Poll: Do recent events dissuade you from developing for the iPhone?
With the Google Voice fiasco (the official Google app gets rejected, then the third party apps get pulled, and now the third party companies are expected to pay for their customer refunds), have you been so put off by Apple that your development plans have changed?
16 comments
Not really, because I tend to look at the broader picture.
All mobile-phone platforms are still ultimately mediated by the carriers. If there's something they don't like, they'll find a way to stop you doing it; maybe it'll be an agreement with a hardware or software vendor, maybe it'll be implemented in the network, maybe it'll just be in their customer terms and give them a justification to cut you off. But they'll find a way to apply restrictions that will make people angry, because they can and because people jumping ship from Apple isn't going to change that.
And the alleged alternative at this point is Google. Google, which has a track record of simply shutting down accounts at their other services with no warning, no explanation, no appeal process and no recourse (unless you're lucky enough to know someone on the inside). Which makes "I'm going to develop for Android" sound an awful lot like "I want more of the same". Sure, you don't have to go through Google, but see the paragraph above for why it won't matter.
All mobile-phone platforms are still ultimately mediated by the carriers. If there's something they don't like, they'll find a way to stop you doing it; maybe it'll be an agreement with a hardware or software vendor, maybe it'll be implemented in the network, maybe it'll just be in their customer terms and give them a justification to cut you off. But they'll find a way to apply restrictions that will make people angry, because they can and because people jumping ship from Apple isn't going to change that.
And the alleged alternative at this point is Google. Google, which has a track record of simply shutting down accounts at their other services with no warning, no explanation, no appeal process and no recourse (unless you're lucky enough to know someone on the inside). Which makes "I'm going to develop for Android" sound an awful lot like "I want more of the same". Sure, you don't have to go through Google, but see the paragraph above for why it won't matter.
"Which makes "I'm going to develop for Android" sound an awful lot like "I want more of the same"."
I don't believe that's true. You can distribute Android applications outside of the Android Market. That means the cellular service providers would have to use network-based control mechanisms, which are safe and easy to circumvent (as opposed to jailbreaking, which requires you to be on constant alert regarding OS updates and when you can safely install them).
Moreover, after the Comcast-net neutrality fiasco, the FCC may be willing to rule against the service providers for implementing such restrictions. Congress is already looking into antitrust violations by the service providers (& the FCC into the banning of Google Voice on the iPhone), so I don't think such a move would be tolerated.
I don't believe that's true. You can distribute Android applications outside of the Android Market. That means the cellular service providers would have to use network-based control mechanisms, which are safe and easy to circumvent (as opposed to jailbreaking, which requires you to be on constant alert regarding OS updates and when you can safely install them).
Moreover, after the Comcast-net neutrality fiasco, the FCC may be willing to rule against the service providers for implementing such restrictions. Congress is already looking into antitrust violations by the service providers (& the FCC into the banning of Google Voice on the iPhone), so I don't think such a move would be tolerated.
"Moreover, after the Comcast-net neutrality fiasco, the FCC may be willing to rule against the service providers for implementing such restrictions."
At which point the things that would dissuade people from developing for the iPhone will be outlawed. Which was kinda my point: Apple and AT&T aren't the only companies pulling stupid crap, and unless/until the landscape changes in a big way you're not going to be able to avoid stupid crap by switching carriers/platforms.
At which point the things that would dissuade people from developing for the iPhone will be outlawed. Which was kinda my point: Apple and AT&T aren't the only companies pulling stupid crap, and unless/until the landscape changes in a big way you're not going to be able to avoid stupid crap by switching carriers/platforms.
"At which point the things that would dissuade people from developing for the iPhone will be outlawed."
You misunderstand. While the network restrictions may be made illegal (on net neutrality principles), I don't see how anyone can force Apple to open up their App Store. As long as installing applications from sources outside of the App Store is not officially sanctioned, the iPhone will be at a disadvantage.
We saw how people reacted to AT&T's (legitimate) temporary block of img.4chan.org. If cellular service providers began blocking sites, there would be an enormous uproar. OTOH, everybody has accepted Apple's restrictions on the App Store (though that may partially be because of the RDF; if Microsoft had done something similar, I imagine that there would've been a much more negative reaction).
You misunderstand. While the network restrictions may be made illegal (on net neutrality principles), I don't see how anyone can force Apple to open up their App Store. As long as installing applications from sources outside of the App Store is not officially sanctioned, the iPhone will be at a disadvantage.
We saw how people reacted to AT&T's (legitimate) temporary block of img.4chan.org. If cellular service providers began blocking sites, there would be an enormous uproar. OTOH, everybody has accepted Apple's restrictions on the App Store (though that may partially be because of the RDF; if Microsoft had done something similar, I imagine that there would've been a much more negative reaction).
Your fist paragraph reminds me of the gaming industry. It's exactly the same situation, only much more closed.
That doesn't stop people from doing whatever they want with their consoles (or their computers for that matter).
Sure it's a minority, but I suspect some day it will be the majority, as people stop letting companies get away with this kind of crap.
That doesn't stop people from doing whatever they want with their consoles (or their computers for that matter).
Sure it's a minority, but I suspect some day it will be the majority, as people stop letting companies get away with this kind of crap.
I've been considering an iPhone-native app for a web app I'm creating. But honestly, I've never been enamored with the App Store. Submit for approval? Gimme a break. Instead, I plan on developing a targeted UI for Safari on the iPhone. If that's not sufficient, I may begrudgingly go with a native iPhone app.
The one thing that has always bothered me is I don't see why Apple can't put a hook into Mobile Safari that allows a web app to take pictures. I mean, it's not rocket science. A dialogue that says "this web app is trying to access your camera" and a simple file upload (camera takes picture and uploads the file like normal) is all that's required.
If Apple added that I would see very little reason for native apps (aside from games)
If Apple added that I would see very little reason for native apps (aside from games)
What's interesting is this is the same way Microsoft got into trouble. A developer says, "It would be really neat if..." and then the playing field isn't level anymore. Allowing a web app to take pictures with Safari would be sort of neat, but then you've got other browsers that can't compete fairly. Next thing you know you've got a bunch of people griping about lock in, lack of standards and Embrace/Extend/Extinguish, etc. I'm not sure if it's right or wrong- just saying it's next to impossible to keep people happy.
No, I'm sticking with it.
But I would avoid doing apps that threaten AT&T by creating an opening for end-runs around AT&T services.
However, if I was Google or a third party, say, GV developer with enough funding, I would redouble my efforts on those kinds of apps, to build consumer demand for them as they rolled out on all other platforms.
But I would avoid doing apps that threaten AT&T by creating an opening for end-runs around AT&T services.
However, if I was Google or a third party, say, GV developer with enough funding, I would redouble my efforts on those kinds of apps, to build consumer demand for them as they rolled out on all other platforms.
While there was a time I was always on the edge of technologies (both as user and developer), now I tend to wait bit to adopt new ones.
Sure this leads to some missing opportunities, that's the price to pay.
I've been watching the iPhone and Android platforms since their inception, and although I felt the iPhone was more "exciting" to develop for, these fiascos make me think it twice.
So I'm hoping Android takes off next year, specially internationally.
Sure this leads to some missing opportunities, that's the price to pay.
I've been watching the iPhone and Android platforms since their inception, and although I felt the iPhone was more "exciting" to develop for, these fiascos make me think it twice.
So I'm hoping Android takes off next year, specially internationally.
I'd like to see Apple respond to this "crisis" with adjustments, but it seems they feel no need to.
My biggest concern here is Apple being upfront. I can potentially accept the imposition of barriers to products that compete with features on the phone but they need to be completely spelled out in advance. Developers wasting lives developing apps that get rejected without precedence is truly wrong.
My biggest concern here is Apple being upfront. I can potentially accept the imposition of barriers to products that compete with features on the phone but they need to be completely spelled out in advance. Developers wasting lives developing apps that get rejected without precedence is truly wrong.
My experience developing for iPhone has been great. The income from the few apps I've made easily covers the phone, the contract, and the developer program. I plan to develop on the iPhone exclusively for now. Once some of the other mobile platforms take off I'll make my apps available in the corresponding marketplaces
Covering the cost of only the phone, the contract, and the developer program is not what I'd call "great".
Windows Mobile phones sold more last quarter than the number of iPhones (any kind) in existence. Blackberry represents more than half of the corporate phone market.
Windows Mobile (now Windows Phone) applications have a higher price point b/c people who buy those phones can and are willingly to pay. Blackberry applications have an even higher price point.
Of course, you'd have to be willing to target international users for WinMo, and business apps for BlackBerry, but at least you're not stuck with customers who probably aren't old enough to drink.
Windows Mobile (now Windows Phone) applications have a higher price point b/c people who buy those phones can and are willingly to pay. Blackberry applications have an even higher price point.
Of course, you'd have to be willing to target international users for WinMo, and business apps for BlackBerry, but at least you're not stuck with customers who probably aren't old enough to drink.
Tim Bray put it well:
"The big problem is this: I don’t wanna be a sharecropper on Massa Steve’s plantation."
http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2008/07/18/Mobile-Net...
So no, I'm waiting to see how things shake out.
When it comes to mobile development, I'm trying to sell software. If I can build an app and sell it on the iPhone then I will, because there is a huge market there right now. It's the best market to sell a simple mobile app.
If the restrictions of the iPhone or Apple's politics make it too risky to build and sell a product I have come up with, then I'll have to take it somewhere else. As it is, I think it still pays to develop simple consumer apps for the iPhone. I'll stick with FOSS on the desktop for my cutting-edge or experimental stuff. In the future Android is pretty clearly shaping up to be the platform to push the technological envelope on. The Android platform just isn't nice enough to put up with every day when I have to buy a phone and a plan to really play with it.
If the restrictions of the iPhone or Apple's politics make it too risky to build and sell a product I have come up with, then I'll have to take it somewhere else. As it is, I think it still pays to develop simple consumer apps for the iPhone. I'll stick with FOSS on the desktop for my cutting-edge or experimental stuff. In the future Android is pretty clearly shaping up to be the platform to push the technological envelope on. The Android platform just isn't nice enough to put up with every day when I have to buy a phone and a plan to really play with it.
Its a risk calculation. When you sign the contract, you give Apple certain rights but you don't know what the likely-hood is that you will be subject to the exercising of those rights or the extent to which they will exercise their rights. Now that we are getting more information we have to ask ourselves again if the risk of rejection and/or coughing up refunds is greater than the reward from the investment of resources in the application. I think you will see new developers shy away or building a lot of low-risk apps where they could take the hit if necessary. I know I'll be looking elsewhere to spend the majority of my development time.
I'm now recommending people develop and put the app in the AppStore for free with advertising or "paypal" donations that let you collect revenue for it outside of the absurd Apple contract.
Not as much as being forced to use Objective-C. On Andorid, I can easily use any JVM langauge, including Clojure and JRuby.
I'm pretty sure that there's nothing prohibiting you from bundling the Ruby (or other) interpreter with your app, as long as the code that it executes is static (i.e. doesn't allow the user to execute arbitrary code). It would probably cost a lot with respect to the size and possibly speed of your application, but I thought that I'd note that it is at least possible to use some other languages.
Kind of a blurry line. If you have a button on your screen, an "arbitrary code path" can be run when the user pushes the button. That is apparently fine. So it follows that running similar codepaths based on strings in a text file is also fine. After all, the user isn't writing code, he's just controlling the program (the $foo interpreter) with his input. Clicking a button, controlling a runloop... both seem exactly the same to me.
I am sure there is some arbitrary line drawn between the two, though, which is why I don't even bother. If Apple thinks they can make money like that, great. I don't have to help them though.
I am sure there is some arbitrary line drawn between the two, though, which is why I don't even bother. If Apple thinks they can make money like that, great. I don't have to help them though.
What about those of us who are attempting to develop for mobile web?
Although that can be as device specific as a native app.
Although that can be as device specific as a native app.
No, but endless whining on HN about it makes me less likely to visit HN.
The irony of it all is that many MS fanboys I know are now becoming Apple fans. Just as Apple turns to shit.
As Bill Gates said about NeXt:
Develop for it? I'll piss on it!
Develop for it? I'll piss on it!