Apple Disallows Distrubution of Competing iPhone App

[Pangloss]

http://www.download.com/8301-2007_4-10042127-12.html

 

Should be interesting to see how this plays out. The guy wrote an app for the iPhone that does podcasting better than Apple's app. So Apple is denying him the right to distribute it to iPhone owners.

 

That fact alone should send chills up the spine of any programmer, but it gets better. Apparently the guy's distributing the app anyway, through some sort of back channel, asking for PayPal donations. But Apple has the ability to disable applications on people's iPhones remotely, so people are saying Apple will simply turn the guy off.

 

Wow. If Microsoft did something like that the entire world would be in an uproar.

[bascule]

Apple's control of their platform is draconian. I don't see how anyone could own an iPhone and not hack it. The 3rd party apps contain so much more functionality than Apple is willing to let people have through official App Store applications, things like video recorders, tethering, etc.

[I_Pwn_Crackpots]

Wow. If Microsoft did something like that the entire world would be in an uproar.

 

That's why apple doesn't rule the world, and Microsoft does. Because they don't do that . Not that I'm a supporter of Microsoft, but they do have a much better marketing plan then did IBM or Apple.

[Klaynos]

Urg one more reason to not get an iphone... there are just so many!

[Pangloss]

That's why apple doesn't rule the world, and Microsoft does. Because they don't do that . Not that I'm a supporter of Microsoft, but they do have a much better marketing plan then did IBM or Apple.

 

Well I wouldn't let MS off the hook that easy -- I think the basic motivations that produced Apple's present behavior are the same in any software company. And MS has a long history of untoward behavior with regard to both customers and competitors. But no, you're right, they're not doing that here, and that could be an indication of a difference in their current corporate cultures.

 

Not to get too far off the subject, but these things always seem to come down to a kind of three-way standoff between a company's legal, marketing and administrative departments -- legal holding them back, marketing driving them forward, and administration trying to keep an eye on the big picture.

 

Google's "don't be evil" philosophy comes to mind as an example of an approach to dealing with that problem. Not that they haven't had their own share of controversies, but given the way they've inculcated their technologies into our lives it's not hard to imagine a few nightmare scenarios had they NOT had a philosophy like that.

 

 

 

(Actually, given the stunning success of the iPhone, I wouldn't be surprised to see MS head in the same direction. I use a Windows smartphone myself, and it is a *dog* compared with the iPhone. And MS well knows it. I'm very concerned about what lessons MS is learning at the moment. Maybe they'll try to tackle an iPhone-like usability champion but with the openness and extensibility. On the other hand, they make Windows, so how likely is that, really?)

[I_Pwn_Crackpots]

I wasn't suggesting that Microsoft was good, but that the fact that they were more open than most of the leading computer industries of the day proved to be valuable. It's the same exact way with google too.

 

(Actually, given the stunning success of the iPhone, I wouldn't be surprised to see MS head in the same direction. I use a Windows smartphone myself, and it is a *dog* compared with the iPhone. And MS well knows it. I'm very concerned about what lessons MS is learning at the moment. Maybe they'll try to tackle an iPhone-like usability champion but with the openness and extensibility. On the other hand, they make Windows, so how likely is that, really?)

 

It would be interesting to see what Microsoft will do with it's phones. I'm not too sure if they would be very open with their phone software either, rather I'm convinced that it probably will go as far as their X-Box did (Sony still dominates by far, and I really have to wonder why...)

 

Google's "don't be evil" philosophy comes to mind as an example of an approach to dealing with that problem. Not that they haven't had their own share of controversies, but given the way they've inculcated their technologies into our lives it's not hard to imagine a few nightmare scenarios had they NOT had a philosophy like that.

 

Big Brother 1984? Maybe >

Edited September 17, 2008 by I_Pwn_Crackpots
multiple post merged

[bascule]

That's why apple doesn't rule the world, and Microsoft does. Because they don't do that .

 

Microsoft does that sort of thing all the time. Microsoft's market dominance has to do with being the key OS vendor for the commodity platform and the key vendor of office productivity software. Both of these markets were ripe for vendor lock-in, which is really the only reason Microsoft continues to make money.

 

Urg one more reason to not get an iphone... there are just so many!

 

The iPhone is one of the best smartphones on the market today. The only problem I have with it is the lack of a real keyboard/thumbboard, and even that is tolerable.

[Pangloss]

Microsoft does that sort of thing all the time. Microsoft's market dominance has to do with being the key OS vendor for the commodity platform and the key vendor of office productivity software. Both of these markets were ripe for vendor lock-in, which is really the only reason Microsoft continues to make money.

 

You're absolutely right about those problems, but that wouldn't explain the success of things like ASP or XNA. Microsoft is very innovative in the area of training and education. It's a big part of why they're so good at capturing the lion's share of a market.

 

 

It would be interesting to see what Microsoft will do with it's phones. I'm not too sure if they would be very open with their phone software either, rather I'm convinced that it probably will go as far as their X-Box did (Sony still dominates by far, and I really have to wonder why...)

 

Sony doesn't dominate the 7th-gen console war, Nintendo does. But yes, a big part of Microsoft's success in maintaining a second-place position with Sony in the war (which isn't a bad thing given the insane expansion of the market in this generation) is the way it has approached development for its platform, making it cheap and easy.

[bascule]

It would be interesting to see what Microsoft will do with it's phones. I'm not too sure if they would be very open with their phone software either

 

Windows Mobile is one of the most open mobile platforms I know of, even more so than Android from the information that's available, and certainly much more so than the iPhone. I suppose OpenMoko wins the award for most open platform, but nobody cares about OpenMoko.

 

That said, Micorosoft is rumored to be bringing an App Store to Windows Mobile soon. I guess they realized what power something like the App Store gives an individual developer to sell their software within a vast and attentive marketplace.

[Pangloss]

Definitely. I found it very confusing trying to figure out what I could buy for my smartphone because the software that was available operated at different levels. Some stuff was designed to run other stuff, whereas other programs were designed to run as standalone, but weren't compatible with interface-replacement programs. It's confusing, and even worse, it's tricky getting back to an operable state if you mess up.

 

It's nothing that any typical technogeek can't handle, but these are phones we're talking about, so they really have to be workable by folks who aren't techno-savvy.

[swansont]

There is uproar in the Mac community. Gruber at Daring Fireball has been railing against it, for one. If an app can be rejected for nebulous reasons, developers won't invest time in writing the apps. And cool apps would be an enhancement of value for the iPhone.

 

http://daringfireball.net/2008/09/podcasters_rejection

http://daringfireball.net/2008/09/app_store_exclusion

 

 

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/apples-capricious-app-policy/

[PrinceOfDragons]

Speak of the devil. Microsoft just blacked out a lot of Chinese computers that had pirated version of windows on it!

[NeonBlack]

Speak of the devil. Microsoft just blacked out a lot of Chinese computers that had pirated version of windows on it!

 

There's a difference between "we're not going to let you use our OS because you stole it" and "we're not going to let you control the way that you use our platform for trivial reasons"

[PrinceOfDragons]

I was just pointing out that they did something like that.

[Pangloss]

It is a reasonable point in the sense that if successful with WGA Microsoft could ultimately open the technology to allow subscribing third parties to participate, effectively doing the same thing that Apple does with the AppStore.

 

I'm not sure this is a bad thing. The right to copyright protection is pretty basic stuff, and this is still an opt-in approach. Don't like it? Don't buy it. Need it? Don't pirate it. (shrug)

 

Of course as NeonBlack points out, this is very different from Apple's anti-competitive practices with the AppStore.

[swansont]

Of course as NeonBlack points out, this is very different from Apple's anti-competitive practices with the AppStore.

 

How do you mean anti-competitive? Apple is under no obligation to sell other businesses' applications. The objectionable behavior is that Apple did not spell out to developers that they would not sell competing apps, and don't apply this "policy" uniformly. IOW, it's BS that they made up as an excuse to pull some apps from the store.

 

The thing that made this even worse was the NDA that developers were under, which meant they couldn't say anything if their app was pulled. That NDA has apparently been stricken from the developers' agreement.

[Pangloss]

What makes it anti-competitive is the fact that there's no other (legal) way to install applications on an iPhone. If Microsoft tried to lock out of Windows anything that competed with Word or Excel I don't think anybody would be defending that behavior.

 

The fact that Apple participates in the sale of AppStore apps is a sideshow. Apple gets 30% of the take off everything sold through the AppStore, you know. Sure, they would have lost money in allowing Podcaster, because they would have lost participation in the sale of podcasts through iTunes, but I think that just reinforces my point -- those aren't Apple's podcasts, and people should be able to get them through competing avenues.

 

That having been said, I think the AppStore is generally an enabling concept -- securing, monitoring and controlling the flow of applications to high-risk appliances makes sense. I hope they don't just throw their hands up in the air and discard the concept just because people are objecting to the anti-competitive aspect. They need to play it smart here -- stick with what's working and discard what is not.

Edited November 3, 2008 by Pangloss

[bascule]

What makes it anti-competitive is the fact that there's no other (legal) way to install applications on an iPhone.

 

There's nothing illegal about hacking an iPhone

[swansont]

What makes it anti-competitive is the fact that there's no other (legal) way to install applications on an iPhone. If Microsoft tried to lock out of Windows anything that competed with Word or Excel I don't think anybody would be defending that behavior.

 

Windows is an OS (and a monopoly at that) put on computers that Microsoft does not sell, and computers are for running programs. That's not even close to the same thing. But, can you buy these competing apps at the Microsoft website?

 

BTW, Microsoft is reportedly going to open their own version of the app store for Windows mobile, called Skymarket. I predict it will not do as well, because Microsoft does not control the hardware that their OS runs on, which makes it harder to do the software.

[Pangloss]

Swansont, you're missing the key point. I agree that it would be unfair to force Apple to sell competing products, but I'm not actually suggesting that that be done. I'm just pointing out that it's anti-competitive for them to perform the following combination: (a) not sell competing products, and (b) prevent iPhone users from installing applications any other way. You're talking about (a), and you're right. I'm talking about (b), and I'm right. Capiche?

 

Your Windows Mobile comparison is not appropriate, because you can install any application from any source on Windows Mobile -- it's just like Windows, in that it runs an executable from any source. A Microsoft version of the AppStore would be just an addition to a large number of options. On the iPhone there aren't any options. None.

 

A more appropriate comparison would be if Microsoft were to do the following:

1) Create an AppStore for Windows.

2) Add a patch to Vista that prevented you from installing software any other way than their new AppStore.

3) Tell people the purpose of their AppStore was strictly for Windows security (preventing viruses).

4) Deny OpenOffice (for example) the right to sell through their AppStore.

 

That's what Apple did here.

 

Bascule mentions hacking above, but that's hacking, not normal software installation and use. He says it's not illegal; I was under the impression that it violated the user's agreement, but I could be wrong. Regardless, it's not normal operation and while it may be easy for tech-savvy folks like us it's certainly not the sort of thing a casual user will ever do.

[swansont]

Swansont, you're missing the key point. I agree that it would be unfair to force Apple to sell competing products, but I'm not actually suggesting that that be done. I'm just pointing out that it's anti-competitive for them to perform the following combination: (a) not sell competing products, and (b) prevent iPhone users from installing applications any other way. You're talking about (a), and you're right. I'm talking about (b), and I'm right. Capiche?

 

 

No, I don't think you are right. Microsoft could have, at the outset, made a completely closed system: sold their OS on their own hardware, and all the software for it. (Had they done that, though, they would never be in the monopoly position they are today.) But they didn't, so it's not an apt comparison.

 

When the iPhone came out, exactly zero developer software was allowed on it. Was that anticompetitive? Can I sue the original makers of Pong? They did the same thing. Don't makers of gaming consoles make you do basically the same thing — license the right to make a game for their console? That's really all the app store does — enforce the licensing agreement of who gets to write software.

 

 

 

Your Windows Mobile comparison is not appropriate

 

It wasn't a comparison, it was an aside.

[Pangloss]

Microsoft could have, at the outset, made a completely closed system: sold their OS on their own hardware, and all the software for it. (Had they done that, though, they would never be in the monopoly position they are today.) But they didn't, so it's not an apt comparison.

 

In fact the AppStore makes it more likely that the iPhone will become dominant. It is an enabling technology because it limits choice in an environment where choice is detriment rather than an asset (e.g. security, confusion, etc). Microsoft participated in many anti-competitive practices along the path to Windows dominance, and many of those practices were seen at the time as minor, logical, and not anti-competitive, just as you've deemed Apple's practice here. Microsoft pursued them anyway and they contributed to Windows becoming effectively an monopoly. Now these practices are recognized as anti-competitive.

 

At any rate you're certainly entitled to your opinion; perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree. But just to be clear I wasn't suggesting a lawsuit or government intervention. What I think is that part (A) (restricting apps) makes sense, but part (B) (disallowing competition) is a bad idea for both their product and for the industry in general. What I want to see now is for Google and Microsoft to show them that they've made a mistake by producing even better products. Apple has done a tremendous thing with the iPhone -- it's basically shown us what a mobile phone SHOULD be. Now we will really see what can really be done with these devices. I'm very excited about that. Believe me, the LAST thing I want is for the government to get in the way.

Edited November 5, 2008 by Pangloss

[swansont]

Gah. I misread something in your post (I somehow read the "and" as an "or." Boolean fail)

 

If Apple were actually restricting apps in the app store then that would be anticompetitive. I just don't think that's the actual case, because it apparently isn't part of the developer agreement, and there are lots of developer apps that duplicate existing app functions, and other podcaster and I think one other, these haven't been pulled. But Apple does (or did) have some a general "we can pull any app for any reason" caveat, which could be a killer for developer enthusiasm if it's seen as being applied this way.

[Pangloss]

Well I'll concede that -- I don't think that question has been fully resolved yet, at any rate.

 

The Opera story last week seems to acknowledge that point as well, in that it's not at all clear exactly what happened there. The initial story that they submitted it and it was rejected appears to be false, and in retrospect didn't make a whole lot of sense anyway, since Safari isn't sold, but rather is built-in, so for Apple to put it on the AppStore would cost them nothing.

[bascule]

I'm surprised how little attention is paid to Cydia.

 

1 in 5 iPhones is hacked to include Cydia, the 3rd party packaging application for the iPhone based around the Debian packaging system.

 

Yes, the iPhone App Store gives the individual developer to sell their software within a vast and attentive marketplace. However, all apps must pass through Apple's draconian screening process.

 

Not so with Cydia! Publish any app and it's instantly available to 1/5 iPhone users, regardless of what Apple thinks.

 

Thanks to Cydia I have:

 

MobileTerminal: a full-featured terminal for my iPhone, and Cydia also publishes shells like zsh which make using a terminal on an iPhone even easier.

 

PDAnet: I can tether my 3G connection to any WiFi network I choose. My phone automatically acts as a DHCP server and router.

 

Qik: I can record video from my iPhone, or instantly stream it via live webcast.

 

SwirlyMMS: a full-featured MMS application which can send/receive pictures/audio/video/programs/files/etc.

 

OpenSSH: allows me to shell into my phone, connect to remote servers, and transfer files to/from my phone. Quite handy.