Simon’s Blog

Comments

1. Mr X wrote:

   Come on - they were working on an SDK - just because Jobs says something doesn’t make it true - for example he dissed the idea of a video ipod while they were probably working on one ( although they might have not yet made the decision to ship )

   http://www.engadget.com/2004/04/29/steve-jobs-says-it-again-no-video-ipod/
   http://gigaom.com/2005/07/18/apple-will-do-a-video-ipod/

   The venom in his voice may have been due to the fact that he really doesn’t like talking about future products before they are reality - for one thing it makes his keynotes a bit flat if it’s not really news.

   Remember the reaction to Leopard launch - they had talked about it too much in the preceeding years - it wasn’t news - people where disappointed ( what no new stuff???!!! ) -yet Leopard was packed with new cool stuff - it had just been talked to death already.

   All these Windows 7 blogs etc to get teasers out there is ok - but you have to be really careful - you might in the end create excitement when there is nothing to buy, and is dissipated by the time of release.

   Some people haven’t quite twigged that blogs create momentum for things that are released early and often - not for things that you can’t get for 3 years.

   Posted 19 Aug 2008 at 2:05 pm ¶

2. Jim Stead wrote:

   Apple’s priorities are (1) customers, (2) investors, and (3) partners. #3 is a distant third. When it is to the benefit of customers and investors they will drop the NDA. iphone apps are not compared to what they some day could be, they are compared to what the competition offers (and that is dismal).

   Background apps will be allowed the day they can be guaranteed not to disrupt the phone, and not before.

   Posted 19 Aug 2008 at 3:19 pm ¶

3. simon wrote:

   @Mr X

   I agree that Steve Jobs likes to misdirect sometimes (e.g. the video iPod you mentioned). However, I don’t think that’s what happened here. I think all the evidence really points to Apple *not* originally intending to release an “open” SDK for general developer use. Clearly, they understood that they wouldn’t develop *all* iPhone apps; but it’s pretty clear IMHO they intended to allow only favored development shops to build apps for the platform.

   If you look at the company’s actions, they’ve been dragged kicking and screaming towards making iPhone an open platform for developers. They’re still dragging their feet. For example: the developer NDA; crippling key functionality in the SDK, such as the ability to run things in the background, which makes third-party apps second-class citizens compared to Apple-developed apps; making the App Store the exclusive way of distributing apps (with kill-switches built-in), rather than a non-exclusive distribution mechanism; and banning applications like Java, Sliverlight and Flash, that would enable non-Apple-approved code to run on the device.

   In other words, Apple still seems to be clinging to what I’d assert is their *original* flawed idea that the iPhone is more like an iPod (a closed device), than a personal computer (an open device). It’s not like they’re the only ones with that point of view - many people viewed the iPhone as being more like an iPod than a PC.

   With Leopard, I think the reason people were disappointed there is that Steve Jobs promised there would be a bunch of new “secret” unannounced features in Leopard when it launched… and it turned out there weren’t any.

   @Jim Stead

   The truth is: the developer NDA has worked *against* the interests of customers from Day One. It has never delivered any benefits to either customers or investors. Apple just got this wrong. I suspect they will lift the NDA in the near future, because it would be surprising if they don’t figure this out for themselves soon.

   Posted 19 Aug 2008 at 3:26 pm ¶

4. Robert B. wrote:

   I’ve read that Apple could loose copyrights to their code in Europe due to the release of NDA information too soon. The European process is different than here. Has no one noticed that all of the Mac software developers have NDAs to contend with. These change over time as aspects of the APIs are protected. It’s early days and some are frustrated. Apple has too much to loose to remove the NDA too soon.

   Posted 19 Aug 2008 at 6:43 pm ¶

5. Jim Stead wrote:

   Apple for 20 years and more has taken first stabs at something and then adapted as circumstances demonstrate opportunities. They weren’t “dragged” into releasing an SDK; they did it when they saw an advantage (this is called adaptation, a human trait).

   If what you imply about “open” were true then linux machines and linux phones should have the best software, and that patently isn’t the case.

   Posted 19 Aug 2008 at 7:41 pm ¶

6. simon wrote:

   @Robert,

   Where did you read that? It sounds wrong. Are you sure you mean *copyright*? I suppose it could just possibly be a patent issue, but really, if that’s the reason, they need to get on filing anything that they think is patentable ASAP. When they’ve done that, and got rid of the NDA, they should then ask themselves if their lawyers are doing them more harm than good.

   @Jim,

   Jim, I imply nothing about the benefits open source and/or Linux in my post. What I’m saying is that preventing developers from discussing software development for iPhone is directly responsible for developers producing lower quality of iPhone apps than they otherwise could; and is thus not in the interests of Apple’s customers. This is not a matter of opinion. This is a fact.

   BTW yes, you’re right that Apple released an iPhone SDK when they saw advantage in doing so. They *were* dragged into it though. In fact, the demands from developers for an iPhone SDK grew so strong, that Steve Jobs felt the need to write an open letter on the Apple web-site that effectively said, “OK! OK! We get it! You can have an SDK! Give us a bit of time to figure it out please!”

   At the risk of repeating myself: Apple needs to get rid of the parts of the iPhone developer NDA that prevent developers discussing the finer points of iPhone software development. It would be to Apple’s advantage to do that. The potential of that advantage exists *right now*: it will not somehow *become* a potential advantage when Apple figures it out.

   If you don’t believe me that Apple developers want Apple to get rid of these restrictions, check out what developers are saying:

   http://www.fuckingnda.com/

   Posted 19 Aug 2008 at 8:35 pm ¶

7. Mr X wrote:

   Clearly you think Apple engineers are incredible superstars! - creating an shippable SDK and an mechanism of online app deliverly, a mechanism to get around having to run background apps ( in a subset of cases ) - all designed, built, QA’s and delivered in a matter of months - when Job’s was forced to move them from whatever they were working on onto making a shippable SDK because of the demand.

   Ok you could argue the SDK would be ‘almost’ there for internal use - but you know the effort involved in polishing something for release - however the app store, app signing, kill mechanisms etc all aren’t required if you have a totally closed device. Oh - and bringing VC’s on board to fund startups.

   The iPhone/Touch is a platform - as Job’s has described - it’s one of the key legs of their strategy.

   On the issue of the NDA here - I wonder how much of this is history - after all didn’t large chunks of Quicktime code make it into Windows at one point via a third party? However I agree it’s damaging to the free software community - no resources for non-professsionals to make hobby apps. However that does mean it’s probably easier to make money off the platform if your a professional one or two man company as you aren’t so overwhelmed by the free stuff.

   @Jim
   I think you had the order wrong there - Customers first? Really? Surely it’s Apple first - or was that implicit on your list?

   Posted 20 Aug 2008 at 7:45 am ¶

8. simon wrote:

   @Mr X - For sure, it takes time and resources to develop an SDK, and all the things that go with it. That’s why Apple pre-announced it when they decided to do one. In October 2007, Steve Jobs wrote an open letter that said something like:

   Let me just say it - we want native third-party apps on iPhone. We’re aiming to have an SDK in developer’s hands in February 2008.

   In the end, the developer release slipped into March 20o8; and the App Store launched July 2008 making third-party apps available to iPhone customers. It’s clear that Apple had no issue pre-announcing their plans for the developer SDK and the App Store. If they had been planning an SDK from Day One, they could just as easily have pre-announced it Day One.

   So, how did Apple figure out that they needed an SDK? Easy. They were fighting a losing battle to “control” the iPhone platform. Soon after the iPhone’s release, people figured out how to write native apps for iPhone by themselves. They didn’t need an SDK ( and their apps could run in the background, btw). iPhone customers loved these “illegal” third-party apps. A huge percentage of them would hack (jail-break) their iPhones, to install them.

   It was against this background that Apple realised that they had to do something to stem the flood of hacked phones, if they wanted to retain control of any aspect of the iPhone user experience.

   As a tactic to do retain control of the platform, the SDK has worked pretty well. Most customers now prefer to install “approved” third-party apps, rather than hack their phones. Most developers want their apps to reach the biggest audience, so prefer to develop apps using the SDK, rather than for hacked phones.

   Posted 20 Aug 2008 at 8:40 am ¶

9. Mr X wrote:

   A reasonable argument - there are two points that don’t seem quite right - the timing is still seems quick if they only decided in Oct - they could have decided earlier but then that’s almost back at launch.

   I think he may have been forced to announce early by the demand, I’m not sure it was a change of plan though - why not mention at launch? - I still think talking about something in the future that you can’t have at launch takes away from the launch.

   The second thing that seems strange is the argument that they so desperately wanted to control the phone, yet the solution was to opened it up!

   Was the alternative approach of blocking the mods so technically impossible? I don’t know - seems that on a device that needs a network to operate you have quite a few options to be able to block mods if you really wanted to - ie brick modded phones. I suppose one possibility is the genie was out of the bottle and they didn’t want to brick 100,000’s of phones - but they could have easily offered some sort of Apple store reset.

   Posted 20 Aug 2008 at 8:33 pm ¶

10. Asam Bashir wrote:

    “Remember the reaction to Leopard launch - they had talked about it too much in the preceeding years - it wasn’t news - people where disappointed ( what no new stuff???!!! ) -yet Leopard was packed with new cool stuff - it had just been talked to death already.”

    Apple didn’t talk about Leopard more then usual pre-release, just it has more fans so there is a huge increase in Apple fans sites since iPod was added. More fans simply require more information and discussion.

    Posted 21 Aug 2008 at 2:03 am ¶

11. simon wrote:

    @Mr X - I’m not sure where you got the idea that Apple doesn’t pre-announce things. Here’s a time-line for Apple iPhone-related announcements. It’s stuffed full of pre-announcements.

    9 Jan 2007 - Steve Jobs reveals iPhone for first time. It’s a pre-announcement i.e. iPhone won’t be available for months.

    In the following hours, Jobs gives interviews to journalists where he pre-announces Apple’s future strategy when it comes to third-party apps. It will be closed to developers. Suggests Apple may invite other companies to build apps for iPhone on a case by case basis.

    10 Jan 2007 - Apple developers start lobbying Apple to open iPhone to developers by filing bug reports with Apple.

    11 June 2007 - At WWDC, Steve Jobs pre-announces that developers will be able to build apps for iPhone. He says they have worked a “sweet” solution for third-party apps. There will be no native apps, though. Rather, developers will be able build AJAX web apps that run in Safari and can hyperlink to certain native iPhone features.

    29 June 2007 - iPhone actually launched i.e. on sale in stores.

    In the following weeks and months, developers and customers largely reject Apple’s “sweet” solution for third-party apps. Jail-breaking is hugely popular with customers, and developers create tens/ hundreds of native apps to run on jail-broken iPhones.

    There’s a constant battle between Apple and the iPhone hackers. Apple keep trying to lock the iPhone down, including bricking iPhones of customers that hack their phones. Each time Apple releases a new security update, hackers find ways around the new update within days or weeks. It’s clear that Apple is losing the battle against hackers.

    17 October 2007 - Steve Jobs pre-announces that Apple will be making a native App SDK to developers in February 2008.

    Posted 21 Aug 2008 at 11:01 am ¶

12. Mr X wrote:

    The pre-announcement of the iPhone is a classic example - there had to announce then because it was impossible to key it secret any longer - the FCC clearance, the people involved in Cingular/AT&T, the ramp up of manufacturing etc.

    They still announced it as late a possible - or to put it another way - as close a possible to the actual launch date.

    The bottom line is, your construction of events doesn’t ring true to me because I don’t understand the motivation - I don’t believe that Apple did really want to keep it totally closed - why keep it totally close? - it doesn’t make sense. Apple don’t strike me as an unthinking or a company with poor judgement - it doesn’t fit.

    Also they are not the sort of company - certainly under Jobs, to give in to external pressure. There was a lot of pressure in 1997 when Jobs did a number of very unpopular things - didn’t stop him - again it doesn’t fit - Apple giving in to external pressure - if they did they would bloody talk about future Java plans or have brought back the Newton years ago, or made a mini-tower form factor.

    The only reason I can think is they didn’t want to expose external API’s at this early stage of the platform because they wanted to maintain agility - but if that was the case then they wouldn’t have done an SDK if they are planning to break everything soon.

    iPod locked to iTunes - does make sense - totally locked iPhone doesn’t.

    I think they just didn’t have the pieces in place/resources to make it happen yet.
    I never believed that Apple thought that the web route as a good route - no-one else did - I can’t see Apple internally thinking it was either - they don’t live on a different planet - in fact they have shown a track record of good judgement.

    @Asam - Leopard was talked in *detail* at WWDC 2006 and 2007 - and it didn’t launch till late 2007.

    The problem they had was they they thought they would ship before WWDC 2007 when they did the 2006 one, not four months after a unseasonally late WWDC 2007 - this resulted in next to nothing new to talk about in Leopard at WWDC 2007 and at launch - by which time it was old news.

    Also the 2006 keynote was strange - developers needed to know about timemachine, todo framework etc but didn’t need to know about spaces or stacks or the bouncing download icon, or coverflow or mail stationary. It was a real launch keynote - well over a year too early. Maybe it was too hard to take those features out of the developer CD’s - dunno - it was strange.

    In terms of bricking phones - again I think Apple is motivated to play a middle game - it’s actually in Apple’s interest to have a proportion unlocked - it sold to people would wouldn’t otherwise buy them, but make it the right level of difficulty so that they maximise revenue with carrier and persuade the carrier they are at least trying so they can justify the great deal Apple was able to strike by going ‘exclusive’.

    To quote a translation of Sun Tzu
    “Let your plans be dark and impenetrable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt.”

    That’s what I think they like to do - but can’t or don’t always achieve it.

    Posted 21 Aug 2008 at 8:41 pm ¶

13. Asam Bashir wrote:

    Hmmmm, funny you should mention Sun Tzu, currently going through audiobook of The Art of War on iPhone he-he

    Posted 25 Aug 2008 at 10:35 pm ¶

14. simon wrote:

    Mr X said,

    “In fact they have shown a track record of good judgement”

    I disagree. I think Apple has a track record of figuring out the right path, after initially going down completely the wrong track.

    I defy anyone with reasonable levels of intelligence and a good understanding of computing technology to read the ASA’s recent judgement on Apple (which includes Apple’s arguments) and then claim Apple “gets” this stuff. Their arguments are simply idiotic.

    And of course, anyone wishing to suggest that Apple, at the highest levels, *does* understand this stuff will also have to explain the MobileMe disaster. After that, even Steve Jobs had to point out to Apple staff that they still have something to learn about the Internet.

    I don’t find it credible to suggest that, every time Apple *does* something dumb, the reason why is, “Ahh well, they *want* to look stupid. That’s deliberate. They knew it wouldn’t work, but wanted to cause their customers problems.” Similarly, when they *say* something dumb, I don’t find it believable to respond with, “Ahh well, of course, they *want* to look stupid. That’s deliberate. They know it’s wrong. They don’t actually believe what they said.”

    Sometimes, when it walks like a duck etc…

    Posted 27 Aug 2008 at 3:45 pm ¶

15. Mr X wrote:

    Ok so you now think closed means ‘programming by Apples’ rules as opposed to no programming on the device.

    Let be clear - I do think they want to have control over the platform - I’m sure they want to use it as a revenue stream as well as sell hardware. I do believe they don’t want a totally open platform - but that’s not the same as saying they want or wanted a totally closed platform!

    The original argument was about whether Apple was forced to release an SDK - I thought they planned to do it all along - just didn’t have the resources and time at launch and didn’t want to announce it before they were ready ( which is very typical Apple when it comes to developer stuff and quite frankly very annoying ) - you thought they didn’t want to ( for still some unexpressed reason ) and where forced to by irate emails from developers ( not something that has a track record of having any effect… )

    Vis - track record of good judgement

    Now I do think Apple changes it mind and I do think it makes mistakes - part of not pre-announcing stuff until it’s ready is a big part of hiding those misteps from the public - remember Steve can and has killed products very near launch cos he wasn’t happy.

    Note the fact that MobileMe didn’t scale is something Jobs wouldn’t have been able to detect himself by using it - though the guys building it should have been able to simulate it!

    Another mistep - AppleTV - I’m sure is a disappointment to Apple - version 1 didn’t do very well, version 2 is better but still hasn’t really taken off.

    But their *strategy* is right - MobileMe is the right thing to do even if they didn’t execute the first time, AppleTV is an important area to play, and that’s why they are still plugging away trying the get the balance right.

    The right balance between control and openness is a strategic thing for Apple - they need some openness to sell phones and gain market share, then then need to use that market share to drive revenue through tight association - just like iPod, iTunes.

    Hmm - when did they ever say anything dumb about an iPhone SDK? Did he ever say - “never” or “that would be a stupid idea” or “not technically possible” or “when pigs fly?” No….. do Apple sometimes oversell - yes - did they oversell the web app possibilities - yes - but not stupid.

    Bottom line is I think they realized about 8 years ago, just like Dell are starting to realized, is that margins on hardware are coming down and competing on price is not a good long term place to be - it’s becoming a commodity. Apple strategy to tackling this is two fold
    1. Make desirable, higher margin products - that other people can’t compete with ( using style and/or substance ).

    2. Recognise that if you don’t diversify away from solely hardware and increasingly commodity software ( like OS’s! ) you are at risk - hence iTunes, AppleTV, MobileMe/.mac and iPhone revenue sharing deals.

    Now you don’t break the monopoly of the big phone networks, or big music publishers or the big film studios without some leverage yourself

    Apple might be greedy, but I don’t think they are stupid. Google want open channels as they sell advertising on other peoples content, Apple need more control because they are looking at a channel play, selling content as oppose to giving it away and supporting it by advertising. Both models work today - subscription and ad supported TV etc, both models I think will work in the future.

    That’s the game - where they have the iPhone at the moment is probably the right place for a channel play - too open and they lose that - they lose the leverage to do the deals, too closed and they might not reach critical mass to get that leverage.

    Posted 29 Aug 2008 at 9:23 pm ¶

16. simon wrote:

    Mr X said,
    You thought they didn’t want to [release and SDK ( for still some unexpressed reason )…

    Well, sometimes the simplest explanation is the truth. Apple said repeatedly it wouldn’t make a an SDK for iPhone generally available. Rather, the company it said it would develop future iPhone apps, and also partner with particular companies in particular areas to develop apps it wouldn’t/couldn’t develop itself. The company said that general third-party developers would be able to build browser-based apps.

    Mr X said,
    forced to by irate emails from developers ( not something that has a track record of having any effect… )

    So, the decision that Jobs made to put an open letter on the Apple site pre-announcing the SDK saying, “Let me just say it: we want third party apps on iPhone” was made in a vaccum? Nothing to do with pressure created by developers (not necessarily irate emails!)?

    I think developers and customers rather clearly influenced Apple. Developers figured out how to hack iPhone to build apps; and customers hacked their phones to use those apps. When a million of your customers hack their phones to install third-party apps on their “closed” devices, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out third-party apps might something that customers actually want; and that they want it NOW.

    Mr X said,
    Hmm - when did they ever say anything dumb about an iPhone SDK?

    A few of examples of dumb things Apple folks have said about an iPhone SDK…

    Steve Jobs said that you don’t want phones to be “open” so that anyone can write applications for them because the network operators don’t want that. Why? Because Steve thought that an app running on a phone would likely bring down a complete mobile phone network.

    That was a pretty dumb thing to say. Not only does it make no sense technically i.e. this problem does not exist; but also, it’s as if he didn’t even know that 80% of mobile phones on the planet were already open to third-party apps when he made his statement, and that network operators were fine with it.

    Another example. When the Apple guy in charge of the iPhone SDK was doing a demo of Apple’s push notification system, he said that it was “better” than apps running in the background. That was a pretty dumb thing to say. Why? Because it’s blindingly obvious that it’s not’ and it’s obvious that every other smart phone platform, and even some feature phone platforms, deal with multi-tasking and/or backgrounding apps just fine. And… if push notification is really so much better, how come Apple’s own iPhone software can run in the background? It just made no sense to say that; and there was no need to say it. A free push notification service for iPhone developers is a bloody great idea! Why not sell it on it’s actual merits, instead of talking bollocks?!

    Another dumb thing? When talking about iPhone, and whether Apple would be include any support for Java, Jobs said that Java was a big ball and chain, and that no-one uses Java anymore. WTF? It’s only just about the most popular programming language on the planet; and is only used to program about six billion constrained devices at the moment.

    Now… I suppose it’s possible that Apple folks sometimes says stupid things deliberately in an attempt to mislead stupid people. However, in the general case, I think it’s unlikely they do that because not only do they sometimes say stupid things, they also sometimes do stupid things that hold their business back.

    Two examples. Firstly, the initial sub-optimal business model for iPhone that both held back numbers of units sold, and also reduced profitability for each unit sold. I pointed this out the day iPhone launched; Apple took about a year to figure it out. Secondly, the topic of this blog - preventing open discussion of iPhone app development. This reduces the average quality of iPhone apps; slows down time to market fo iPhone apps; prevents some developers adopting the iPhone platform altogether; and consequently directly reduces Apple revenues and profits.

    So after all this - I have two simple questions for you. Is Apple right to persist with its current iPhone developer NDA? If so, why? If, in the future, Apple lifts the restriction on publicly discussing iPhone app development, will it somehow be right then as well?

    Posted 30 Aug 2008 at 1:38 pm ¶

17. Mr X wrote:

    Quite honestly I don’t know if these NDA’s are effective in protecting knowhow, I don’t think they have much real impact on quality app development for the phone - I think it’s a peripheral issue - ie it won’t make much difference either way - annoying as it may be for individual developers or people who want to write books.

    I sure the simple action ( as I acknowledged earlier ) of putting out an open letter was in response to pressure - but I don’t think the work behind it was - ie the decision and work to do the SDK.

    So you don’t like overselling - neither do I - but that’s not the same as being dumb. Bottom line is allowing proper background apps in a way that doesn’t degrade the device is hard - even on something as powerful as a desktop PC can easily get bogged down by all and sundries little auto-updaters, quick starters and other $#!+ - and I’m sorry but other phones do not do it particularly well when it comes to third party apps.

    They made made a hard choice, disallowing something that is of use and stops a certain class of apps from being effective, to benefit the general wider experience of the device - it’s a call, it’s a hard call - but not dumb.

    Overall, like I said I think you are using the wrong measures - number of units sold for the phones is not the only measure - whether it’s closed enough so they can do the channel deals they want to do is another - you don’t seem to see value in this aspect - I think Apple do.

    So you have judge what makes sense in the overall goals - not just the narrow goal of selling the most hand sets or having a long feature list.

    Now Apple is playing a high stakes game - it would much easier to just go for unit sales - rather than unit sales and control - and they may fail in their attempt - but the fall back position is still unit sales.

    Can’t you see the *smart* strategy is to aim high with fall back positions not to aim lower at the start.

    Let me ask you - if you were a business which would you rather have as an asset:

    1. Dominant phone, with complete control over content, essentially owning the channel to deliver personal, timely content.

    2. Dominant phone hardware with no control over software or delivery channel.

    Now clearly getting 1. is extremely difficult, but there is a spectrum inbetween. And if infact getting 1 is probably easier than 2 as the two factors - hardware and channel reinforce each other.

    Maybe it never crossed your mind that 1. was possible - and that’s why you don’t understand their strategy and think it’s stupid. I think it’s pretty difficult but there are precedents - who, in their right mind, would have ever have thought Apple could gain such dominance in not just online music sales, but music sales in general - iTunes store only launched 5 years ago.

    Personally I hope they will fail - we don’t need another monopoly - but on the other hand I can’t blame the for trying.

    Posted 31 Aug 2008 at 1:17 pm ¶

18. simon wrote:

    Mr X said,
    I don’t know if these NDA’s are effective in protecting knowhow, I don’t think they have much real impact on quality app development for the phone

    Hmmmm… I not sure. Clearly, it doesn’t stop the communication of know-how altogether. I suspect it does hinder it though. There are plenty of iPhone developers that agree with me:

    http://www.fuckingnda.com/

    To be clear then: you believe Apple is right to have these restrictions in their developer NDA. That is, if Apple changes its position in the future, to the one I am advocating, they will be wrong. Have I understood your position correctly?

    Mr X said,
    I’m sorry but other phones do not do it particularly well when it comes to third party apps.

    Eh? I’ve never had a problem with apps running in the background on any mobile phone I’ve used. Never. It works fine; and it’s very useful not to have to quit an app to make/take a call, or switch to using another app for a minute and then go back to the previous app, or just have it run in the background generally.

    Mr X said,
    Overall, like I said I think you are using the wrong measures - number of units sold for the phones is not the only measure

    I don’t think I’m using the wrong measures, and I don’t completely disagree with what you say on this. Apple is right to want to control their platform, and particularly not to let network operators control it.

    If, however, Apple’s execution against their strategy is as great as you seem to think, you’re going to have to explain why they changed the way they sell the iPhone i.e. reduced upfront costs to consumers for buying an iPhone. That’s what I said they’d have to do on day one. It’s what they did at their second attempt. That was a deal they could easily have done with the phone companies right from day one. I understand the reasons why they didn’t do this on day one (wrong as they were). I wonder if you do?

    Mr X said,
    Maybe it never crossed your mind that 1. was possible - and that’s why you don’t understand their strategy and think it’s stupid.

    I think I do understand their strategy. I don’t think it’s what you say it is. Apple is not aiming for complete control over all content that’s delivered to the phone (they lost that particular battle the day they decided to include Safari, and to make web browsing the killer feature of the device). Rather, I think Apple’s goals are to get a significant slice of the high-margin end of the mobile phone business; and to make significant money from content that’s delivered onto the device (music, video, apps etc.). They know that if they do that, their revenues and profits will go through the roof. They could easily double their market cap in five years if they execute well - making them more valuable than Microsoft.

    Their iPhone strategy is, in many ways, analogous to that of the iPod. If Apple had adopted the strategy you are advocating with iPod (complete control over content), it wouldn’t let people put their own music and video on their devices. Rather, they would insist on people buying content for the iPod on iTunes. However, that isn’t the way to win, and it isn’t the way they did win with iPod.

    Clearly, Apple believes that the third-party app market is different. In some ways it is, and the apps store is a good idea because it helps to create that market. However, by giving themselves a monopoly in this area, they will, in the end do themselves more harm than good. Why? Because they will not benefit from the need to compete. In fact, there are already signs that they’re getting lazy when it comes to third-party apps, and they’ve barely got started. An example? Developers and customers are crying out for cut and paste on iPhone. Apple respond that it isn’t on their list of priorities; and when developers got together to develop a good solution for cut and paste, Apple killed it within days.

    Even Apple developers aren’t masochist enough to take being slapped in the face, and keep coming back for more, for too long. There are new mobile development platforms on the horizon (Android, JavaFX) that look pretty interesting, and will be really fun to develop for.

    Apple needs to be careful they don’t blow the opportunity they’ve created in designing and shipping what is probably the best mobile phone on the planet, and the best phone development platform The point is: Apple happened to release a phone when phone hardware is at an interesting inflection point - where it’s getting close to the power of modern desktops. They don’t have as much of a lead as they appear to think they do.

    Posted 31 Aug 2008 at 4:05 pm ¶

19. Mr X wrote:

    My positions on the NDA is I can see arguments both ways but I don’t really care.

    The switch between apps might work, but does the phone software generally run slower than the iPhone, is it slower to start up apps than the iPhone?

    I think they launched with a high price to set in the mind of the consumer that it was a high price/status/desirable item - emphasize that it a three in one device ( that actually did all three decently ) - also it’s traditional practice to take revenue from people who have poor impulse control and have to have the latest thing. Finally it emphasized the device over the contract - ie not a contract with a free phone - they want to shift the perception of where the value is added.

    I was talking about strategy - there are our goals - tactics is how you achieve it - the goal was as much control as possible - the tactics have to recognize the realities of the market - for example with the iPod - anyone could see that not being able to play mp3 on day one would have been a killer. However Apple have managed to steadfastly resist ( so far ) allowing other DRM music to be played ( something that from a list of features point of view would sell them more iPods if they had it - people do/did use napster etc. ).

    Interesting why they are blocking cut and paste - clearly they have a reason. Dunno what it is though - security?, want to control the UI in this key area?, control of content?, enforcing SDK license terms because you can’t pick and choose and keep it…? Not sure.

    However the hard truth is it won’t significantly affect the number of phones sold - the people who complain about these things are in a minority of the total ownership. On the developers issue - well professional developers want to make money - so the biggest two factors in attracting developers is market size and the ability make apps that will sell. Cool as Android or JavaFX might be they have to be on phones, on sale and be sold in large numbers first….!

    As you said competition helps - currently Apple has very little.

    BTW Interesting story today on the theinquirer on Dells market share up, but revenues down - classic example of why pursing ever decreasing hardware margins is a bad idea.

    Posted 01 Sep 2008 at 9:02 am ¶

20. simon wrote:

    Mr X said,
    The switch between apps might work, but does the phone software generally run slower than the iPhone, is it slower to start up apps than the iPhone?

    Not really, with the caveat that phones with slower CPUs are obviously going to be slower etc. Clearly, as with any computer, system resources have finite limits. If you go near the limits, then the system will slow down. With Java ME, the platform tries to offer developers some granularity in terms of how to deal with operating in a constrained environment. For example, you can, if you wish, put Midlets into a paused state that releases most system resources, while still allowing them to respond asynchronously to callbacks etc.

    The truth is, it’s just a bit silly of Apple to pretend that a device as powerful as the iPhone can’t easily cope with running apps in the background, given that: phones with much less capable hardware deal with this fine; jail-broken iPhones deal with this fine.

    Mr X said,
    I think they launched with a high price to set in the mind of the consumer that it was a high price/status/desirable item - emphasize that it a three in one device ( that actually did all three decently ) - also it’s traditional practice to take revenue from people who have poor impulse control and have to have the latest thing.

    I think the main issue was positioning the iPhone against the existing iPod range. As things stand now, you can get an iPhone for less money than an iPod Classic, and similar money to an iPod nano. It will be interesting to see if Apple address this when they launch their new iPod range.

    Mr X said,
    I was talking about strategy - there are our goals - tactics is how you achieve it - the goal was as much control as possible

    I suspect the goals were to sell as many iPods as possible (they’re quite profitable), while trying to grow the on-line music/video sales market slowly over time. Apple only resisted other DRM formats by selling non-DRM’ed content - when everyone involved finally understood that DRM doesn’t benefit customers, and that if you don’t look after your customers, they will leave you/not join you in the first place. It only took them about a decade to figure that one out.

    Mr X said,
    Cool as Android or JavaFX might be they have to be on phones, on sale and be sold in large numbers first….!

    Absolutely. Apple has a lead right now, they would do well not to alienate developers and customers.

    I imagine the reason Apple killed a third-party cut-and-paste is that it should be a core OS feature. That’s the right call, but it’s incredible arrogant of them not to have implemented it already. The lack of cut-and-paste is annoying customers big-time. You say it won’t affect sales. Perhaps… but I think it will affect customer sentiment. Actually, I think it already has. These kind of things chip away at brand value.

    I suspect what’s happened at Apple with the cut-and-paste thing is a classic attitude problem that many developers have - a lack of ability to empathize with customers. Implementing basic cut-and-paste wouldn’t be difficult, or time-consuming (some-one could get that done over a few weekends). However, the Apple development team probably see other, complex problems as bigger and more important to work on e.g. 3G network connectivity/dropping calls etc. They are unable to see that ordinary folks just want to be able to do simple things like copy and paste a URL or some text from a web page into an e-mail, and that a quick solution for that (leaving a more feature-rich system clipboard that can deal with all sorts of types of data in smart ways, for the future) would really make people’s lives easier.

    Posted 01 Sep 2008 at 7:50 pm ¶

Post a Comment