<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;developers&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 25 Mar 2013 20:05:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>If You're An App Developer And Concerned About Patents (You Should Be), Here's An Event For You</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130315/02255822335/if-youre-app-developer-concerned-about-patents-you-should-be-heres-event-you.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130315/02255822335/if-youre-app-developer-concerned-about-patents-you-should-be-heres-event-you.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ There are tons of app developers out there who are quickly discovering that there's a major risk they face today: if your app gets even remotely popular, you're a likely <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/?company=lodsys">target</a> for a bunch of <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/?company=uniloc">patent trolls</a> who are feeding off of the greater app developer ecosystem with incredibly broad patents for obvious concepts (even things like charging for your app).  There's a relatively new group called the App Developers Alliance that is putting on a <a href="http://devsbuild.it/devpatentsummit" target="_blank">series of patent summits</a> across the US to discuss issues related to patents and app developers.  I've had a few conversations with the folks putting these events together, and they look like they should be fantastic resources for those who can attend.
<blockquote><i>
Software patents present significant challenges to app developers. Vague claims, product life cycles shorter than the PTO review process, trolls and general uncertainty threaten to stifle app industry innovation and growth.
<br /><br />
Beginning in April, the Application Developers Alliance will host events nationwide for developers to learn about patents and share stories of Lodsys letters, legal strategies and litigation costs, and their ideas about software patent reform.
<br /><br />
Each event will feature an expert presentation/overview, followed by a panel discussion between policymakers, app developers, attorneys, and other stakeholders. Events will include an open Q&#038;A and a networking reception.
</i></blockquote>
You can check out <a href="http://devsbuild.it/devpatentsummit" target="_blank">the site</a> to see when and where the various summits will be held.
<p>
<em>Disclosure: Techdirt and the App Developers Alliance are discussing a sponsorship/advertising deal. That promotion is separate from these events and, as always, this post is editorially independent.</em>
</p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130315/02255822335/if-youre-app-developer-concerned-about-patents-you-should-be-heres-event-you.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130315/02255822335/if-youre-app-developer-concerned-about-patents-you-should-be-heres-event-you.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130315/02255822335/if-youre-app-developer-concerned-about-patents-you-should-be-heres-event-you.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>don't-miss-it</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130315/02255822335</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 13 Feb 2013 14:45:34 PST</pubDate>
<title>Game Developer Connects With Pirates, Sees Massive Support &#038; Deletion Of Torrents</title>
<dc:creator>Timothy Geigner</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130212/10325521952/game-developer-connects-with-pirates-sees-massive-support-deletion-torrents.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130212/10325521952/game-developer-connects-with-pirates-sees-massive-support-deletion-torrents.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ One of the long-running themes here at Techdirt has been our insistence that the best way to combat any negative effects of piracy is for content creators to connect with fans, buyers, and pirates alike. If you treat people in a congenial, <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20120210/02273417726/how-being-more-open-human-awesome-can-save-anyone-worried-about-making-money-entertainment.shtml">awesome way</a>, the goodwill you garner will not only make up for any piracy negatives, but can actually propel your work to further success. Unfortunately, too few people seem to avoid the understandable but unproductive emotional response that comes with having your work show up on sites like The Pirate Bay. The vast majority of responses are vitriolic. Nevermind that some creators, such as when Hotline Miami's developers decided to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20121026/19311320861/making-sure-players-get-best-experience-is-more-important-than-worrying-about-how-they-got-game.shtml">embrace pirates</a>, have experienced the boon of goodwill and sales as a result. No, anger and threats of legal action tend to rule the day.
<br /><br />
That's why it's so important to offer up every example available that shows how mistaken this methodology is. With that in mind, witness how the developers of an indie RPG called Anodyne <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/indie-game-devs-delight-pirate-bay-and-reddit-with-disappearing-torrent-130211/">embraced the uploader of their game and used the exposure to propel themselves</a> into the internet limelight. It all started, as these stories so often do, when a Pirate Bay user offered up a torrent for the game. Instead of losing their minds, the game's developers decided to be the second commenter on the torrent's page, reaching out to anyone interested in downloading the game and instead offering a better way to do so. The text of that comment follows:
<blockquote>
<i>Hi, I'm Sean! I'm one of the two guys who made Anodyne. It's neat that Anodyne's ehre and I'm glad that means more people can play it, though of course we'd love it if you bought the game! We're tryin' to get Greenlit on Steam so we'd really appreciate it if you and your friends gave us an upvote over at <a href="http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=92921739">http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=92921739</a>.</i>
<br /><br />
<i>Most importantly let us know what you think of the game and if you like it or if it fills you with burning rage! - we're on Twitter at @seagaia2 and @jonathankittaka.</i>
</blockquote>
Then they decided to go over the top in generosity by offering up free download codes for Anodyne and pointing readers to Desura.com to redeem them. They saw their game out there for free, reacted awesomely, and offered up their own way to download it for free. This response hits every major way I would have advised them to react to the torrent. They left all threats in their pockets, embraced those wanting to play the game (even for free), used it as a promotional tool as well as a way to crowdsource market and product data, and even threw in a bit of humor to boot. I don't know that I could have crafted the response better myself.
<br /><br />
The response to their actions has been as swift as it has been universally positive. A Reddit discussion broke out almost immediately and Sean Hogan, the developer above, immediately jumped in to prove that his forward-thinking Pirate Bay comment wasn't some one-off bit of clarity.
<blockquote>
<i>"Yeah, piracy is inevitable so it's better to embrace it &ndash; plus, it gives lots of people who couldn't normally afford the game the opportunity to play it &ndash; and I think when you're a small group of developers (only my friend Jon and I made Anodyne), it's better to have lots of people able to experience your game," he wrote.</i>
</blockquote>
The publicity is of course a wonderful thing. Anodyne can only benefit from the positive reaction this story is creating, potentially leading to placement within Steam. But the story doesn't stop there. Because if you go searching for that original Anodyne listing on the Pirate Bay, you'll find it doesn't exist any longer. The site is notorious for refusing to remove such links, so the overwhelming likelihood is that it was taken down by the uploader. If so, this case no longer only serves as evidence that treating pirates well can be lucrative, but also that treating them well can cause them to second guess their decision to offer the content in the first place. Which, of course, throws the entire mantra that pirates are evil kids who just want everything for free into a logical tailspin. In any case, this is a textbook example of how to react to piracy.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130212/10325521952/game-developer-connects-with-pirates-sees-massive-support-deletion-torrents.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130212/10325521952/game-developer-connects-with-pirates-sees-massive-support-deletion-torrents.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130212/10325521952/game-developer-connects-with-pirates-sees-massive-support-deletion-torrents.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>how-it's-done</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130212/10325521952</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 6 Aug 2012 20:05:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Google's App Crackdown Results In Indie Developer Smackdown</title>
<dc:creator>Timothy Geigner</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120803/08073419929/googles-app-crackdown-results-indie-developer-smackdown.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120803/08073419929/googles-app-crackdown-results-indie-developer-smackdown.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Recently, we covered an example of the somewhat pervasive mentality that the Android app store is a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120725/11051519831/app-developer-android-os-built-piracy-consumer-choice-sucks.shtml">haven</a> for evil, evil piracy. Nevermind that the claim that Android is "built for piracy" is completely insane. Unfortunately, perception is real enough to cause Google to exert more strict control over it&#39;s Play Store, and the resulting hardship on innocent bystanders is as predictable as a drive-by shooting.<br />
<br />
Wired tells the story of the Cory and Andrew Trese, two brothers who are the very epitome of indie developers, and <a href="http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-08/03/indie-dev-google-crackdown">how they have found themselves under attack by Google as a result of this crackdown</a>. Let&#39;s be clear in saying that these guys are not pirates, they&#39;re not some mega-corporation, and they don&#39;t have time to fend off unnecessary attacks resulting from an overreaction to a non-problem:
<blockquote>
<p class="p1">
<i>"The Trese brothers are so indie, they don&#39;t even know it. Their games are marketed through a simple <a href="http://tresebrothers.blogspot.co.uk/">Blogspot blog</a> and unpretentious older brother Cory Trese routes all of his regular email correspondence through the address of his wedding photography business. Trese Brothers titles like <a href="https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.corytrese.games.startraders&amp;hl=en">Star Traders</a> and <a href="https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.tresebrothers.games.templars&amp;hl=en">Templar Assault</a> might not feature cutting-edge graphics or revolutionary gameplay, but the ambitious scope of their games and steadfast dedication to constantly improving them has won them a small but loyal following. With <a href="http://gizmodo.com/5921823"><span class="s1">a growing reputation for floating above the needs and desires of everyday people</span></a>, Google&#39;s relationship with salt-of-the-earth devs like the the Trese Brothers are exactly the sort they ought to be cultivating. Instead, Google is about to chase the Treses off of their platform."</i>
</p></blockquote>
<p class="p1">
These are the good guys. The small-business types working overtime everyone likes to talk about. But when Google recently brought their app store under more strict control, allowing them to be more heavy-handed in what they allow on the platform, the Trese brothers began getting messages saying that they were somehow in violation and their apps would be dropped from the store.
<blockquote>
<p class="p1">
<i>"Cory Trese started receiving seemingly-automated emails from Google last week, informing him that he and his brother&#39;s games were violating the spam provisions of the new developer terms and conditions. Trese was dumbstruck.</i></p>
<p class="p2">
<i>"I was terrified, frankly," Trese told me. "I started trying to figure out how we got flagged. Maybe we update too often.""</i>
</p></blockquote>
&nbsp;</p>
<p class="p1">
It should be pointed out that the notion that frequent updates triggered the spam notice from Google is pure speculation...because as Google is now tasked with aggressively policing their app store, they&#39;re finding less time to respond to app developers questions via email or the support message board. The Trese brothers have been trying to get a response to no avail as of the time of this writing.</p>
<p class="p1">
And this is the problem with a shotgun approach in responding to perceived issues with piracy on platforms: you end up taking out innocent bystanders in the process. We saw it with Megaupload, where artists and <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120612/03274619284/dojs-truly-disgusting-argument-denying-megaupload-user-access-to-his-legal-content.shtml">users</a> used the service legitimately but were caught in the DOJ&#39;s ocean-spanning shotgun attack. We see it every time bit torrent technology is attacked, despite artists and users that also use it legitimately. Actions taken against perceived piracy problems need a scalpel approach, so that innocents like the Trese brothers don&#39;t have their creative output stifled.</p>
<p class="p1">
<b>Update: </b>Commentors and Cory Trese himself stepped into the comments section to add some further clarification. It appears that the issue had to do with keywords in the description of Trese&#39;s games that still coincide with Google&#39;s tightening the ropes on their app store (thanks for the comments, guys!). Bottom line, it would appear that there is still some heavy-handedness and a lack of communication with app developers in this case, though Cory did say that Google reached out to them once news of this had got out.
</p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120803/08073419929/googles-app-crackdown-results-indie-developer-smackdown.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120803/08073419929/googles-app-crackdown-results-indie-developer-smackdown.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120803/08073419929/googles-app-crackdown-results-indie-developer-smackdown.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>threatening-innocent-bystanders</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120803/08073419929</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 14 Oct 2011 18:26:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>College Student/Developer Gives Up, Pays Lodsys</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111014/03070416351/college-studentdeveloper-gives-up-pays-lodsys.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111014/03070416351/college-studentdeveloper-gives-up-pays-lodsys.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Lodsys, the Texas-based shell company (with some connection to Intellectual Ventures) that has threatened tons of developers for daring to offer in-app payments for mobile apps using either Apple's or Google's app store payment system, is apparently getting some developers to pay up.  Paid Content has the unfortunate story of Michael Karr, a college sophomore and app developer, who <a href="http://paidcontent.org/article/419-app-developer-gives-in-to-lodsys-in-david-and-goliath-patent-fight/" target="_blank">says he simply can't afford to move forward</a> and can't wait to see if Apple steps in and protects developers.  So he's agreed to pay up.  Of course, because this is the way most patent trolls work, he can't say what kind of agreement he came to with the company.  This is pretty ridiculous, and if the situation doesn't make you angry, you're not paying enough attention to what's going on here.  Basically a company that does absolutely nothing is shaking down tons of companies and individuals for using Apple's and Google's own payment mechanisms.  First, there shouldn't be anything patentable here.  Second, through deals with IV, both Apple and Google have technically "licensed" the tech already, so under basic patent exhaustion concepts, the developers should be immune from such suits.  But Lodsys and the trolls like it abuse the system, knowing that the cost of fighting them greatly exceeds how much they'll settle for.  It's a pure loss.  Money that was going to innovation now goes into the dirty pockets of some innovation-killing patent lawyers.  Sickening.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111014/03070416351/college-studentdeveloper-gives-up-pays-lodsys.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111014/03070416351/college-studentdeveloper-gives-up-pays-lodsys.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111014/03070416351/college-studentdeveloper-gives-up-pays-lodsys.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>exactly-what-lodsys-wanted</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20111014/03070416351</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 15 Sep 2011 06:03:05 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Developers Urging Boycott Of Apple &#038; Google Until They 'Deal With' Patent Trolls</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20110914/10351315952/developers-urging-boycott-apple-google-until-they-deal-with-patent-trolls.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20110914/10351315952/developers-urging-boycott-apple-google-until-they-deal-with-patent-trolls.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Some developers are trying to <a href="http://devsunite.wordpress.com/2011/09/14/macrosolve-and-lodsys/" target="_blank">organize a developer boycott of iOS and Android offerings</a>, getting them to pull their apps from the official marketplaces from both Apple and Google.  At issue is that they feel Apple and Google haven't done enough to fight on their behalf against patent trolls Lodsys and Macrosolve.   To be honest, I doubt this will be effective, nor does it seem properly targeted.  Apple, for example, has been <a href="http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2011/06/apple-files-motion-to-intervene-in-lodsys-patent-fray.ars" target="_blank">quite aggressive on Lodsys</a>, seeking to intervene in Lodsys's lawsuits.  And while Google was a bit slow and a bit more limited, it <a href="http://thenextweb.com/google/2011/08/13/google-finally-intervenes-to-help-developers-in-lodsys-patent-lawsuit/" target="_blank">has also intervened</a>.   So I'm not entirely clear what more these developers want -- and I'm wondering how many developers will actually cut off their two biggest sources of distribution over this.  These patent trolls are certainly a problem and it would be nice to see a strong and swift response from companies like Apple and Google, but it's not like the two have washed their hands of the situation and left developers totally hung out to dry.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20110914/10351315952/developers-urging-boycott-apple-google-until-they-deal-with-patent-trolls.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20110914/10351315952/developers-urging-boycott-apple-google-until-they-deal-with-patent-trolls.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20110914/10351315952/developers-urging-boycott-apple-google-until-they-deal-with-patent-trolls.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>might-be-the-wrong-target</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110914/10351315952</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 3 Aug 2011 10:35:20 PDT</pubDate>
<title>More Game Developers Realizing 'Piracy' Isn't Necessarily A Bad Thing</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110801/03291515340/more-game-developers-realizing-piracy-isnt-necessarily-bad-thing.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110801/03291515340/more-game-developers-realizing-piracy-isnt-necessarily-bad-thing.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've written in the past about Minecraft's developer, Notch (Markus Persson), and how he's been quite vocal in arguing that game developers are making a huge mistake in <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100914/23242711017.shtml">worrying about "piracy"</a> and he's still making <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101004/02172611272/minecraft-s-developer-making-350-000-100-000-per-day-updated.shtml">bucketloads of money</a> by treating his fans right and giving them reasons to buy.  It appears that some other video game developers are recognizing the same basic truth.  HothMonster was the first of a few of you to send in the story of "Team Meat," developers of Super Meat Boy and The Binding of Isaac.  It appears that the two guys behind Team Meat are pretty clear that <a href="http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/118/1184550p1.html?RSSwhen2011-07-27_144600&#038;RSSid=1184550&#038;utm_source=feedburner&#038;utm_medium=feed&#038;utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ignfeeds%2Fxbox360+%28IGN+Xbox+360%29&#038;utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher" target="_blank">they're happy when their games get pirated</a>. In fact, they hope they get "pirated" more, because, in the end, it seems to lead to them getting more money.  As one of the guys, Edmund McMillen notes:
<blockquote><i>
"If the game gets pirated heavily, if it's a good game that people really like, they're going to either buy it eventually or they're going to tell other people about it. Either way it's just going to come back to a sale." 
</i></blockquote>
He later noted his disappointment in it not being seen higher on the charts on The Pirate Bay:
<blockquote><i>
"When Meat Boy came out on PC and torrents started going up on Pirate Bay, I would check, I had a friend of mine who said, 'congratulations, I just saw your game in the top 50 on Pirate Bay for games,' and I checked and we were 30th and I was depressed because it wasn't higher, because that's a measure of success." 
</i></blockquote>
There's also a fun rant in there about the "old way" of thinking:
<blockquote><i>
"The dinosaurs of marketing are really upset by piracy. They think it's literally stealing... They're old. That's really the reason. They're old and their ideas are old. They don't understand where we are now. They don't understand the mentality of people who are pirating things. They see them as thieves, the same people who go and shoplift. I don't f*@#ing shoplift but I have pirated sh@%-loads of stuff. Like it's just not the same, it's not the same thing at all." 
</i></blockquote>
There are more quotes along those lines.  While I like the attitude, they do still seem to take something of a "give it away and pray" attitude.  I would think that there could be more effective ways to monetize what they've done beyond that, but I'm sure their general attitude wins fans... and at least makes lots of folks willing to test out their games to see what they're like.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110801/03291515340/more-game-developers-realizing-piracy-isnt-necessarily-bad-thing.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110801/03291515340/more-game-developers-realizing-piracy-isnt-necessarily-bad-thing.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110801/03291515340/more-game-developers-realizing-piracy-isnt-necessarily-bad-thing.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>depends-on-what-you-do-about-it</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110801/03291515340</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 8 Jun 2011 12:36:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>While Sony Sues Modders, Samsung Sends Them Devices To Mod Faster</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110607/21444514602/while-sony-sues-modders-samsung-sends-them-devices-to-mod-faster.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110607/21444514602/while-sony-sues-modders-samsung-sends-them-devices-to-mod-faster.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've talked plenty of times about Sony's <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110224/23195013251/sonys-neverending-war-against-freedom-to-tinker-innovate.shtml">long history</a> of trying to block tinkerers and modders, culminating in the company's absolutely ridiculous <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110223/01341713217/sonys-ps3-lawsuit-is-about-control-not-piracy.shtml">lawsuit against Geohot</a> (George Hotz) for jailbreaking the PS3.  It appears that Samsung is taking an extremely different approach.  Rather than trying to restrict or hinder modders, the company just <a href="http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2011/06/samsung-cyanogen/?utm_source=feedburner&#038;utm_medium=feed&#038;utm_campaign=Feed%3A wired%2Findex %28Wired%3A Index 3 %28Top Stories 2%29%29" target="_blank">sent a bunch of free smartphones to some of the top modders</a>:
<blockquote><i>
<p>Four members of the CyanogenMod software team on Monday received Galaxy S II smartphones in the mail, direct from the company at no charge.</p>
<p>&ldquo;All four of us involved in the porting process for the first Galaxy S received a new phone,&rdquo; CyanogenMod team member Kolja Dummann told Wired.com in an interview. &ldquo;After the [Galaxy S II] launched in Europe, we just asked about getting some of those phones. Samsung agreed.&rdquo;</p>
<p>The phones came with one simple directive &mdash; get CyanogenMod working on the phone.</p>
<p>Essentially, <a href="http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2011/05/cyanogenmod-android-hack/">CyanogenMod replaces the stock</a> operating system on your Android phone with a customized build, letting you make tweaks and adjustments that you wouldn&rsquo;t have otherwise been able to before. Customizations range from changing visual details &mdash; like slapping a sleek new uniform <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_%28computing%29">skins</a> onto the user interface &mdash; to under-the-hood boosts like overclocking the phone&rsquo;s CPU.</p>
</i></blockquote>
Think about that for a second.  Unlike most device makers, who jealously try to lock down the device, Samsung hasn't just handed over its devices early, but it's specifically encouraging them to get their replacement/modded OS working on the phone as quickly as possible.  Which strategy do you think is likely to create loyalty, win fans, and lead to greater innovation and value for users?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110607/21444514602/while-sony-sues-modders-samsung-sends-them-devices-to-mod-faster.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110607/21444514602/while-sony-sues-modders-samsung-sends-them-devices-to-mod-faster.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110607/21444514602/while-sony-sues-modders-samsung-sends-them-devices-to-mod-faster.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>different-approaches</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110607/21444514602</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 10 May 2011 16:20:33 PDT</pubDate>
<title>The Music Industry Is Desperate For A Few Good Technologists</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110510/01272914224/music-industry-is-desperate-few-good-technologists.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110510/01272914224/music-industry-is-desperate-few-good-technologists.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Earlier this week I attended the latest version of the always excellent <a href="http://sanfranmusictech.com/" target="_blank">SF Music Tech conference</a>, that always tries to bridge the gap between the music industry and the tech industry.  The two sides are often seen at odds, even though I think that's a simplistic (and often just incorrect) assessment of the situation.  Whenever I attend events like this, I try to wait until the end of the day to see if there were any particular themes that became clear over the course of the event.  This time, what struck me, is how much technologists are in demand from the music industry folks.  On one of the early panels, someone spoke of the need for better communication between techies and music folks (and someone else mentioned the general culture clash, and the inability to understand each other).  However, where it really became clear was in the various meetings and one-on-one conversations I had throughout the course of the day.  It was really stunning.  I've never had so many "music" related companies all ask me (variations on) the same question: "Do you know any good technology people who might want to come work for us."  By the end of the day I was laughing every time someone asked me that question.  It seems clear, these music startups are all desperate for tech help.
<br /><br />
I'm curious as to why this was so pronounced.  It could be that (as always!) good techies are hard to find.  These days, there's tremendous demand, and the magnetic pull of jobs at Google, Facebook and Twitter often feels like it's sucking dry available technologists for startups.  But, at the same time, I also wonder if the music industry's history in the tech world is impacting things as well.  The history of music-related startups is littered with companies sued by record labels or crushed by overly burdensome rules.  I would bet that a lot of smart techies recognize this, and don't want to touch anything that might involve having to go up against (or even "partner") with the legacy music industry.  There's plenty of interest in music, but working in music innovation just seems like a hassle that's probably not worth it for many technologists who have other options.
<br /><br />
It seems like yet another unfortunate legacy of the industry's decision to treat the changing marketplace as an "us vs. them" sort of thing.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110510/01272914224/music-industry-is-desperate-few-good-technologists.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110510/01272914224/music-industry-is-desperate-few-good-technologists.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110510/01272914224/music-industry-is-desperate-few-good-technologists.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>oh-really?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110510/01272914224</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 14 Mar 2011 02:41:01 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Twitter Decides To Kill Its Ecosystem: How Not To Run A Modern Company</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110313/17021713476/twitter-decides-to-kill-its-ecosystem-how-not-to-run-modern-company.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110313/17021713476/twitter-decides-to-kill-its-ecosystem-how-not-to-run-modern-company.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ This is really unfortunate news.  It really wasn't that long ago that we were <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100901/13335410864.shtml">praising Twitter</a> for how it dealt with the issue of third parties building on its ecosystem.  The company took a very permissive approach, letting other providers do all sorts of things that really helped to make Twitter much more valuable in the long run, including create a whole variety of client apps that really pushed Twitter.  I know that my own recognition of why Twitter was valuable didn't really come about until I started using some third party apps, that let me do much, much more and get much more value out of Twitter.  However, on Friday, Twitter appeared to want to cut off all that goodwill and value adding by <a href="http://arstechnica.com/software/news/2011/03/twitter-tells-third-party-devs-to-stop-making-twitter-client-apps.ars" target="_blank">telling third parties (effectively) to stop making Twitter apps</a>.  It appears the company will allow a few legacy apps to be grandfathered in, but new apps-makers are forewarned to stay away.  This comes a little while after Twitter <a href="http://gigaom.com/2011/02/18/interview-bill-gross-talks-about-twitters-clampdown/" target="_blank">shut down</a> some third party apps it claimed were "misbehaving."
<br /><br />
The reasoning behind this new prohibition are, frankly, ridiculous and totally unbelievable.  Specifically, it claims that "people are confused" by these third party apps.  Of course, in my case, and in the case of almost everyone I know who uses a third party app (and I don't know anyone who actually uses Twitter's official app), we weren't <i>confused</i>, we were <i>enlightened</i> by those third party apps providing much more context and value to Twitter.  The new rules basically remove a large amount of the flexibility that the existing third party providers can use to add more value to Twitter.  This is Twitter both trying to control the developer market and to take it back over itself.  This is a dangerous move that could seriously hurt the developer ecosystem around Twitter, and push people to alternatives.  Even if developers think they can live within the rules, these recent changes might get them to think twice about building on Twitter since it could change the rules further.   As per usual, Mathew Ingram <a href="http://gigaom.com/2011/03/12/why-twitter-should-think-twice-about-bulldozing-the-ecosystem/" target="_blank">summarizes nicely why this is a bad <i>business</i> move</a>, even if it's designed to benefit Twitter's business:
<blockquote><i>
Without the help of third-party apps like Tweetie and Tweetdeck, the company likely would not have been nearly as successful at building the network (and a ready-made client like Tweetie certainly wouldn&rsquo;t have been sitting there waiting to be acquired). But the ecosystem didn&rsquo;t just build demand for the network -- it also helped build and distribute the behavior that now makes Twitter so valuable: the @ mentions, the direct messages, re-Tweets and so on, none of which were Twitter&rsquo;s idea originally. That created a huge amount of goodwill, and led to the (apparently mistaken) idea of an ecosystem.
<br /><br />
It&rsquo;s all very well for Twitter to claim ownership of all those things now, since it is their platform. And obviously there are businesses that can get away with being arbitrary or dictatorial -- Apple is well known for such behavior, after all, and it is one of the most valuable companies on the planet. But this only works over the longer term if your product is so unique and compelling that people will put up with it. Is Twitter in that category?
</i></blockquote>
The company may get away with this in the short-term, but this is a hugely risky long term move that seems to have a high likelihood of backfiring.  Going against those who helped get you where you are is a very dangerous move.  For a company that used to seem so welcoming, it's a pretty rapid about face.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110313/17021713476/twitter-decides-to-kill-its-ecosystem-how-not-to-run-modern-company.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110313/17021713476/twitter-decides-to-kill-its-ecosystem-how-not-to-run-modern-company.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110313/17021713476/twitter-decides-to-kill-its-ecosystem-how-not-to-run-modern-company.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>big-mistake</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110313/17021713476</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 27 Sep 2010 19:21:40 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Game Developers Can Beat Piracy By Copying Their Actual Competition</title>
<dc:creator>Michael Ho</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100911/00242410966/game-developers-can-beat-piracy-by-copying-their-actual-competition.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100911/00242410966/game-developers-can-beat-piracy-by-copying-their-actual-competition.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <b>Drew</b> points us to a CNN commentary piece from Scott Steinberg, a video game consultant, who <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/gaming.gadgets/09/09/video.game.piracy/index.html?iref=NS1">suggests that video game piracy can be good for the game industry</a>.  Steinberg goes over several examples of game piracy and the corresponding complaints from game developers who are alarmed by the growing availability of DRM workarounds.  But instead of agreeing with the calls for more and more protection from illegal downloads and the use of ever more draconian copy protection measures, Steinberg points out the opportunity that is available: 
<blockquote><i>
For game creators, lowering costs and making titles widely available may actually be the solution to stamping out piracy.
</i></blockquote>
As we've <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20100511/1032029379.shtml">mentioned</a> here a few times before, participating in the arms race of creating ever more <s>sophisticated</s> annoying copy protection only damages the user experience and doesn't provide value to gamers at all.  Developers can, however, offer alternatives to piracy -- more attractive options -- such that consumers won't even look for pirated games.  By adopting some of the tactics of piracy and allowing gamers to freely download and share games, developers can build up the value of their games that can't be easily copied.  Steinberg makes the same conclusion:
<blockquote><i>
By making games more readily accessible, faster to skim and easier to pass along to friends, game makers may actually be doing more to combat piracy than any lawsuit or fancy technical countermeasure ever could.
</i></blockquote>
If only the game industry would see it the same way...<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100911/00242410966/game-developers-can-beat-piracy-by-copying-their-actual-competition.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100911/00242410966/game-developers-can-beat-piracy-by-copying-their-actual-competition.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100911/00242410966/game-developers-can-beat-piracy-by-copying-their-actual-competition.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>if-we've-said-it-once-we've-said-it-a-thousand-times</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100911/00242410966</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 12 Apr 2010 10:33:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Apple Reminds Everybody That It Controls The iPhone Ecosystem</title>
<dc:creator>Carlo Longino</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100412/0850488972.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100412/0850488972.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Last week, when Apple announced version 4.0 of the iPhone OS, it also made a significant change to the license agreement for its iPhone developer program. One section of the agreement was changed to say that iPhone "Applications must be originally written in Objective-C, C, C++, or JavaScript as executed by the iPhone OS WebKit engine" -- a move that <a href="http://daringfireball.net/2010/04/iphone_agreement_bans_flash_compiler">blocks developers from using cross-platform development tools</a> and third-party development environments. So, for instance, if a developer already had an app written in .NET, they can no longer use something like <a href="http://monotouch.net/">Monotouch</a> to port it to the iPhone. There has been a lot of speculation that this was just the latest step in the ongoing spat between Apple and Adobe, since the latter company will soon release a Flash-to-iPhone compiler, triggering a <a href="http://theflashblog.com/?p=1888">"go screw yourself Apple"</a> from an Adobe employee. 
<br /><br />
But this move is actually bigger than that: it's Apple's attempt to lock developers in solely to the iPhone. <a href="http://www.taoeffect.com/blog/2010/04/steve-jobs-response-on-section-3-3-1/">Steve Jobs claims</a> "intermediate layers between the platform and the developer ultimately produces sub-standard apps and hinders the progress of the platform", and they do -- <a href="http://daringfireball.net/2010/04/why_apple_changed_section_331">from Apple's perspective</a>. By requiring developers to use Apple's tools and follow its rules, the hope is that developers will follow along blindly and develop first for the iPhone, since it's currently the best monetized channel to market for them, and then will develop for other platforms later, if at all. The issue for Apple, though, is that it's not competing in a vacuum. Everybody and their mother are opening app stores, with other major smartphone platforms like Android and BlackBerry building theirs into viable competitors for the Apple channel. And as the App Store continues to get flooded with apps and becomes more competitive (and it becomes more difficult for developers to earn a living there), its position at the top of the pile is far from assured. At that point, heavy restrictions on developers and the closed ecosystem becomes a real burden for the company, not a benefit.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100412/0850488972.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100412/0850488972.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100412/0850488972.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>from-the-do-you-have-permission-for-that?-dept.</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100412/0850488972</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 23 Feb 2010 15:03:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>iPhone Purity Test Means No Selling Bathing Suits To Women</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100223/1317118274.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100223/1317118274.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Lots of folks have been submitting the story of how iPhone developers are <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8530124.stm" target="_blank">reasonably pissed off about Apple's new edict</a> barring "adult-themed applications" in the iPhone app store, though it has continued to allow big brand name adult apps, such as those from Playboy.  But what has it banned?  Well, <a href="http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/02/23/swimwear_seller_hit_by_apples_removal_of_sexual_apps.html" target="_blank">don't try selling bathing suits to women</a>.  Apparently, that's considered an adult app.
<br /><br />
While this is certainly Apple's right to do, this is one of the reasons why, in the long run, Apple's rather arbitrary app store policies are going to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091119/1830157014.shtml">backfire</a>.  Developers are increasingly getting pissed off, or worried that Apple might suddenly pull the rug out from under them, with little explanation and barely any recourse.  That's not an environment that appeals to developers in the long run.  Yes, given the size of the iPhone (and soon iPad) market, plenty of development will continue.  But in the long run, some of the more innovative and valuable apps will appear on other, more open platforms first, and make those platforms more appealing.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100223/1317118274.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100223/1317118274.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100223/1317118274.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>that's-obscene!</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100223/1317118274</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 21 Jan 2010 07:20:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>App Store Overload?  Kindle Gets An App Store</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100120/2344317854.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100120/2344317854.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ It's amazing how people see one semi-successful concept and suddenly everyone has to pile on.  The iPhone's app store has certainly been a success -- much more in terms of making the iPhone more attractive than for most developers.  But it has all sorts of people thinking that "apps" are in again, and we're seeing app stores pop up in a variety of different places.  The latest <a href="http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/20/amazon-cracks-open-the-kindle/?src=twt&#038;twt=nytimestech" target="_blank">is Amazon's Kindle</a>, which hopes to make the ebook reading device more valuable with more apps.
<br /><br />
It does make me wonder, though, if people are betting too strongly on app stores, and not recognizing why it works so well in some areas.  I also wonder if focusing on apps and app stores is going to make people miss out on the fact that web-based apps (that don't need to go through any app store) may overtake client-side apps.  We've already gone through this on the desktop, and one by one, web-based apps have come along that match (or sometimes exceed) the functionality of client-side apps, leading many to turn away from client apps altogether.
<br /><br />
Separately, adding another app store to another device may only serve to confuse (or annoy) some users.  If you have an iPhone and a Kindle, and there are the same apps on both, which are you going to use?  It may depend on the app, but my guess is that in most cases the phone is going to win out over an ebook reader.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100120/2344317854.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100120/2344317854.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100120/2344317854.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>it-ain't-the-web</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100120/2344317854</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:05:16 PST</pubDate>
<title>iPhone App Developer Backlash Growing</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091119/1830157014.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091119/1830157014.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Early on, we <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080306/213410471.shtml">predicted</a> that Apple's walled garden approach to apps for the iPhone would lead to developer backlash.  Even if it was successful at first, the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090719/1514125593.shtml">obvious trajectory</a> 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 <a href="http://apple.slashdot.org/story/09/11/19/164229/Respected-Developers-Begin-Fleeing-the-App-Store?art_pos=1" target="_blank">some respected developers are ditching the iPhone app store</a> and reader Andrew Fong alerts us to Paul Graham's <a href="http://paulgraham.com/apple.html" target="_blank">well argued explanation of why Apple's setup is bad for developers, bad for innovation, bad for consumers and bad for Apple</a>.
<br /><br />
To summarize, it's <b>bad for developers</b> 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 <b>bad for innovation</b> because you are putting a gatekeeper in front of any innovation.  It's <b>bad for consumers</b>, because they can't do what they want and often the apps they get are <i>lower quality</i> than they would be otherwise, because developers cannot rapidly respond with necessary improvements and changes.  Finally it's <b>bad for Apple</b> 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:
<blockquote><i>
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.
</i></blockquote>
As for why Apple is making this mistake, Graham blames Apple's general view of the market:
<blockquote><i>
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.
<br /><br />
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.
</i></blockquote>
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.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091119/1830157014.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091119/1830157014.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091119/1830157014.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>openness-is-a-good-thing</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20091119/1830157014</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 6 Oct 2009 15:24:20 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Palm Finally Realizes It Needs To Help, Not Hinder Developers</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091006/0313456430.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091006/0313456430.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've been getting on Palm lately for the widespread <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090929/0356006351.shtml">mistakes</a> 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 <a href="http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/10/05/palm-free-apps-for-the-web-free-development-for-open-source-and-free-pres/" target="_blank">opened things up wide</a>.  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.
<br /><br />
In the meantime... there are still other problems showing up, including odd complaints about <a href="http://gizmodo.com/5374986/palm-doesnt-want-you-to-buy-too-many-apps" target="_new">hidden limits on how many apps you can get through the Pre app store</a>, without any clear response from Palm.  So, for every step forward...?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091006/0313456430.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091006/0313456430.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091006/0313456430.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>back-to-its-roots</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20091006/0313456430</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2009 21:18:03 PDT</pubDate>
<title>From Closed To Open: iPhone App Developer Skepticism Highlights Platform Trajectory</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090719/1514125593.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090719/1514125593.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ 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 <i>helps</i> 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?).
<br /><br />
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 <i>limitations</i> 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.
<br /><br />
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 <i>could</i> 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 <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090602/1036185098.shtml">arbitrary rejections</a> of apps.
<br /><br />
<a href="http://gross.tumblr.com/post/144701524/serious-doubts" target="_new">James</a> points us to a worthwhile post from an iPhone developer, noting how the process is getting to the point where <a href="http://www.marco.org/143265621" target="_new">it's less and less worth it to develop for that platform</a>.  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.
<br /><br />
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.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090719/1514125593.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090719/1514125593.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090719/1514125593.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>closed-vs.-open</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090719/1514125593</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 22 May 2009 17:28:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Dear Palm: The Last Thing You Want To Do Right Now Is Screw Over App Developers</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090522/1534004987.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090522/1534004987.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ 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 <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090519/1120184933.shtml">makes the device more valuable</a>.  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 <i>great</i> 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 <a href="http://www.danrumney.co.uk/2009/05/21/predevcamp-palms-missed-opportunity/" target="_new">overreacting to a minor issue</a> 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.
<br><br>
Now, if you've been around larger companies for any length of time, you can see <i>why</i> 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. <b>Update</b>: Looks like things are getting worked out with Palm <a href="http://pdnblog.palm.com/2009/05/a-predevcamp-update/" target="_new">apologizing</a> for overreacting and a nice <a href="http://blog.gallucci.net/2009/05/so-palm-got-it.html" target="_new">airing of differences</a> that seems to have worked well for both sides.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090522/1534004987.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090522/1534004987.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090522/1534004987.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>bad,-bad-idea</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090522/1534004987</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 24 Mar 2009 20:27:51 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Apple Making Developers Pay Up For Any Refunded iPhone Apps?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090324/0815134230.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090324/0815134230.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ 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 <a href="http://kotaku.com/5181471/apple-putting-the-squeeze-on-iphone-developers" target="_new">demands a 30% fee from the developers</a>.  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.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090324/0815134230.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090324/0815134230.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090324/0815134230.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>restocking-fees</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090324/0815134230</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 27 Feb 2009 14:08:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>The Silly End Result Of DRM: Google Android Developers Barred From Running Paid Apps</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090227/0338093923.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090227/0338093923.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ 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 <i>hurts</i> them.  It happens over and over again.  The latest such example is that developers for Google's Android mobile OS are discovering <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-10173146-94.html?part=rss&#038;subj=news&#038;tag=2547-1_3-0-20" target="_new">they can't access paid apps in the Android Market</a>.  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 <i>anyway</i>.  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 <i>creating</i> and <i>building</i> than protecting.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090227/0338093923.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090227/0338093923.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090227/0338093923.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>over-protecting</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090227/0338093923</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 1 Oct 2008 18:47:13 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Apple Finally Realizes That NDAs For Developers Are A Bad Idea</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081001/1754412431.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081001/1754412431.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ It was definitely surprising to see Apple trying to <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20080925/0112222366.shtml">enforce an NDA</a> to stop iPhone developers from talking about their applications, so it's nice to see Apple (for once!) respond to the backlash by <a href="http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20081001/phone-sdk-nda-doa/" target="_new">dropping the NDA</a>.  However, the company's explanation for why it had the NDA in the first place doesn't make much sense:
<blockquote><i>
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.
</i></blockquote>
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."
<br /><br />
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.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081001/1754412431.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081001/1754412431.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081001/1754412431.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>took-'em-long-enough</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20081001/1754412431</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 26 Feb 2008 03:26:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>If You've Got A Platform Strategy, It Helps To Put Out The Welcome Mat For Third-party Developers</title>
<dc:creator>Timothy Lee</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080225/084730343.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080225/084730343.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The <i>New York Times</i> Saul Hansell takes a look at the <a href="http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/the-chumby-is-open-but-not-for-business/">business model behind the Chumby</a>, 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 <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20041214/1837206.shtml">platform</a> 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. 
<br /><br />
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 <a href="http://www.news.com/Apple-seeks-tax-on-iPod-accessories/2100-1041_3-5620959.html">"Made for iPod" program.</a> 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.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080225/084730343.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080225/084730343.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080225/084730343.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>open-for-licensing</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080225/084730343</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 17 Oct 2007 11:51:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Apple Letting Developers Into Its Walled Garden</title>
<dc:creator>Dennis Yang</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071017/101906.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071017/101906.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ 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 <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071003/193239.shtml">opportunity</a> for its competitors that did allow third party applications.  Well, that edge didn't stick around for long, since Steve Jobs has just <a href="http://laughingsquid.com/apple-opens-up-iphone-to-third-party-applications/">announced that the iPhone will be open to native third party applications through an SDK starting in February</a>.  Strangely, this is a similar <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20030327/181442.shtml">path</a> 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.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071017/101906.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071017/101906.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071017/101906.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>i-want-my-applications</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20071017/101906</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>