iPhone App Developer Backlash Growing

from the openness-is-a-good-thing dept

Early on, we predicted that Apple's walled garden approach to apps for the iPhone would lead to developer backlash. Even if it was successful at first, the obvious trajectory was that it wouldn't just lead to problems that drove developers away, but it would eventually limit application innovation, just as other competing platforms were getting good enough to match Apple's. We might not be all the way there yet, but the evidence is growing that the backlash is getting serious. Slashdot noted that some respected developers are ditching the iPhone app store and reader Andrew Fong alerts us to Paul Graham's well argued explanation of why Apple's setup is bad for developers, bad for innovation, bad for consumers and bad for Apple.

To summarize, it's bad for developers because they're distanced from their users, and can't quickly make changes and updates, since each change needs to go through Apple's long, mysterious and arbitrary approval process. On top of that, by creating a very real risk that Apple might not approve an app, developers have less incentive to put in the time. It's bad for innovation because you are putting a gatekeeper in front of any innovation. It's bad for consumers, because they can't do what they want and often the apps they get are lower quality than they would be otherwise, because developers cannot rapidly respond with necessary improvements and changes. Finally it's bad for Apple because it's driving away some talented developers who are useful in making the iPhone so powerful. As those developers move to other platforms, it will help those other platforms catch up, and potentially surpass the iPhone. But, perhaps more importantly, it's bad for Apple because it risks Apple's overall reputation. It makes it harder to hire top engineers:

There are a couple reasons they should care. One is that these users are the people they want as employees. If your company seems evil, the best programmers won't work for you. That hurt Microsoft a lot starting in the 90s. Programmers started to feel sheepish about working there. It seemed like selling out. When people from Microsoft were talking to other programmers and they mentioned where they worked, there were a lot of self-deprecating jokes about having gone over to the dark side. But the real problem for Microsoft wasn't the embarrassment of the people they hired. It was the people they never got. And you know who got them? Google and Apple. If Microsoft was the Empire, they were the Rebel Alliance. And it's largely because they got more of the best people that Google and Apple are doing so much better than Microsoft today.

As for why Apple is making this mistake, Graham blames Apple's general view of the market:

They treat iPhone apps the way they treat the music they sell through iTunes. Apple is the channel; they own the user; if you want to reach users, you do it on their terms. The record labels agreed, reluctantly. But this model doesn't work for software. It doesn't work for an intermediary to own the user. The software business learned that in the early 1980s, when companies like VisiCorp showed that although the words "software" and "publisher" fit together, the underlying concepts don't. Software isn't like music or books. It's too complicated for a third party to act as an intermediary between developer and user. And yet that's what Apple is trying to be with the App Store: a software publisher. And a particularly overreaching one at that, with fussy tastes and a rigidly enforced house style.

If software publishing didn't work in 1980, it works even less now that software development has evolved from a small number of big releases to a constant stream of small ones. But Apple doesn't understand that either. Their model of product development derives from hardware. They work on something till they think it's finished, then they release it. You have to do that with hardware, but because software is so easy to change, its design can benefit from evolution. The standard way to develop applications now is to launch fast and iterate. Which means it's a disaster to have long, random delays each time you release a new version.

My guess is that there may be another reason: the perfectionist attitude at Apple. They don't want "bad" apps getting into the store, and certainly some people appreciate that. But the store has 100,000 apps right now, and most people are never going to see the vast majority of them. Having a few "bad apps" get in isn't a huge issue at this point, and certainly user-level reviews can help deal with that issue anyway. And, even if that is the biggest concern, why not at least allow non-approved apps to be viewed and downloaded, just without an official "apple seal of approval." Perhaps it made sense when Apple was first launching the store (though, even that seems questionable), but if it wants to continue to lead the market, it needs to break down that wall.

49 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Palm Finally Realizes It Needs To Help, Not Hinder Developers

from the back-to-its-roots dept

We've been getting on Palm lately for the widespread mistakes the company made in building out a strong developer community. Despite having had strong developer communities in the past, with the Pre, it seemed like Palm decided to simply copy everything (even all the bad things!) that Apple did with the iPhone app store. It was a terrible case of iPhone cargo cultism, that seemed to assume that if they just copied the iPhone's every move with developers, things would be just like the iPhone. Now that that's backfired, it looks like the company has come to its senses. It's brought in some Mozilla developers and opened things up wide. It's done away with the fee for developers. It's openly allowing people to offer their apps directly to Palm users without having to go through an insane and arbitrary approval process. And, the new folks promise this is just the beginning of a much more open offering. It's about time. This is the sort of thing that Palm should have done before it launched.

In the meantime... there are still other problems showing up, including odd complaints about hidden limits on how many apps you can get through the Pre app store, without any clear response from Palm. So, for every step forward...?

21 Comments | Leave a Comment..

From Closed To Open: iPhone App Developer Skepticism Highlights Platform Trajectory

from the closed-vs.-open dept

I've been getting into some interesting discussions with people lately concerning open vs. closed platforms -- especially in light of the supposed "success" of Apple's iPhone app store, which is a very closed platform. And the point that I've tried to make is that you have to understand the trajectories of these things over time. At any given time, it's never difficult to find a closed platform that is successful. In fact, I'd argue that if you are reshaping a market, often it helps to have a closed platform initially to drive that market in a useful direction -- though, this can really only be accomplished by someone visionary (Steve Jobs certainly counts). The question is how does this play out long term. And the answer is that you can't stay closed too long, or open solutions will catch up and surpass you. We've seen this pattern multiples times (closed AOL --> open internet?).

Where this gets trickier is that the open solutions are almost always substandard to the closed solutions initially. In some ways, this is by design. The closed solution is often much cleaner and slicker, and so it gets a lot of the initial use. But, overtime, the limitations of the closed solutions become increasingly clear, and as people bump up against those limits, frustrations increase, and more and more effort is put towards making the open solutions better -- even to the point that eventually they exceed the closed solution. It's a messy process, but the point where momentum shifts is often a subtle one, and the proprietors of the closed solution usually don't recognize it's a problem until way too late.

I believe that's the case with the App Store. The iPhone itself did an amazing job pushing the state of the mobile phone/portable computer market forward. There are some people who like to mock it as nothing special, but that's unfair. The device itself was a huge leap forward in demonstrating what a phone could be, and many others are just starting to grasp what this means more than two years after the original was introduced. That said, we're seeing more and more evidence concerning frustrations on the limits imposed by Apple's closed system, such as the arbitrary rejections of apps.

James points us to a worthwhile post from an iPhone developer, noting how the process is getting to the point where it's less and less worth it to develop for that platform. You have to put in a ton of work, and then you have to wait for quite a while just to get the app approved (or rejected), and the whole process is quite arbitrary. With that in mind, developers have a lot less certainty, and it shows a growing interest in other platforms.

To date, admittedly, such alternatives really haven't been very good. There are other app stores (some more open than others), but none has really been able to build up much traction yet on other devices. But there's a huge opportunity here if someone else can make this happen (or, if there were a way to standardize across some of the competitors) and start doing a better job serving both developers and consumers. The closed solution helps define the initial market -- but the open solution almost always wins in the long run.

24 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Dear Palm: The Last Thing You Want To Do Right Now Is Screw Over App Developers

from the bad,-bad-idea dept

The Palm Pre comes out in a few weeks, and many are hoping that this is finally the smartphone out there that can capably compare to the iPhone. Of course, one key to that is having a devoted developer community that makes the device more valuable. Palm is betting the business on the Pre, and some of the early reports I'd heard from developers about its WebOS platform were that it was a great development environment. Since I think it's good for the overall market to have strong competitors, I was hopeful that maybe the Pre would live up to the hype (to be honest, I'm thinking about getting one myself). However, slimcat, points us to the story of overly legalistic Palm overreacting to a minor issue and canceling a chance to work with the folks who were setting up PreDevCamp. Now, Palm had no obligation to work with the folks setting it up, but it would be a good way to support the developer community. So why did they bail out? Apparently because one of the folks behind PreDevCamp mentioned on Twitter that he was meeting with Palm, but that he couldn't say anything since the meeting was under NDA.

Now, if you've been around larger companies for any length of time, you can see why this happened. It's pretty standard that a meeting under NDA means that even the fact that the meeting exists is covered by the non-disclosure agreement. So... I can understand (at first glance) how Palm reacted. But, Palm really should have taken a step back and looked at the larger picture. Having the guy reveal the meeting was hardly a big issue. The bigger issue is helping developers feel as comfortable as possible developing for the Pre and making the device as valuable as possible. Freaking out over a harmless "leak" about the meeting is missing the big picture in a way that only hurts Palm. Update: Looks like things are getting worked out with Palm apologizing for overreacting and a nice airing of differences that seems to have worked well for both sides.

16 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Apple Making Developers Pay Up For Any Refunded iPhone Apps?

from the restocking-fees dept

Lucretious points to a Kotaku post claiming that Apple is changing the terms for iPhone developers, such that when users ask for refunds, Apple gives them back the full amount but still demands a 30% fee from the developers. For obvious reasons, this is upsetting developers who worry about getting hit with huge chargeback fees. I would imagine that Apple's response is that if developers make a good enough app, they shouldn't have to worry about refund requests. But, in the meantime, it certainly increases the liability of being an iPhone developer.

32 Comments | Leave a Comment..

The Silly End Result Of DRM: Google Android Developers Barred From Running Paid Apps

from the over-protecting dept

It's really amazing how the use of DRM makes companies do stupid things. They get so focused on "protecting" they don't realize how all that protection hurts them. It happens over and over again. The latest such example is that developers for Google's Android mobile OS are discovering they can't access paid apps in the Android Market. Why? Because Google is afraid that developers, with greater levels of access, will be able to "break" the DRM and create unauthorized copies. Of course, people will figure out how to break the DRM and make unauthorized copies anyway. So all Google has really done is (a) piss off a lot of developers (b) shrink the market for paid apps (c) make it that much more difficult for developers to get, create and test such paid apps. In all this focus on protecting, Google seems to have missed out on the fact that it's more important to be creating and building than protecting.

22 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Apple Finally Realizes That NDAs For Developers Are A Bad Idea

from the took-'em-long-enough dept

It was definitely surprising to see Apple trying to enforce an NDA to stop iPhone developers from talking about their applications, so it's nice to see Apple (for once!) respond to the backlash by dropping the NDA. However, the company's explanation for why it had the NDA in the first place doesn't make much sense:

We put the NDA in place because the iPhone OS includes many Apple inventions and innovations that we would like to protect, so that others don't steal our work. It has happened before. While we have filed for hundreds of patents on iPhone technology, the NDA added yet another level of protection. We put it in place as one more way to help protect the iPhone from being ripped off by others.

It's unclear what "inventions and innovations" would be "stolen" (the company probably means infringed, not stolen, obviously) without such an NDA in place. Also, the patents are a separate issue. The whole explanation, frankly, is misleading. The NDA and the patents protect entirely different things in very different ways, and it's difficult to see how the lack of an NDA allows anything to be "ripped off."

Either way, it's good that Apple has recognized that such NDA's significantly limit its developers. It's tough to have much of a developer "community" when said developers are barred from communicating.

10 Comments | Leave a Comment..

If You've Got A Platform Strategy, It Helps To Put Out The Welcome Mat For Third-party Developers

from the open-for-licensing dept

The New York Times Saul Hansell takes a look at the business model behind the Chumby, an Internet-age replacement for your alarm clock. Apparently, the plan is to keep the price of Chumbies low and make money by demanding a cut of any ad revenue generated by third-party applications. Hansell seems skeptical of this business model, and so am I. Chumby did the right thing by making its device relatively open and trying to provide a platform that other companies will build on. But its plan to demand a cut of other firms' advertising revenues seems like it might undercut that strategy. Especially when it's still trying to get the platform off the ground, it should want to make it as easy as possible for third-party developers to participate in the Chumby ecosystem.

Requiring third party developers to license access to the platform both increases the red tape required to enter the market for Chumby applications and reduces the potential profits from doing so. Potential third-party developers are going to think twice about betting on a platform whose owner may demand a bigger cut in the future. Obviously, there needs to be a way to recoup their investments on the Chumby platform. But if the Chumby becomes a hit, there will be all sorts of ways to monetize that success. Most obviously, the company can raise the price of the Chumby, or sell premium Chumbies with extra functionality. It can install its own applications by default and sell ads with those. It can sell accessories, or create a certification program for accessories like Apple's "Made for iPod" program. It can offer seminars and consulting services to people wanting to develop Chumby applications. It's never difficult to monetize a successful platform -- especially when you're selling the hardware. Putting up roadblocks to the development of new applications is a mistake, even if it generates a bit of extra revenue in the short run.

Timothy Lee is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Timothy Lee and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

4 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Apple Letting Developers Into Its Walled Garden

from the i-want-my-applications dept

Advanced users of the Apple iPhone were delighted earlier this year, when a hack was released that allowed them to install native third party applications on the phone. Then, much to these users ire, Apple quickly responded with a software update, which broke any third party applications that were installed on their phone. By shutting off the iPhone to third party applications, Apple not only pissed off its most loyal users, but also created an opportunity for its competitors that did allow third party applications. Well, that edge didn't stick around for long, since Steve Jobs has just announced that the iPhone will be open to native third party applications through an SDK starting in February. Strangely, this is a similar path that Danger took when they released their Hiptop back in 2003. Danger also started with a walled garden upon its initial launch, and then, six months after launch, finally released an SDK. Apple's SDK will be released seven months after its launch, so it looks like almost they're on the same exact schedule. It is thought that Danger's delay in releasing its SDK killed much of the excitement of third party developers. Hopefully for Apple, however, its cadres of fanboys should be sufficient to get the ball rolling on the development of third party applications for the iPhone.

18 Comments | Leave a Comment..