Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox 
I imagine that someone will write some kind of video editing software, or some kind of sound recording software.
But I question whether or not the ad supported model gives enough incentive for an independent developer to invest at the level necessary to create programs that actually compete with GarageBand and iMovie.
Apple has subsidized the development of those two programs as part of the value added proposition of its Mac platform. There are just a lot of programing hours and a lot of refinement along the way that have led to this point.
The software quality differential has always been apparent in the Mac vs. PC world, but the conventional wisdom has been that "good enough" carried the day given that PCs were cheaper and more broadly entrenched.
But why settle for good enough when the iPad is the same price or less? When its just as readily available, with more accessories and more software? "Openness" doesn't magically create great software or a great user experience, any more than it creates a financial incentive to make big, expensive to develop applications with deep functionality. Deep pockets and a willingness to invest heavily in a great, integrated user experience do that.
Google is willing to invest in anything that extends the reach of Google's advertising business-- i.e. online services. Developers are willing to invest in smaller apps with a quick pay-off, or games.
Again, who's going build a GarageBand for Android, on even anything close to GarageBand? And to the extent that that doesn't happen, what does that mean for the competitive fortunes of Android based tablets?

I imagine that someone will write some kind of video editing software, or some kind of sound recording software.
But I question whether or not the ad supported model gives enough incentive for an independent developer to invest at the level necessary to create programs that actually compete with GarageBand and iMovie.
Apple has subsidized the development of those two programs as part of the value added proposition of its Mac platform. There are just a lot of programing hours and a lot of refinement along the way that have led to this point.
The software quality differential has always been apparent in the Mac vs. PC world, but the conventional wisdom has been that "good enough" carried the day given that PCs were cheaper and more broadly entrenched.
But why settle for good enough when the iPad is the same price or less? When its just as readily available, with more accessories and more software? "Openness" doesn't magically create great software or a great user experience, any more than it creates a financial incentive to make big, expensive to develop applications with deep functionality. Deep pockets and a willingness to invest heavily in a great, integrated user experience do that.
Google is willing to invest in anything that extends the reach of Google's advertising business-- i.e. online services. Developers are willing to invest in smaller apps with a quick pay-off, or games.
Again, who's going build a GarageBand for Android, on even anything close to GarageBand? And to the extent that that doesn't happen, what does that mean for the competitive fortunes of Android based tablets?
We may something unfortunate with Apples software development in the future. Many years ago the 3rd-party apps werent robust and Apple trying to rebuild itself had to create and distribute apps that would attract users. These were/are great apps, but now we have a huge growth trend in Mac sales and Mac OS development. Does Apple need to continue making these great apps to attract users to the platform? Will it most cost effective for them to forego these cost centers and focus on generating sales in other ways? I hope they continue making great apps for their devices but the history of business is not in their favor.





list you left out the primary factor: