Adobe on Iphone: Will Apple allow it?
bitsandbuzz.com
bitsandbuzz.com
"Apple is undeniably the most proprietary and closed technology company in the software industry. In fact, Apple makes companies like Microsoft and Adobe look like nonprofit open source organizations in comparison"
Apple is the only software company that lock the service, software, and hardware together. Microsoft would have never been able to pull the iStore market scam. But somehow, Apple can do it. Apple can create an ecosystem where they are the only gate keeper of what people can create and distribute.
I really like Software, and for what I am concern, Apple's iPhone/iStore system is a disease for the software and Internet industry. If Microsoft, Palm, and Android, would start doing the same, then we would be in a world where innovation will be gated by the incumbents. No more Firefox, no more Skype.
Apple are not interested in doing anything lackluster — from their perspective and according to their priorities, that is. It's just not in their nature to compromise with quality, hence you get a bunch of other compromises instead, all of which are well-known.
The mobile market was opening up. Windows Mobile, Palm, J2ME devices lead the way of openness by allowing users to install new application on their devices as they did on PC. This was quite step forward given the fact that service providers wanted to charge for everything.
And here we go, Apple with their cute bouncing pixels comes and tells us that we need to live in a world where only one organization can decide what application we can use. And while everybody argue about applications should have been approved or not, nobody is asking the right question "do we want a gate keeper or not?". This is a huge step backward in the software industry. But somehow, people think that innovation is about flying pixels and forget that the ecosystem around a product is as important as the product in itself.
Clearly, the iPhone has a number of very attractive attributes, as is evident not only from the fact that it's selling unprecedentedly well, but also from the fact that it's changed the direction of the entire industry.
Apple made a number of choices with the iPhone, and certainly they can't be all that bad, given the phenomenal success they've had. Even if you just limit the argument to the AppStore, the fact that they've also had unprecedented success in bringing developers on board should give you a hint or two that it's not as one-sided as you make it out to be.
Before you can bring anything constructive to a discussion on this subject, you really need to stop lying to yourself. Take a sober look at the choices Apple has made, and realize that each of them has both advantages and disadvantages.
1) Great product ahead of any other existing product at the time (not anymore though).
2) Understand that the mobile market value chain was vastly different than the PC one and architected a platform that would be attracting existing market players while creating a exclusive new market for themselves (this was so bold and smart).
3) Steve Jobs genius.
Now, the only thing that scares me is that they did it in the most proprietary way that any software companies have ever dare doing. Apple is the living proof that openness is not a required ingredient to create new technology based markets.
So, again, kudos to Apple to revolutionize a market that have been frozen for years. However, they are doing it in such as way that it could set a very bad precedence to the software industry.
I do not want to have to go through a iMicrosoftStore to publish my Windows application, a iGoogleStore to publish a Web Site, a iAndroidStore to publish a mobile application.
I have nothing against software stores, but they should be optional not required.
I agree completely. My hope is that AppStore will become optional, rather than the exclusive way to get apps on the iPhone.
But I do think it was a wise decision to start out with the AppStore as the one exclusive way to get on it, and judging from their phenomenal success in both sales and attracting developers, it was probably a smart choice.
Lest not forget, the AppStore makes it extraordinarily easy to buy and download apps. Only by making it the exclusive way to get apps on the iPhone were they able to make sure that users found the experience of buying and downloading apps so effortless that it makes impulse purchases super simple. And, safe! iPhone users do not worry about anything on the AppStore containing viruses or malware.
Now, as what they refer to as a "power user", I'd like to be able to just download any app from anywhere and take my chances. But I understand that Apple has to take more than just my preferences into consideration. I believe it is actually not in their best interest to do that — even though it would suit me better. If I were Apple, I'd keep the AppStore the exclusive way to get apps on the AppStore. I'd work on continuously improving the experience and interaction with developers, of course, but I'd keep it a walled garden, approval process and all.
Pleasing power users such as you and me simply doesn't make sense in the big picture, because it would fracture the developer community. Some apps would be on the app store, some on the web. Users would feel safer getting apps from the AppStore, but as recommendations come from friends using apps from the web, soon enough you'd have regular users downloading apps from the web too. And following that you'd have viruses and malware. While users could still just stick to downloading from the AppStore if they wanted to be safe, Apple would still have to deal with malicious apps, problems and trust issues. This, they just don't need, and pleasing the relatively few power users just doesn't make any sense, considering the sacrifice.
Though I'd be just fine with it, I understand very well why Apple does not prioritize my needs in this.
If you step back and look at the consequence of having iStore model (exclusive control on application distribution) in the software industry, you cannot conclude that this is a good step forward.
The fact that Apple made the iStore the only way to distribute application is not about maintaining quality, experience, ..., it is about controlling the distribution. And this control does not exist in the PC world, and was going to disappear in the mobile world.
But point taken, I will be more diplomatic in my answers.
And of course it's also about controlling quality, are you kidding? Don't reduce this to only being about either one thing or the other — like you apparently love to do — it's obviously a multifaceted issue.
Quality has got to be one of the very primary concerns, Apple would absolutely hate for the iPhone to become a malware infested platform which consumers are afraid to download apps for, always on the look out for viruses, wondering if every unexpected behaviour is the fault of a trojan — like on a certain other platform.
Don't get me wrong, Apple don't just want quality because they're knights in shining armor — they want to make money. And how do you make money? First, make sure your customers feel completely secure and don't hesitate about downloading a new app for even a second. You cannot do that without very high quality apps, distributed in a very secure way. It's not malice, it's a win-win strategy. As has been proven in a plethora of ways.
While the walled garden of AppStore can definitely and be seen as a step backwards, don't you think that the unprecedented amount of apps AppStore makes available for a mobile phone — and the unprecedented amount of developers finally being able to make a living from developing mobile apps — represent a gigantic step forwards?
Once again it's ridiculous to reduce this complex setup to being just one of two things.
Don't be diplomatic. Be open to the fact that things aren't that simple. You'll never understand another's perspective if you don't even make an attempt to.
Obviously things are not as simple as they look, otherwise, we would not be talking about it.
Now that this is out of the way. I think that quality is a pretext. Apple could have let developers distribute their application by other mean, and keep the same AppStore quality. The fact that AppStore is the only way to distribute an iPhone app does not make it higher quality. I would actually argue the opposite. If developers had other means to distribute their mobile application, Apple could fairly refuse the "iFart" type of applications and accept only applications that have real entertainment or productivity value.
Also, I know people developing iPhone apps, and while they welcome the additional income, it is not that easy to make a living out of it. Some might, but I do not think it is as big as people think it is.
Sure, not everybody doing iPhone apps are bathing in cash. But before the iPhone came along, there was no mobile development business to speak of. It barely even existed. Now it's huge. That's not a step forward in your single-faceted view?
Anyway, thank you for sharing your thoughts, they were very insightful , in a multifaceted way.
e.g. Apple has open sourced the core OS and WebKit (Safari's html engine). MS has open sourced neither.
Nokia uses WebKit. Android does. etc. Nobody uses IEmobile unless forced to.
Oh, and didn't MS actually pull the iStore scam with Zune, and only lost due to low markedshare of the Zune and being unable to come to proper terms with the RIAA because MS was too focused on DRM?
This is what I am against.
Not that I necessarily disagree with you though
I thought WebKit was Open Source before Apple used it to build Safari?
Yes they would. It's called Xbox and Zune HD.
I mean, the difference is staggering: Apple gets cussed out daily because of how closed their iPhone app distribution system is — but nobody is wasting a single breath about Microsoft's Xbox equivalent.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that it's just because were used to one, and not the other.
It isn't bytecode, it is a binary on a commonly used platform (ARM).
But in general, somewhat a moot point seeing that Flash apps compiled using this method are already in the app store at present, as well as a variety of other applications made using things that aren't Apple's SDK. As long as you abide by their restrictions it doesn't look like apple cares what you program in.
BTW, John's comment is interesting: http://www.bitsandbuzz.com/article/adobe-on-iphone-will-appl...
See John's comment: http://www.bitsandbuzz.com/article/adobe-on-iphone-will-appl...
I would be happy to be wrong on this one.
Guess that's what happens when "Enterprise Web 2.0 Experts" talk about things that aren't "Enterprise Web 2.0"...
Nice joke about the "Enterprise Web 2.0 Experts." Ironically, I was very involved in 2000 in the mobile space, before the "enterprise Web 2.0" stuff.
What Apple's doing now is trying to drag their feet as long as possible. Because the longer they can hold out the more momentum they get. Both in Apps written specifically for the iPhone and video on the web (Quicktime gains more and more marketshare as more people use the iPhone to view video)
That's the beauty of the situation. Apple can drag their feet for a few more years and if the Adobe mobile platform starts to gain momentum they can support it and have all the advantages in an instant.
They have the upper hand over the whole situation and have invested a lot in Flash alternatives including HTML5 (via WebKit) and video with MP4. In addition, the battery suck will ruin the (already short) battery life, and I don't think they will compromise the user experience for Flash
As for alternatives like HTML 5 we're at least a decade away from widespread use of those (since there are people who wait forever to upgrade their browser). So I don't see Apple being able to stall for that long.
Even if Apple wants Flash on the iPhone, and that's not a certainty (or even likely if you ask me), but even if they do, they sure as hell are not going to settle for something as poor as what they've gotten for Mac OS X. Apple has standards, and in their view it's better to not have anything at all, than to have something that is bad.
Regardless of what you think of Microsoft and Google I guarantee you they will some day be competitive. Apple may still maintain the lead but not the dramatic one they have now. Once those two are competitve Apple won't be able to dictate terms like they do now.
Piss poor performance.
I wouldn't be so sure of that. What is Flash really used for?
Video? The iPhone already plays back h.264, the format used for high-quality Flash streaming. Most of the major video sites either serve up iPhone-tailored versions which stream the video directly (e.g. http://iphone.dailymotion.com) or have native applications that do the same (e.g. the YouTube app that the iPhone has had from the start). The result is better performance, better battery life, better quality and better overall experience, all without using Flash.
Games? The iPhone has no shortage of games, and with Flash CS5, the same games can be deployed as native applications, where they will undoubtedly perform better. Many Flash games designed for desktops aren't very playable on a smartphone anyway.
Aside from those, the most commonly-encountered uses of Flash are obnoxious animations and sites built entirely in Flash, neither of which would seem to inspire demand. What's left?
This isn't to say that Flash adds nothing, only that it seem like such an obvious necessity as it does in a desktop browser.