I keep seeing this notion of opening the platform brought up here. I'm having a hard time visualizing how this works out.
Does Apple continue the overhead/cost of the app store? Do they have a giant disclaimer that they do not support or condone the applications, take no responsibility for any damages, etc? Do they still act as the payment gateway? How does this impact Apple's brand and the consumer trust of the product?
Why is it that mobile phones with open app development have not taken off even with years and years of head start?
What is Apple's incentive to do this? Can they make money on a phone that allows this sort of development?
I really think there is a lot more to it than just "open it up the world deserves to be free" and we're not talking about it. Why is that?
There's a big difference between a legal disclaimer that no one reads and a marketing disclaimer.
Apple unofficially accepts responsibility for the AppStore apps. They don't vouch for their quality per se, but they do vouch for the fact that they won't wreck your phone.
The same can't be said for apps on an open platform.
Hackers love open platforms but users flee them because the experience is painful.
Hackers love open platforms but users flee them because the experience is painful.
Very well said. The developers the app store is designed for are the boring, careful, professional developers who create polished, shiny, dependable apps. And that's what most users want. They want freedom from fear -- freedom to search the App Store and download whatever they find without without worrying about their level of sophistication. They want Disneyland, not a bazaar in Cairo. They want new Times Square, not old Times Square.
As a matter of pride, developers and early adopters refuse to acknowledge this factor. They pride themselves on their savoir faire and their ability to safely navigate an uncontrolled software ecosystem. The image of Apple users is carefree, self-assured, and adventuresome, and consumers can't feel that way in a place that is wild and unpredictable. They need Disneyland.
It's pretty easy - just remove the entire manual approval process and the platform would be "open enough". The problem is that developers cannot iterate, and large problems take forever and a day to plug. Both of these problems are caused by the gigantic (and somewhat arcane/black-boxy) manual review system.
Apple can continue to charge their 30% cut, they can still be the only gateway to get apps... but at the very least you can submit things and have them available to your users immediately.
From my POV the easiest fix for a situation where lots of dumbass things are being done is simply for people -- in this case, Apple -- to just STOP doing those dumbass things.
Duh! (<-- hyper-intellectual argument I know)
Reminds me of an old Bob Newhart comedy routine about a rather blunt psychotherapist. His patients would come to him and whine about some bad habit they had, etc. And they would ask him, "Doctor, what should I do?"
He would think for a bit and then raise his hand with a friendly smile and say, "Stop it."
The patient: "What?"
Doctor: "Stop it. Stop doing that."
"Uh, I don't understand. Should I---"
"Ok maybe I'm not making myself clear. Sometimes that happens. So I'm going to say this again, very carefully, and I need you to pay attention."
"Yes, Doctor. Go ahead."
Then he would get up and yell, "STOP ITTTTTT! JUST STOP!"
Then hand them the bill and say the session was over.
I think the App Store would do just fine if the platform were opened up. Look at the original App Store for music; people had the option to get music from other vendors (or public domain or pirated) as MP3's yet it's convenience and simplicity made it compelling for many users.
I would think the same thing would be true for apps. Many users would continue to use the App Store because of the convenience and the added trust that their verication process provides.
Before Android, there was no phone platform with open app development, JavaME and Symbian require a code signing certifiate (at about $300 per year) just for running your own code on your own phone in an acceptable manner. Symbian seems to have opened up a little bit in the last few months with free online signing for your own IMEI, but it is still very little, very late.
They don't - you can run basically anything you want on JavaME without code signing. The only difference is that you can't set a permanent "ok" for some actions without it (that depends on the phone model though).
their insentive is that they are purveying a platform. What made dos and windows great was anyone could write for it so everyone did and they had all the apps. Windows and dos suck, but if you wanted to work or play games, you bought the platform anyway because all the app were for it. Customers are like sheep and go where the best apps are, not the best platform. Apple sells a platform. We create the apps. They want the best apps they must open it up so we create the best apps for them. If its easier to develop my app for another platform, I will.
They make money off selling the phone. That apps sells the phone, not the other way around.
Does Apple continue the overhead/cost of the app store? Do they have a giant disclaimer that they do not support or condone the applications, take no responsibility for any damages, etc? Do they still act as the payment gateway? How does this impact Apple's brand and the consumer trust of the product?
Why is it that mobile phones with open app development have not taken off even with years and years of head start?
What is Apple's incentive to do this? Can they make money on a phone that allows this sort of development?
I really think there is a lot more to it than just "open it up the world deserves to be free" and we're not talking about it. Why is that?