Sunday, 11 April 2010

In defense of the iPhone 4.0 SDK section 3.3.1

There have been many blog posts about the new iPhone 4.0 SDK which do not like section 3.3.1 of the developer license agreement, which says:

3.3.1 — Applications may only use Documented APIs in the manner prescribed by Apple and must not use or call any private APIs. Applications must be originally written in Objective-C, C, C++, or JavaScript as executed by the iPhone OS WebKit engine, and only code written in C, C++, and Objective-C may compile and directly link against the Documented APIs (e.g., Applications that link to Documented APIs through an intermediary translation or compatibility layer or tool are prohibited).

Apple's introduced restrictions on original programming language, which has been considered an attack against Adobe Flash. However, there is more to it. The market for smartphones has been very diverse for a long time. Microsoft has attempted to standardize smartphones on Windows Mobile, which failed because of its power consumption and because it was always a bit late to the market. Apple made a huge hit with the iPhone, because they combined new technologies that made it possible to give a great smartphone experience, earlier than what would otherwise have been possible. They were rewarded for innovation.

Now, that everybody is catching up on the basic technology, like touchscreens and sensors, other software vendors are seeking ways to standardize the ways that software is written for many platforms. There is a huge saving if software vendors can create one application that can be deployed on iPhone, Android, Maemo, Bada and others, and on many different form factors. What would the result be for Apple? They would just be one of many, and they would probably not have any significant advantage over the competition. This means that their margins would drop, in a market where prices are already going down, and they would earn a lot less money. Apple does not want that, of course.

For the consumer, that would mean a lot of apps, which do not exploit each platform well - the feature lists would focus on the lowest common denominator for the target platforms, and few platform-specific features would be used for marketing apps. It would be hard for phone platform developers to add new capabilities that the developers would love to use.

Apple's strategy is to separate itself from the apps on other platforms, giving the user a unique and different experience, which they believe will be better than usual. If you have three features, and Apple does the first two perfectly but not the third, and the competitors do all three in a mediocre way, many consumers will pick the Apple product. A good example is the HP Slate: It supports flash, but nobody cares, consumers still want the iPad.

The iPhone and the iPad will never become devices that can do everything. Of those who had this expectation, many will be unhappy about Apple's latest move, but anyone who wants innovation in smartphones, great user experiences and real choice, should be happy about the new section 3.3.1.

15 comments:

LDS said...

Ne day you will reread your own post and regret it, believe me.

Lars D said...

Why?

gabr said...

I don't see any reason why restrictions for iPhone should be any stricter than for the Windows.

"From now on you can only develop for Windows using C#." What would you say to that.

Lars D said...

@gabr: Windows is a general-purpose platform, Apple has never handled the iPhone as such. If you look at the value of source code, I'm quite sure that Microsoft decisions have ruined much more source code than this decision from Apple. And remember, even some Linux repositories have similar restrictions on programming languages, even though they may not have put it down in writing.

I think it is more fair to compare iPhone apps to Music in a Music store, or paintings in a museum. I see no reasons why it should be any different, as long as Apple hasn't promised otherwise. Apple is still a small player in the mobile phone business, and under severe attack from many sides, and I see the new license as a sign, that Apple doesn't assume that they will dominate any time soon. There are lots of smartphone alternatives.

Google has already moderated their app store, too, by removing tethering apps for T-mobile customers in USA, and we are probably going to see much more of this; Vodafone just announced that they will launch an app-store, where they test all apps for compatibility with their devices. I guess that "compatibility" can mean many things, but that Vodafone focuses on delivering a great end-user experience. Even Ubuntu Linux does something similar: If I write some software using a commercial proprietary and closed programming language, and machine-translate it to C, I would not expect Ubuntu to include this app in their repository.

In a free market, anybody who thinks that they can create a better product, is free to do so. And the consumer enjoys the freedom of choice, so if you don't like it, buy something else. I have not seen any documentation that Apple has broken any promise about their product, and I believe that Apple's focus on energy efficiency in 3rd party apps will pay off in a better user experience, that may inspire other platform vendors to improve their products.

Mike said...

You said it. I don't want to comment Adobe vs. Apple. We can only guess...

The arguments on both sides do not fit.
Adobe: The do not open their APIs.
Apple: They don't use it. - it is some kind of show... - childish quarrel - they didn't make it ... the customer sees - Flash does not work maybe also not on Mac OS/X or in the Safari browser --> "Daddy do not upgrade cannot play Farmville any longer";-). (*this is not totally correct...*) Maybe they are friends again tomorrow evening. No one knows... or it is really a straight hit into direction of Adobe ... They origin from the Mac and treated this plattfrom not really friendly since they make a lot more money under Windows.... (this is said...)

In general I think this statement will not have lots of impact to existing implementations. Maybe the statement is little offending - I believe that many developers younger ones see a MacBook more as a special Linux on different Hardware. The are not the followers of the X$. From this point it is not wise. So I'm wondering a little, isn't the pragmatic programmer one that should learn at least a scripting language a year ... to get to know different concepts and what then... working around advantages of dynamic languages with RTTI in C++ ... mhhhh ....

It will not impact a lots of software written for IPHONE I think as it was announced as a big feature that flash can be cross compiled. Mhhhhh.

What I have read is a mixture of different streams in this discussion

1) Software written with Falsh (polling problem ... forced from the servers side too)
2) Adobe seems to have follow a more common approach not relying on new features like the notfication
3) maybe they want to have video streaming built in hardware ...
4) Adobe does not use existing hardware features
5) Flash on Apple Mac OS/X
6) HTML 5
7) Developers ask the WPF question --> What programming for;-).
8) Creating their own devloper community "only for them"
9) Someone has to buy a Mac to run XCode ... (this nice - but someone who has the power to develop for the IPHONE can afford a MacBook at least or a Mac Mini).
10) Innovation that goes beyond Apples innovations concerning gestures ... Apple is innovative and they know what their users want ... Maybe they have recognized that not only the average user absolutely knowing nothing concerning IT skills is now on Apple. "The more you use your reins the less they use their brains".
11) ...

Apple is still following the thinking of users as end users and it seems that they not really willing to move away from the "clean" computer image. This is ok. And for this I'm sure they would be willing to make also developers a lot more dependent (compared to ABAP and SAP) from them. There is always at least two sides of a medal. Call 'em A$.

Just to clarify. Building products for Apple and making Business with Apple is not funny. They always demanded a lot, restricted on the other hand enabled (for sure), decided for one product for a certain "task" - but it was never "the big" business (also due to little devices). The price had to fit and competition among software deliverers they did not like - maybe to many features no one needs or prices that are too low (typical problems of nowadays Windows Shrinkwrap market). Does not fit the image ... This has changed, not the image, you can make money today.

The problem in general with heterogenous devices is in the end ... as Lars mentioned reduce to the common denominator or run into not supported features. Now I have this Smartphone but funcionallity is not used ... this kills a product. Embedded devices and a broad range of users is hard. If we think what is not available in cars ... or technology public at all people must get used too. The problem grows ... Since we have wbe browsers people want to have the functionallity on almost every device (high tech device) they use ... And for this my vote goes to a common denominator HTML5.

Mike said...

They want to have software built with what comes from them on board.


Maybe a little lot but as my English teacher told me: "Mike you should write books" or "The much you can write about things you have no idea from - the best choice is journalist".;-)

Had to split because 4096 characteras are allowed only...sorry for this

Lars D said...

It seems that John Gruber is supporting my point of view: http://daringfireball.net/2010/04/why_apple_changed_section_331, quoted:
"My opinion is that iPhone users will be well-served by this rule. The App Store is not lacking for quantity of titles."

Warren said...

The first and biggest problem I have with iPhone is the App Store itself, which makes Apple not only the gatekeeper (who gets on here, and who doesnt) but also the broker (they get a piece of all the action).

The language restriction is really best understood as making sure that they keep themselves in on all the action.

Remember the Commodore 64 emulator? What was the threat there? Commodore 64 Basic V2? Well, in short, even something that crude would allow you to load a thousand (or more) games onto your iPhone, for which Apple would receive what? Zero dollars.

And in the end it's about dollars. You can put a hundred thousand hours into an iPhone app, and you probably earn almost as much on that as Apple does.

So go ahead, and line up in the queue of people kissing up to Apple's business model. I'm a mac fan, and a fan of highly usable polished user interfaces. But I don't like being told what to do, in such draconian fashion.

Warren

Cameron said...

I think back to the days when it was IBM who pushed out statements like this. Fast forward a decade from the 80s to the 80s and their iron fist on hardware and software was left them behind. This strategy will work for a short time, but forcing someone into your development environment creates limitations. Apple has a history of closed architecture and it has been nothing but an albatross for them.

Lars D said...

I have never owned a Mac, but I realize how much Apple technology has meant for Microsoft. Without Apple, I believe that many Microsoft products would have evolved much more slowly. The same principle applies to phones.

Kyle A. Miller said...

If apps developed directly to the API provided the best experience, as you and Apple contend, then consumers will naturally gravitate towards those applications. The applications delivering inferior user experiences will be on the fringes. The problem takes care of itself. Why the fear Apple? Probably because they know you can develop equally and even more satisfying applications without using the API directly. They are not defending user experiences as they are running from competition.

Lars D said...

@Kyle: Very good point, but I don't think it works this way. Several mechanisms will work against it, and the most obvious one is the first mover advantage: it is difficult to do marketing for mobile apps, because the market is so crowded. The first to produce a decent app will have much more money to do marketing for their app than the latecome, and will also have built up a large customer base that recommends the product.

Next, we need to remember that content is king. If a large content provider wants to provide an app on all mobile platforms, they may not publish enough APIs to enable a competing app.

Mike said...

@Lars
>>I think it is more fair to compare iPhone apps to Music in a Music store,
--> This is one point. The IPHONE is a complex product that does not only consist of device and software.

A a Software on Windows or Linux on PC is the simplest thing if we think of desktop apps. This business is so easy and on the other hand still hard enough.

The IPAD alone is complex from its integration aspects into hardware.

The content if we think about music ... music one gets from a store must fit from its volume to all the others ... and should not be corrupted. --> People pay for this ... and Software on IPHONE ... people pay for getting the so called experience ... they pay this experience and they must on the other hand get it. This requires committed developers...

btw: Adobe will support HTML 5.x and use the environment provided by Apple ...


>>Apple is still a small player in the mobile phone business
They are not "dominant" in the market of mobile phones ... this is true.

When I look outside the windows I see an advertisment with a Samsung device with apps on the display that reminds me of KDE;-).

I think it is Samsung Corby... Something like this is still for the masses.

In the end I think this discussion is good in the end also for the Delphi developer community - people thinking in Desktop software only (lots of them) also web developers fall into this catergoy often do not have a feeling what it means to go the step outside the Windows PC world... - there is rough wind blowing ...

Joeri said...

Any argument you can make about why it makes sense for the ipad to require native-API apps also applies to PC's. The ipad is a general-purpose computing device. It's got a browser, a word processor, finance software, games, chat, mail, you name it.

The whole quality argument doesn't fly either, because apple has shown very little interest in improving the quality of the average iphone app (they remove apps for violating api usage or content rules, not for bugs or lack of polish).

So, the way I see it, the ipad is just a PC with a different UI, and this move by apple is not about quality. It is apple's attempt at redefining the PC concept to boost their margins, at the expense of developers. I don't buy into that, no developer should.

If the ipad model works well, they'll gradually phase out the regular mac and replace it with ipad-like computing devices. There's no reason XCode couldn't just be another ipad app. It makes a lot of business sense for Apple, and it's something that's very "Steve"-like.

But even if you don't buy into that, the situation remains simple. When all is said and done, ipad developers can do less than they thought they could, and they're not getting anything in return for what they're forced to give up. That's just not a good thing, for any developer, regardless of how you twist it.

Mike said...

@Joeri
Interesting opinion ...

The harddisk can be replaced and for sure the moment this spreads things will change dramatically.This change is already on the way... we don't need Steve for this.

>>at the expense of developers.
IT business was never different ... it is an illusion that this business is clean.