4 ms·

The main way they're different is that people have always expected consoles to be walled gardens. They have expected the same things of phones, but because the

The main way they're different is that people have always expected consoles to be walled gardens. They have expected the same things of phones, but because the developer of this phone is Apple, they thought that the model would be more similar to the way desktop applications are developed. The only significant difference is one of expectations.

archgrove 16y ago
But "I expected it to be different" doesn't seem like a sound legal foundation for anti-trust action. In many ways, the iPhone has been the founding of "open" phone development. Prior to the iPhone, there was virtually no real development allowed on phones that achieved any levels of success (carriers had the platform locked down hard). Post iPhone, we've seen actual competition in this space - the entirely open Android strategy (though their App Store also has restrictions, they just apply them post-release rather than pre-release); the semi-closed iPhone and Nokia Ovi models, the web app model of all the platforms. People claiming that Apple has created a locked-down environment have very short memories - even the closed nature of the App Store via 3.3.1 would have been considered insanely open only 5 years ago. Google have bet that unfettered platform mutability with (almost) totally free development is good for their business model. Great, and more power to them. Apple have bet that allowing a freeforall would cause their business model damage; OK, that's their call. Other platform holders are trying other strategies. The point being, the free market seems to be about allowing them to try these ideas, and fail if consumers don't like them. Whilst Apple are nowhere near a monopoly on smartphones (and they're frankly miles away from one), they should be free to adopt whatever model they think works best for them.
- houseabsolute 16y ago
  > doesn't seem like a sound legal foundation for anti-trust action . . . Don't get me wrong. I'm right with you there.
- gdee 16y ago
  >> Prior to the iPhone, there was virtually no real development allowed on phones that achieved any levels of success (carriers had the platform locked down hard). cough The development for mobile phones partially sucked (and still does, partially; it's in the nature of the beast I suppose, for now) before the iPhone, but I don't know about it being not allowed. You have to draw a distinction between so called feature-phones and smart-phones here. Feature-phone dev was and still is largely restricted (not to mention uninteresting from most POVs) but the same cannot be said about smart-phones. Seeing how the iPhone is supposed the be a smart-phone, we should compare it to those I think. And to that end, I seem to remember writing mobile apps for Windows Mobile and Symbian long before the iPhone existed. Some of that writing didn't even suck that much and I definitely didn't have to ask nobody's permission to distribute the apps. Python for S60 [1] appeared before the iPhone not to mention the c/c++ based toolchains from MS and others. Even the appstore concept is not really Apple's invention, Handango predates it by quite some margin for example. >> In many ways, the iPhone has been the founding of "open" phone development I don't know in how many were those ways. I would say it made it's (phone development) products cool (albeit not yet mainstream) for the masses, and that is very nice and respectable, but "founding" and "inventing" and "reinventing" are just hyperbole filled, marketing words that Apple touts around. >> Post iPhone, we've seen actual competition in this space - the entirely open Android strategy (though their App Store also has restrictions, they just apply them post-release rather than pre-release); the semi-closed iPhone and Nokia Ovi models, the web app model of all the platforms. A few lines up, you were talking about "phone development" and I assumed you were referring to application development because you mentioned carriers platform locks. Now you refer to appstores. Not the same thing. And even there, there was competition [2]. >> People claiming that Apple has created a locked-down environment have very short memories I would argue that it's somebody else exhibiting short memory here but I have already. >> even the closed nature of the App Store via 3.3.1 would have been considered insanely open only 5 years ago. No... it would not have been. Again, please see [2]. The thing is, we had "open for development" smart phones before the iPhone. The platforms were less cool. Some of today's platforms, that are still more "open for development" are more cool in at least some ways that the iPhone. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Python_for_S60 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Python_for_S60 [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_digital_distribution_platforms_for_mobile_devices http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_digital_distribution_pl...
- terrellm 16y ago
  >> Prior to the iPhone, there was virtually no real development allowed on phones that achieved any levels of success (carriers had the platform locked down hard). Windows Mobile / Windows CE phones have been around for years. I still remember the joy of writing my first app in Visual Studio to run on my Samsung i700. Also I spent many hours playing Monopoly on that same phone.
rubinelli 16y ago
AFAIK, console makers require developers to use their SDKs, but they don't care about what happens before that point in the pipeline. What Apple did was more like forcing 3D models to be created exclusively with Maya.
- GHFigs 16y ago
  but they don't care about what happens before that point in the pipeline. They most certainly do. The difference is in their point of control. Console makers exercise far more control over who is allowed to develop for their platform, and that control extends to who is allowed to develop middleware. They may or may not have restrictions on programming languages, but they do more generally exercise a degree of control over the tools you're allowed to use. It's difficult to know exactly what is and isn't allowed, as it's all under NDA, but there are certainly some shared motives. The Xbox 360™ Tools and Middleware Program licenses professional developers of games software tools and games middleware applications to obtain full Xbox 360 Development Kits and to distribute Xbox 360 code to approved Xbox 360 developers and publishers. -- http://www.xbox.com/en-US/dev/tools.htm http://www.xbox.com/en-US/dev/tools.htm 3rd Party Tools, QA/Testing, and Localization companies can also apply for Authorized Status using the same Application. You will need to select the appropriate category from the drop-down box in the Application. -- http://www.warioworld.com/apply/ http://www.warioworld.com/apply/ Under this license program, licensees will be entitled to 1) access to development environment and technical information of "PLAYSTATION®3" which is the same as development environment and technical information that licensed game title developers have access to, 2) develop tools and/or middleware to be used in the game title development for "PLAYSTATION®3", and 3) directly provide licensed game title developers with such tools and/or middleware. -- http://www.tmstation.scei.co.jp/ps3/info_e.html http://www.tmstation.scei.co.jp/ps3/info_e.html
  - gte910h 16y ago
    >> but they don't care about what happens before that point in the pipeline. > They most certainly do. MS/Sony/Nintendo don't require licenses from all the middleware people. However, SOME of the middleware people will ostensibly want to test on the platform, so will buy the product from MS/Sony/Nintendo. If they do not wish to do so, they need not, then the end licensor of those third party toolkits/whatevers, can still use it. What Apple is doing is 1 step more: They say you can ONLY use tools made in a certain way. MS/Sony/Nintendo do not limit that.

archgrove 16y ago

But "I expected it to be different" doesn't seem like a sound legal foundation for anti-trust action. In many ways, the iPhone has been the founding of "open" phone development. Prior to the iPhone, there was virtually no real development allowed on phones that achieved any levels of success (carriers had the platform locked down hard). Post iPhone, we've seen actual competition in this space - the entirely open Android strategy (though their App Store also has restrictions, they just apply them post-release rather than pre-release); the semi-closed iPhone and Nokia Ovi models, the web app model of all the platforms. People claiming that Apple has created a locked-down environment have very short memories - even the closed nature of the App Store via 3.3.1 would have been considered insanely open only 5 years ago. Google have bet that unfettered platform mutability with (almost) totally free development is good for their business model. Great, and more power to them. Apple have bet that allowing a freeforall would cause their business model damage; OK, that's their call. Other platform holders are trying other strategies. The point being, the free market seems to be about allowing them to try these ideas, and fail if consumers don't like them. Whilst Apple are nowhere near a monopoly on smartphones (and they're frankly miles away from one), they should be free to adopt whatever model they think works best for them.

houseabsolute 16y ago
> doesn't seem like a sound legal foundation for anti-trust action . . . Don't get me wrong. I'm right with you there.
gdee 16y ago
>> Prior to the iPhone, there was virtually no real development allowed on phones that achieved any levels of success (carriers had the platform locked down hard). cough The development for mobile phones partially sucked (and still does, partially; it's in the nature of the beast I suppose, for now) before the iPhone, but I don't know about it being not allowed. You have to draw a distinction between so called feature-phones and smart-phones here. Feature-phone dev was and still is largely restricted (not to mention uninteresting from most POVs) but the same cannot be said about smart-phones. Seeing how the iPhone is supposed the be a smart-phone, we should compare it to those I think. And to that end, I seem to remember writing mobile apps for Windows Mobile and Symbian long before the iPhone existed. Some of that writing didn't even suck that much and I definitely didn't have to ask nobody's permission to distribute the apps. Python for S60 [1] appeared before the iPhone not to mention the c/c++ based toolchains from MS and others. Even the appstore concept is not really Apple's invention, Handango predates it by quite some margin for example. >> In many ways, the iPhone has been the founding of "open" phone development I don't know in how many were those ways. I would say it made it's (phone development) products cool (albeit not yet mainstream) for the masses, and that is very nice and respectable, but "founding" and "inventing" and "reinventing" are just hyperbole filled, marketing words that Apple touts around. >> Post iPhone, we've seen actual competition in this space - the entirely open Android strategy (though their App Store also has restrictions, they just apply them post-release rather than pre-release); the semi-closed iPhone and Nokia Ovi models, the web app model of all the platforms. A few lines up, you were talking about "phone development" and I assumed you were referring to application development because you mentioned carriers platform locks. Now you refer to appstores. Not the same thing. And even there, there was competition [2]. >> People claiming that Apple has created a locked-down environment have very short memories I would argue that it's somebody else exhibiting short memory here but I have already. >> even the closed nature of the App Store via 3.3.1 would have been considered insanely open only 5 years ago. No... it would not have been. Again, please see [2]. The thing is, we had "open for development" smart phones before the iPhone. The platforms were less cool. Some of today's platforms, that are still more "open for development" are more cool in at least some ways that the iPhone. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Python_for_S60 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Python_for_S60 [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_digital_distribution_platforms_for_mobile_devices http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_digital_distribution_pl...
terrellm 16y ago
>> Prior to the iPhone, there was virtually no real development allowed on phones that achieved any levels of success (carriers had the platform locked down hard). Windows Mobile / Windows CE phones have been around for years. I still remember the joy of writing my first app in Visual Studio to run on my Samsung i700. Also I spent many hours playing Monopoly on that same phone.

rubinelli 16y ago

AFAIK, console makers require developers to use their SDKs, but they don't care about what happens before that point in the pipeline. What Apple did was more like forcing 3D models to be created exclusively with Maya.

GHFigs 16y ago
but they don't care about what happens before that point in the pipeline. They most certainly do. The difference is in their point of control. Console makers exercise far more control over who is allowed to develop for their platform, and that control extends to who is allowed to develop middleware. They may or may not have restrictions on programming languages, but they do more generally exercise a degree of control over the tools you're allowed to use. It's difficult to know exactly what is and isn't allowed, as it's all under NDA, but there are certainly some shared motives. The Xbox 360™ Tools and Middleware Program licenses professional developers of games software tools and games middleware applications to obtain full Xbox 360 Development Kits and to distribute Xbox 360 code to approved Xbox 360 developers and publishers. -- http://www.xbox.com/en-US/dev/tools.htm http://www.xbox.com/en-US/dev/tools.htm 3rd Party Tools, QA/Testing, and Localization companies can also apply for Authorized Status using the same Application. You will need to select the appropriate category from the drop-down box in the Application. -- http://www.warioworld.com/apply/ http://www.warioworld.com/apply/ Under this license program, licensees will be entitled to 1) access to development environment and technical information of "PLAYSTATION®3" which is the same as development environment and technical information that licensed game title developers have access to, 2) develop tools and/or middleware to be used in the game title development for "PLAYSTATION®3", and 3) directly provide licensed game title developers with such tools and/or middleware. -- http://www.tmstation.scei.co.jp/ps3/info_e.html http://www.tmstation.scei.co.jp/ps3/info_e.html
- gte910h 16y ago
  >> but they don't care about what happens before that point in the pipeline. > They most certainly do. MS/Sony/Nintendo don't require licenses from all the middleware people. However, SOME of the middleware people will ostensibly want to test on the platform, so will buy the product from MS/Sony/Nintendo. If they do not wish to do so, they need not, then the end licensor of those third party toolkits/whatevers, can still use it. What Apple is doing is 1 step more: They say you can ONLY use tools made in a certain way. MS/Sony/Nintendo do not limit that.