5 ms·

It seems like every few months, John Gruber hits another clout milestone. Now Steve Jobs's own statements are a self-described tl;dr of Gruber's posts? Not to

by karzeem 17y ago

It seems like every few months, John Gruber hits another clout milestone. Now Steve Jobs's own statements are a self-described tl;dr of Gruber's posts? Not too shabby. Anyway, the puzzling thing here is that as Greg says, most iPhone OS apps are written in one of the whitelisted languages already. Couple that with what I think is the likely fact that Apple is being honest about its motives (namely that it doesn't want its roadmap to have to consider third-party toolkits in any way), and it's confusing. Why would they go to the trouble of pissing everyone off to bring about a result that had largely brought itself about? Two answers. One, I think Apple feared that more third-party toolkits are on the way, and that they'll become more popular. Two (and I think this is a huge part of it), Apple seems to have simply underestimated how mad this would make developers. I wouldn't be surprised if the company went back on 3.3.1, or at least moderated it. Apple's only willing to be a jerk when it and the public agree about the level of jerkitude at hand. If Apple gets more ire than it was expecting, there's precedent for it backing down.

reitzensteinm 17y ago
I would be surprised if they did go back on 3.3.1. They're hurting themselves with the backlash, yes, but they're hurting other mobile platforms far more, further securing their position as the #1 mobile platform to develop for. That said, I'd be surprised if Apple spends too much effort policing the rule. The fact that it exists in the first place will probably be enough FUD to prevent third party toolkits from taking off at all. They'll probably do some kind of automated signature testing for Flash, Unity etc and leave it at that. The upside of that is you'd probably be able to sneak a Clojure or whatever app in and nobody would probably care too much.
- fab13n 17y ago
  > They're hurting themselves (...) but they're hurting other mobile platforms far more. That's true today because they're the main platform. This might change if, say, Android becomes much more widespread than iPhoneOS. When this happens, they might concede on things like 3.3.1. Then again, Apple is quite comfortable with having minority share but huge profit margins in a market: I'd guess that 90% of laptops sold over $1000 are Apple, and that their margin is something like 5 times Dell's...
  - reitzensteinm 17y ago
    That's true. I should clarify that I meant in the short term - definitely they'll change their position the minute it benefits them. But right now, it certainly doesn't. If multi platform engines take off, we are a few short years away from a situation where the choice of mobile platforms is like the choice between browsers is now - no lock in, low switching costs - and I think they want to avoid that at all costs.
    - fab13n 17y ago
      Once 3G will be reliable and truly unlimited, what would cross-platform apps offer that web app don't anyway? There is already a cross-platform, 100% uncensored dev framework, with excellent distribution channels, and it's called HTML5. I'm not sure there is a niche for a 2nd one, especially if Apple is unhelpful.
      - RyanMcGreal 17y ago
        Native apps still enjoy a pretty hefty UI advantage over web apps. I don't see that changing in the next few years.
        ZeroGravitas 17y ago
        And it appears Apple won't be the one pushing it forward, despite all their work on webkit. Which is enough for me to jump ship when the time to get a new phone arrives.
      - BerislavLopac 17y ago
        Actually, I would prefer to put it the other way around: Once 3G will be reliable and truly unlimited, what would web apps offer that cross-platform app don't anyway? Give it some thought before answering.
        masterj 17y ago
        Apple doesn't have to take web apps into consideration when they're considering changing the platform or the API however they see fit. They're committed to upholding open web standards, but have no similar commitment to their own API. HTML standards are slow to evolve by design, and Apple is okay with that, however that is the last thing they want with their own software stack. Apple isn't focused on developing a smart phone operating system. They're focused on redefining what a computer IS, and how we interact with them. That's why they've been so careful about copy+paste, and later multi-tasking. They are taking this as a chance for a clean slate approach to computing and don't want to be hampered (or their customers to be hampered) by slow-moving third party compatibility layers. How much as Window's development hampered by the fear to break legacy apps compatibility moving forward? Apple isn't afraid to make their developers jump through hoops and make changes if they think it will benefit the platform in the end (a la the Intel switch). They'll provide tools to make that as painless as possible when the time comes (e.x. iPhone app compatibility on the iPad, Rosetta) but having another layer in between only slows this process down. Whether you view Apple's actions as that momentous and revolutionary is largely irrelevant. I think THEY do. Not that I'm not upset by this as well, but I'm trying to make sense of it.
- mortenjorck 17y ago
  It took me a few days to figure out why Apple would risk driving away developers like this, until I realized: That's the whole point. Apple wants to drive away developers who are spreading their apps thin over multiple platforms. I think you're right that it's quite unlikely they will relent on this, at least on paper. As for policing, I think you're also right that it won't be particularly onerous. I see enforcement less to the letter and more to the intention of 3.3.1: If your submitted app feels like a rough port, they'll probably check for cross-compiler evidence and reject it on those grounds, but if it fits right into the iPhone experience, they probably aren't going to go hunting for traces of Lisp.
  - reitzensteinm 17y ago
    I don't think it has to do with the quality of the applications at all. Apple hasn't taken many steps to control quality in their app store, and there's not much difference between having an app that's bad because it's a port and an app that's bad because it's a badly made original. What is has to do is with lock in. Right now, there's a decent barrier to porting an application from iPhone to Android, and in most cases the port will cost more than the profit it makes, so it won't be done. If people start using multi platform engines, the ports will be very cheap, and the iPhone will have far fewer exclusive apps, which is a huge threat to their platform. Each multiplatform app reduces the costs of a user switching away from the iPhone to an Android phone or similar. Apple's been on the losing end of lock in with Mac OS for a long time. I think now they're experiencing the effect in their favour and want to keep it going for as long as they can.
    - davi 17y ago
      I think there is also another dynamic at play: Apple makes high-end, high-margin 'lifestyle' computing devices. Every time Steve Jobs gets up and announces a new whiz-bang hardware or software capability in one of these devices, that whiz-bang capability needs to be deployed as widely and quickly as possible into the consumer ecosystem. This rapid deployment lets Apple keep ahead of the Joneses and continue to own the high-end space. If there is a lag while least-common-denominator, cross-platform tools incorporate the new whiz-bang features, Apple loses its temporal edge and gives time to competitors to catch up. The last decade has built up the "Apple == newest" identity in consumers' minds, and they don't want to lose that, it is one of the keys to their hold on the high end (another being incredible design and polish, at scale). If everyone is writing in Cocoa on XCode, Apple's latest & greatest will be deployed that much more quickly. I think this interpretation is consistent with Jobs' terse emails here, particularly the line, "intermediate layers between the platform and the developer ultimately produces sub-standard apps and hinders the progress of the platform" (emphasis mine).
fab13n 17y ago
> I think Apple feared that more third-party toolkits are on the way, and that they'll become more popular. I guess Apple has been surprised by apps popularity. Their original policy was that 3rd party applications ought to be web apps (initially, it was the only way to go). Embedded applications make sense: * for super-tightly integrated user experience: but then, you don't want any lowest common denominator middleware on the way, as they guarantee a crappy experience (typically way worse than a decent and portable web app, see below). * for driver-like stuff that do magic (but Apple always hated the idea of 3rd parties writing such sensitive code, which is one of the reasons why OSX is way more stable than Windows) * because in some countries, users are stuck with a not-so-reliable 3G carrier, so being able to run offline is valuable. Hopefully that's a temporary situation, and I understand that HTML5 allows to write offline-compatible web apps anyway. * because it's culturally accepted to pay a couple of dollars for a fart simulator app, but most people won't pay a dime to access the New York Times content in a web site. That's the reason why most apps are apps rather than web sites, but that's a problem with the web, not Apple's business. This last point is at the core of most issues with Apple's tight control on iPhone apps: most of them should have been web app. They've been written as apps not to benefit from the iPhoneOS platform, but to benefit from the AppStore's easy monetization and publicity. It's about the AppStore, not about the iPhone!
- raganwald 17y ago
  > it's culturally accepted to pay a couple of dollars for a fart simulator app, but most people won't pay a dime to access the New York Times content in a web site. That's the reason why most apps are apps rather than web sites, but that's a problem with the web, not Apple's business Brill! The funny thing is, the price of 'software' has often really been driven by the price of distributing it, not the value it delivers or how much it cost to create it. (Joel Spolsky has pointed out this is why Enterprise Software costs so much: because it costs so much to sell software to Enterprises). The App Store really takes the friction out of the business of distributing binaries, including the friction out of marketing it. So it should come as no surprise that a lot of really good software is cheap in the app store. It won't be long before you won't be able to charge for the NYT in the app store either.
gaius 17y ago
I think Apple feared that more third-party toolkits are on the way, and that they'll become more popular. I don't think is it. I remember when Metrowerks PowerPlant was the main framework. Apple had let their own MacApp and MPW languish. Arguably Metrowerks CodeWarrior saved the Mac as a development platform.

by karzeem 17y ago

reitzensteinm 17y ago

I would be surprised if they did go back on 3.3.1. They're hurting themselves with the backlash, yes, but they're hurting other mobile platforms far more, further securing their position as the #1 mobile platform to develop for. That said, I'd be surprised if Apple spends too much effort policing the rule. The fact that it exists in the first place will probably be enough FUD to prevent third party toolkits from taking off at all. They'll probably do some kind of automated signature testing for Flash, Unity etc and leave it at that. The upside of that is you'd probably be able to sneak a Clojure or whatever app in and nobody would probably care too much.

fab13n 17y ago
> They're hurting themselves (...) but they're hurting other mobile platforms far more. That's true today because they're the main platform. This might change if, say, Android becomes much more widespread than iPhoneOS. When this happens, they might concede on things like 3.3.1. Then again, Apple is quite comfortable with having minority share but huge profit margins in a market: I'd guess that 90% of laptops sold over $1000 are Apple, and that their margin is something like 5 times Dell's...
- reitzensteinm 17y ago
  That's true. I should clarify that I meant in the short term - definitely they'll change their position the minute it benefits them. But right now, it certainly doesn't. If multi platform engines take off, we are a few short years away from a situation where the choice of mobile platforms is like the choice between browsers is now - no lock in, low switching costs - and I think they want to avoid that at all costs.
  - fab13n 17y ago
    Once 3G will be reliable and truly unlimited, what would cross-platform apps offer that web app don't anyway? There is already a cross-platform, 100% uncensored dev framework, with excellent distribution channels, and it's called HTML5. I'm not sure there is a niche for a 2nd one, especially if Apple is unhelpful.
    - RyanMcGreal 17y ago
      Native apps still enjoy a pretty hefty UI advantage over web apps. I don't see that changing in the next few years.
      - ZeroGravitas 17y ago
        And it appears Apple won't be the one pushing it forward, despite all their work on webkit. Which is enough for me to jump ship when the time to get a new phone arrives.
    - BerislavLopac 17y ago
      Actually, I would prefer to put it the other way around: Once 3G will be reliable and truly unlimited, what would web apps offer that cross-platform app don't anyway? Give it some thought before answering.
      - masterj 17y ago
        Apple doesn't have to take web apps into consideration when they're considering changing the platform or the API however they see fit. They're committed to upholding open web standards, but have no similar commitment to their own API. HTML standards are slow to evolve by design, and Apple is okay with that, however that is the last thing they want with their own software stack. Apple isn't focused on developing a smart phone operating system. They're focused on redefining what a computer IS, and how we interact with them. That's why they've been so careful about copy+paste, and later multi-tasking. They are taking this as a chance for a clean slate approach to computing and don't want to be hampered (or their customers to be hampered) by slow-moving third party compatibility layers. How much as Window's development hampered by the fear to break legacy apps compatibility moving forward? Apple isn't afraid to make their developers jump through hoops and make changes if they think it will benefit the platform in the end (a la the Intel switch). They'll provide tools to make that as painless as possible when the time comes (e.x. iPhone app compatibility on the iPad, Rosetta) but having another layer in between only slows this process down. Whether you view Apple's actions as that momentous and revolutionary is largely irrelevant. I think THEY do. Not that I'm not upset by this as well, but I'm trying to make sense of it.
mortenjorck 17y ago
It took me a few days to figure out why Apple would risk driving away developers like this, until I realized: That's the whole point. Apple wants to drive away developers who are spreading their apps thin over multiple platforms. I think you're right that it's quite unlikely they will relent on this, at least on paper. As for policing, I think you're also right that it won't be particularly onerous. I see enforcement less to the letter and more to the intention of 3.3.1: If your submitted app feels like a rough port, they'll probably check for cross-compiler evidence and reject it on those grounds, but if it fits right into the iPhone experience, they probably aren't going to go hunting for traces of Lisp.
- reitzensteinm 17y ago
  I don't think it has to do with the quality of the applications at all. Apple hasn't taken many steps to control quality in their app store, and there's not much difference between having an app that's bad because it's a port and an app that's bad because it's a badly made original. What is has to do is with lock in. Right now, there's a decent barrier to porting an application from iPhone to Android, and in most cases the port will cost more than the profit it makes, so it won't be done. If people start using multi platform engines, the ports will be very cheap, and the iPhone will have far fewer exclusive apps, which is a huge threat to their platform. Each multiplatform app reduces the costs of a user switching away from the iPhone to an Android phone or similar. Apple's been on the losing end of lock in with Mac OS for a long time. I think now they're experiencing the effect in their favour and want to keep it going for as long as they can.
  - davi 17y ago
    I think there is also another dynamic at play: Apple makes high-end, high-margin 'lifestyle' computing devices. Every time Steve Jobs gets up and announces a new whiz-bang hardware or software capability in one of these devices, that whiz-bang capability needs to be deployed as widely and quickly as possible into the consumer ecosystem. This rapid deployment lets Apple keep ahead of the Joneses and continue to own the high-end space. If there is a lag while least-common-denominator, cross-platform tools incorporate the new whiz-bang features, Apple loses its temporal edge and gives time to competitors to catch up. The last decade has built up the "Apple == newest" identity in consumers' minds, and they don't want to lose that, it is one of the keys to their hold on the high end (another being incredible design and polish, at scale). If everyone is writing in Cocoa on XCode, Apple's latest & greatest will be deployed that much more quickly. I think this interpretation is consistent with Jobs' terse emails here, particularly the line, "intermediate layers between the platform and the developer ultimately produces sub-standard apps and hinders the progress of the platform" (emphasis mine).

fab13n 17y ago

> I think Apple feared that more third-party toolkits are on the way, and that they'll become more popular. I guess Apple has been surprised by apps popularity. Their original policy was that 3rd party applications ought to be web apps (initially, it was the only way to go). Embedded applications make sense: * for super-tightly integrated user experience: but then, you don't want any lowest common denominator middleware on the way, as they guarantee a crappy experience (typically way worse than a decent and portable web app, see below). * for driver-like stuff that do magic (but Apple always hated the idea of 3rd parties writing such sensitive code, which is one of the reasons why OSX is way more stable than Windows) * because in some countries, users are stuck with a not-so-reliable 3G carrier, so being able to run offline is valuable. Hopefully that's a temporary situation, and I understand that HTML5 allows to write offline-compatible web apps anyway. * because it's culturally accepted to pay a couple of dollars for a fart simulator app, but most people won't pay a dime to access the New York Times content in a web site. That's the reason why most apps are apps rather than web sites, but that's a problem with the web, not Apple's business. This last point is at the core of most issues with Apple's tight control on iPhone apps: most of them should have been web app. They've been written as apps not to benefit from the iPhoneOS platform, but to benefit from the AppStore's easy monetization and publicity. It's about the AppStore, not about the iPhone!

raganwald 17y ago
> it's culturally accepted to pay a couple of dollars for a fart simulator app, but most people won't pay a dime to access the New York Times content in a web site. That's the reason why most apps are apps rather than web sites, but that's a problem with the web, not Apple's business Brill! The funny thing is, the price of 'software' has often really been driven by the price of distributing it, not the value it delivers or how much it cost to create it. (Joel Spolsky has pointed out this is why Enterprise Software costs so much: because it costs so much to sell software to Enterprises). The App Store really takes the friction out of the business of distributing binaries, including the friction out of marketing it. So it should come as no surprise that a lot of really good software is cheap in the app store. It won't be long before you won't be able to charge for the NYT in the app store either.

gaius 17y ago

I think Apple feared that more third-party toolkits are on the way, and that they'll become more popular. I don't think is it. I remember when Metrowerks PowerPlant was the main framework. Apple had let their own MacApp and MPW languish. Arguably Metrowerks CodeWarrior saved the Mac as a development platform.