6 ms·

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

by 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"
- stcredzero 16y ago
  Let's examine killer apps that actually were a threat to a platform. Microsoft Office - At one time, Apple would've been very unhappy if Microsoft took this away from the Mac. MS Office is very dominant in its niche, almost a monopoly. Adobe Photoshop - Photoshop is a defacto standard. There were other image manipulation programs, but only one considered suitable for professional use. There are times when Adobe could've really hurt Apple by giving the Mac release short shrift. Metrowerks - At one point, the only way to write code for the Mac. All of Apple's recent actions are consistent with the intent to prevent another monopoly on their turf. They do not want someone else to exclusively control a killer app on their new platform, because when this happened in the past, they were at someone else's mercy.
  - ams6110 16y ago
    Office on the Mac, lways (to me) felt like a kludge. It did not work like other Mac apps, it did not look like other Mac apps, and yet it did not work quite like it did on Windows either. There was Internet Explorer for the Mac also, it was even a bigger kludge than Office. I guess Apple thought they needed Office and IE at the time, but surely not because it was great software. In retrospect, I wonder if it really made any difference at all.
    - zmmz 16y ago
      I guess Apple thought they needed Office and IE at the time, but surely not because it was great software. In retrospect, I wonder if it really made any difference at all. They always have and always will need Office as long as it is the dominant tool used in professional environments. Apple does not need it to be any good, but it needs it to be there. It is one of the big separators between OSX and any other non-Windows OS, Apple needs it as on their list of offerings in order to be able to pitch itself more easily. Not everybody is savvy enough to know of possible Office alternatives (especially not the Apples "lifestyle crowd" audience), so not having the option of using Office would be very easy marketing against OSX, especially considering that their main campaign until recently has been "Get a Mac". As much as many people don't like the thought of it, Office is, and will for a very long time be, the prime application used in businesses worldwide.
bad_user 16y ago
What is it with people speculating over what Jobs/Apple wants? The truth of the matter is nobody has a clue, and yet many people pretend otherwise.
- ErrantX 16y ago
  Well I'd argue he has been quite clear over the years as to his values and his aims. Even if we, perhaps, can't say with absolute certainty his thoughts, I suspect there is plenty enough evidence to show that: They want hundreds of thousands of decent or even mediocre or crappy apps. Isn't one of them :)
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
illumin8 16y ago
I agree. I also think Apple is treating the iOS ecosystem like a video game console rather than a computer. If people looked at the console wars between MS, Sony, and Nintendo and compared their developer agreements to Apple's, they probably wouldn't get so bent out of shape over things. I know Microsoft has literally spent $millions on AAA titles just to get XBox360 exclusive releases. Somehow we don't get bent out of shape so much just because Halo is Xbox only. I don't see pundits wanting to burn Microsoft at the stake because they bought Bungie. Yet for some reason, when Apple does something similar, they must be evil.
- zmmmmm 16y ago
  As it happens, I do think it is evil that MS limits who can develop what for XBox. I actually see the fact that the console market has evolved that way as a warning to us how easily it can happen. However consoles simply don't matter very much. Phones are far more important than game consoles and that's the primary reason why there is so much more outcry about it for iOS. > Apple is treating the iOS ecosystem like a video game console rather than a computer Can you explain why, then, they have an entire series of ads based around the theme of "there's an app for that"? I can't think of anything more direct they could do to tout it as a "general purpose" computing platform. I think Apple fans keep trying to have it both ways here.
  - ehnus 16y ago
    > As it happens, I do think it is evil that MS limits who can develop what for XBox. Although they restrict who can develop games destined for brick and mortar stores, Microsoft has provided XNA as a way of developing for their platform that is not altogether unreasonable in terms or expense.
- orangecat 16y ago
  I also think Apple is treating the iOS ecosystem like a video game console rather than a computer. Exactly. If people looked at the console wars between MS, Sony, and Nintendo and compared their developer agreements to Apple's, they probably wouldn't get so bent out of shape over things. Consoles aren't attempting to replace general purpose PCs, while all indications are that mobile computing devices are going to replace desktops and laptops for most of the population. If almost all of those devices are closed, the cost in freedom and innovation will be enormous.
stcredzero 16y ago
Jobs seems to much prefer the idea of a smaller number of really really classy apps. Agreed. A killer app would cause many more people to want to buy the iPad. It would transform the iPad from a want to a need. From the post: But as platforms mature, Killer apps from third party companies pose more risk. Is this really thought out? Does the Killer App transform the hardware into a commodity device for running the app? Is there some fundamental law saying Photoshop had to rule over all image editing? I don't think so. It's not Killer Apps that are dangerous. It's 3rd party monopolies on vital parts of the ecosystem! If Photoshop had better competition so it did not become a de-facto standard Adobe would not have been a threat. If Internet Explorer and Microsoft Office hadn't totally dominated their market niches, then those applications wouldn't have been a threat to Mac and OS X either. The Metroworks IDE has already been mentioned on this site as well. I don't think Apple wants to eliminate killer apps or good apps. I do think that they want to ensure there is viable competition. It's not a killer app on their turf that Apple fears. It's someone else's monopoly!
- sprout 16y ago
  No, you missed the key, which is that if a company makes a killer iPad app, porting it to Android and whatever variant of Windows CE Microsoft finally decides is worth putting on tablets will be trivial, and the iPad will just be a fashionable tablet, with this hypothetical killer app something you can get on any device, fashion statement or commodity.
  - stcredzero 16y ago
    There's a piece missing from your logic. Exactly what does Apple have to fear? That they won't become the Dell of tablets? I don't think they're afraid of becoming the maker of the fashion statement tablet -- that's where the high margins are! A killer app (with healthy competition) that benefits all tablets helps them. A killer app that's a monopoly can hurt them, because the killer app can disappear from their platform.
    - sprout 16y ago
      They don't want a third-party app to become a key part of the iOS experience because then when it is ported some of the Apple sheen would likely rub off on Windows/Android.
kenjackson 16y ago
I disagree. Jobs wants to avoid overtly disgusting apps, like porn, but the App Store is littered with horrible user experiences. The OP makes a valid point, which is that Apple does fear that the mobile space ends up being driven by a handful of third-party apps, rather than by the device/OS (and the AppStore is part of the OS). So let me be clear. What is a killer app? A killer app is something that drives you to buy a device. The web browser is a killer app. Office was a killer app. Today there is no killer app IN the Apple App Store. The App Store is the killer app. And Apple controls it. What Apple doesn't want is for Adobe or MS or Google or StartupX to create the killer app on the iPhone as they could diminish the importance of the iOS platform (since presumably this app will also shortly become available on other platforms).
- grasshoper 16y ago
  He doesn't actually care about porn; it's just an easily defensible position upon which to base controls over a wide variety of apps that harbor even the most tangential possibility to be used to view any pornographic content.
- Tycho 16y ago
  Of course there are some low-quality apps on the App Store, but what do people seriously expect Apple to do? Start rejecting Apps because some reviewer doesn't like it? That is the mother of all 'uncertainty' scenarios that undermine developer confidence (much more serious than the smaller risk that your App is blocked for breaching some obscure/vague part of the licence). The only thing Apple can realistically do to affect the general quality levels is make broad decisions like no porn, no Flash, no technology X, Y, or Z.
  - chc 16y ago
    It's less absurd than rejecting apps because of the language they were "originally written in," less absurd than rejecting minor updates to an app you've already approved — less absurd than most of Apple's rejections, actually, because at least then Apple's rationale would make sense without assuming Apple is simply evil.
CodeMage 16y ago
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). I think the OP's point was that Apple probably wants those few "really really classy apps" to be Apple's, not 3rd party. It makes sense, too.
- ErrantX 16y ago
  It makes sense, too. I'm not sure it entirely does. In a "perfect" world, maybe. But Apples is a platform (hardware/OS) company and not really a software company (in the same way).

by ErrantX 16y ago

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"
stcredzero 16y ago
Let's examine killer apps that actually were a threat to a platform. Microsoft Office - At one time, Apple would've been very unhappy if Microsoft took this away from the Mac. MS Office is very dominant in its niche, almost a monopoly. Adobe Photoshop - Photoshop is a defacto standard. There were other image manipulation programs, but only one considered suitable for professional use. There are times when Adobe could've really hurt Apple by giving the Mac release short shrift. Metrowerks - At one point, the only way to write code for the Mac. All of Apple's recent actions are consistent with the intent to prevent another monopoly on their turf. They do not want someone else to exclusively control a killer app on their new platform, because when this happened in the past, they were at someone else's mercy.
- ams6110 16y ago
  Office on the Mac, lways (to me) felt like a kludge. It did not work like other Mac apps, it did not look like other Mac apps, and yet it did not work quite like it did on Windows either. There was Internet Explorer for the Mac also, it was even a bigger kludge than Office. I guess Apple thought they needed Office and IE at the time, but surely not because it was great software. In retrospect, I wonder if it really made any difference at all.
  - zmmz 16y ago
    I guess Apple thought they needed Office and IE at the time, but surely not because it was great software. In retrospect, I wonder if it really made any difference at all. They always have and always will need Office as long as it is the dominant tool used in professional environments. Apple does not need it to be any good, but it needs it to be there. It is one of the big separators between OSX and any other non-Windows OS, Apple needs it as on their list of offerings in order to be able to pitch itself more easily. Not everybody is savvy enough to know of possible Office alternatives (especially not the Apples "lifestyle crowd" audience), so not having the option of using Office would be very easy marketing against OSX, especially considering that their main campaign until recently has been "Get a Mac". As much as many people don't like the thought of it, Office is, and will for a very long time be, the prime application used in businesses worldwide.

bad_user 16y ago

What is it with people speculating over what Jobs/Apple wants? The truth of the matter is nobody has a clue, and yet many people pretend otherwise.

ErrantX 16y ago
Well I'd argue he has been quite clear over the years as to his values and his aims. Even if we, perhaps, can't say with absolute certainty his thoughts, I suspect there is plenty enough evidence to show that: They want hundreds of thousands of decent or even mediocre or crappy apps. Isn't one of them :)
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

illumin8 16y ago

I agree. I also think Apple is treating the iOS ecosystem like a video game console rather than a computer. If people looked at the console wars between MS, Sony, and Nintendo and compared their developer agreements to Apple's, they probably wouldn't get so bent out of shape over things. I know Microsoft has literally spent $millions on AAA titles just to get XBox360 exclusive releases. Somehow we don't get bent out of shape so much just because Halo is Xbox only. I don't see pundits wanting to burn Microsoft at the stake because they bought Bungie. Yet for some reason, when Apple does something similar, they must be evil.

zmmmmm 16y ago
As it happens, I do think it is evil that MS limits who can develop what for XBox. I actually see the fact that the console market has evolved that way as a warning to us how easily it can happen. However consoles simply don't matter very much. Phones are far more important than game consoles and that's the primary reason why there is so much more outcry about it for iOS. > Apple is treating the iOS ecosystem like a video game console rather than a computer Can you explain why, then, they have an entire series of ads based around the theme of "there's an app for that"? I can't think of anything more direct they could do to tout it as a "general purpose" computing platform. I think Apple fans keep trying to have it both ways here.
- ehnus 16y ago
  > As it happens, I do think it is evil that MS limits who can develop what for XBox. Although they restrict who can develop games destined for brick and mortar stores, Microsoft has provided XNA as a way of developing for their platform that is not altogether unreasonable in terms or expense.
orangecat 16y ago
I also think Apple is treating the iOS ecosystem like a video game console rather than a computer. Exactly. If people looked at the console wars between MS, Sony, and Nintendo and compared their developer agreements to Apple's, they probably wouldn't get so bent out of shape over things. Consoles aren't attempting to replace general purpose PCs, while all indications are that mobile computing devices are going to replace desktops and laptops for most of the population. If almost all of those devices are closed, the cost in freedom and innovation will be enormous.

stcredzero 16y ago

Jobs seems to much prefer the idea of a smaller number of really really classy apps. Agreed. A killer app would cause many more people to want to buy the iPad. It would transform the iPad from a want to a need. From the post: But as platforms mature, Killer apps from third party companies pose more risk. Is this really thought out? Does the Killer App transform the hardware into a commodity device for running the app? Is there some fundamental law saying Photoshop had to rule over all image editing? I don't think so. It's not Killer Apps that are dangerous. It's 3rd party monopolies on vital parts of the ecosystem! If Photoshop had better competition so it did not become a de-facto standard Adobe would not have been a threat. If Internet Explorer and Microsoft Office hadn't totally dominated their market niches, then those applications wouldn't have been a threat to Mac and OS X either. The Metroworks IDE has already been mentioned on this site as well. I don't think Apple wants to eliminate killer apps or good apps. I do think that they want to ensure there is viable competition. It's not a killer app on their turf that Apple fears. It's someone else's monopoly!

sprout 16y ago
No, you missed the key, which is that if a company makes a killer iPad app, porting it to Android and whatever variant of Windows CE Microsoft finally decides is worth putting on tablets will be trivial, and the iPad will just be a fashionable tablet, with this hypothetical killer app something you can get on any device, fashion statement or commodity.
- stcredzero 16y ago
  There's a piece missing from your logic. Exactly what does Apple have to fear? That they won't become the Dell of tablets? I don't think they're afraid of becoming the maker of the fashion statement tablet -- that's where the high margins are! A killer app (with healthy competition) that benefits all tablets helps them. A killer app that's a monopoly can hurt them, because the killer app can disappear from their platform.
  - sprout 16y ago
    They don't want a third-party app to become a key part of the iOS experience because then when it is ported some of the Apple sheen would likely rub off on Windows/Android.

kenjackson 16y ago

I disagree. Jobs wants to avoid overtly disgusting apps, like porn, but the App Store is littered with horrible user experiences. The OP makes a valid point, which is that Apple does fear that the mobile space ends up being driven by a handful of third-party apps, rather than by the device/OS (and the AppStore is part of the OS). So let me be clear. What is a killer app? A killer app is something that drives you to buy a device. The web browser is a killer app. Office was a killer app. Today there is no killer app IN the Apple App Store. The App Store is the killer app. And Apple controls it. What Apple doesn't want is for Adobe or MS or Google or StartupX to create the killer app on the iPhone as they could diminish the importance of the iOS platform (since presumably this app will also shortly become available on other platforms).

grasshoper 16y ago
He doesn't actually care about porn; it's just an easily defensible position upon which to base controls over a wide variety of apps that harbor even the most tangential possibility to be used to view any pornographic content.
Tycho 16y ago
Of course there are some low-quality apps on the App Store, but what do people seriously expect Apple to do? Start rejecting Apps because some reviewer doesn't like it? That is the mother of all 'uncertainty' scenarios that undermine developer confidence (much more serious than the smaller risk that your App is blocked for breaching some obscure/vague part of the licence). The only thing Apple can realistically do to affect the general quality levels is make broad decisions like no porn, no Flash, no technology X, Y, or Z.
- chc 16y ago
  It's less absurd than rejecting apps because of the language they were "originally written in," less absurd than rejecting minor updates to an app you've already approved — less absurd than most of Apple's rejections, actually, because at least then Apple's rationale would make sense without assuming Apple is simply evil.

CodeMage 16y ago

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). I think the OP's point was that Apple probably wants those few "really really classy apps" to be Apple's, not 3rd party. It makes sense, too.

ErrantX 16y ago
It makes sense, too. I'm not sure it entirely does. In a "perfect" world, maybe. But Apples is a platform (hardware/OS) company and not really a software company (in the same way).