9 ms·

Apple fears the killer app

131 points by brianmwang 16y ago

brisance 16y ago
>>The greatest support for my thesis is that there are not yet any third party companies that have made a huge amount of money on the iPhone.<< That's his "greatest support" for his thesis? Apple claims to have paid out US$1 billion to developers so far, what about Android Marketplace? During Steve Jobs's WWDC keynote speech, he quoted Theo Gray: "I earned more on sales of The Elements for iPad in the first day than from the past 5 years of Google ads on periodictable.com". So if going by commercial success is the yardstick, then the App Store is ahead by at least 1825 times.
- adriand 16y ago
  His point stands: he's not talking about the total amount of money everyone has made, but the total amount of money any single company has made.
  - brisance 16y ago
    And my point is: there are media reports of individuals and small companies that have made a decent amount of money on the App Store, but there is no simply equivalence that I'm aware of on Android. If these entities are considered "small potatoes" then the situation is even worse on Android. Glass houses, and all that.
guelo 16y ago
This argument makes no sense. Mobile "killer apps" already exist, I'd say they are Maps, Facebook, YouTube, email and Exchange support. The iPhone has all of these, just like every other smartphone. Apple is under some threat from these apps in that Google or Facebook or Microsoft could pull them, but Apple hasn't avoided them.
rimantas 16y ago
Everything does suck because someone submits articles what make no sense whatsoever.
- rimantas 16y ago
  Ok, then help me to understand. First is how does Apple keep developers from producing the killer app? Does this imply, that the Killer App™ cannot be produced with Objective-C and without built-in interpreters? If it can, what is the evidence, that Apple did reject such an app, and for what stated reasons? (No, google voice is not a killer app). Next, Jobs did state three reasons why app can be rejected. App does not be great, they just have to work and don't use private APIs. Now, if majority of apps in App Store is crap, how does this compare to apps in Android Market which does not have those draconian rules. Are they generally higher quality than apps for iOS? Then it makes even less sense: how does not allowing the Killer App™ help Apple? They sell boatloads of devices without such an app and would sell even more with it. If someone comes with the brilliant idea author talks about, how does Android having that app available and iOS not help Apple in any way? Where is the sense in this claim? And finally: there will be no killer app for smartphone. Ever. On any platform. When almost no one owns a computer and you make Visicalc and it sells 700 000 that's an killer app. However there are almost 100 000 000 users of iDevices. They already have the killer apps which could appeal to such an wide audience: mail programs, web browsers. You can have a killer app for the platform which is smaller than niche your app fits in. There is no niche several hundred millions people wide. Although I can see some sense in the claim that iOS 4 is an killer app for iDevices.
  - jerf 16y ago
    The issues of language interpretation are only indirectly related to the core argument here. I think the core argument is that Apple is staying fuzzy in the rules so they can strangle any budding "killer app" in its teenage years, when the trajectory has become clear but it is not yet "THE REASON TO OWN AN iPHONE!". Apple is afraid of becoming a client to the killer app owner. Microsoft was afraid of the some thing, which is the root reason behind "DOS isn't done until Lotus doesn't run." You can't prove there won't be a killer app. Network effects mean something could come from the blue. It doesn't even have to be new, just something that already existed but is incrementally better enough to harness the network effects.
dhimes 16y ago
I don't know what Apple is thinking, but it seems more likely they want as many and as diverse a field of apps as they can get. If some small company comes up with a "killer app," they can buy it and make it part of their brand. This would be a strategy by which they effectively out-source the dev risks of killer apps. I don't know if that is what Apple is thinking, but that is what I would do.
ErrantX 16y ago
This seems a well argued point; but when you break it down not so much,. First off I think it does something of a disservice to Jobs - because if the theory is true I don't think it fits in with the vision he has. The thing is that Jobs does have a vision for the iOS platform, and I don't think that is: They want hundreds of thousands of decent or even mediocre or crappy apps. In fact as far as I can make out that is exactly what they don't want. Jobs seems to much prefer the idea of a smaller number of really really classy apps. And that seems (to me anyway) to be reflected in their changes to the developer terms. To claim the reverse is kind of going against years of Apple branding (clean, classy, slick).
- chc 16y ago
  You're assuming that Apple's traditional branding has anything to do with Apple's actions nowadays. Apple branding has been about being an iconoclast, identifying with '60s rock and drug counterculture, embracing openness and freedom — remember Steve Jobs talking about how Bill Gates should drop acid like him? remember the Apple pirate flag? — and now Apple rejects pin-up girl apps from the App Store, even with a 17+ rating, and tells people that if they're that kind of deviant, they can take their counterculture-tarnished hands over to Android.
- mustpax 16y ago
  I would rephrase the argument as "Apple wants thousands of good or decent apps, but none so great so as to pull the platform into its own orbit." This rings true especially in light of Jobs' statements about being able to innovate without being beholden to 3rd party vendors. As to OP's statements about not building a company on iOS apps, this is once again better stated as not building a company on a single iOS app. If you have a bunch of good apps (games or not) then this is much more sustainable, as they pose less of a "threat" to the platform.
  - joe_the_user 16y ago
    Excellent point. You could also refined it to "Apple wants thousands of good or decent apps, but none so great so as to pull the platform into its own orbit and removing great-but-threatening apps is going to have to have priority over getting the good or decent apps"
gfodor 16y ago
Building a killer app generally has nothing to do with using the hardware, a custom programming language, or any other fancy thing that gets engineers excited. Building a killer app usually means that you identified a common problem and solved it for users in a novel and useful way. I fail to see how any of the admittedly draconian policies in the SDK prevent you from building the next killer app for mobile.
- joe_the_user 16y ago
  If you read the article, you would notice that it is reaction to changes in the app store terms, changes which entail "we can reject your app for any reason whatsoever".
  - gfodor 16y ago
    You know, I thought maybe you were right, and I somehow misinterpreted, but no: "But those creative few that want to do something interesting with a UI, or want to use hardware in a new way, or who want to use a more advanced code execution technique are at grave risk." It seems the authors driving point is the specific clauses regarding hardware, interpreted code, and the conformance to the Apple design guidelines are somehow inhibiting killer apps. This is on its face absurd. Sure, it may inhibit some types of killer apps (like Google Voice), but the stark majority of potential killer apps for mobile certainly can exist within the current guidelines.
- bad_user 16y ago
  That's an easy one ... they can reject your application (it says so in the SDK agreement). See Google Voice for such an example. Or ask any iPhone developer that's been playing this game for a while ... you would be a fool to drop an app in the App Store with lots of functionality, the more there is to use in your app, the more likely it is to get rejected. That's why people are doing incremental upgrades ... at least if a new version gets rejected, your lost investment isn't that much.
  - flyosity 16y ago
stavrianos 16y ago
It's a cool idea, but I'm skeptical. This strategy does nothing to prevent the creation of a killer app. All it does is prevent the creation of a killer app on the iphone. If we assume that someone somewhere is gonna drop an app-bomb, forcing them to other platforms might not be the best idea.
- orangecat 16y ago
  In a parallel universe, when Microsoft released Windows 3.1 they also introduced a certification program requiring that they approve all applications. When NCSA developed Mosaic, Microsoft recognized the long-term danger to the Windows platform that it represented, and rejected it on the grounds of security/privacy/instability/resource consumption/whatever. It was available only on Mac and Unix platforms, and never became mainstream. This gave Microsoft time to develop their own hypertext platform, one that was deliberately tied to Windows. With great fanfare they released it a few years later, and it was widely adopted. Of course, only Windows machines could serve the documents that it used, and they worked best on Windows clients. The inevitable result was an entrenched Microsoft monopoly and technological stagnation, but hardly anyone complained because to most people the very concept of an alternate OS or browser was meaningless. If this seems absurd, consider South Korea where IE's monopoly is guaranteed by law: http://www.mobinode.com/2009/01/16/activex-regulations-in-south-korea-revisited/ http://www.mobinode.com/2009/01/16/activex-regulations-in-so...
  - glhaynes 16y ago
    To make this parallel universe scenario's Windows 3.1 analogous to "real"-universe c.2010's iOS, you'd need to make parallel-Windows 3.1 have about a quarter of the market rather than having a monopoly on it.
johnl87 16y ago
I don't think what language you use to code an app really makes a difference in how killer your app is. Also this makes no sense because I'm pretty sure apple developers use objective-c, c and c++ to code their apps (look at their job descriptions.) They're pretty powerful languages. I'm pretty sure the operating system you're running was written with c. All the music you listen to was produced with an app written in c and c++. How is this going to prevent awesome apps from being created?
- zmmmmm 16y ago
  The programming language directive was targeted directly at Flash, because Flash itself is a potential killer app. They thought they killed it by just not supporting it in the browser, but then Adobe managed to find a way to resurrect it. So they had to kill it again, this time with a stake through the heart.
yardie 16y ago
the truth is users don't really want hundreds of apps, they want one or a small number that are really meaningful. Funny hearing this from a pundit. For Mac users it was the same argument they were trying to use for years, but the Windows market used its superior numbers to bury Apple and even Linux. You could even say you have a choice of which crappy app you want to use today. I can guarantee one thing. By, intentionally, excluding Flash they have sealed it's fate. As a developer none of my clients are saying, "I'd like 38% of the mobile market not know I exist". All of them know Flash. All of them have asked for a Flash and Flashless site. Most would rather not pay double for the same thing.
- krschultz 16y ago
  Those are two different arguments. It is true that a small number of apps matter to any given person. That was his point. But a larger number of apps gives coverage to a greater segment of the populations. This is why Windows still locks people in even though we all use very few programs and we all know it sucks. For example, I only really use about 6 big programs - browser, Word, Excel, Eclipse, a media player, and SolidWorks. There can be a million other programs in the Windows world, and aside from a few utilities, I'm not using them. But switch to Mac OS X? I can't. Not completely anyway, because I need SolidWorks. I can't do my job without it. I used Ubuntu almost exclusively for a while, but I could never get rid of that pesky Windows install because I need it for Solidworks. So at that point, why the pay the premium for a Mac if I'm going to be using crappy Windows on it anyway? It is not quite the same in the mobile world. There are few big programs (exceptions: browser, primary phone functions like dialer, contacts, email etc), and most of the time they are used by everyone. So # of apps really is a long tail thing. I might want a ski trail map app, or a golf app. Those are small apps that can be on any platform, they're not make it or break kind of apps. We have yet to see a big killer platform specific app.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
jdavid 16y ago
This is not the point. The Blog entry is way off. Steve very clearly wants to create the best platform possible and does not want any thing holding him back. (rumor) I have heard that Steve requires final say on circuit boards because he wants to make sure the traces are beautiful. Other companies behave this way too, and Verizon at 1st did not have android phones because they did not meet their quality expectation. There are many reasons to have a review process, even if you don't actually review all of the apps. Having such a process requires these independent companies to maybe, just maybe work just a bit harder before they submit it for review. On other phones like android and webos, it's easy to provide patches and they might treat it more like a website where you can always fix it later. Secondly, Apple is trying to stay ahead in a very competitive market place. With the Evo4 coming out at Google I/O do you think think iPhone4, was a leak or not? Knowing that the iPhone4 had a front facing camera kinda stole the wind from the Evo4 showing that off at Google IO. 3rd, I think they are trying to keep a community together, and communities have languages. If there is one thing to say about all of this, is that Apple could have been much more diplomatic about all of this and created a PR engine from the start about this process. But, then again, it could just be the typical silicon valley approach, ship it, launch it and fix what's broken. Apple just may not have expected this much back lash on 3.3.1.
- philwelch 16y ago
  "I have heard that Steve requires final say on circuit boards because he wants to make sure the traces are beautiful." This may have been true in the Apple I and Apple II days, but he's mellowed out a lot since then. This kind of extravagance caused a lot of problems for him (it crippled the Mac from developing much since Steve didn't like hard drives or fans, it affected the NeXT cube for the same reasons, and he had the entire NeXT factory repainted multiple times because he didn't like the particular shade of grey they chose).
jdavid 16y ago
killer apps on the iphone * maps = google * audio = pandora both were launch apps, both made the iphone plausible, both, were not designed by apple.
- threepointone 16y ago
  the google maps experience was designed by apple. pinch+zoom, gps mapping, etc.
- krschultz 16y ago
  Those are good apps. They are not paradigm shifting apps. When he is pointing to killer apps of the past, they literally changed the game in a way nobody saw coming before their launch.
  - flyosity 16y ago
    Paradigm-shifting app for iPhone: Ocarina by Smule. Didn't break any rules and is easily the most innovative mobile application ever developed.
protomyth 16y ago
I think it can be said a lot more simply: Apple doesn't want a cross-platform killer app that doesn't have a native interface. example: no Adobe CS that ignores almost all Apple tech and implements sloppy custom interface widgets
jsz0 16y ago
I think the killer app in mobile are the devices themselves. They're all being sold as a package: web, e-mail, music, video, store, camera, etc. The apps are very important too but my guess is most people are mostly looking at the core functionality of the device. You don't really have to sell people with third party apps anymore though a lack of apps can still be a liability just because it weakens the package. It's not like the old days where hardware was somewhat useless to the average person without killer apps. SmartPhones come packed with a ton of functionality before you ever install a third party app. To that extent I agree with the author of this article. Apple views third party apps as an accessory. They are going to do everything possible to protect what they think really matters: stability, reliability, good end user experience, easy OS upgrades, easy syncing/backup with iTunes, etc. I don't think there's much evidence to suggest Apple wants to play the Microsoft role and attempt to dominate the applications as well. After more than 3 years Apple has released very few paid applications for iOS and they haven't really undercut third party app makers by integrating a lot of additional features into the OS that would be better served as third party apps. They don't even bundle iBooks on their devices so it exists (more or less) on a level playing field with Kindle and the B&N reader.
- lotharbot 16y ago
  > "my guess is most people are mostly looking at the core functionality of the device." Once a device has an exclusive killer app, people start to treat that app as part of the device's core functionality. Apple views apps as an accessory. Would it trouble them to see consumers begin to treat a third party app as a core system component? The author seems to think so. (He has no evidence, though.)
  - stcredzero 16y ago
    What's keeping Skype/Truphone from becoming the primary outbound call mechanism on the iPhone?
    - joe_the_user 16y ago
      Apple eliminating them if that happens?
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
KirinDave 16y ago
I tried to look for why Apple would be afraid of a Killer App on its platform in this blog post. I couldn't find a justification for why this might be the case. Did I miss it, or does the article just leave us to assume that "shame" is a compelling reason for it?
- Jeema3000 16y ago
  Because it's a strategic risk for a hardware maker to be dependent on an outside company's software application to move hardware units. Reason being that the other company could take the killer app to another platform and quit supporting your platform altogether - and then your sales go down the tubes.
  - KirinDave 16y ago
    > Because it's a strategic risk for a hardware maker to be dependent on an outside company's software application to move hardware units. They're moving a ton of units without a killer app. A killer app could only increase sales.
- bartl 16y ago
  That is easy to guess. If a 3rd part builds a killer app for a smart phone, running on the iPhone, they can very easily port it to Android. So the killer app becomes a killer app for the smart phone, but not for the iPhone.
  - KirinDave 16y ago
    People say this like it's a foregone conclusion. But it's only so if you believe that secretly, Apple believes that the iPhone and iPhone experience is outright inferior to Android. I don't think even Android fans could say it's that cut and dry for the general population. What's more, it's not even clear Apple wants the majority share in their market. We assume they do, but if they manage to capture the bulk of the smartphone market then a lot of things they do will start to come under stricter regulation by the FTC. As long as they are a healthy, profitable, but not dominant player they're clear to make a ton of money and edge out all competition. Sometimes I think people profoundly misjudge Apple's business plan.
JoeAltmaier 16y ago
Maybe its just money. Of the 15000 apps, only a handful make money. Apple could just sell those, preinstalled, and be done. Apple may just think there's not much blood left in that turnip, so who cares about new apps.
fjabre 16y ago
As long as they continue to improve mobile safari I'll be happy. Performance on it still doesn't match its desktop counterpart but it's definitely getting there. Only issue of course is little or no access to the hardware. On a desktop you'd have flash to fill in that gap currently. Is it plausible that with HTML5 we'll be able to write native-like apps on an iOS device in a year or two? I don't know. Anyone?
- Magneus 16y ago
  I'm not expert here, but I believe the answer is: depends on how many extensions Apple decides to make. I imagine that there will continue to be a significant feature deficit for quite some time, particularly with regard to lower-level stuff like the camera and accelerometer/gyroscope. Here's a great article on the native code vs web app question: http://bit.ly/bwPn6J http://bit.ly/bwPn6J
bandushrew 16y ago
This is a pretty badly thought out, and badly composed article. The worst case for apple is that someone builds a 'killer app' that compels people to purchase the device, but it then doesn't get released to the iPhone, but the Android instead.
extension 16y ago
I find this theory really hard to discount and of all the dissent against the app store, it is the most damning to me. The other things - delays, rejections, draconian rules - those were just risks. I can live with risk. I don't think I can live with a glass ceiling.
hoggle 16y ago
Pushing all my red buttons like using the term "Lifestyle Business", mentioning Google Voice's non approval and the quality vs quantity discussion makes me very skeptical about this article.
drivebyacct 16y ago
If it's a killer app, it will be regardless of its acceptance onto the iOS platform. The notion that Apple is hegemonic enough to restrict the level of innovation on mobile platforms is silly.

131 points by brianmwang 16y ago

>>The greatest support for my thesis is that there are not yet any third party companies that have made a huge amount of money on the iPhone.<< That's his "greatest support" for his thesis? Apple claims to have paid out US$1 billion to developers so far, what about Android Marketplace? During Steve Jobs's WWDC keynote speech, he quoted Theo Gray: "I earned more on sales of The Elements for iPad in the first day than from the past 5 years of Google ads on periodictable.com". So if going by commercial success is the yardstick, then the App Store is ahead by at least 1825 times.

adriand 16y ago
His point stands: he's not talking about the total amount of money everyone has made, but the total amount of money any single company has made.
- brisance 16y ago
  And my point is: there are media reports of individuals and small companies that have made a decent amount of money on the App Store, but there is no simply equivalence that I'm aware of on Android. If these entities are considered "small potatoes" then the situation is even worse on Android. Glass houses, and all that.

guelo 16y ago

This argument makes no sense. Mobile "killer apps" already exist, I'd say they are Maps, Facebook, YouTube, email and Exchange support. The iPhone has all of these, just like every other smartphone. Apple is under some threat from these apps in that Google or Facebook or Microsoft could pull them, but Apple hasn't avoided them.

rimantas 16y ago

Everything does suck because someone submits articles what make no sense whatsoever.

rimantas 16y ago
Ok, then help me to understand. First is how does Apple keep developers from producing the killer app? Does this imply, that the Killer App™ cannot be produced with Objective-C and without built-in interpreters? If it can, what is the evidence, that Apple did reject such an app, and for what stated reasons? (No, google voice is not a killer app). Next, Jobs did state three reasons why app can be rejected. App does not be great, they just have to work and don't use private APIs. Now, if majority of apps in App Store is crap, how does this compare to apps in Android Market which does not have those draconian rules. Are they generally higher quality than apps for iOS? Then it makes even less sense: how does not allowing the Killer App™ help Apple? They sell boatloads of devices without such an app and would sell even more with it. If someone comes with the brilliant idea author talks about, how does Android having that app available and iOS not help Apple in any way? Where is the sense in this claim? And finally: there will be no killer app for smartphone. Ever. On any platform. When almost no one owns a computer and you make Visicalc and it sells 700 000 that's an killer app. However there are almost 100 000 000 users of iDevices. They already have the killer apps which could appeal to such an wide audience: mail programs, web browsers. You can have a killer app for the platform which is smaller than niche your app fits in. There is no niche several hundred millions people wide. Although I can see some sense in the claim that iOS 4 is an killer app for iDevices.
- jerf 16y ago
  The issues of language interpretation are only indirectly related to the core argument here. I think the core argument is that Apple is staying fuzzy in the rules so they can strangle any budding "killer app" in its teenage years, when the trajectory has become clear but it is not yet "THE REASON TO OWN AN iPHONE!". Apple is afraid of becoming a client to the killer app owner. Microsoft was afraid of the some thing, which is the root reason behind "DOS isn't done until Lotus doesn't run." You can't prove there won't be a killer app. Network effects mean something could come from the blue. It doesn't even have to be new, just something that already existed but is incrementally better enough to harness the network effects.

dhimes 16y ago

I don't know what Apple is thinking, but it seems more likely they want as many and as diverse a field of apps as they can get. If some small company comes up with a "killer app," they can buy it and make it part of their brand. This would be a strategy by which they effectively out-source the dev risks of killer apps. I don't know if that is what Apple is thinking, but that is what I would do.

ErrantX 16y ago

This seems a well argued point; but when you break it down not so much,. First off I think it does something of a disservice to Jobs - because if the theory is true I don't think it fits in with the vision he has. The thing is that Jobs does have a vision for the iOS platform, and I don't think that is: They want hundreds of thousands of decent or even mediocre or crappy apps. In fact as far as I can make out that is exactly what they don't want. Jobs seems to much prefer the idea of a smaller number of really really classy apps. And that seems (to me anyway) to be reflected in their changes to the developer terms. To claim the reverse is kind of going against years of Apple branding (clean, classy, slick).

chc 16y ago
You're assuming that Apple's traditional branding has anything to do with Apple's actions nowadays. Apple branding has been about being an iconoclast, identifying with '60s rock and drug counterculture, embracing openness and freedom — remember Steve Jobs talking about how Bill Gates should drop acid like him? remember the Apple pirate flag? — and now Apple rejects pin-up girl apps from the App Store, even with a 17+ rating, and tells people that if they're that kind of deviant, they can take their counterculture-tarnished hands over to Android.
mustpax 16y ago
I would rephrase the argument as "Apple wants thousands of good or decent apps, but none so great so as to pull the platform into its own orbit." This rings true especially in light of Jobs' statements about being able to innovate without being beholden to 3rd party vendors. As to OP's statements about not building a company on iOS apps, this is once again better stated as not building a company on a single iOS app. If you have a bunch of good apps (games or not) then this is much more sustainable, as they pose less of a "threat" to the platform.
- joe_the_user 16y ago
  Excellent point. You could also refined it to "Apple wants thousands of good or decent apps, but none so great so as to pull the platform into its own orbit and removing great-but-threatening apps is going to have to have priority over getting the good or decent apps"

gfodor 16y ago

Building a killer app generally has nothing to do with using the hardware, a custom programming language, or any other fancy thing that gets engineers excited. Building a killer app usually means that you identified a common problem and solved it for users in a novel and useful way. I fail to see how any of the admittedly draconian policies in the SDK prevent you from building the next killer app for mobile.

joe_the_user 16y ago
If you read the article, you would notice that it is reaction to changes in the app store terms, changes which entail "we can reject your app for any reason whatsoever".
- gfodor 16y ago
  You know, I thought maybe you were right, and I somehow misinterpreted, but no: "But those creative few that want to do something interesting with a UI, or want to use hardware in a new way, or who want to use a more advanced code execution technique are at grave risk." It seems the authors driving point is the specific clauses regarding hardware, interpreted code, and the conformance to the Apple design guidelines are somehow inhibiting killer apps. This is on its face absurd. Sure, it may inhibit some types of killer apps (like Google Voice), but the stark majority of potential killer apps for mobile certainly can exist within the current guidelines.
bad_user 16y ago
That's an easy one ... they can reject your application (it says so in the SDK agreement). See Google Voice for such an example. Or ask any iPhone developer that's been playing this game for a while ... you would be a fool to drop an app in the App Store with lots of functionality, the more there is to use in your app, the more likely it is to get rejected. That's why people are doing incremental upgrades ... at least if a new version gets rejected, your lost investment isn't that much.
- flyosity 16y ago

stavrianos 16y ago

It's a cool idea, but I'm skeptical. This strategy does nothing to prevent the creation of a killer app. All it does is prevent the creation of a killer app on the iphone. If we assume that someone somewhere is gonna drop an app-bomb, forcing them to other platforms might not be the best idea.

orangecat 16y ago
In a parallel universe, when Microsoft released Windows 3.1 they also introduced a certification program requiring that they approve all applications. When NCSA developed Mosaic, Microsoft recognized the long-term danger to the Windows platform that it represented, and rejected it on the grounds of security/privacy/instability/resource consumption/whatever. It was available only on Mac and Unix platforms, and never became mainstream. This gave Microsoft time to develop their own hypertext platform, one that was deliberately tied to Windows. With great fanfare they released it a few years later, and it was widely adopted. Of course, only Windows machines could serve the documents that it used, and they worked best on Windows clients. The inevitable result was an entrenched Microsoft monopoly and technological stagnation, but hardly anyone complained because to most people the very concept of an alternate OS or browser was meaningless. If this seems absurd, consider South Korea where IE's monopoly is guaranteed by law: http://www.mobinode.com/2009/01/16/activex-regulations-in-south-korea-revisited/ http://www.mobinode.com/2009/01/16/activex-regulations-in-so...
- glhaynes 16y ago
  To make this parallel universe scenario's Windows 3.1 analogous to "real"-universe c.2010's iOS, you'd need to make parallel-Windows 3.1 have about a quarter of the market rather than having a monopoly on it.

johnl87 16y ago

I don't think what language you use to code an app really makes a difference in how killer your app is. Also this makes no sense because I'm pretty sure apple developers use objective-c, c and c++ to code their apps (look at their job descriptions.) They're pretty powerful languages. I'm pretty sure the operating system you're running was written with c. All the music you listen to was produced with an app written in c and c++. How is this going to prevent awesome apps from being created?

zmmmmm 16y ago
The programming language directive was targeted directly at Flash, because Flash itself is a potential killer app. They thought they killed it by just not supporting it in the browser, but then Adobe managed to find a way to resurrect it. So they had to kill it again, this time with a stake through the heart.

yardie 16y ago

the truth is users don't really want hundreds of apps, they want one or a small number that are really meaningful. Funny hearing this from a pundit. For Mac users it was the same argument they were trying to use for years, but the Windows market used its superior numbers to bury Apple and even Linux. You could even say you have a choice of which crappy app you want to use today. I can guarantee one thing. By, intentionally, excluding Flash they have sealed it's fate. As a developer none of my clients are saying, "I'd like 38% of the mobile market not know I exist". All of them know Flash. All of them have asked for a Flash and Flashless site. Most would rather not pay double for the same thing.

krschultz 16y ago
Those are two different arguments. It is true that a small number of apps matter to any given person. That was his point. But a larger number of apps gives coverage to a greater segment of the populations. This is why Windows still locks people in even though we all use very few programs and we all know it sucks. For example, I only really use about 6 big programs - browser, Word, Excel, Eclipse, a media player, and SolidWorks. There can be a million other programs in the Windows world, and aside from a few utilities, I'm not using them. But switch to Mac OS X? I can't. Not completely anyway, because I need SolidWorks. I can't do my job without it. I used Ubuntu almost exclusively for a while, but I could never get rid of that pesky Windows install because I need it for Solidworks. So at that point, why the pay the premium for a Mac if I'm going to be using crappy Windows on it anyway? It is not quite the same in the mobile world. There are few big programs (exceptions: browser, primary phone functions like dialer, contacts, email etc), and most of the time they are used by everyone. So # of apps really is a long tail thing. I might want a ski trail map app, or a golf app. Those are small apps that can be on any platform, they're not make it or break kind of apps. We have yet to see a big killer platform specific app.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

jdavid 16y ago

This is not the point. The Blog entry is way off. Steve very clearly wants to create the best platform possible and does not want any thing holding him back. (rumor) I have heard that Steve requires final say on circuit boards because he wants to make sure the traces are beautiful. Other companies behave this way too, and Verizon at 1st did not have android phones because they did not meet their quality expectation. There are many reasons to have a review process, even if you don't actually review all of the apps. Having such a process requires these independent companies to maybe, just maybe work just a bit harder before they submit it for review. On other phones like android and webos, it's easy to provide patches and they might treat it more like a website where you can always fix it later. Secondly, Apple is trying to stay ahead in a very competitive market place. With the Evo4 coming out at Google I/O do you think think iPhone4, was a leak or not? Knowing that the iPhone4 had a front facing camera kinda stole the wind from the Evo4 showing that off at Google IO. 3rd, I think they are trying to keep a community together, and communities have languages. If there is one thing to say about all of this, is that Apple could have been much more diplomatic about all of this and created a PR engine from the start about this process. But, then again, it could just be the typical silicon valley approach, ship it, launch it and fix what's broken. Apple just may not have expected this much back lash on 3.3.1.

philwelch 16y ago
"I have heard that Steve requires final say on circuit boards because he wants to make sure the traces are beautiful." This may have been true in the Apple I and Apple II days, but he's mellowed out a lot since then. This kind of extravagance caused a lot of problems for him (it crippled the Mac from developing much since Steve didn't like hard drives or fans, it affected the NeXT cube for the same reasons, and he had the entire NeXT factory repainted multiple times because he didn't like the particular shade of grey they chose).

jdavid 16y ago

killer apps on the iphone * maps = google * audio = pandora both were launch apps, both made the iphone plausible, both, were not designed by apple.

threepointone 16y ago
the google maps experience was designed by apple. pinch+zoom, gps mapping, etc.
krschultz 16y ago
Those are good apps. They are not paradigm shifting apps. When he is pointing to killer apps of the past, they literally changed the game in a way nobody saw coming before their launch.
- flyosity 16y ago
  Paradigm-shifting app for iPhone: Ocarina by Smule. Didn't break any rules and is easily the most innovative mobile application ever developed.

protomyth 16y ago

I think it can be said a lot more simply: Apple doesn't want a cross-platform killer app that doesn't have a native interface. example: no Adobe CS that ignores almost all Apple tech and implements sloppy custom interface widgets

jsz0 16y ago

I think the killer app in mobile are the devices themselves. They're all being sold as a package: web, e-mail, music, video, store, camera, etc. The apps are very important too but my guess is most people are mostly looking at the core functionality of the device. You don't really have to sell people with third party apps anymore though a lack of apps can still be a liability just because it weakens the package. It's not like the old days where hardware was somewhat useless to the average person without killer apps. SmartPhones come packed with a ton of functionality before you ever install a third party app. To that extent I agree with the author of this article. Apple views third party apps as an accessory. They are going to do everything possible to protect what they think really matters: stability, reliability, good end user experience, easy OS upgrades, easy syncing/backup with iTunes, etc. I don't think there's much evidence to suggest Apple wants to play the Microsoft role and attempt to dominate the applications as well. After more than 3 years Apple has released very few paid applications for iOS and they haven't really undercut third party app makers by integrating a lot of additional features into the OS that would be better served as third party apps. They don't even bundle iBooks on their devices so it exists (more or less) on a level playing field with Kindle and the B&N reader.

lotharbot 16y ago
> "my guess is most people are mostly looking at the core functionality of the device." Once a device has an exclusive killer app, people start to treat that app as part of the device's core functionality. Apple views apps as an accessory. Would it trouble them to see consumers begin to treat a third party app as a core system component? The author seems to think so. (He has no evidence, though.)
- stcredzero 16y ago
  What's keeping Skype/Truphone from becoming the primary outbound call mechanism on the iPhone?
  - joe_the_user 16y ago
    Apple eliminating them if that happens?

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

KirinDave 16y ago

I tried to look for why Apple would be afraid of a Killer App on its platform in this blog post. I couldn't find a justification for why this might be the case. Did I miss it, or does the article just leave us to assume that "shame" is a compelling reason for it?

Jeema3000 16y ago
Because it's a strategic risk for a hardware maker to be dependent on an outside company's software application to move hardware units. Reason being that the other company could take the killer app to another platform and quit supporting your platform altogether - and then your sales go down the tubes.
- KirinDave 16y ago
  > Because it's a strategic risk for a hardware maker to be dependent on an outside company's software application to move hardware units. They're moving a ton of units without a killer app. A killer app could only increase sales.
bartl 16y ago
That is easy to guess. If a 3rd part builds a killer app for a smart phone, running on the iPhone, they can very easily port it to Android. So the killer app becomes a killer app for the smart phone, but not for the iPhone.
- KirinDave 16y ago
  People say this like it's a foregone conclusion. But it's only so if you believe that secretly, Apple believes that the iPhone and iPhone experience is outright inferior to Android. I don't think even Android fans could say it's that cut and dry for the general population. What's more, it's not even clear Apple wants the majority share in their market. We assume they do, but if they manage to capture the bulk of the smartphone market then a lot of things they do will start to come under stricter regulation by the FTC. As long as they are a healthy, profitable, but not dominant player they're clear to make a ton of money and edge out all competition. Sometimes I think people profoundly misjudge Apple's business plan.

JoeAltmaier 16y ago

Maybe its just money. Of the 15000 apps, only a handful make money. Apple could just sell those, preinstalled, and be done. Apple may just think there's not much blood left in that turnip, so who cares about new apps.

fjabre 16y ago

As long as they continue to improve mobile safari I'll be happy. Performance on it still doesn't match its desktop counterpart but it's definitely getting there. Only issue of course is little or no access to the hardware. On a desktop you'd have flash to fill in that gap currently. Is it plausible that with HTML5 we'll be able to write native-like apps on an iOS device in a year or two? I don't know. Anyone?

Magneus 16y ago
I'm not expert here, but I believe the answer is: depends on how many extensions Apple decides to make. I imagine that there will continue to be a significant feature deficit for quite some time, particularly with regard to lower-level stuff like the camera and accelerometer/gyroscope. Here's a great article on the native code vs web app question: http://bit.ly/bwPn6J http://bit.ly/bwPn6J

bandushrew 16y ago

This is a pretty badly thought out, and badly composed article. The worst case for apple is that someone builds a 'killer app' that compels people to purchase the device, but it then doesn't get released to the iPhone, but the Android instead.

extension 16y ago

I find this theory really hard to discount and of all the dissent against the app store, it is the most damning to me. The other things - delays, rejections, draconian rules - those were just risks. I can live with risk. I don't think I can live with a glass ceiling.

hoggle 16y ago

Pushing all my red buttons like using the term "Lifestyle Business", mentioning Google Voice's non approval and the quality vs quantity discussion makes me very skeptical about this article.

drivebyacct 16y ago

If it's a killer app, it will be regardless of its acceptance onto the iOS platform. The notion that Apple is hegemonic enough to restrict the level of innovation on mobile platforms is silly.