Apple is anti-competitive

[Ryan Thunder]

Article.

Apple is tightening its already firm grip on what software can run on the iPhone and its other mobile devices, as shown by its recent changes to the rules that outside programmers must follow.
Related

[image removed]

The company is locked in a battle with other cellphone makers, particularly those using Google’s Android operating system, for the latest and best applications that add functions to a phone.

The new rules, released last week, say in part that app developers may only use Apple’s programming tools. That is a problem for Adobe Systems, which announced a new package of tools on Monday that were meant to let developers create apps once and then automatically generate versions for the iPhone and other companies’ devices.

Developers will also no longer be permitted to use outside services to measure how their applications are performing. The company says it will refuse to distribute any apps in the iTunes store that violate the new agreement.

“Apple is doing everything to encourage app development, as long as it’s on their platform,” said Gene Munster, an analyst with Piper Jaffray. “The risk Apple runs is ticking off developers and causing them to want to develop on other platforms,” he said.

But until competing mobile platforms gain more traction, he said, “there’s no other place for developers to go, so Apple can call the terms however they want.”

The changes leave many start-ups and apps developers in limbo, waiting to find out whether their businesses, many of which have built a substantial clientele and taken money from venture capitalists, can still operate under the new rules.

“The truth is that right now, we don’t know a lot,” said Peter Farago, vice president of Flurry, an analytics company with offices in New York and San Francisco. “We have a list of questions.”

Flurry’s software tracks how smartphone applications are used. It has become a popular tool among developers, who have access to details like how long it takes to complete a game or to finish reading a chapter of an electronic book.

Mr. Farago said his company had asked Apple for clarification, but had not heard back.

“We think we can be compliant by doing some modifications,” he said. “We’ll do what we need to do to get that to happen.” Even so, the company is aware that it may have to rethink its business model, Mr. Farago said.

Henry Balanon, lead developer at an iPhone development company called BickBot, said he had no immediate plans to remove Flurry’s software from his applications.

“We’d have to roll our own analytics into the software, which is just a pain,” Mr. Balanon said. “But if we start getting rejections because of the analytics, we may have to reconsider.”

Industry experts like Al Hilwa, an analyst with the research firm IDC, say that Apple is tightening its grip on applications in an attempt to keep rivals at bay.

“There will be a big fistfight for developers and applications over the next few years,” he said. “This is just the early stages of the battle for mobile telephony. Apple’s financial radar is up, and they are trying to close all the holes.”

Mr. Munster, the Piper Jaffray analyst, said that the broader shift in Apple’s core revenue streams, to mobile from desktop computing, was a chief reason for the company to pressure developers. “It’s not about making money on the apps,” he said. “It’s about making money off the hardware.” Mobile devices with more apps, he said, are more attractive to buyers.

By the end of 2011, Mr. Munster said, nearly 50 percent of Apple’s total revenue will come from sales of the iPhone and iPod Touch. In 2001, 80 percent of Apple’s revenue was from its line of Mac laptops and desktop computers. That figure will slip to about 27 percent in 2011, he said.

Apple did not respond to requests for comment. But an iPhone developer named Greg Slepak sent an e-mail message to Apple’s chief executive, Steven P. Jobs, saying that the new rules were “limiting creativity.”

“We’ve been there before,” Mr. Jobs wrote in reply. “Intermediate layers between the platform and the developer ultimately produces substandard apps and hinders the progress of the platform.”

The prohibition on the use of non-Apple programming tools prompted a sharp response from an Adobe employee.

Lee Brimelow, an Adobe evangelist, wrote on his blog last week: “This is a frightening move that has no rational defense other than wanting tyrannical control over developers and more importantly, wanting to use developers as pawns in their crusade against Adobe.”

Bolded interesting bits. I wonder if there will be legal repercussions for this.

[Sarevok]

This is why I stick to J2me programming. Its free and runs on almost every cellphone out there. It also can do same things as 99 percent of stupid iphone apps. It can also make actually useful apps like email clients, browsers and IM programs. Only problem is people dont pay as much money for it. So yeah if I were a greedy fuck I would be coding iphone apps right now. But since I am not I will stick to java for now. In my opinion people working on iphone apps somewhat deserve this kind of problem. They willing shackled themselves inside apples cage for more money so its natural they suffer the consequences.

[phongn]

There are unlikely to be any legal repercussions for this.

EDIT: Also, why are people wanting to sell applications on the largest smartphone base in the US 'greedy fucks'?

[Ryan Thunder]

There are unlikely to be any legal repercussions for this.

Which is hilarious, because Microsoft got smacked for merely including some software with Windows that's easily replaced, remember.

One can only imagine what would've happened if they'd said and enforced rules so that you could only program for Windows using Visual Studio and, say, C#.

EDIT: Also, why are people wanting to sell applications on the largest smartphone base in the US 'greedy fucks'?

The people writing the apps? I have no clue. I wouldn't consider them greedy.

[Stark]

They willing shackled themselves inside apples cage for more money so its natural they suffer the consequences.

What are you TALKING about? They're selling a product to the largest market around. Such fiends!

While it's hardly the most huggle-bunny thing ever, unless the Apple tools are limited in some way, who cares?

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

There are unlikely to be any legal repercussions for this.

Which is hilarious, because Microsoft got smacked for merely including some software with Windows that's easily replaced, remember.

Except Windows is an important bit of software that runs on a wide variety of platforms used by a large number of people. An Apple iPhone is a single proprietary device/platform competing with a wide variety of other devices/platforms. If Apple wishes to make the iPhone its personal sandbox, people are welcome to buy a Droid, a Blackberry, or a Palm smartphone running Java apps instead, or a cell-equipped netbook, or even a regular not-so-smart phone. The two scenarios are almost nothing alike.

[Skgoa]

This is mostly a strategic move against adobe, who make quite a bit of money with tools and frameworks for iphone developpement

[phongn]

This is mostly a strategic move against adobe, who make quite a bit of money with tools and frameworks for iphone developpement

Or rather, would be since their cross-compiler isn't out yet.

While it's hardly the most huggle-bunny thing ever, unless the Apple tools are limited in some way, who cares?

As a developer I'd be pissed - since this also blocks using various frameworks that make 3D programming simpler (e.g. Unity3D).

There are unlikely to be any legal repercussions for this.

Which is hilarious, because Microsoft got smacked for merely including some software with Windows that's easily replaced, remember.

Microsoft was abusing their monopoly position and that's why they got smacked. Apple is not a monopoly and is one of many competitors fighting it out. DOJ will almost certainly let the matter be resolved by the free market.

One can only imagine what would've happened if they'd said and enforced rules so that you could only program for Windows using Visual Studio and, say, C#.

There would be developer rebellion - as there is a sort of low-level one now against Apple for this move. (Of course, Xcode is free, and VS is not). And even then, to an extent there's this requirement: Windows Phone 7 requires managed code.

[Praxis]

I'm curious as to whether or not this will be enforced on tools like Unity3D. I'm pretty sure Apple put that clause in there specifically to target Adobe Flash CS5's cross compiler function.

[Mad]

I'm curious as to whether or not this will be enforced on tools like Unity3D. I'm pretty sure Apple put that clause in there specifically to target Adobe Flash CS5's cross compiler function.

The thing is, Apple doesn't apply the rules consistently when it comes to app approval. While Unity3D is apparently technically in violation, I'd expect it would "slip through" in a number of cases to ensure there are enough new 3D games in the app store. But things written in ActionScript or C# using MonoTouch would be more likely to be rejected.

But you have no way of knowing in advance if any particular game using Unity3D would be rejected under that clause, as Apple's reviewers have made some interesting interpretations of the rules to reject some apps.

[Skgoa]

This is mostly a strategic move against adobe, who make quite a bit of money with tools and frameworks for iphone developpement

Or rather, would be since their cross-compiler isn't out yet.

This makes it even more effective, because it kills the only USP of CS5 BEFORE anyone could decide to buy it and most importantly before important apps and devs use it, which might turn out to be problematic to ban. Apple is very keen on not letting any of the other big players into their 'walled garden', so ActionScript (the language behind Flash) is a big problem for them.

There would be developer rebellion - as there is a sort of low-level one now against Apple for this move.

Really? All I heard is a little grumbling, but nothing that could turn into a problem for Apple. Do you have any interesting links?

[Genii Lodus]

I'm slightly confused as to how Apple can prevent people from writing their app in whatever language they want before compiling it down into iPhone native code. I can only imagine they plan to use legal dickery to do so rather than a technological solution. It's a lousy move which I'm pleased at as I would like to see the disproportionate hype around the iPhone's app store die down. The app store has a bazillion useless apps, millions of games that have been bought by 3 people and a tiny minority of things that have actually made anyone decent money. It's annoying to hear so many people think it's an easy surefire way to make a living.

[phongn]

I'm slightly confused as to how Apple can prevent people from writing their app in whatever language they want before compiling it down into iPhone native code. I can only imagine they plan to use legal dickery to do so rather than a technological solution.

If you want the app on the App Store, that's your only choice (it's part of the developer license agreement). You can also do analysis to see if it's generated by some third-party tool.

[Praxis]

Interesting quote from John Gruber:

Steve Cheney raises a good point regarding Apple’s renewed push for App Store developers to use Apple’s own iPhone SDK:

By telling developers to move to Xcode tools, Apple is setting the stage to potentially switch architectures.

History often repeats itself: In 2003, Apple advised developers to switch to Xcode tools. This was not a coincidental move — 2 years later Apple moved to Intel across its entire Mac line. Developers who complied could simply press a button and applications would run natively (full performance) on new Intel Macs.

Adobe did not ship (non-beta) Intel-native versions of the Creative Suite apps until April 2007, 16 months after Apple began shipping Intel-based Macs (and about two years after Apple announced the Intel transition). Adobe was also late shipping Mac OS X versions of Photoshop.

[Mad]

I'm not sure that is relevant. The updated clause states that the program must originally be written in one of the approved languages. Tools that translate from one language to Objective C (which can then be compiled using Apple's tools) are prohibited.

If the clause's intention was simply to ensure apps are somewhat future-proofed, then it would only need to mandate that the submitted app be compiled using the approved tools and using one of the approved languages.

[Molyneux]

I'm still not sure why people buy these things, to be honest.

[phongn]

I'm still not sure why people buy these things, to be honest.

Have you considered that people might like having a portable computer, a nice phone, and/or a symbol of conspicuous consumption?

[Molyneux]

I'm still not sure why people buy these things, to be honest.

Have you considered that people might like having a portable computer, a nice phone, and/or a symbol of conspicuous consumption?

I don't know how it really qualifies as a portable computer - as for the phone and the conspicuous consumption, no, I really don't understand that. I have a personal antipathy towards phones, which may have something to do with the second. My post didn't really contribute much to the thread, though, so please don't let it derail the discussion.

[Phantasee]

You don't understand conspicuous consumption, despite it being (arguably) central to our present day society and economic system?

[Molyneux]

You don't understand conspicuous consumption, despite it being (arguably) central to our present day society and economic system?

Not really, no.
That's not to say that I'm somehow immune to it, I just don't understand it.

[Stark]

People like to have useful things, and the meaning of 'useful' expands to fill new areas. Most people are fine not having internet access all the time, everywhere; once they get used to it, it becomes normal.

I don't really see how an iPhone is conspicuous consumption anyway.

[Molyneux]

People like to have useful things, and the meaning of 'useful' expands to fill new areas. Most people are fine not having internet access all the time, everywhere; once they get used to it, it becomes normal.

I don't really see how an iPhone is conspicuous consumption anyway.

It's...what, five hundred dollars? For a phone.

[Stark]

In AU, it's generally cheaper than similar featured phones, and it's not 'a phone', it's a computer/PDA/media player/etc.

[Phantasee]

Most cellphones cost hundreds of dollars. The Motorola RAZR, one of the most popular cellphones I've ever seen, was originally priced at around $900 (it was to be a high-end fashion phone). When they realized how popular it was, it was reduced to around $5-600. And that was just a simple cellphone, on the same level as most other cellphones of the time, just (initially) thinner than the competition. My SLVR, which came out in the end of 2005, and that I bought in late 2006, was going for $550 without the contract.

In NA we get around this by signing contracts that discount the price of the phone in exchange for being locked in to a certain provider for (generally) 3 years.

The iPhone is about $800 for the 32GB model, it does a lot more than the original RAZR, and I can get it with a 3 year term for $299. Yeah, it's expensive, but it does so much more than a regular cellphone (and it is comparable in price and features with other smart phones). My only beef with it is that it doesn't seem to be discounted as much as the latest Blackberrys.

EDIT Stark, I think it's "conspicuous" because it's an Apple device, and they have a reputation for being more expensive than comparable devices. So it is a bit of a status symbol, whether it's justified or not.

[Stark]

Oh I see; I understood the term to be spending significantly more than necessary to be conspicuous, not the brand thing. iPhones are so ubiquitous (and in AU since everyone buys on plans and the plans are cheaper than n97s they're cheap) that I can't imagine viewing them as a status symbol at all.