Let me ask you this: If a developer was told his code could easily run on other platforms besides iOS, with MILD work associated, do you think they would all say no? Of course not. That's what he's talking about. I think it's a good idea for Apple to force their developers to use code that works the best for iOS, but if it turns out it's illegal in some way, what can you do?
For instance, with Java, you can theoretically create an application that runs on any platform supporting Java, but doing this adds a lot to the project's size, and since it's gotta be the most straight forward way to do things in Java, the software can be sluggish for it.
It really comes down to there not being a language that runs great on every platform, and that's why Apple doesn't want code that can just as easily run on Android as iOS. Again, whether this is illegal I don't know, but that other dude seems pretty confident it is.
I'm confused, did the members who are berating me on this forum forget that Apple has a clause in its developer agreement that you're not allowed to develop using third-party tools and that you must only use Apple-approved languages? That pretty much excludes all developers who want to develop broadly for multiple platforms, locking developers into Apple's platform because of cost considerations.
Stop putting your fingers in your ears and shouting "la-la-la-la-la" hoping that the anticompetitive actions by Apple are magically going to go away.
The bad news is that this is more fuel for the fire for the FTC. More reasons why Apple's lock-in of developers will be hurting the mobile app market.(
Where's the lock-in? If you'd read the article, the developers are free to develop for other platforms, they just CHOOSE not to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by addicted44
And the crazy part is that most of these studies underestimate the lead the iOS has, for 2 reasons:
1) Almost no one pays for apps on Android. Almost every app is ad-supported, unlike the iOS, where a much larger percentage are ad-free paid for apps.
2) This does not account for international, where iOS devices compete directly with Android (i.e., aren't locked to a carrier with about 1/3rd marketshare). iOS is killing Android internationally. I don't think anyone even really cares/knows what Android is outside the us.
3. The quality of developers is different. A lot of Android developers were first rejected from the Apple Store because their apps were not good enough. That drags down the average quality on Android. Furthermore, developers for iPhone are far likelier to make money, so they can afford to put in the time to polish their apps.
Quote:
Originally Posted by g3pro
I'm confused, did the members who are berating me on this forum forget that Apple has a clause in its developer agreement that you're not allowed to develop using third-party tools and that you must only use Apple-approved languages? That pretty much excludes all developers who want to develop broadly for multiple platforms, locking developers into Apple's platform because of cost considerations.
It doesn't do any such thing. It simply says that if the developer wants to develop for different platforms, they should use tools appropriate for those platforms. Basically, it's making life difficult for lazy developers, but there's no law saying Apple has to make life easy for lazy developers.
I'm confused, did the members who are berating me on this forum forget that Apple has a clause in its developer agreement that you're not allowed to develop using third-party tools and that you must only use Apple-approved languages? That pretty much excludes all developers who want to develop broadly for multiple platforms, locking developers into Apple's platform because of cost considerations.
Stop putting your fingers in your ears and shouting "la-la-la-la-la" hoping that the anticompetitive actions by Apple are magically going to go away.
I doubt it's that serious. Android came out a year later than iPhone, and it pretty much proves that the mobile phone market is strong and thriving given how strong it's become. Unless they can point to some actual anti-competitive behavior other than 'I hate Apple', it's unlikely to go anywhere given the healthy market.
It doesn't do any such thing. It simply says that if the developer wants to develop for different platforms, they should use tools appropriate for those platforms. Basically, it's making life difficult for lazy developers, but there's no law saying Apple has to make life easy for lazy developers.
Wow! I can't believe g3pro could twist that part about the developer's agreement around. He deserves a raise from whatever troll factory is employing him to work here.
I'm confused, did the members who are berating me on this forum forget that Apple has a clause in its developer agreement that you're not allowed to develop using third-party tools and that you must only use Apple-approved languages? That pretty much excludes all developers who want to develop broadly for multiple platforms, locking developers into Apple's platform because of cost considerations.
Stop putting your fingers in your ears and shouting "la-la-la-la-la" hoping that the anticompetitive actions by Apple are magically going to go away.
Yes you are confused. If you're developing for iOS then Apple requires that you use Apple approved languages ObjC, C, etc. No where does their policy say you cannot develop for other platforms. If you want to develop for other platforms, you can go ahead and do so. I agree that you can't do much with ObjC on other mobile platforms, but if you want a piece of the Apple pie then that's the price of entry. But there is no "lock-in". When I develop for the iPhone, I use ObjC. When I develop for Android I use Java. Stop the whinning and Just do it!
I'm confused, did the members who are berating me on this forum forget that Apple has a clause in its developer agreement that you're not allowed to develop using third-party tools and that you must only use Apple-approved languages? That pretty much excludes all developers who want to develop broadly for multiple platforms, locking developers into Apple's platform because of cost considerations.
Stop putting your fingers in your ears and shouting "la-la-la-la-la" hoping that the anticompetitive actions by Apple are magically going to go away.
You should take off your blinders. Apple is only trying to insure that apps written for their products will run on today's iOS as well as future versions of their iOS as well without breaking or major re-writes being necessary. No developer is being forced to write for iOS they are choosing to do so.
I'm confused, did the members who are berating me on this forum forget that Apple has a clause in its developer agreement that you're not allowed to develop using third-party tools and that you must only use Apple-approved languages? That pretty much excludes all developers who want to develop broadly for multiple platforms, locking developers into Apple's platform because of cost considerations.
Stop putting your fingers in your ears and shouting "la-la-la-la-la" hoping that the anticompetitive actions by Apple are magically going to go away.
Damn it. When will Google and Symbian remove the restrictions on how to develop for their platforms so I can use my proven Obj-C code???? What Android doesn't honor is my desire not to be madatorily subject to a managed memory model and lots of easily reverse engineer-able Java+XML. 15 minutes with a package snooper, a reflection mirror, and an Android app in the simulator and I could have my app duplicated by someone else if they really wanted to (at least the important functionality mapped and documented). A curse of having to write in Java on an open JVM.
Why isn't it as important for my developing rights to be protected by ALL platforms having to play by the rules the Android/Flash crowd wants Apple to play by.
So who gets to preemptively choose the winner, via legal regulation, in a cross platform coding standard? Why should anyone get to anoint a single company as the beneficiary of a totally one sided rule, which it what it turns into when you stop to think about what I wrote above. It's not financially possible to do all languages on all platforms, the capability does not exist at a price any human is willing to pay today. Unless the regulation is completely platform neutral, making all development platforms mandatory on all platforms, all you have is the government arbitrarily choosing a technology winner who gets to rake in all the dough. That's not effective from either a tech or legal standpoint.
The device manufacturer makes the risky call when they make the device then the market, both devs and the consumers that buy the devs apps, get to choose what technology tree made the right choices. It's really that simple.
We are not seeing Apple use their market position to prevent developers from working on or porting to other platforms. They're merely saying, "If you want to develop for this device, here are the tools and the rules." If you want to develop for any console device, you encounter the same situation.
Well, last week they weren't allowing porn. This week they're not allowing apps with desktop functionality. Then they ban a cartoonist, but accept him only after he wins a Pulitzer prize. Then they ban Ulysses (Joyce) and Oscar Wilde, but after a rukus on the web, accept them.
It's a totally capricious acceptance system with random undisclosed rules that change weekly and have dozens of special exceptions (Playboy is OK?!).
What sane developer would want to develop under those rules?
Ok, so the main point of the original article is that 90% of iFart developers are iOS only?
Well, no kidding. They couldn't program themselves out of a paper bag, and supporting Objective C and Java/Android is over their head.
They "program" by asking questions on StackOverflow.com and copying and pasting the answers.
I used to be iOS only, but after Apple sat on one of my apps because it links to sites that are too risqué for Apple's reviewers, I'm now an Apple/Android shop.
Well, last week they weren't allowing porn. This week they're not allowing apps with desktop functionality. Then they ban a cartoonist, but accept him only after he wins a Pulitzer prize. Then they ban Ulysses (Joyce) and Oscar Wilde, but after a rukus on the web, accept them.
It's a totally capricious acceptance system with random undisclosed rules that change weekly and have dozens of special exceptions (Playboy is OK?!).
What sane developer would want to develop under those rules?
The vast majority, apparently.
BTW, the rules are not as arbitrary as you are claiming.
The first rule is that the app must work. IIRC, Apple stated that about 20-30% of submissions failed this rule so the app was rejected - and is probably now available at the Android store.
The second rule is that it must be a native app - because it is well established that native apps are going to work better than emulated garbage, particularly in a low-resource environment like the iPhone. Again, the emulated crap is now available at the Android store.
The third rule is 'no porn or offensive stuff'. Granted, there IS a small amount of subjectivity to this around the edges. The obvious porn was rejected. If you really must have it and can't figure out how to use a web browser, it's at the Android store. There are a few items on the fringes of "what is art and what is pornography". Not surprisingly, there is disagreement on where some items fall (such as the Ulysses comic book -which is an inane idea in the first place, btw). But there is an appeals process and most of the widely publicized ones have been approved (Ulysses, the political caricatures, etc). Seems that the process is working.
Apple has made the decision to at least try to limit the App Store to good apps. They're not perfect and there will be mistakes any time you're evaluating hundreds of thousands of apps, but the review process catches most of those. Frankly, this is one of the ways that Apple customers differ from non-Apple customers. We expect things to work and work well, while you are apparently content with having 50% of what you buy be junk. Apple is catering to their target audience - and building a great user experience. The fact that a few marginal developers might get their feelings hurt or have to do a little more work is and acceptable cost.
Oh, and as I've pointed out, many of the apps that aren't good enough for the Apple store are now in the Android store - which greatly inflates the Android numbers, but at the expense of quality.
BTW, the rules are not as arbitrary as you are claiming.
The first rule is that the app must work. IIRC, Apple stated that about 20-30% of submissions failed this rule so the app was rejected - and is probably now available at the Android store.
The second rule is that it must be a native app - because it is well established that native apps are going to work better than emulated garbage, particularly in a low-resource environment like the iPhone. Again, the emulated crap is now available at the Android store.
The third rule is 'no porn or offensive stuff'. Granted, there IS a small amount of subjectivity to this around the edges. The obvious porn was rejected. If you really must have it and can't figure out how to use a web browser, it's at the Android store. There are a few items on the fringes of "what is art and what is pornography". Not surprisingly, there is disagreement on where some items fall (such as the Ulysses comic book -which is an inane idea in the first place, btw). But there is an appeals process and most of the widely publicized ones have been approved (Ulysses, the political caricatures, etc). Seems that the process is working.
Apple has made the decision to at least try to limit the App Store to good apps. They're not perfect and there will be mistakes any time you're evaluating hundreds of thousands of apps, but the review process catches most of those. Frankly, this is one of the ways that Apple customers differ from non-Apple customers. We expect things to work and work well, while you are apparently content with having 50% of what you buy be junk. Apple is catering to their target audience - and building a great user experience. The fact that a few marginal developers might get their feelings hurt or have to do a little more work is and acceptable cost.
Oh, and as I've pointed out, many of the apps that aren't good enough for the Apple store are now in the Android store - which greatly inflates the Android numbers, but at the expense of quality.
Apple can and should vet apps for HIG compliance, not crashing, and taking proper advantage of the platform (i.e., not emulated). That makes for a quality user experience. Agreed.
What Apple should *not* do is vet apps for content--whether it's farts, news, poetry, knitting, political, or porn. (unless, of course, it's illegal).
Would Apple have rejected Jesus' or Mohammed's or Moses' or Martin Luther
King's teachings in their time because they were unpopular? Would Playboy have been banned before it became so popular?
Apple should not regulate content unless they allow other app stores.
Advertising agency Millennial Media's Mobile Mix survey for May 2010 found that 56 percent of U.S. developers write software for Apple's iOS. That's nearly double the next-largest platform, Google's Android. 5 percent write for Nokia's Symbian, while 4 percent create software for Research in Motion's .
The statistic is suspect. It must be a percent of Smart Phone developers... Not ALL developers.
Apple can and should vet apps for HIG compliance, not crashing, and taking proper advantage of the platform (i.e., not emulated). That makes for a quality user experience. Agreed.
What Apple should *not* do is vet apps for content--whether it's farts, news, poetry, knitting, political, or porn. (unless, of course, it's illegal).
Would Apple have rejected Jesus' or Mohammed's or Moses' or Martin Luther
King's teachings in their time because they were unpopular? Would Playboy have been banned before it became so popular?
Apple should not regulate content unless they allow other app stores.
Go start your own app store then. Make your own phone and infrastructure.
Who give YOU the right to specify what Apple should or shouldn't do? Apple has millions of happy customers and a very successful business model. The way the process works is that Apple decides what to offer. If enough people like Apple's offering, they stay in business and thrive. If Apple's offering is unpopular, Apple fails.
Arbitrary demands of what they should or shouldn't publish don't make any sense - they simply make you look like a whining juvenile.
So 56% of developers (article title), or 56% of U.S. developers (article content)? That's quite a difference, don't you think?
Of course. And if you go deeper, the population again drops dramatically:
"And while Apple has the lion's share of developers, the study also suggests that those developers are exclusive to Apple. Among all U.S. developers in May, 90 percent were single platform, while just 10 percent wrote mobile applications for multiple platforms.:
So far from being 56% of developers, or even 56% of "all US developers", it seems to be "56% of American mobile application developers".
they are doing the exact same thing that many other players have done in the past. The whole idea that this is somehow "anticompetitive" is just faulty.
What they are doing is certainly anti-competitive, just like those others that you mentioned.
But that is not the question. The question is whether it is illegal.
If Apple is accused of anti-competitive behavior, expect Nintendo's stock price to plummet, since they have a much bigger marketshare with the Wii, and their policies are far more draconian and closed.
Are you talking hardware, software or something else when you say "marketshare"?
I'm confused. I thought developers were leaving Apple's locked down, closed, walled garden prison for the "anything goes" greener pastures of Android. What gives?
I think you are remembering that several high-profile developers of good software left the platform. It was a significant series of defections.
But that was just a relatively small number of excellent developers.
Comments
WTF are you going on about again?
Your insane jealousy and frustration is showing.
Developers are CHOOSING Apple.
Let me ask you this: If a developer was told his code could easily run on other platforms besides iOS, with MILD work associated, do you think they would all say no? Of course not. That's what he's talking about. I think it's a good idea for Apple to force their developers to use code that works the best for iOS, but if it turns out it's illegal in some way, what can you do?
For instance, with Java, you can theoretically create an application that runs on any platform supporting Java, but doing this adds a lot to the project's size, and since it's gotta be the most straight forward way to do things in Java, the software can be sluggish for it.
It really comes down to there not being a language that runs great on every platform, and that's why Apple doesn't want code that can just as easily run on Android as iOS. Again, whether this is illegal I don't know, but that other dude seems pretty confident it is.
Stop putting your fingers in your ears and shouting "la-la-la-la-la" hoping that the anticompetitive actions by Apple are magically going to go away.
The bad news is that this is more fuel for the fire for the FTC. More reasons why Apple's lock-in of developers will be hurting the mobile app market.(
Where's the lock-in? If you'd read the article, the developers are free to develop for other platforms, they just CHOOSE not to.
And the crazy part is that most of these studies underestimate the lead the iOS has, for 2 reasons:
1) Almost no one pays for apps on Android. Almost every app is ad-supported, unlike the iOS, where a much larger percentage are ad-free paid for apps.
2) This does not account for international, where iOS devices compete directly with Android (i.e., aren't locked to a carrier with about 1/3rd marketshare). iOS is killing Android internationally. I don't think anyone even really cares/knows what Android is outside the us.
3. The quality of developers is different. A lot of Android developers were first rejected from the Apple Store because their apps were not good enough. That drags down the average quality on Android. Furthermore, developers for iPhone are far likelier to make money, so they can afford to put in the time to polish their apps.
I'm confused, did the members who are berating me on this forum forget that Apple has a clause in its developer agreement that you're not allowed to develop using third-party tools and that you must only use Apple-approved languages? That pretty much excludes all developers who want to develop broadly for multiple platforms, locking developers into Apple's platform because of cost considerations.
It doesn't do any such thing. It simply says that if the developer wants to develop for different platforms, they should use tools appropriate for those platforms. Basically, it's making life difficult for lazy developers, but there's no law saying Apple has to make life easy for lazy developers.
I'm confused, did the members who are berating me on this forum forget that Apple has a clause in its developer agreement that you're not allowed to develop using third-party tools and that you must only use Apple-approved languages? That pretty much excludes all developers who want to develop broadly for multiple platforms, locking developers into Apple's platform because of cost considerations.
Stop putting your fingers in your ears and shouting "la-la-la-la-la" hoping that the anticompetitive actions by Apple are magically going to go away.
I doubt it's that serious. Android came out a year later than iPhone, and it pretty much proves that the mobile phone market is strong and thriving given how strong it's become. Unless they can point to some actual anti-competitive behavior other than 'I hate Apple', it's unlikely to go anywhere given the healthy market.
It doesn't do any such thing. It simply says that if the developer wants to develop for different platforms, they should use tools appropriate for those platforms. Basically, it's making life difficult for lazy developers, but there's no law saying Apple has to make life easy for lazy developers.
Wow! I can't believe g3pro could twist that part about the developer's agreement around. He deserves a raise from whatever troll factory is employing him to work here.
I'm confused, did the members who are berating me on this forum forget that Apple has a clause in its developer agreement that you're not allowed to develop using third-party tools and that you must only use Apple-approved languages? That pretty much excludes all developers who want to develop broadly for multiple platforms, locking developers into Apple's platform because of cost considerations.
Stop putting your fingers in your ears and shouting "la-la-la-la-la" hoping that the anticompetitive actions by Apple are magically going to go away.
Yes you are confused. If you're developing for iOS then Apple requires that you use Apple approved languages ObjC, C, etc. No where does their policy say you cannot develop for other platforms. If you want to develop for other platforms, you can go ahead and do so. I agree that you can't do much with ObjC on other mobile platforms, but if you want a piece of the Apple pie then that's the price of entry. But there is no "lock-in". When I develop for the iPhone, I use ObjC. When I develop for Android I use Java. Stop the whinning and Just do it!
I'm confused, did the members who are berating me on this forum forget that Apple has a clause in its developer agreement that you're not allowed to develop using third-party tools and that you must only use Apple-approved languages? That pretty much excludes all developers who want to develop broadly for multiple platforms, locking developers into Apple's platform because of cost considerations.
Stop putting your fingers in your ears and shouting "la-la-la-la-la" hoping that the anticompetitive actions by Apple are magically going to go away.
You should take off your blinders. Apple is only trying to insure that apps written for their products will run on today's iOS as well as future versions of their iOS as well without breaking or major re-writes being necessary. No developer is being forced to write for iOS they are choosing to do so.
I'm confused, did the members who are berating me on this forum forget that Apple has a clause in its developer agreement that you're not allowed to develop using third-party tools and that you must only use Apple-approved languages? That pretty much excludes all developers who want to develop broadly for multiple platforms, locking developers into Apple's platform because of cost considerations.
Stop putting your fingers in your ears and shouting "la-la-la-la-la" hoping that the anticompetitive actions by Apple are magically going to go away.
Damn it. When will Google and Symbian remove the restrictions on how to develop for their platforms so I can use my proven Obj-C code???? What Android doesn't honor is my desire not to be madatorily subject to a managed memory model and lots of easily reverse engineer-able Java+XML. 15 minutes with a package snooper, a reflection mirror, and an Android app in the simulator and I could have my app duplicated by someone else if they really wanted to (at least the important functionality mapped and documented). A curse of having to write in Java on an open JVM.
Why isn't it as important for my developing rights to be protected by ALL platforms having to play by the rules the Android/Flash crowd wants Apple to play by.
So who gets to preemptively choose the winner, via legal regulation, in a cross platform coding standard? Why should anyone get to anoint a single company as the beneficiary of a totally one sided rule, which it what it turns into when you stop to think about what I wrote above. It's not financially possible to do all languages on all platforms, the capability does not exist at a price any human is willing to pay today. Unless the regulation is completely platform neutral, making all development platforms mandatory on all platforms, all you have is the government arbitrarily choosing a technology winner who gets to rake in all the dough. That's not effective from either a tech or legal standpoint.
The device manufacturer makes the risky call when they make the device then the market, both devs and the consumers that buy the devs apps, get to choose what technology tree made the right choices. It's really that simple.
Anti-competitive behavior? What, specifically?
We are not seeing Apple use their market position to prevent developers from working on or porting to other platforms. They're merely saying, "If you want to develop for this device, here are the tools and the rules." If you want to develop for any console device, you encounter the same situation.
Well, last week they weren't allowing porn. This week they're not allowing apps with desktop functionality. Then they ban a cartoonist, but accept him only after he wins a Pulitzer prize. Then they ban Ulysses (Joyce) and Oscar Wilde, but after a rukus on the web, accept them.
It's a totally capricious acceptance system with random undisclosed rules that change weekly and have dozens of special exceptions (Playboy is OK?!).
What sane developer would want to develop under those rules?
Well, no kidding. They couldn't program themselves out of a paper bag, and supporting Objective C and Java/Android is over their head.
They "program" by asking questions on StackOverflow.com and copying and pasting the answers.
I used to be iOS only, but after Apple sat on one of my apps because it links to sites that are too risqué for Apple's reviewers, I'm now an Apple/Android shop.
Well, last week they weren't allowing porn. This week they're not allowing apps with desktop functionality. Then they ban a cartoonist, but accept him only after he wins a Pulitzer prize. Then they ban Ulysses (Joyce) and Oscar Wilde, but after a rukus on the web, accept them.
It's a totally capricious acceptance system with random undisclosed rules that change weekly and have dozens of special exceptions (Playboy is OK?!).
What sane developer would want to develop under those rules?
The vast majority, apparently.
BTW, the rules are not as arbitrary as you are claiming.
The first rule is that the app must work. IIRC, Apple stated that about 20-30% of submissions failed this rule so the app was rejected - and is probably now available at the Android store.
The second rule is that it must be a native app - because it is well established that native apps are going to work better than emulated garbage, particularly in a low-resource environment like the iPhone. Again, the emulated crap is now available at the Android store.
The third rule is 'no porn or offensive stuff'. Granted, there IS a small amount of subjectivity to this around the edges. The obvious porn was rejected. If you really must have it and can't figure out how to use a web browser, it's at the Android store. There are a few items on the fringes of "what is art and what is pornography". Not surprisingly, there is disagreement on where some items fall (such as the Ulysses comic book -which is an inane idea in the first place, btw). But there is an appeals process and most of the widely publicized ones have been approved (Ulysses, the political caricatures, etc). Seems that the process is working.
Apple has made the decision to at least try to limit the App Store to good apps. They're not perfect and there will be mistakes any time you're evaluating hundreds of thousands of apps, but the review process catches most of those. Frankly, this is one of the ways that Apple customers differ from non-Apple customers. We expect things to work and work well, while you are apparently content with having 50% of what you buy be junk. Apple is catering to their target audience - and building a great user experience. The fact that a few marginal developers might get their feelings hurt or have to do a little more work is and acceptable cost.
Oh, and as I've pointed out, many of the apps that aren't good enough for the Apple store are now in the Android store - which greatly inflates the Android numbers, but at the expense of quality.
The vast majority, apparently.
BTW, the rules are not as arbitrary as you are claiming.
The first rule is that the app must work. IIRC, Apple stated that about 20-30% of submissions failed this rule so the app was rejected - and is probably now available at the Android store.
The second rule is that it must be a native app - because it is well established that native apps are going to work better than emulated garbage, particularly in a low-resource environment like the iPhone. Again, the emulated crap is now available at the Android store.
The third rule is 'no porn or offensive stuff'. Granted, there IS a small amount of subjectivity to this around the edges. The obvious porn was rejected. If you really must have it and can't figure out how to use a web browser, it's at the Android store. There are a few items on the fringes of "what is art and what is pornography". Not surprisingly, there is disagreement on where some items fall (such as the Ulysses comic book -which is an inane idea in the first place, btw). But there is an appeals process and most of the widely publicized ones have been approved (Ulysses, the political caricatures, etc). Seems that the process is working.
Apple has made the decision to at least try to limit the App Store to good apps. They're not perfect and there will be mistakes any time you're evaluating hundreds of thousands of apps, but the review process catches most of those. Frankly, this is one of the ways that Apple customers differ from non-Apple customers. We expect things to work and work well, while you are apparently content with having 50% of what you buy be junk. Apple is catering to their target audience - and building a great user experience. The fact that a few marginal developers might get their feelings hurt or have to do a little more work is and acceptable cost.
Oh, and as I've pointed out, many of the apps that aren't good enough for the Apple store are now in the Android store - which greatly inflates the Android numbers, but at the expense of quality.
Apple can and should vet apps for HIG compliance, not crashing, and taking proper advantage of the platform (i.e., not emulated). That makes for a quality user experience. Agreed.
What Apple should *not* do is vet apps for content--whether it's farts, news, poetry, knitting, political, or porn. (unless, of course, it's illegal).
Would Apple have rejected Jesus' or Mohammed's or Moses' or Martin Luther
King's teachings in their time because they were unpopular? Would Playboy have been banned before it became so popular?
Apple should not regulate content unless they allow other app stores.
Advertising agency Millennial Media's Mobile Mix survey for May 2010 found that 56 percent of U.S. developers write software for Apple's iOS. That's nearly double the next-largest platform, Google's Android. 5 percent write for Nokia's Symbian, while 4 percent create software for Research in Motion's .
The statistic is suspect. It must be a percent of Smart Phone developers... Not ALL developers.
The statistic is suspect. It must be a percent of Smart Phone developers... Not ALL developers.
That's exactly what it is. Check out their name and website.
Apple can and should vet apps for HIG compliance, not crashing, and taking proper advantage of the platform (i.e., not emulated). That makes for a quality user experience. Agreed.
What Apple should *not* do is vet apps for content--whether it's farts, news, poetry, knitting, political, or porn. (unless, of course, it's illegal).
Would Apple have rejected Jesus' or Mohammed's or Moses' or Martin Luther
King's teachings in their time because they were unpopular? Would Playboy have been banned before it became so popular?
Apple should not regulate content unless they allow other app stores.
Go start your own app store then. Make your own phone and infrastructure.
Who give YOU the right to specify what Apple should or shouldn't do? Apple has millions of happy customers and a very successful business model. The way the process works is that Apple decides what to offer. If enough people like Apple's offering, they stay in business and thrive. If Apple's offering is unpopular, Apple fails.
Arbitrary demands of what they should or shouldn't publish don't make any sense - they simply make you look like a whining juvenile.
So 56% of developers (article title), or 56% of U.S. developers (article content)? That's quite a difference, don't you think?
Of course. And if you go deeper, the population again drops dramatically:
"And while Apple has the lion's share of developers, the study also suggests that those developers are exclusive to Apple. Among all U.S. developers in May, 90 percent were single platform, while just 10 percent wrote mobile applications for multiple platforms.:
So far from being 56% of developers, or even 56% of "all US developers", it seems to be "56% of American mobile application developers".
they are doing the exact same thing that many other players have done in the past. The whole idea that this is somehow "anticompetitive" is just faulty.
What they are doing is certainly anti-competitive, just like those others that you mentioned.
But that is not the question. The question is whether it is illegal.
If Apple is accused of anti-competitive behavior, expect Nintendo's stock price to plummet, since they have a much bigger marketshare with the Wii, and their policies are far more draconian and closed.
Are you talking hardware, software or something else when you say "marketshare"?
I'm confused. I thought developers were leaving Apple's locked down, closed, walled garden prison for the "anything goes" greener pastures of Android. What gives?
I think you are remembering that several high-profile developers of good software left the platform. It was a significant series of defections.
But that was just a relatively small number of excellent developers.
That's a completely ignorant statement to make. Developers are not "locked in " to the iPhone. They can develop for any platform they choose.
If you really believe that, you might be using the quoted term in some sort of unusual manner.
Generally, the question is not whether other choices exist. Instead, one is locked in if there exist substantial switching costs.