, not to mention Oracle, IBM, CA, etc. are still making money hand over fist. They all make money by selling closed source systems that may or may not have open sub-systems.
You have a curious definition of "win in the end".
Microsoft OSes don't have any restrictions on what software to run.
Apple does make money, but Android and Microsoft are eating their market share like mad. Apple was smart enough to invent a new market, but isn't smart enough to keep it.
> Microsoft OSes don't have any restrictions on what software to run.
They didn't until windows 8. The 'classic' desktop hasn't changed, but you can't run Modern UI apps other than from the app store, and on ARM you can't run anything that's not modern UI unless it's from Microsoft.
Microsoft also has other OS platforms (Windows phone) with exactly the same model as Apple's, only less transparent.
Apple OS X doesn't restrict. iOS does, but that hasn't hurt its success: Apple is largely supply or carrier constrained. !I don't think Apple is playing the game you want them to.
> Considering how many horror stories we've seen, I wonder why anybody would waste their time developing apps for that weird company.
Money? An enormous and dedicated user base? Users who expect high quality UX and are willing to pay for apps that provide it?
edit: Wait, I forgot a few: a very limited number of hardware platforms to target? The ability to target at most, two OS revisions and cover the vast majority of users?
It is, in many ways, an easier platform to build high quality software for. On top of that, the users there give a damn about the quality of the software (and not some ephemeral quality like "openness").
> Develop for open systems instead. They will win in the end.
"In the end" is awfully open ended, and really there's very little to demonstrate that open systems always win in the end. Exceedingly closed systems sometimes fail fast due to lack of adoption, but that doesn't really hold in this case. Apple consistently releases hardware and software that, despite being closed, many users perceive as "best-in-class" (it does not matter whether you agree that they are -- the fact remains that many users believe that to be the case). Developers back that up by building best-in-class software for the closed platform because some of them also believe it to be best-in-class. As long as you've got that feedback cycle in place, I don't believe a case can be made for openness even being a substantial factor in the shape of the market.
If you treat writing software as a business decision as opposed to something to stroke the programmer's ego, writing software for Apple would make sense.
The number of horros stories make a very very very small percent of all the "developed an app" stories.
Apple paid out $10 000 000 000 for the developers, that's pretty big reason to develop for this platform.
> Develop for open systems instead. They will win in the end.
Yeah, sure. They will win what? They will win why?
Why do you constantly forget that the users of high tech are no longer programmers and sysadmins? They have other stuff to worry about not if your platform is open, closed, or punctured.
The things that work will win.
it's not impossible that the Dev teams flag certain categories of apps shortly before launch dates to prevent similar applications from stealing their thunder so to speak. after all why get egg on their face when you violate the developer agreement retroactively?
it's not impossible that the Dev teams flag certain categories of apps shortly before launch dates to prevent similar applications from stealing their thunder so to speak. after all why get egg on their face when you violate the developer agreement retroactively?
Outside App (http://www.outsideapp.com/) came out two years ago and did this. Not as nice, no question, but I think the guy's paranoia about the rejection is way off base. Though I do agree that there doesn't seem to be a good reason to reject it.
Is it possible that the app review teams were instructed to find a reason to reject all apps in a given category for a month or two leading up to the release of iOS7? Were other weather-related apps approved recently?
People still don't take a lesson from this. They have done exactly the same thing before. Apple is EVIL, understand that. May be one of the most evil tech company out there.
Look, man, I feel really bad for you. But there are lots of open platforms to develop apps for. You make a choice when you decide to specialize in iOS apps. The choice you make is to make yourself a bitch to the arbitrary whims of some goofball asshole sitting in Cupertino, who doesn't give a fuck about your aspirations or vision. You can complain all you want, but they made the garden, and they can do whatever the fuck they want with it.
It blows. But now you know why you need to support an open platform.
> But there are lots of open platforms to develop apps for.
No, there aren't, because a critical part of "platform to develop apps for" is a user base. Specifically, a user base willing to pay money for things. On mobile, that means iOS and to a much lesser extent Android and Windows Phone.
"Develop for an open platform" is like telling somebody to grow a third leg. There are no relevant open platforms. Nor will there be, because consumers do not value openness and no other developers are going to damage themselves by only providing products on niche systems.
Web applications intrinsically suck and aren't particularly viable unless your product fits the SaaS business model (I find that most things of value to me do not, personally) and unless you want to spend your life supporting SaaS (I like not getting pager alerts at 3AM).
Linux has such a small userbase as to be essentially irrelevant. Platform fragmentation is a massive pain in the ass and its users are generally unwilling to spend money on software (video game addictions aside).
Android has a userbase but they don't seem to really spend money, either; the overwhelmingly dominant revenue source for most cross-platform applications is iOS. And I say that as somebody who really likes Android and uses a Nexus 4 and Nexus 7 as daily devices.
You can "develop for an open platform" and have shit-all for a potential ceiling or you can take the (generally minor) risk of developing for iOS and actually have a chance (if small) of making something that pays for itself. It's disingenous to tell developers "well, develop for an open platform" when doing so means you don't pay your rent.
If you are married to a specific business model (selling applications) then yes ... maybe you are stuck on iOS.
But, people are definitely making a good living pursuing other business models for software on the web, Android, etc.
Some people even make money selling games on open platforms (Minecraft is an example off the top of my head. There are several other PC games that come to mind.)
In response to Apple's initial response to the "Images" app:
I'm amazed by the disconnect between how people really feel about porn and how they purport to feel about it. Sexual desire is a basic human need. The vast majority of American men and women view pornography, yet few acknowledge it.
I appreciate that this is difficult to change because prudishness is deeply engrained in our culture, but I would like to see tech companies take a more progressive role in opening up a realistic dialogue about sex.
It's a lot less risk for an organisation to appear prudish or paternal than to give their opponents a free attack ad about "corrupting our children/society".
The weird rules (apps vs browsers) likely just fall out from the "censorship theater", in a parallel with airport security. It's an escape hatch, giving the organisation an "At least we tried!" defence.
205 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 221 ms ] threadBut still a very valid point. I would really support legislation governing online marketplaces, so that this kind of abuse couldn't take place. A company shouldn't have to be a monopoly, for anticompetitive behavior to become illegal.
Apple controls a very big portion of the handheld market and that portion is completely roped off by iTunes. Worse, if they see something they are doing, whether it's better or not, you can't get your competing app onto their device. Was this not the same issue with Sun's Java and IE back in the 90s?
Meanwhile, crazygringo has a website. Sure he controls the content of the site but doesn't prevent anyone else from publishing on the internet. If 'mjbaldwin.net' was one of only a couple portals on the internet, you might have an argument there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relevant_market
> In competition law the Relevant market defines the market in which one or more goods compete.
There are substitute goods to iOS that compete with it for consumers (Android, Windows, etc). The relevant market is where that competition is occurring: the smartphone and tablet markets.
But McDonalds is analogous to iTunes, not iOS. iOS is more like.. a city when McDonalds operates. If McDonalds also owned the city and banned all other fast food restaurants.
> The relevant market is where that competition is occurring: the smartphone and tablet markets.
But that's an artificial construct. The competition is there because it's the only place competition is allowed.
The owner of the mall decides who else to offer the stalls to and what the terms are and if those terms are too onerous than they will lose business because people will shop elsewhere because of the bad selection.
What we need is to decide whether we, as a society, think what Apple did is OK. That’s it. If we think it’s OK, then we console the developer. And if we don’t, we pass laws to keep Apple (or anyone else in a similar position) from doing that.
All this food court / McDonalds analogizing really can get you only so far.
I'm not a legislator, of course, but in my mind it would run something like:
- if you have over x third-party selling participants (say, 50 or 500)
- and the marketplace provides services to the "general public" (e.g. the Apple Store, qualifies, an intranet market would not)
- and the marketplace has revenue over x per day (say, $10,000)
- then participation in the marketplace must be governed by a clear, unambiguous set of rules that gives no advantage to products made/sold by the owner/administrator of the marketplace, and all interpretation of the rules, or challenges to such interpretation, must be made by a neutral, third-party arbitrator without influence from or by the owner/administrator of the marketplace
- and additionally, rules of the marketplace must not be written in order to give any kind of explicit or "implicit" advantage to the owner/administrator of the marketplate (Apple can't always feature its own Maps application over Google's, for example)
These specific rules are totally off the top of my head, but it's just a kind of idea -- once any market reaches a certain size, it's in the general public interest to ensure a level playing field and due process -- I mean, that's what things like court-enforceable contracts, food regulation, stock exchange and public company regulation, etc. are all about.
Heck, Google can cripple or even kill small businesses by excluding them from its search index, and like Apple, it can do exactly what it likes to further its own interests.
There's no penalty for monopolistic behavior unless you are actually found to be a monopoly, in which case stuff you may have thought was legal suddenly becomes illegal and you get dinged for it.
Just no.
Even worse your solution is effectively a government takeover of any store over size X. Trying to force goods on vendors is not the free market, it's central planning lite.
Apple runs it's store the way it wants to. If you don't like it don't sell your wares there, don't shop there, picket their retail locations, call for boycotts online, etc.
The elegant part is that regulation would target the real problem - the tying of the iPhone to Apple's App Store, which, in my opinion, seems pretty fishy for an allegedly general-purpose device. As I understand it, this tying might theoretically be an antitrust violation even in the absence of an iPhone monopoly, but legal requirements for an illegal tying arrangements have become considerably stricter over time.
Oh we'll just force them to program their machine differently is all so that anyone can free ride on the market they invested hundreds of millions to create. Sounds about as noninvasive as a mandatory trans-vaginal ultrasound.
Second, should Apple find iDevices and their app store subject to government regulation the idea that Apple would be the one entitled to complain about free riding is just... precious. Even if we only look what Apple gets from the legal system itself (copyright and patent rights, injunctions and import bans, blocking unauthorized clones, trademark protection, license enforcement and so on) some regulation of sideloading and/or third-party stores wouldn't even begin to tip the balance.
Regulation rarely targets the real problem. It targets a problem, creating another one.
Examples of platforms: A phone operating system, a desktop operating system, a browser.
Examples of 3rd party products and services: A site with apps reviewed and upvoted by users, a curated app review site, an app store that's not affiliated with the hardware or OS maker.
Controlling the former offers real opportunities for anticompetitive behavior. You have buyer lock-in, and you can dictate the terms on which others may develop for your platform. You can push people off your platform when their goals conflict with yours. This is a logical place for some regulation designed to protect and promote a free market.
With the latter, there aren't any special ways to be anticompetitive. By special, I mean distinct from the ways in which, say, a chemical company could be anticompetitive. Your example of a "nice little directory of apps you built" would fall into this category. No industry-specific regulation is warranted for this type of product or service, since you're not in a position to hinder the free market.
The government forcing me to carry your product =/= free market. Let's say I have a platform for kids. Now I can't disapprove adult apps? Are you effing kidding me?
Preserving a free market sometimes requires regulation of anticompetitive behavior. That necessarily impinges on the economic freedoms of the largest players. But the intent is for such regulation to yield a net increase in market freedom.
> Let's say I have a platform for kids. Now I can't disapprove adult apps? Are you effing kidding me?
Presumably, a good law would make some allowances for things like this. It's not that you have to approve literally anything anyone wants to sell.
However, it is not their iPhone in my pocket anymore. The ownership changed when they got my money. They should not have any control over what it runs, and yet it only runs those things which Apple puts in their store. This is the real problem.
When you build apps on a platform, be ready to run into brick walls if you start to enter (or have already entered) areas that the platform wants to get into -- that goes for Facebook and Twitter as much as it does for Apple as well.
That's not to say that there aren't instances where this has happened to devs, but I feel like your indignation is a bit wasted on an app this inconsequential.
Someone recommended that pg flash the HN title bar whenever such insightful comments are made. I would like to +1 that idea.
Whomever that person is now (Jony Ive?) probably got ahold of this app and did the same thing.
Very easy to hide all of this under the veil of 'we were already working on something like that'. The author even acknowledges as much. So blatant theft is basically impossible to prove. But it's pretty naive to think that does not go on.
Example: an internal 'is this one of the coolest apps you have ever seen?' option given to all app reviewers. One guy whose job it is to review all apps where that box was checked. If he agrees, he sends them on to somebody on Jony Ives team. If they agree, they send it on to Jony.
At the end of the day, that is just a weather app with cool graphic and the guy reviewing apps probably sees a shit ton of those per week. It would take something significant or sufficiently unconventional for him to start a buzz inside Apple.
(BTW: not criticising the guy, he is a dedicated developer and Apple let him down. But let's keep stuff in perspective)
Now, Alaric's app is probably very interesting, but why block it when others existed (and did the animation more poorly)?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlTOI7ZUziQ
It's, uhh, not exactly novel.
Seems strange that they would let some animated weather apps through and not others...
For those wondering, it is this one: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/weather-and-clock-for-kids/i...
Granted, a bit more than a month ago, Apple rejected a update for it (because the message of it complaining of lack of GPS had a ok button that quit the APP), and it was really weird, because the thing they complained always existed on the app, and I on purpose proposed a terrible alternative, and they said they wanted THAT. So I DID made the terrible alternative on my point of view, and now the app uses that...
That said, I'm not sure there are too many ways you can innovate a weather app. HTC Sense has been doing animated conditions for over 4 years now.
It had animations and an "overview" screen that had times, temperatures, and forecasts. Here's a couple of screenshots: http://us.appitalism.com/app/palm-webos/244623-world-weather...
I also developed World Weather Watch for Mac OS X: http://www.andrewmunsell.com/work/world-weather-watch/
(The animated weather concept was inspired by HTC's Sense UI, though as far as I can remember, the overview list was entirely my own concept and idea)
So, the concept of animated weather, or even Apple's overview list of weather and times, goes back much farther than a couple of months.
EDIT:
If anyone's curious what World Weather Watch for WebOS looks like in motion, I made a video a while back too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3tS7n4VAsk
Firefox OS is my only hope but in mobile, they'd also need to get some significant traction going fast.
Chrome Apps are cool, Android is cool, but "Play Store" -- if it's just remotely as "submit for approval" as Apple, then thanks but no thanks.
Thankfully, we still have web dev, mobile web, and a huge base of non-mobile "desktop-OS" software users.
It isn't. There's no approval process. Pay your developer registration fee and start putting apps in the store.
And now people are calling for government intervention there - because if you have a faceless bureaucracy with kafkian rules and rampant rumors of abuse, adding government to it always helps.
Government in this case is a set of rules, optionally with an enforcement body (e.g.: public utility commission) that puts fear into the provider.
The only problem with the above is that it requires sane and non-corrupt legislators. Those are getting fewer by the election season in the US.
>>> The only problem with the above is that it requires sane and non-corrupt legislators.
Yeah, there's a tiny-tiny problem with that... As soon as we solve it, everything else would be just peachy.
For decades Microsoft was bashed for offering up a closed system, yet the reality was Microsoft would let you sell any type of software for Windows and they couldn't care less.
Then along comes Apple with it's tightly closed, highly controlled platform and no one raises a murmur, but rather everyone seems to celebrate the idea.
Watching on are the rest of the big players and they see how successful Apple has been, so they all start madly creating their own closed systems.
The reality is none of these issues existed in the old style Windows system, but thanks to the success of Apple, those days are now gone :(
Developers are now forever beholden to the big corporates.
It's not the only way to install things in Android. But technically, neither is the AppStore in iOS.
2. https://play.google.com/about/developer-content-policy.html
3. Many of the devices are locked and can't be rooted
Anyone who wants to install a non-Play Store app, can. If you're someone looking at a piece of software on the internet, the application's website can easily offer you instructions on how to download and install their software. This is exactly how Windows has always operated.
A perfect example of this working well on Android is the Amazon Appstore. Disregarding for a second the meta-ness of it being another app market, they do a great job of explaining to the average user how to download their software (by pushing it to them through email, text, etc.), "allow non-Market applications" and install the APK. Sure, not every user is capable of doing this, but I think anyone who has helped non-technical family can attest to the fact that the same is true on Windows.
Windows never had a repository system so devs had to advertise and distribute their .exe's independently, giving the ecosystem that feel of 'open-ness'. But the second you have a semi-curated centralized repository system available like on Ubuntu or Android, the system becomes 'closed' because it effectively creates this 'barrier' you mentioned due to the new convenience. So is there no middle-ground here?
Re 3: Sad, yes, but it doesn't prevent sideloading as far as I know.
Oh Please. It doesn't mean the general public _cannot_ do it. And you don't even have to be a root.
True as this may be, it's also not as bad as it sounds. Take a look at what Humble Bundle did -- a very lightweight appstore-like thing, with very clear instructions for installing it once. They seem to have done okay with that.
Not if FireFoxOS gets enough support
http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/partners/
With FFxOS, web designer and developers can leverage their web design & development skills. All system calls are exposed via javascript API (aka open Web APIs). See more details here (https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Firefox_OS)
It wasn't so much that FF was good (although it was), but that IE sucked so unbelievably hard. The difference made the switch a given for anyone with a passing understanding of computers.
Mozilla has ranted about Microsoft restrictions preventing them from making a decent competing browser in WP8. Well, go make a competing browser in FFOS...
Mozilla has tricked everybody into thinking "Web technologies" meant "open", but this is absolutely not true.
Oh, but maybe it will at least solve distribution of apps you can make? Because, you know, everybody knows there will be no distinctions between apps installed from their store and other places, right?
Yeah... Let me tell you how it actually works. Mozilla has finally figured that mobile security is hard, so they have decided to have permissions. There are two kinds of permissions. The first one is those that they think users can understand (for instance "use the camera"). For them, the device asks the user if they grant them, problem solved.
And then there is the second kind of permissions, those that they think are too hard to explain to the average user. For instance, "make a request to another domain" (systemXHR). For those your app has to be in their app store and validated by Mozilla. Does that ring a bell?
So no, Firefox OS is definitely not the answer. Android way is better on that front, actually. Another interesting project could be Sailfish.
In fact, the opposite problem made it a haven for malware and viruses.
In terms of the ability to run random bits of code on it, Windows was highly open. Perhaps too open when you take into account not only malware, viruses, and spyware, but the various crapware/bloatware OEMs would pile onto their Windows preloads.
Arguably some Linux distros, with their comprehensive archives, though with rules for what could or couldn't be installed (based on licensing requirements) were more "locked down", though in truth you're more than open to install third party from sources, as binaries, or any other means you care. In practice, I prefer sticking largely to my distro's own archives and installation tools, precisely because the software is both more vetted and generally behaves far better.
So, no, your criticism really isn't valid.
Now, I can put ubuntu linux on my machine - for free (or in my case, preloaded from DELL at a discount over windows) and get a million different toolchains with free documentation online.
Windows was as open as open can get, in the sense of, "Do I need to ask anyone's permissions to create, install, and sell a binary for this platform?"
i guess the part of my complaint that had the most to do with 'closed' was the MFC/developer licensing part. I knew enough to know there were APIs lying underneath that weren't exposed to me that I could do awesome stuff with if I was able to see it. At least with BeOS it "felt" like the most important part of the API were exposed - and with linux I know that they are in principle, even though I never use them.
Microsoft sells and supports development toolkits, and they happen to be better than a lot of the free ones. I bought PyCharm for Linux -- that doesn't make it closed.
The only thing closed about Windows is the kernel source (and even that isn't that closed, start your reading here: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb963901).
Can the same be said for Apple?
That's the issue I'm referring to.
Only because Microsoft learnt from Apple's success and have moved away from their earlier open Windows model to their new Apple like closed Windows model.
Same as it ever was...
Through the 90s and the early part of the 2000s, Microsoft had enough control of the market that it could often kill other vendor's products (or proposed products) simply by announcing that it was going to produce something in the same area of the market. So although the system was technically open, economically the market was controlled: there was only one platform that mattered at the time (Windows) and the prevailing view of the tech press, business buyers and consumers was that Microsoft produced the best software for Windows. So if Microsoft announced it was going to ship something in the future the general consensus was generally that the best decision was to wait and see what Microsoft shipped. It's fanciful to suggest there weren't issues with the old style Windows software market.
Hardly the same
Apple is too secretive for that.
DON'T DEVELOP FOR APPLE.
Considering how many horror stories we've seen, I wonder why anybody would waste their time developing apps for that weird company.
Develop for open systems instead. They will win in the end.
The way to mitigate this risk is to create an MVP that you don't put a lot of work into. Then afterwards iterate and improve upon it.
You have a curious definition of "win in the end".
Apple does make money, but Android and Microsoft are eating their market share like mad. Apple was smart enough to invent a new market, but isn't smart enough to keep it.
They didn't until windows 8. The 'classic' desktop hasn't changed, but you can't run Modern UI apps other than from the app store, and on ARM you can't run anything that's not modern UI unless it's from Microsoft.
Microsoft also has other OS platforms (Windows phone) with exactly the same model as Apple's, only less transparent.
Money? An enormous and dedicated user base? Users who expect high quality UX and are willing to pay for apps that provide it?
edit: Wait, I forgot a few: a very limited number of hardware platforms to target? The ability to target at most, two OS revisions and cover the vast majority of users?
It is, in many ways, an easier platform to build high quality software for. On top of that, the users there give a damn about the quality of the software (and not some ephemeral quality like "openness").
> Develop for open systems instead. They will win in the end.
"In the end" is awfully open ended, and really there's very little to demonstrate that open systems always win in the end. Exceedingly closed systems sometimes fail fast due to lack of adoption, but that doesn't really hold in this case. Apple consistently releases hardware and software that, despite being closed, many users perceive as "best-in-class" (it does not matter whether you agree that they are -- the fact remains that many users believe that to be the case). Developers back that up by building best-in-class software for the closed platform because some of them also believe it to be best-in-class. As long as you've got that feedback cycle in place, I don't believe a case can be made for openness even being a substantial factor in the shape of the market.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/appsblog/2013/jun/10/bbc-wea...
Perhaps the requirements are somewhat relaxed for large entities.
That sure sets a low bar for what it means to be evil.
It blows. But now you know why you need to support an open platform.
No, there aren't, because a critical part of "platform to develop apps for" is a user base. Specifically, a user base willing to pay money for things. On mobile, that means iOS and to a much lesser extent Android and Windows Phone.
"Develop for an open platform" is like telling somebody to grow a third leg. There are no relevant open platforms. Nor will there be, because consumers do not value openness and no other developers are going to damage themselves by only providing products on niche systems.
Linux is an open platform.
Android is an open platform in the sense that, if Google blocks you from the Play Store, people can still install your APK off the web.
Linux has such a small userbase as to be essentially irrelevant. Platform fragmentation is a massive pain in the ass and its users are generally unwilling to spend money on software (video game addictions aside).
Android has a userbase but they don't seem to really spend money, either; the overwhelmingly dominant revenue source for most cross-platform applications is iOS. And I say that as somebody who really likes Android and uses a Nexus 4 and Nexus 7 as daily devices.
You can "develop for an open platform" and have shit-all for a potential ceiling or you can take the (generally minor) risk of developing for iOS and actually have a chance (if small) of making something that pays for itself. It's disingenous to tell developers "well, develop for an open platform" when doing so means you don't pay your rent.
But, people are definitely making a good living pursuing other business models for software on the web, Android, etc.
Some people even make money selling games on open platforms (Minecraft is an example off the top of my head. There are several other PC games that come to mind.)
I appreciate that this is difficult to change because prudishness is deeply engrained in our culture, but I would like to see tech companies take a more progressive role in opening up a realistic dialogue about sex.
The weird rules (apps vs browsers) likely just fall out from the "censorship theater", in a parallel with airport security. It's an escape hatch, giving the organisation an "At least we tried!" defence.