4 ms·

Grubber misses the simple fact that at the time of it's debut, the App Store was the best overall environment for writing mobile apps. Single device/platform, c

Grubber misses the simple fact that at the time of it's debut, the App Store was the best overall environment for writing mobile apps. Single device/platform, central and easy distribution etc. Today, both Android and BlackBerry have app stores, and Android is a far better platform from a developers perspective (all apps are 1st class apps, immensely powerful SDK, more mainstream language etc, easier distribution etc). So while Apple may have initially attracted developers because of quality, they continue to attract them because they are popular and because their app store focuses on payments more. With the coming onslaught of Android devices its very likely that Android devices will outnumber iPhones, all Apple will have left is a store that is more geared towards payment, and even there Android might catch up. Regardless, 2010 will be an interesting year in the mobile space. I'm working on p a cross-platform app (iPhone/Android/BlackBerry), so I think it'll be interesting to compare downloads, sales, rate of adoption, feedback etc across all three.

unalone 17y ago
Neither Android nor Blackberry has hardware or software as well-designed as the iPhone's. One of Apple's major draws has always been its anal attention to detail, which RIM and Google don't share. Google has one of the worst track records regarding design, period. Neither Android nor the Blackberry has a unified product. When I design for the iPhone I know the exact product dimensions, I know exactly how the user will be interacting with my program, and I know it will be the exact same a year or two from now. I can make one app that any iPhone owner can use and it will be used exactly as I want it used. With Android and Blackberry, that's not the case. all apps are 1st class apps Pardon my poor French, but what the fuck does that mean? I've seen Android apps and iPhone apps, and the Android apps are uglier and less elegant.
- durin42 17y ago
  What he means by all apps being first class is that it's really a dogfooded API and platform. Apple is pretty far from the "we build our own apps in the same sandbox you do" state that Android is in. As an example: Twidroid (and most other Android apps) can run in the background, and use data in the background without a custom push server. Apple's Mail app, on the other hand, isn't buildable (for the iPhone) with the public APIs. You'd need to run in the background for that, which isn't available. Don't judge the API based on the quality of apps you're seeing - I've seen some well-polished Android apps, and some legendarily horrible iPhone ones.
- dstorrs 17y ago
  Most likely he means that Android developers don't need to deal with their apps being 2nd class citizens the way iPhone developers do. Unless you work for Apple: 1) You are restricted as to which parts of the SDK you can use. 2) Your app may be rejected for any reason, no reason, or whatever reason. The reason may or may not be explained, and may or may not make sense. 3) Even if it isn't rejected, it will still take weeks or months to get your app into the hands of customers. None of this applies to Apple apps, of course. Therefore, independent developers are 2nd class citizens of the iPhone.
  - unalone 17y ago
    Gotcha. I'd misinterpreted the remark. Thanks!
- thwarted 17y ago
  first class means that there is no priority in which apps can do what. Apps can be written for Android that completely replace core functionality, like the dialer or the contact list, or even the home screen. With the iPhone, there are multiple classes of apps, and anything not sanctioned by Apple takes a backseat to those apps provided or sanctioned by Apple. This is evidenced by the "duplicates functionality" limitation of the Apple vetted App store.
- theBobMcCormick 17y ago
  Have you seen some of the upcoming Android phones? As much as I hate Verizon, the Verizon Droid from Motorola looks like it'll be every bit as good hardware-wise as the current gen iPhones. See here for a comparison of the Droid and the iPhone 3GS (http://www.networkworld.com/news/2009/101909-droid-vs-iphone.html?fsrc=netflash-rss http://www.networkworld.com/news/2009/101909-droid-vs-iphone...)
  - ptomato 17y ago
    Which is great and all, but the fact that you only need to develop for (effectively) one piece of hardware is still a huge competitive advantage for the iPhone vs. anything else. (Except the Pre, but the Pre has other problems.)
    - theBobMcCormick 17y ago
      If you look at the way the Android SDK handles device differences, it's really much less of an issue that most people seem to make it out to be. Accommodating different resolutions, for example, is pretty trivial for an Android app developer. The only (IMHO) that might be an issue is the differences in input capabilities (ie, hardware keyboard or no hardware keyboard, trackball or no trackball, etc). That should no be an issue at all for productivity apps, but I do see how it could be an issue for games. It's hard to balance your level difficulties and design your play mechanics if you're not sure what kind of input device your players will be using.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
megaduck 17y ago
If Apple remains tied to AT&T, then Android might very well become the dominant platform by gobbling up marketshare from WinMo, Symbian, and BlackBerry. Android will probably also gain share by moving down-market into "feature phones". As successful as the iPhone is, it's still a miniscule fraction of overall phone sales. This battle feels hauntingly familiar. Back in the 1980s, Apple made a boatload of money by pushing an elegant, easy-to-use 'sealed box' platform. They eventually got clobbered by cheaper hardware running more open software. If Apple isn't careful, that's going to play out all over again.
- unalone 17y ago
  It's not a competition. The iPhone offers things Android does not and can not offer. It will always have a market. Meanwhile, Android is appearing on dozens of phones, none of which individually will rival the iPhone. They both have a spot in the market. This isn't the same as the PC market was back then. Apple's in a much more dominant position, it's making more money than any of its competitors, it's got the world's most renowned design team, it's the most trusted brand on the planet in key demographics as of 2009. It's got no competition in its particular field, which isn't necessarily that of "phone".
  - megaduck 17y ago
    I'm sorry, but you just described Apple in 1985. Thanks to the Mac and the Apple II, they were making money hand-over-fist. They also had the best designers, and were an incredibly trusted brand with both professionals and the education market. To top it all off, they had a giant technology lead over any of their competitors (except Commodore). The Mac was considered far more than a "computer" at the time. The IBM PC never matched the Macintosh for sales. However, the combined fleet of clones reached such a high volume that the PC clone market became the primary target for developers. Android has similar potential. You're probably right that the iPhone will stick around indefinitely. The Macintosh, in a similar position, has increased its total unit sales, year over year, every year since the initial release. However, it would be hard to argue that Apple was competitive during the 1990s for mindshare or developers. The real risk to Apple is not that they'll crash and burn and go out of business. The risk is that they'll lose their current lead in developer mindshare, and that's a real risk indeed. *For historical marketshare context, check out http://www.jeremyreimer.com/total_share.html http://www.jeremyreimer.com/total_share.html .
vessenes 17y ago
I agree -- I think Grubber is missing the boat on the overall trends. Android OS devices will, guaranteed, outsell total number of iPhones in the not too distant future. Will it be 12 or 24 months? I don't know, but right now Google is knocking the ball out of the park on distribution deals: Apple and AT&T market the iPhone and its OS. Sprint, T-mobile, Verizon, Barnes & Noble (through the Nook), HTC, etc. etc. all market Android OS and phones right now. Which group do you think will win? Eventually the developers will come, especially because developing for Android is frankly easier for developers: significantly more open platform, and broader developer skills for Android's app SDK. Right now, Android's Market app sucks (1.6's update is a bit better). Android Devices will vary more in terms of hardware, although Apple's are starting to differentiate as well. Apple had a pretty good Store app from the get-go, a single platform to develop for, a beautiful UI and almost no competition in the paid app space. Apple pulled out in front, and they'll probably always have an arguably better product, if Steve keeps up his perfectionist ways with successor products. It might even be that the most you could make as a successful developer would be having a 'hit app' on the Apple Store. But, the market conditions will almost certainly generate far more value, in aggregate, for Android developers than iPhone developers; it's going to be a more democratized, far broader market for Android devices really soon now.

unalone 17y ago

Neither Android nor Blackberry has hardware or software as well-designed as the iPhone's. One of Apple's major draws has always been its anal attention to detail, which RIM and Google don't share. Google has one of the worst track records regarding design, period. Neither Android nor the Blackberry has a unified product. When I design for the iPhone I know the exact product dimensions, I know exactly how the user will be interacting with my program, and I know it will be the exact same a year or two from now. I can make one app that any iPhone owner can use and it will be used exactly as I want it used. With Android and Blackberry, that's not the case. all apps are 1st class apps Pardon my poor French, but what the fuck does that mean? I've seen Android apps and iPhone apps, and the Android apps are uglier and less elegant.

durin42 17y ago
What he means by all apps being first class is that it's really a dogfooded API and platform. Apple is pretty far from the "we build our own apps in the same sandbox you do" state that Android is in. As an example: Twidroid (and most other Android apps) can run in the background, and use data in the background without a custom push server. Apple's Mail app, on the other hand, isn't buildable (for the iPhone) with the public APIs. You'd need to run in the background for that, which isn't available. Don't judge the API based on the quality of apps you're seeing - I've seen some well-polished Android apps, and some legendarily horrible iPhone ones.
dstorrs 17y ago
Most likely he means that Android developers don't need to deal with their apps being 2nd class citizens the way iPhone developers do. Unless you work for Apple: 1) You are restricted as to which parts of the SDK you can use. 2) Your app may be rejected for any reason, no reason, or whatever reason. The reason may or may not be explained, and may or may not make sense. 3) Even if it isn't rejected, it will still take weeks or months to get your app into the hands of customers. None of this applies to Apple apps, of course. Therefore, independent developers are 2nd class citizens of the iPhone.
- unalone 17y ago
  Gotcha. I'd misinterpreted the remark. Thanks!
thwarted 17y ago
first class means that there is no priority in which apps can do what. Apps can be written for Android that completely replace core functionality, like the dialer or the contact list, or even the home screen. With the iPhone, there are multiple classes of apps, and anything not sanctioned by Apple takes a backseat to those apps provided or sanctioned by Apple. This is evidenced by the "duplicates functionality" limitation of the Apple vetted App store.
theBobMcCormick 17y ago
Have you seen some of the upcoming Android phones? As much as I hate Verizon, the Verizon Droid from Motorola looks like it'll be every bit as good hardware-wise as the current gen iPhones. See here for a comparison of the Droid and the iPhone 3GS (http://www.networkworld.com/news/2009/101909-droid-vs-iphone.html?fsrc=netflash-rss http://www.networkworld.com/news/2009/101909-droid-vs-iphone...)
- ptomato 17y ago
  Which is great and all, but the fact that you only need to develop for (effectively) one piece of hardware is still a huge competitive advantage for the iPhone vs. anything else. (Except the Pre, but the Pre has other problems.)
  - theBobMcCormick 17y ago
    If you look at the way the Android SDK handles device differences, it's really much less of an issue that most people seem to make it out to be. Accommodating different resolutions, for example, is pretty trivial for an Android app developer. The only (IMHO) that might be an issue is the differences in input capabilities (ie, hardware keyboard or no hardware keyboard, trackball or no trackball, etc). That should no be an issue at all for productivity apps, but I do see how it could be an issue for games. It's hard to balance your level difficulties and design your play mechanics if you're not sure what kind of input device your players will be using.

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

megaduck 17y ago

If Apple remains tied to AT&T, then Android might very well become the dominant platform by gobbling up marketshare from WinMo, Symbian, and BlackBerry. Android will probably also gain share by moving down-market into "feature phones". As successful as the iPhone is, it's still a miniscule fraction of overall phone sales. This battle feels hauntingly familiar. Back in the 1980s, Apple made a boatload of money by pushing an elegant, easy-to-use 'sealed box' platform. They eventually got clobbered by cheaper hardware running more open software. If Apple isn't careful, that's going to play out all over again.

unalone 17y ago
It's not a competition. The iPhone offers things Android does not and can not offer. It will always have a market. Meanwhile, Android is appearing on dozens of phones, none of which individually will rival the iPhone. They both have a spot in the market. This isn't the same as the PC market was back then. Apple's in a much more dominant position, it's making more money than any of its competitors, it's got the world's most renowned design team, it's the most trusted brand on the planet in key demographics as of 2009. It's got no competition in its particular field, which isn't necessarily that of "phone".
- megaduck 17y ago
  I'm sorry, but you just described Apple in 1985. Thanks to the Mac and the Apple II, they were making money hand-over-fist. They also had the best designers, and were an incredibly trusted brand with both professionals and the education market. To top it all off, they had a giant technology lead over any of their competitors (except Commodore). The Mac was considered far more than a "computer" at the time. The IBM PC never matched the Macintosh for sales. However, the combined fleet of clones reached such a high volume that the PC clone market became the primary target for developers. Android has similar potential. You're probably right that the iPhone will stick around indefinitely. The Macintosh, in a similar position, has increased its total unit sales, year over year, every year since the initial release. However, it would be hard to argue that Apple was competitive during the 1990s for mindshare or developers. The real risk to Apple is not that they'll crash and burn and go out of business. The risk is that they'll lose their current lead in developer mindshare, and that's a real risk indeed. *For historical marketshare context, check out http://www.jeremyreimer.com/total_share.html http://www.jeremyreimer.com/total_share.html .

vessenes 17y ago

I agree -- I think Grubber is missing the boat on the overall trends. Android OS devices will, guaranteed, outsell total number of iPhones in the not too distant future. Will it be 12 or 24 months? I don't know, but right now Google is knocking the ball out of the park on distribution deals: Apple and AT&T market the iPhone and its OS. Sprint, T-mobile, Verizon, Barnes & Noble (through the Nook), HTC, etc. etc. all market Android OS and phones right now. Which group do you think will win? Eventually the developers will come, especially because developing for Android is frankly easier for developers: significantly more open platform, and broader developer skills for Android's app SDK. Right now, Android's Market app sucks (1.6's update is a bit better). Android Devices will vary more in terms of hardware, although Apple's are starting to differentiate as well. Apple had a pretty good Store app from the get-go, a single platform to develop for, a beautiful UI and almost no competition in the paid app space. Apple pulled out in front, and they'll probably always have an arguably better product, if Steve keeps up his perfectionist ways with successor products. It might even be that the most you could make as a successful developer would be having a 'hit app' on the Apple Store. But, the market conditions will almost certainly generate far more value, in aggregate, for Android developers than iPhone developers; it's going to be a more democratized, far broader market for Android devices really soon now.