“Yes Mr. Jobs. Thank you, Mr. Jobs.”
posted on March 10th, 2008
Okay, Apple Fanboyz. Defend your boy Steve Jobs.
Apple’s pioneering spirit in the field of product lock-in has brought us many innovations in inflexibility for the customer in the name of perceived convenience. But as the details of Apple’s new SDK for the iPhone begin to appear in PCWorld, Wired, and elsewhere, it becomes clear that Apple has brought lock-in to a new and exciting level.
Some highlights from the new developer program:
- The SDK itself is free. It is available for
all major operating systemsMac OS X. - Applications will not be able to access the cell networks or provide VOIP over the EDGE network, but wifi is okay.
- Developers will be
invitedrequired to join the Apple Developer Network for the low low bargain price of $99 per year before they will be allowed tosell an application on iTunessubmit an application for review. - All submitted applications will go through an approval process.
- Once approved, applications
can be distributed however the author wisheswill appear only in the iTunes store. - Apple will keep 30% of the purchase price of each app, though developers are allowed to give away the apps for free (minus their registration fee, that is).
- Apple’s 100 page Developer Agreement (disclaimer: I’ve not read it) reportedly includes restrictions on how you can use the API and a promise that your application will not be accepted into the vaunted halls of the iTunes App Store if it is not pretty enough.
There are some strictly technical restrictions as well; applications won’t be able to run in the background or share files with other applications, for example. These restrictions will be pretty severe for a lot of people, but I can’t say they’re completely unreasonable. More to the point, if Apple wants to prevent applications from talking to each other or executing code, preventing plugins a la Photoshop or Firefox due to perceived security concerns, that’s not really anything I’m qualified to refute. What interests me is the astounding level of control Apple is exerting over this device.
During his address at the recent Roadmap event, Jobs was openly proud of the fact that the new iTunes App Store will be the “exclusive” way to distribute software to the iPhone. How many customers are excited by this idea? If Apple announced that iPod owners would no longer be allowed to load their own mp3s onto their iPods, and that the iTunes store was to become the “exclusive” source of music for the iPod, would people be happy? I’m sure some - many, even - wouldn’t really care, and would stick with their iPods. Some others would defect. But does Apple really imagine they’d attract new customers that way? During the Q and A, he also said that the software lock-down was in part motivated by security, that they didn’t want people accidentally getting malware on their iPhones. Again, is this something people really care about? I have put more 3rd party apps on two different Palm devices and two different Linux hand-held devices without ever contracting any viruses or worms. Heck, with the Palm, we used to beam games and stuff to each other, even to perfect strangers. Without a condom.
For end users, it’s not that big a problem. Sure, the announcement is an admission that, for all this time, there’s been this silent army of programmers out there just waiting for the opportunity to improve the value of your device by writing extra software for it, and Apple hasn’t let them. But that’s not a huge concern for most iPhone owners (beyond, say, the bajillion of them who have attempted to jailbreak their phones). The addition of the App Store to iTunes is simply the logical extension of the existing service; owners who are already accustomed to buying all their music from one store and not being able to play that music on other devices shouldn’t have a problem with this. Hey, if you don’t mind having a car with the hood welded shut and a special nozzle on your gas tank preventing other people from easily selling you gas, then you probably won’t mind if you also have to go back to the dealer for a new air freshener or dashboard gps or whatever. Proprietary platforms have been part of Apple’s business model since the beginning; I could no more install MS-DOS on my Apple II+ than I could install System 7.6 on my Packard Bell (if you remember the time in the mid-90’s when Steve Jobs was not with Apple and there were officially licensed Mac clones on the PowerPC platform, give yourself 10 points!). In the end, though, a lot of people would like to have a product that looks fantastic and works pretty well, and are willing to give up some control to make that happen. That’s a completely consistent point of view, and I’ve got no problem with it. My complaint about Apple apologists has always been that they’re willing to pay Steve Jobs for things they’d never in a million years accept from Bill Gates for free.
So no, it’s not the iPhone owners I’m concerned about. This App Store announcement represents a strictly improved iPhone for them. But the developers are getting majorly screwed. Some will pay their $99 a year for the privilege of giving away their software for free. Others will pay their $99 in the hopes of selling their software, but never sell any copies, or sell just enough to pay for their membership, and will keep paying Apple year after year in the hopes of selling more copies next year. Most galling of all, though, is this “70/30 split,” which Steve Jobs described as a “great business deal.” Jobs went on to justify that 30% fee (or “43% mark-up”) by noting that developers don’t have to pay any extra credit card fees, hosting fees, or marketing fees. Woohoo. Ebay’s fees to sellers are capped at 8.75%. Can you imagine the uproar that would result if eBay started including free PayPal processing on each purchase and more free image hosting, but jacked the fee up to 30%? They’ve been running TV ads for years, after all, so the “marketing” is already provided. I’m still skeptical about this “marketing” promise; Jobs mentioned several times at the announcement that the App Store will enable developers to get their product “in front of every iPhone user”, which even the giant software shops would apparently have difficulty doing. It’s unclear to me how promoting the App Store as a whole will do anything to get my particular product in front of an iPhone owner that my regular web page wouldn’t also be doing. The user still has to identify a need, and search for a solution. Whether he’s searching in Safari or searching in App Store is rather immaterial to the developer.
For professional mobile software developers, this deal isn’t all that out of the ordinary. By some anecdotal accounts, the $99 price tag for a developer cert is on par with or better than similar deals from mobile phone companies. So, for those people who already write games for cell phones, this deal isn’t any worse than they already get from Verizon Wireless, Sprint, and AT&T! High praise, indeed.
The most maddening aspect to the arrangement is how trivially easy it would have been for Apple to get it right. The phone itself is already for all intents and purposes open to 3rd party applications, if the Google results for “one-click iPhone jailbreak” are any judge. If there’s truly a market for vetted software that’s guaranteed malware free, Apple can offer a “Verified By Apple” label for sellers to attach to their applications by selling the $99 developer certifications. If people really do want to do all their shopping in one place, and if developers really do want someone else to do all of their fulfillment for them, then Apple can still get their 30% in the App Store. In short, if their bullshit isn’t really bullshit, they shouldn’t have to force people to comply with it; folks would be banging down the doors to get in anyway. But as always, it’s not the details of the deal that drive me crazy; it’s that the Apple reality-distortion field makes people somehow believe that this new plan is “friendly” and “innovative”.
This rant filed under: Apple
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
March 16th, 2008 at 1:43 am
Whee!!!
March 17th, 2008 at 11:48 am
Yes! OpenMoko, Google Android…someone please come save us. I loved (and still love) the Sidekick platform, but when I switched to Windows Mobile I realized that the [manifold] shortcomings of Windows Mobile didn’t bother me as much as the closed architecture and how you could only use “approved” software. With the announcement of real Exchange connectivity (I love having my desk and pocket calendars automatically synced), one of the main barriers keeping from the iPhone is soon to be lifted, but I don’t like the idea of having no control over which software I can and cannot use. Perhaps web-based apps are the way to go, though?
Honestly I’m not so sure why so many businesses seem to fear “user-generated content.” Seems like providing a framework and then letting your dedicated users maximize it at little or no cost to you is a smart idea.
March 17th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
@Troy, #2:
Web based apps are fine, but do you really want to be locked onto the airwaves just to play Lode Runner? What about when you’re on a plane? But yeah, between OpenMoko, Android, and all the new sub-sub-notes (e.g. Asus eeePC and OLPC XO laptop), anyone who is actually interested in a free, open, and mobile platform will have plenty of choices. But I don’t think it’ll stop the fanboyz from worshipping at the altar of St. Steve.