12 ms·

You're exactly right that Apple has always had an ambivalent relationship with software developers. On the one hand, they needed them for their products to hav

You're exactly right that Apple has always had an ambivalent relationship with software developers. On the one hand, they needed them for their products to have any value for consumers. On the other hand, Jobs clearly saw low-quality, third party software as something that could taint the product Apple was selling. They really saw app developers as something very dangerous and difficult to control. Gates's view was always to just let anybody write anything they wanted, and the market would sort the good from the bad. I like the egalitarian nature of the Gates view, but ultimately I think Jobs was correct that the mere existence of low-quality software hurts your entire platform, and no amount of high-quality software can completely offset this.

corbezzoli 3y ago
It feels like they eventually managed to enforce this when the App Store came along, rejecting “useless” or “redundant” apps. Eventually they gave up on that idea because they loved seeing the number of apps rise, even if those apps were, in the end, low-quality software.
- plussed_reader 3y ago
  If they didn't have hidden 1st party api stuff that 3rd parties have difficulty leveraging this moniker would feel more useful/relevant, IMO. In the current context they use these labels to protect their workflow from other entities.
didntcheck 3y ago
Jobs' view sounds essentially the same as Nintendo's view in the wake of the video games crash, which eventually became the unanimous model in that industry. With iOS they also got to enforce it like a console, with a whitelist of acceptable software
- fulladder 3y ago
  Yeah, I think a big part of how Gates and others came into their view was that there were so many examples like Nintendo where a platform vendor had artificially limited the third party ecosystem and it constrained the success of the platform as a whole. Basically, the Gates view was the more "correct" one for the 1980s/1990s. At that time, most people did not own personal computers, even many businesses didn't, and growth came from on-boarding these non-users. The more apps available on your platform, the more likely a non-user would be to see a reason to buy a computer at all. Also, the platform Gates was selling was much cheaper to try. Today, everyone owns at least one computing device. Platforms aren't competing for non-users (there are none left), they are competing for users of other platforms. The Jobs view works better in that world since it improves platform quality perceptions.
  - paulryanrogers 3y ago
    Only if the users can be satisfied by the supposedly higher quality software, produced by devs willing to pay the Apple tax and unafraid of being Sherlock-ed If your need was niche then go away.
    - fulladder 3y ago
      There are only two smartphone platforms, and both of them have app stores and make other efforts to control the overall end user experience. What do you disagree with?
      - tomrod 3y ago
        I'm scratching my head what besides F-Droid and Altstore are available for smartphone platforms. Unless you mean the OS itself.
  - fulladder 3y ago
    By the way, there is no particular reason why the computer field had to go in this direction. If you look at the history of aviation, there were a lot of kit airplanes in the 1920s and 1930s because people thought that over time more and more people were going to want to own an airplane. That turned out to be wrong. Most people are content to pay somebody else to transport them. Saas is the computing equivalent of an airline, and it's very popular, but it hasn't fully displaced individual computer ownership. We'll see what happens long term.
    - smoldesu 3y ago
      > Saas [...] hasn't fully displaced individual computer ownership. The writing is on the wall though, isn't it? Even companies that you'd expect to go all-in on user freedom and ownership have locked down their platforms and ratcheted up the service offerings. Not a single FAANG company is willing to take a definitive stand in defense of their users. They all just see a bottom line waiting to be butchered. And for most users, I'd wager SaaS has displaced computer ownership. Stuff like the App Store, Play Store and even game consoles are ultimately a service unto themselves. Even disregarding that, the "happy path" of modern software is paved far away from user empowerment. People are generally more willing to pay for a subscription than to switch to a more convenient hardware platform.
- _def 3y ago
  I was so used to this view by Nintendo that it was hard to believe seeing a lot of really low quality games in the Nintendo switch store nowadays. The worst part is that it's still not easy to publish there (or get access to the SDK in the first place) in an independent way without a publisher or a history of already successfully released games.
networkchad 3y ago
Personally I’m not annoyed at low quality software - I just avoid it. What I draw a bright red line at is intrusive/abusive software (essentially malware). I’m glad apple enforces a standard with regard to software behavior that is acceptable versus not.
FirmwareBurner 3y ago
>Gates's view was always to just let anybody write anything they wanted, and the market would sort the good from the bad. I like the egalitarian nature of the Gates view, but ultimately I think Jobs was correct that the mere existence of low-quality software hurts your entire platform, and no amount of high-quality software can completely offset this. That is wrong on so many levels. I grew up in a Windows environment in the '90s tro '00s and had the best video games in the world at my finger tips, while Mac users at the time had what, some high quality photo editing software? Good for them I guess. So unless you don't count video games as software, Gates was right. DOS and Windows being the main platforms for the hottest videogames of the moment, was what led to the popularity of the PC over Macs at the time. I think Doom alone was responsible for millions of PC and MS-DOS sales. Yeah, Job's Next-Step machines and SW were cool, UNIXy and all, but to what end if nobody but the wealthiest businesses and institutions bought them in numbers you can count on a few hands? In fact, Jobs understood from the fail of the Next-step and the success of the DOS-PC that you need to get your devices cheaply in the hands and homes of as many casual consumers as possible (hence the success of the colorful and affordable iMac G3) and forget the premium business workstation market.
- sealeck 3y ago
  Apple has always gone for the premium end of the market, and with vastly increasing wealth inequality, that's where the money is these days. You can see this is in other luxury industries which make incredible amounts of money considering how small their markets are (in terms of numbers of participants). This focus on high-quality software has also encouraged _better_ software developers to build in Apple's ecosystem. Even today a lot of the best software is only available for Mac or iPhone.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
    >that's where the money is these days. We were talking about the past. And back in those days when computers were expensive, most people and companies were writing SW for the most popular platform out there, which at the time was watever had the best bang for the buck thjat home users could afford: Coomodore, Sinclair, Amiga, MS-DOS, etc. >Even today a lot of the best software is only available for Mac or iPhone. Again, we are talking about the past. TikTok might be the hottest app today, but back then it was Doom.
pdonis 3y ago
> Gates's view was always to just let anybody write anything they wanted, and the market would sort the good from the bad. Gates's view was also that, once the market had sorted the good from the bad, Microsoft would, if desired, just implement whatever killer apps third party developers had discovered and make them part of Windows, cutting the floor out from under the third party developers. In other words, Gates viewed third party developers as doing market research for Microsoft that Microsoft didn't have to pay for. > ultimately I think Jobs was correct that the mere existence of low-quality software hurts your entire platform Windows is still well ahead of both macOS and iOS in terms of market share, so I think it's more that Jobs and Gates had different definitions of success.
- sealeck 3y ago
  How is Windows ahead of iOS in terms of market share? The Windows phone was discontinued _years_ ago?
  - DerekL 3y ago
    If you look at all types computing platforms combined, then Windows is ahead of iOS. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems#Web_clients https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_syste...
- nuancebydefault 3y ago
  MS made killer software, literally killing the competition by any means.
- fulladder 3y ago
  Yep, and Apple does this too. The Spotlight feature in macOS (OS-wide search, it's the little magnifying glass in the top right) was a feature that Apple blatantly ripped off from a popular early-2000s third party extension. Adding this to the OS killed that company overnight. Forget their name, but someone else might remember. All platform vendors seem to do this, which is unfortunate.
  - 3y ago
faeriechangling 3y ago
When I setup computers for family members I've used things like Windows 10 S mode BECAUSE it limits the software that can be installed. They are too low skill to know what applications to trust. At my work, I similarly have gotten secure administrative workstations deployed with again, very limited lists of software. These users being compromised has such extreme consequences that one cannot trust any application to run on these computers. So I can certainly appreciate the need to be very exclusive with the software allowed on a device. Yet I see this exclusivity being rather anti-consumer in practice. iOS is the most secure operating system I've ever seen for the average person, and yet things like adblocking are behind a paywall. Neutering Adblock for the sake of security is considered acceptable. Blocking alternatives to WebKit may reduce the overall attack surface area Apple contends with and it also limits the functionality of the phone since v8 is the de facto standard. Blocking alternatives to the App Store absolutely enhances security while also forcing consumers to pay more. Then you get into things which have nothing to do with security truly, like how you can only make "Music" your default music player on iOS, not Spotify. I really appreciate what Windows did with "S mode" because it's optional yet provides benefits to consumers in niche situations. I similarly appreciate the enterprise features of Windows to configure a laptop which has limited access to software to enhance security. Apple on the other hand forces the exclusive use of their software to benefit themselves at the expense of their customers. It is unacceptable and I would vote for anybody pledging to outlaw it as monopolistic abuse. Software exclusivity is useful, shoving it down people's throats is abhorrent.
- andrewjl 3y ago
  > yet things like adblocking are behind a paywall Are you referring to iCloud Private Relay?
  - faeriechangling 3y ago
    More that most Adblock extensions on safari are paid such as AdGuard, whereas on Android I can get better AdBlockers working for free.
    - 3y ago
jandrese 3y ago
> Jobs clearly saw low-quality, third party software as something that could taint the product Apple was selling. I mostly disagree with this, so long as the low quality software isn't pushed by the platform then it's not that much danger to the reputation. Lack of quality software is a much larger danger, and it's not easy to tell ahead of time where the quality will come from. The big problem is when you are running your own app store and it becomes packed with garbage.

corbezzoli 3y ago

It feels like they eventually managed to enforce this when the App Store came along, rejecting “useless” or “redundant” apps. Eventually they gave up on that idea because they loved seeing the number of apps rise, even if those apps were, in the end, low-quality software.

plussed_reader 3y ago
If they didn't have hidden 1st party api stuff that 3rd parties have difficulty leveraging this moniker would feel more useful/relevant, IMO. In the current context they use these labels to protect their workflow from other entities.

didntcheck 3y ago

Jobs' view sounds essentially the same as Nintendo's view in the wake of the video games crash, which eventually became the unanimous model in that industry. With iOS they also got to enforce it like a console, with a whitelist of acceptable software

fulladder 3y ago
Yeah, I think a big part of how Gates and others came into their view was that there were so many examples like Nintendo where a platform vendor had artificially limited the third party ecosystem and it constrained the success of the platform as a whole. Basically, the Gates view was the more "correct" one for the 1980s/1990s. At that time, most people did not own personal computers, even many businesses didn't, and growth came from on-boarding these non-users. The more apps available on your platform, the more likely a non-user would be to see a reason to buy a computer at all. Also, the platform Gates was selling was much cheaper to try. Today, everyone owns at least one computing device. Platforms aren't competing for non-users (there are none left), they are competing for users of other platforms. The Jobs view works better in that world since it improves platform quality perceptions.
- paulryanrogers 3y ago
  Only if the users can be satisfied by the supposedly higher quality software, produced by devs willing to pay the Apple tax and unafraid of being Sherlock-ed If your need was niche then go away.
  - fulladder 3y ago
    There are only two smartphone platforms, and both of them have app stores and make other efforts to control the overall end user experience. What do you disagree with?
    - tomrod 3y ago
      I'm scratching my head what besides F-Droid and Altstore are available for smartphone platforms. Unless you mean the OS itself.
- fulladder 3y ago
  By the way, there is no particular reason why the computer field had to go in this direction. If you look at the history of aviation, there were a lot of kit airplanes in the 1920s and 1930s because people thought that over time more and more people were going to want to own an airplane. That turned out to be wrong. Most people are content to pay somebody else to transport them. Saas is the computing equivalent of an airline, and it's very popular, but it hasn't fully displaced individual computer ownership. We'll see what happens long term.
  - smoldesu 3y ago
    > Saas [...] hasn't fully displaced individual computer ownership. The writing is on the wall though, isn't it? Even companies that you'd expect to go all-in on user freedom and ownership have locked down their platforms and ratcheted up the service offerings. Not a single FAANG company is willing to take a definitive stand in defense of their users. They all just see a bottom line waiting to be butchered. And for most users, I'd wager SaaS has displaced computer ownership. Stuff like the App Store, Play Store and even game consoles are ultimately a service unto themselves. Even disregarding that, the "happy path" of modern software is paved far away from user empowerment. People are generally more willing to pay for a subscription than to switch to a more convenient hardware platform.
_def 3y ago
I was so used to this view by Nintendo that it was hard to believe seeing a lot of really low quality games in the Nintendo switch store nowadays. The worst part is that it's still not easy to publish there (or get access to the SDK in the first place) in an independent way without a publisher or a history of already successfully released games.

networkchad 3y ago

Personally I’m not annoyed at low quality software - I just avoid it. What I draw a bright red line at is intrusive/abusive software (essentially malware). I’m glad apple enforces a standard with regard to software behavior that is acceptable versus not.

FirmwareBurner 3y ago

>Gates's view was always to just let anybody write anything they wanted, and the market would sort the good from the bad. I like the egalitarian nature of the Gates view, but ultimately I think Jobs was correct that the mere existence of low-quality software hurts your entire platform, and no amount of high-quality software can completely offset this. That is wrong on so many levels. I grew up in a Windows environment in the '90s tro '00s and had the best video games in the world at my finger tips, while Mac users at the time had what, some high quality photo editing software? Good for them I guess. So unless you don't count video games as software, Gates was right. DOS and Windows being the main platforms for the hottest videogames of the moment, was what led to the popularity of the PC over Macs at the time. I think Doom alone was responsible for millions of PC and MS-DOS sales. Yeah, Job's Next-Step machines and SW were cool, UNIXy and all, but to what end if nobody but the wealthiest businesses and institutions bought them in numbers you can count on a few hands? In fact, Jobs understood from the fail of the Next-step and the success of the DOS-PC that you need to get your devices cheaply in the hands and homes of as many casual consumers as possible (hence the success of the colorful and affordable iMac G3) and forget the premium business workstation market.

sealeck 3y ago
Apple has always gone for the premium end of the market, and with vastly increasing wealth inequality, that's where the money is these days. You can see this is in other luxury industries which make incredible amounts of money considering how small their markets are (in terms of numbers of participants). This focus on high-quality software has also encouraged _better_ software developers to build in Apple's ecosystem. Even today a lot of the best software is only available for Mac or iPhone.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- FirmwareBurner 3y ago
  >that's where the money is these days. We were talking about the past. And back in those days when computers were expensive, most people and companies were writing SW for the most popular platform out there, which at the time was watever had the best bang for the buck thjat home users could afford: Coomodore, Sinclair, Amiga, MS-DOS, etc. >Even today a lot of the best software is only available for Mac or iPhone. Again, we are talking about the past. TikTok might be the hottest app today, but back then it was Doom.

pdonis 3y ago

> Gates's view was always to just let anybody write anything they wanted, and the market would sort the good from the bad. Gates's view was also that, once the market had sorted the good from the bad, Microsoft would, if desired, just implement whatever killer apps third party developers had discovered and make them part of Windows, cutting the floor out from under the third party developers. In other words, Gates viewed third party developers as doing market research for Microsoft that Microsoft didn't have to pay for. > ultimately I think Jobs was correct that the mere existence of low-quality software hurts your entire platform Windows is still well ahead of both macOS and iOS in terms of market share, so I think it's more that Jobs and Gates had different definitions of success.

sealeck 3y ago
How is Windows ahead of iOS in terms of market share? The Windows phone was discontinued _years_ ago?
- DerekL 3y ago
  If you look at all types computing platforms combined, then Windows is ahead of iOS. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems#Web_clients https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_syste...
nuancebydefault 3y ago
MS made killer software, literally killing the competition by any means.
fulladder 3y ago
Yep, and Apple does this too. The Spotlight feature in macOS (OS-wide search, it's the little magnifying glass in the top right) was a feature that Apple blatantly ripped off from a popular early-2000s third party extension. Adding this to the OS killed that company overnight. Forget their name, but someone else might remember. All platform vendors seem to do this, which is unfortunate.
- 3y ago

faeriechangling 3y ago

When I setup computers for family members I've used things like Windows 10 S mode BECAUSE it limits the software that can be installed. They are too low skill to know what applications to trust. At my work, I similarly have gotten secure administrative workstations deployed with again, very limited lists of software. These users being compromised has such extreme consequences that one cannot trust any application to run on these computers. So I can certainly appreciate the need to be very exclusive with the software allowed on a device. Yet I see this exclusivity being rather anti-consumer in practice. iOS is the most secure operating system I've ever seen for the average person, and yet things like adblocking are behind a paywall. Neutering Adblock for the sake of security is considered acceptable. Blocking alternatives to WebKit may reduce the overall attack surface area Apple contends with and it also limits the functionality of the phone since v8 is the de facto standard. Blocking alternatives to the App Store absolutely enhances security while also forcing consumers to pay more. Then you get into things which have nothing to do with security truly, like how you can only make "Music" your default music player on iOS, not Spotify. I really appreciate what Windows did with "S mode" because it's optional yet provides benefits to consumers in niche situations. I similarly appreciate the enterprise features of Windows to configure a laptop which has limited access to software to enhance security. Apple on the other hand forces the exclusive use of their software to benefit themselves at the expense of their customers. It is unacceptable and I would vote for anybody pledging to outlaw it as monopolistic abuse. Software exclusivity is useful, shoving it down people's throats is abhorrent.

andrewjl 3y ago
> yet things like adblocking are behind a paywall Are you referring to iCloud Private Relay?
- faeriechangling 3y ago
  More that most Adblock extensions on safari are paid such as AdGuard, whereas on Android I can get better AdBlockers working for free.
  - 3y ago

jandrese 3y ago

> Jobs clearly saw low-quality, third party software as something that could taint the product Apple was selling. I mostly disagree with this, so long as the low quality software isn't pushed by the platform then it's not that much danger to the reputation. Lack of quality software is a much larger danger, and it's not easy to tell ahead of time where the quality will come from. The big problem is when you are running your own app store and it becomes packed with garbage.