6 ms·

I think that line clarifies what people in the tech industry seem to be missing in this whole controversy: It's not about developers. It's about users, and cre

by blehn 16y ago

I think that line clarifies what people in the tech industry seem to be missing in this whole controversy: It's not about developers. It's about users, and creating a great experience for them. Developers getting upset about flash not running on the device, apps getting rejected, etc--that's just an unintentional side-effect of putting the user first.

elblanco 16y ago
Users do have to use something. Developers make those things.
- potatolicious 16y ago
  Right, which simply means that the leverage developers have is a non-zero positive value. It doesn't mean it's a large, non-zero positive value. I think recent developments in mobiles have shown that customers have orders of magnitude more leverage above everyone.
- blehn 16y ago
  That's not to say Apple doesn't care about their developers at all. They've created nice development tools, easy distribution methods that can lead to handsome profits, and they even hold a pretty neat conference for developers once a year. It's just that it's all secondary to their vision for the user.
- steveklabnik 16y ago
  I'm only the friend of an armchair economist, but wasn't supply-side economics deemed bullshit? If there are users, the developers will come. Just because there are developers, doesn't guarantee users. This explains everything about Apple and Linux.
  - jasonlotito 16y ago
    Except Linux is used far more than Apple. Just not necessarily on the client side.
    - jbooth 16y ago
      Or by actual people. Your web broswer connecting to a linux powered website isn't you "using" linux, it's you using a web browser.
      - jasonlotito 16y ago
        "Your web broswer connecting to a linux powered website isn't you "using" linux, it's you using a web browser." Why would you think a web browser connecting to website is a user using the OS of the website? Why would you make that connection? Why? Anyways, back on target. Users choose to use Linux all the time. Countless people choose Linux over other OS's for hosting their websites. Even people with little technical knowledge choose Linux over other options out there as their OS of choice. And then you have Linux on mobile devices. Android isn't doing half bad, last I checked. And Android is based on Linux. While your original argument is sound, your conclusion about Apple and Linux is off the mark.
MichaelGG 16y ago
Yep. It may have been about developers in the past, but it doesn't look that way going forward. The app store only needs so many apps, and there are tons of devs to fill in, no matter which technology isn't allowed.
- WiseWeasel 16y ago
  You're making the fallacious argument that one developer can be easily substituted for another. That's just insulting to developers, and completely unrealistic. I mean, sure, if a developer comes out with something interesting on another platform, some guy will probably try to clone it on the App Store, granting the App Store policies even allow the type of app. It'll never be as good as the original, however. At some point, you do want the real app innovation taking place on your platform first, or you'll be missing out on a lot of critical media and social exposure to a competing platform.
  - MichaelGG 16y ago
    No. I'm making the argument that 100 developers can replace another. Because that's essentially what you have. You're right, there will be a few things here or there that aren't done as well. But overall? There will be plenty of people to step in.
jimbokun 16y ago
Developers also have choices, though, and if they feel Apple isn't treating them right they should develop for another platform. As a group, developers have a lot to say about the success of a platforms with consumers.
- frederickcook 16y ago
  If there's a market that you don't want to serve because of your principles, you take your principles, and I'll take your market share.
  - jimbokun 16y ago
    What if it violates your principles, but not mine? What then? Of course you don't care about violating my principles. But do you care about violating your own?
piguy314 16y ago
Innovation is an externality; by definition that means consumers do not consider innovation when selecting a product to purchase and will buy products that actually harm innovation. Apple is stifling innovation, just because it's not pissing off it's user base (only it's developers) does not mean it isn't doing damage.
gizmomagico 16y ago
Right, and users would notice and care if some application "duplicated functionality". 3.3.1 is not the only problem - there have been lots of bullshit rejections too.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
calibraxis 16y ago
But Apple seems to limit the role of users. I'm a user -- a relatively skilled one, since I not only consume software, but create it too. As I understand, there are two Apple bureaucracies in the way: one which collects about a $100/year fee to let you go beneath a superficial level, and another where Apple bureaucrats examine your software before it can be conveniently shared. (Do I misunderstand?) This apparently even holds true with free software. These bureaucracies make it difficult for interested users to move along the skill spectrum. They seem to enforce a strict separation between developers and users.
- KirinDave 16y ago
  If you do not agree with such a decision, there are several other competing platforms. What makes it so frustrating, I think, is that most people like the Apple platform and experience. Giving it up and going somewhere else for ideological reasons sounds good until you're resetting your phone by pulling the battery, struggling to get hardware to work, asking why Linux still has no good mixed sound support layer, or other realities of less unified platforms. We want Steve & his company to agree with us so that we can have our cake and also know that the cake is made according to our ideology.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
- cpr 16y ago
  Make it difficult? $100 is difficult for an interested user? Really? 20 lattes? If you make something well and it's non-trivial, the chances of it getting refused for any substantive reason (porn, stepping on Apple's toes, etc.) are actually pretty small. I.e., there's small set of things you can't do, but an unlimited set of things you can do.

by blehn 16y ago

elblanco 16y ago

Users do have to use something. Developers make those things.

potatolicious 16y ago
Right, which simply means that the leverage developers have is a non-zero positive value. It doesn't mean it's a large, non-zero positive value. I think recent developments in mobiles have shown that customers have orders of magnitude more leverage above everyone.
blehn 16y ago
That's not to say Apple doesn't care about their developers at all. They've created nice development tools, easy distribution methods that can lead to handsome profits, and they even hold a pretty neat conference for developers once a year. It's just that it's all secondary to their vision for the user.
steveklabnik 16y ago
I'm only the friend of an armchair economist, but wasn't supply-side economics deemed bullshit? If there are users, the developers will come. Just because there are developers, doesn't guarantee users. This explains everything about Apple and Linux.
- jasonlotito 16y ago
  Except Linux is used far more than Apple. Just not necessarily on the client side.
  - jbooth 16y ago
    Or by actual people. Your web broswer connecting to a linux powered website isn't you "using" linux, it's you using a web browser.
    - jasonlotito 16y ago
      "Your web broswer connecting to a linux powered website isn't you "using" linux, it's you using a web browser." Why would you think a web browser connecting to website is a user using the OS of the website? Why would you make that connection? Why? Anyways, back on target. Users choose to use Linux all the time. Countless people choose Linux over other OS's for hosting their websites. Even people with little technical knowledge choose Linux over other options out there as their OS of choice. And then you have Linux on mobile devices. Android isn't doing half bad, last I checked. And Android is based on Linux. While your original argument is sound, your conclusion about Apple and Linux is off the mark.

MichaelGG 16y ago

Yep. It may have been about developers in the past, but it doesn't look that way going forward. The app store only needs so many apps, and there are tons of devs to fill in, no matter which technology isn't allowed.

WiseWeasel 16y ago
You're making the fallacious argument that one developer can be easily substituted for another. That's just insulting to developers, and completely unrealistic. I mean, sure, if a developer comes out with something interesting on another platform, some guy will probably try to clone it on the App Store, granting the App Store policies even allow the type of app. It'll never be as good as the original, however. At some point, you do want the real app innovation taking place on your platform first, or you'll be missing out on a lot of critical media and social exposure to a competing platform.
- MichaelGG 16y ago
  No. I'm making the argument that 100 developers can replace another. Because that's essentially what you have. You're right, there will be a few things here or there that aren't done as well. But overall? There will be plenty of people to step in.

jimbokun 16y ago

Developers also have choices, though, and if they feel Apple isn't treating them right they should develop for another platform. As a group, developers have a lot to say about the success of a platforms with consumers.

frederickcook 16y ago
If there's a market that you don't want to serve because of your principles, you take your principles, and I'll take your market share.
- jimbokun 16y ago
  What if it violates your principles, but not mine? What then? Of course you don't care about violating my principles. But do you care about violating your own?

piguy314 16y ago

Innovation is an externality; by definition that means consumers do not consider innovation when selecting a product to purchase and will buy products that actually harm innovation. Apple is stifling innovation, just because it's not pissing off it's user base (only it's developers) does not mean it isn't doing damage.

gizmomagico 16y ago

Right, and users would notice and care if some application "duplicated functionality". 3.3.1 is not the only problem - there have been lots of bullshit rejections too.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

calibraxis 16y ago

But Apple seems to limit the role of users. I'm a user -- a relatively skilled one, since I not only consume software, but create it too. As I understand, there are two Apple bureaucracies in the way: one which collects about a $100/year fee to let you go beneath a superficial level, and another where Apple bureaucrats examine your software before it can be conveniently shared. (Do I misunderstand?) This apparently even holds true with free software. These bureaucracies make it difficult for interested users to move along the skill spectrum. They seem to enforce a strict separation between developers and users.

KirinDave 16y ago
If you do not agree with such a decision, there are several other competing platforms. What makes it so frustrating, I think, is that most people like the Apple platform and experience. Giving it up and going somewhere else for ideological reasons sounds good until you're resetting your phone by pulling the battery, struggling to get hardware to work, asking why Linux still has no good mixed sound support layer, or other realities of less unified platforms. We want Steve & his company to agree with us so that we can have our cake and also know that the cake is made according to our ideology.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
cpr 16y ago
Make it difficult? $100 is difficult for an interested user? Really? 20 lattes? If you make something well and it's non-trivial, the chances of it getting refused for any substantive reason (porn, stepping on Apple's toes, etc.) are actually pretty small. I.e., there's small set of things you can't do, but an unlimited set of things you can do.