"No other vendor dominates mobile games like Apple now. With over 50,000 games in the App Store, it has 10 and 20 times what Nintendo and Sony offers respectively, and this before Apple’s Game Center has even shipped."
The Nintendo DS is the best selling gaming system of all time, mobile or not. Its not even a competition - they've sold over 2x as many DS's as Apple has sold iPhones.
Not to discredit the iPhone's success in any way, but no one has come close to toppling Nintendo off the gaming throne.
To add to this, consider the number of online flash games there are. By the same logic the author is using, the best mobile gaming platform would be a laptop/netbook.
This of course completely ignores the quality of these games and the advantages that dedicated gaming platforms like the DS and PSP have.
Not sure if the article writer is American -- in many other countries 'mobile' is synonymous with cell phones, and thus 'mobile games' could be interpreted as 'cell phone games'.
The article writer can't mean this because he is comparing Apple to Nintendo. It would make no sense to do so if he meant the market that Apple is dominating to solely mean "cell phone games."
This isn't a bad article, but it's not a very smart article either. The ideas are essentially the same ones people have been repeating for days, it takes a long time to express these ideas we've already heard and it employs even less logic and methodology than many writers (for example, John Gruber) in coming to its conclusions. Not trying to be excessively negative or anything — it just seems very much like a "me too." Does anybody else see an original idea here?
It's summed up by this paragraph, "Today, Apple is more concerned about having to re-live its recent history — getting jerked around by Microsoft or held hostage by Adobe — than what it thinks would be manageable damage by a few developers that may leave its platform. Some may regard that as being arrogant. For Apple it’s the price of being in charge of its own destiny. To capitulate at the height of its newly found vigor would be suicidal."
Which doesn't even attempt to address why requiring all programs be originally developed in objc,c, or c++ is a good way to prevent being held hostage by Adobe, and nor does it address the huge repercussions it could have. It's not a "few" developers that would be effected by this change if its strictly enforced. It's practically every 3d game on the market.
doesn't even attempt to address why requiring all programs be originally developed in objc,c, or c++ is a good way to prevent being held hostage by Adobe
Sure it does - it provides a legal footing for denying apps based on Flash. That pretty much prevents Adobe and Microsoft from establishing a mobile platform that would
nor does it address the huge repercussions it could have.
There have been a lot of keys struck in anger since this was announced, and I find it to be too naïve. Apple would never enforce such a clause against something that was beneficial to them. So far, there have been no killer apps in the mobile space (sorry guys). While I enjoy the massively discounted offerings on the AppStore, the core OS and applications that Apple provides are the only things that affect my device buying decision.
When someone makes a killer app that cannot be released on the AppStore, then this will matter. Until then... Sorry, no one was going to buy your Scheme-based app anyway.
How do I determine whether a useful and nonthreatening program in the App Store is beneficial to Apple? It seems like it would go without saying that every good app is a boon, but you appear to imply that there's some threshold of "killer"-ness that needs to be breached before your contribution is beneficial (and by extension you are allowed to use whatever language you want). How is this determined?
Further, since you state that an app must be "killer" to be beneficial, and that there are no killer apps in the store, does this mean that Apple derives no benefit at all from the App Store? Because that seems like a pretty absurd claim.
"Sure it does - it provides a legal footing for denying apps based on Flash. That pretty much prevents Adobe and Microsoft from establishing a mobile platform that would"
A legal footing? Do they really need more than they already had? They were already arbitrarily rejecting apps they didn't like, why couldn't they continue doing that?
And games are a killer app for many people, and Unity3D is potentially affected by this. So while you personally may not care, don't assume other people don't have legitimate reasons for caring.
Is it possible they will only selectively enforce this? Of course! But if they only intended to go after flash apps, why bother with the clause at all? Why not just reject all Flash apps?
Could they at least acknowledge the fact that they intentionally destroyed an adobe product for no real reason? I would be much more interested in hearing why they thought Flash CS5's export to IPhone capability shouldn't go to market rather than about how apple is "the good guy". The laundry list of things apple has done well were particularly infuriating. Take any company, no matter how destitute, and they could easily have marketers spin up a list such as this. Microsoft, Adobe, and Google have done at least as many things right over the years. In either case, they really skirted the issue at hand.
It is true that adobe literally said "Screw you apple". But sticks and stones can only do so much. Just consider what Apple threw their way. And we shouldn't forget all of the open source projects that have gone down because of Apple's lazy cannon ball.
Considering how poorly Adobe has treated non-Windows platforms for the past several years, I would accept "sheer spite" as an answer to why they're screwing over Adobe. The better question is why Apple would do this to all other developers as well.
I'm more interested in how Adobe is a competitor to Apple (in a Windows-vs-Mac way). Though there are a couple of areas that Apple and Adobe products compete, I would hardly say that it's in Apple's best interests to screw over Adobe. Do you think that the Apple faithful will be especially pleased if Adobe pulled all of their products from the Mac platform? I'm betting that it would tick off a fair amount of Apple users, who could direct their anger at Apple if they feel that Apple started the whole thing.
Do you think Adobe stockholders would be particularly pleased if they pulled all of their products from the Mac platform? They would be burned at the stake. Apple isn't afraid of that happening because it isn't going to.
I'm not saying that Adobe actually would pull their products from Macs, but I'm kind of surprised by the responses from the 'Mac faithful.' A good portion of Mac users rely on Adobe products for their livelihood, yet they rally behind Apple. I'm just wondering if they would actually change their tune if Photoshop was no longer available for the Mac, or would they just change careers so that they could stay on the platform.
> I'm more interested in how Adobe is a competitor to Apple (in a Windows-vs-Mac way).
In four words: "Developers, developers, developers, developers."
Adobe's Flash is a platform for writing applications. Apple's Cocoa is a platform for writing applications. If developers were to all switch to Flash overnight, Adobe would control the application market. If Adobe didn't feel like supporting multi-tasking, no application would support multi-tasking because the Flash runtime wouldn't support it. Apple would lose control of its destiny.
Make no mistake, Adobe and Apple are competitors, and I expect Apple to fight this one to the death. Why? I quote the old adage: "Why do rabbits run faster than foxes? Because the rabbit is running for his life, while the fox is only running for his supper."
Adobe has not bet the company on Flash, but Apple has bet the company on iPhone.
If Flash runtime won't support multitaksing on iPhone developers will use what supports multi-tasking, if given app needs it. Or they would write translation layer - and that's what Apple is most scared of - it would make iPhones "just another type of multi-touch mobile phone", and it would hit their profits a big time.
Apple's troubles in the mid '90s were not the fault of third-party developers. Windows NT was a better OS than classic Mac OS (and I was a Mac guy at the time). Macs of the day were uninspired and expensive. The recent switch to PowerPC had caused issues with a number of applications; most still worked, but it wasn't exactly fast. The phased introduction of PowerPC meant a lot of people considering new Macs waited, and some jumped ship.
Apple's recovery didn't have anything to do with playing hardball with developers. Apple recovered because it started making better products. Apple can retain its position in the smartphone market by continuing to make the best product. All they'll get from acting like a bully is ill will.
Apple can retain its position in the smartphone market by continuing to make the best product. All they'll get from acting like a bully is ill will.
I disagree, I think blocking flash is a good strategy for Apple. They stand to gain a lot and Ill will passes.
If they are able to block the platform and kill it then people will quickly forget if they continue to grow their market share. Apple is not interested in allowing development multiple mobile operating systems easily. Apple sells a platform and they want as many exclusive applications as possible. Exclusive applications retains the value in the handset rather than elsewhere (for example the network). Apple does not the handset to be commodity hardware driving down profits. The applications and their delivery is the unique selling point: hence the advert "there's an app for everything".
the only reason i'm jealous of people with iphones is they can play words with friends and turf wars, which all my friends play. apple knows if popular apps are easy to release on multiple systems at once, it will make their exclusive offerings less compelling.
Like all of the articles praising Apple's actions, this one focuses solely on the conflict between Apple and Adobe, as if that's all there was to it, as if those decrying Apple's actions are doing it out of love for Adobe and not because Apple's actions and public statements on the matter are inconsistent, hypocritical and are causing huge collateral damage to various companies and individuals who have nothing to do with Adobe or Flash or Microsoft and have only been adding value to the App Store.
I found this piece on Ars Technica to be more insightful and closer to reality (i.e., outside of the Reality Distortion Field):
I agree with what was said below, it wasn't a great article, but you must not have read the entire thing. His main point is actually that Apple is providing a hell of a distribution platform for developers that is going to be very expensive to leave.
I did read it, but you're right about what his main point was. I was mainly referring to the last two paragraphs.
His main point boils down to, "Baby, look how sweet it is up in here, look at this bling bling, now shut up while I smack you about." Sure, I agree, Apple has a wonderful, beautiful setup. I don't think anyone disputes that, but I fail to see how that's supposed to make me respect their actions.
Apple doesn't have a quantity problem, they have a quality problem.
You don't have to respect anything, but not at a certain point it's like being pissed that you can't say fuck in an ad on television. These guys paid a lot of money to build an audience (of extremely high demographic value, mind you), and a platform for you to talk to it on and make money from it directly, sorry but you have to follow their rules.
It's impossible to claim that this is about app quality when there are literally over a hundred fart apps in the iPhone App Store. Clearly it's quite possible for developers to create low quality apps using only the official Apple toolchain.
1) The quality argument has been shown to be utter hogwash. Simply untrue, utterly devoid of rational backing. Read the Ars link I posted for details.
2) All of these companies and developers have been following the rules only to just now have them changed on them for utterly shitty reasons.
3) Apple isn't enforcing their own rules. Lots of apps break the rules yet are allowed on the store. Their rules, at this point, amount to: we're gonna let you in if we like you. That's a pretty crummy rule; hope your business plan doesn't depend on it.
4) You're missing half the perspective. Apple should be grateful to the developers who have worked their asses off and bent over backwards to satisfy Apple's various restrictions to fill their store with lots of software. If Apple treats them poorly, they'll find developers choosing other platforms.
1) The quality argument has been shown to be utter hogwash. Simply untrue, utterly devoid of rational backing. Read the Ars link I posted for details.
Totally true, one is not better than the other. But when you've got a ton of developers and you want to raise the barrier to entry (and they do) how else should they be doing it? Choosing the apps themselves?
2) All of these companies and developers have been following the rules only to just now have them changed on them for utterly shitty reasons.
Yes that's true. At the same time, that's life. You play in someone else's playground they make the rules. No one forced anyone to be an iphone developer. It's not your RIGHT to be an iphone developer in the same way it's your RIGHT to be a web developer. Remember when the facebook app developer stopped developing for the app store? That wasn't just for show.
3) Apple isn't enforcing their own rules. Lots of apps break the rules yet are allowed on the store. Their rules, at this point, amount to: we're gonna let you in if we like you. That's a pretty crummy rule; hope your business plan doesn't depend on it.
Again, I'm not saying any of this is nice for developers, but hope your business plan doesn't depend on someone else's marketplace.
4) You're missing half the perspective. Apple should be grateful to the developers who have worked their asses off and bent over backwards to satisfy Apple's various restrictions to fill their store with lots of software. If Apple treats them poorly, they'll find developers choosing other platforms.
Sorry but even without the app store the iPhone would still be the number one selling phone. No question about it. The app store is great, but Apple easily could've done it without it. And please don't forget that all of these developers were chasing what was called a "modern day gold rush" - they weren't volunteering their time for Apple. They bent over backwards more than willingly, and continue to do so.
This is software companies outsourcing their marketing to Apple and complaining when the service changes. This is what happens when you don't have control over your business. It sucks.
Like Blur vs Oasis, Apple vs Google makes it seem like they are the only boys in town and so they both get all the press. We could be being played here. Neither Blur nor Oasis were bigger than the pop/dance music scenes, and neither Apple nor Google yet threaten Nokia and RIM.
This article says absolutely nothing about suicidal tendencies. His entire argument is that the iPhone is well-established. But plenty of people who seem to have it going for them are suicidal; just look at celebrities.
"No other vendor dominates mobile games like Apple now. With over 50,000 games in the App Store, it has 10 and 20 times what Nintendo and Sony offers respectively, and this before Apple’s Game Center has even shipped."
The Nintendo DS is the best selling gaming system of all time, mobile or not. Its not even a competition - they've sold over 2x as many DS's as Apple has sold iPhones.
Not to discredit the iPhone's success in any way, but no one has come close to toppling Nintendo off the gaming throne.