"Finally, there’s the issue of the App Store. I’m on the fence about it. My hunch is that Apple should follow Palm’s lead and allow users to install applications from the web, albeit after prompting for the user’s consent and warning against whatever security issues might arise despite the platform’s sandboxing... However, I don’t feel strongly enough about these positions to make them part of my “platform” above."
I don't get how one would feel less strongly about this point than the others. To me, the notion that smart kids would stop tinkering with things never seemed like a real threat. It's more fun to tinker with things when it's against the rules, anyway. My concern has always been the long term implications of embracing this closed app distribution platform.
I've read plenty of arguments for and against it. Inevitably, I am left with a sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach. Yes, I understand that this gatekeeper system could help keep users from hurting themselves. But Apple has also shown that it is not just looking out for its users — it's also being anti-competitive, namely with its decision to block new Google apps.
I've seen people try to argue that Apple is in fact very open because it includes Safari, which is HTML5 compliant. But I've yet to experience many HTML5 apps that are as snappy or easy to use as their native counterparts, and it seems like 'native' will continue to evolve faster than 'web' for quite a while.
I bought an iPad. I really like it, and was thrilled by how quickly my parents learned to use it. But I can't shake this feeling that the App Store's entirely closed ecosystem is a bad thing.
In general a well-reasoned article, but I don't really agree with the contention that private APIs should be removed: when you're shipping releases of something infrequently and you want to avoid breaking client code, APIs have to be something you can commit to supporting long-term without significant changes. Keeping APIs private allows you to provide functionality that you want to have without risking a bunch of stuff breaking client-side on upgrade, since you can update your applications to work with your API as needed. Getting APIs right enough that they can be supported indefinitely is really, really hard, and it's not reasonable to expect that every bit of required functionality will be implemented and designed to such a high level of completeness the first time around.
Personally, I'm with al3x on what he says about private APIs in this post. Here's a few of my favorite moments that I've personally encountered with Apple and private APIs:
* There are APIs that date back to 2.2.1 (at the very least) that haven't changed but won't be made public. And these are APIs that - nearest I can tell (and this is with a rather large amount of testing) - work perfectly fine. Or, better yet, APIs that have existed on Mac OS X since 10.0 (and likely taken from NextStep) still being considered private! (Well, until very recently in at least one case; NSAttributedString was made public without any UIKit additions)
* The docs suggesting the use of private APIs located in PrivateFrameworks. (They still suggest this, by the way.)
* This one is probably my all time favorite: All but calling the task the API performs does trivial and pasting a few lines of code (using APIs that have existed publicly since 2.0) that can reimplement the function in the report, rather then make the API public.
If the API is that trivial to do and the engineer behind the radar is so sure that the code won't cause any problems that they can tell people to use said code, then, why wasn't it simply public in the first place? Someone obviously felt it was useful enough for Apple to have..
* Reimplementing something that the system can already do. In what is, in all likelihood, the exact same way the system implemented it; in a lot of my cases, I end up (unknowingly) creating methods and vars with the same names Apple used for their methods and ivars.
Yes, there are legit reasons to keep APIs private. Big Hacks™ to get a release out the door do happen. But, in my experience with the iPhone/iPad (which is, admittedly, one sided towards what I've experienced), Big Hacks™ and things disappearing between releases isn't the case and keeping many of the APIs private is more of a hinderance than anything else.
And FWIW, relevant radars have been filed for many of these issues as the situation arose, mostly to what feels like an unvarying degree of futility; Radar doesn't get called a black hole for no reason.
I have no problem with private APIs per se and always felt that Apple had found a sensible system: apps on the App Store, including Apple's, couldn't use private APIs, but the built-in apps could do whatever they wanted.
But apparently at least iBooks (and maybe iWorks?) on iPad use private APIs. That doesn't seem fair at all: selling side-by-side with 3rd party competitors on the store that can't do the same things Apple's apps can.
The AppStore is a huge deal and was barely even mentioned. Censoring what they sell in the AppStore is fine with me. Maintaining a monopoly on the sales of software for use with their devices by exploiting contract law and the DCMA is not. Yet we are supposed to forgive them because they are doing cool things with hardware/software? Enjoy.
I'd actually be O.K. with the restrictions in the App store if there was any non-jailbreak method of loading apps outside the app store. That would allow you to install things like Google Voice, Opera, or whatever if you the user want to, while still providing a squeaky clean simplified view to the average user.
For example, on an Android phone, by default you can only install apps from the Android Market. However, by checking one checkbox in the phone's preferences, you can install non-market apps. Those might be apps you upload using the Android developer tools (if you're a dev), or you can download and install apps from a website, or you can use a third party market (like SlideMe).
It's the rare person who changes their mind when they've taken a very strong position. Kudos to Alex for being willing to take a real look at the iPad and figure out what his real concerns with the device were.
Apple has demonstrated ingenuity in a segment that showed little of it for years. I had and still have reservation about this device, and as it stands, after playing with it a good amount, I will hold on till version 2 (soon i am sure) or when a real credible competitor surfaces (soon perhaps).
This is not to distract from the fact that the Ipad is pretty amazing, and i think anybody who engages with technology, and is able to look beyond his own personal passions and biases will concede this is a ground breaking elegant device.
There is much to like about this brilliant device. but for me, who relies (and prefers) Linux, the reliance on Itunes is a complete no for me, and many other aspects are giving me pause. The centralized approach Apple projects as a philosophy is very troubling to me, on level that goes beyond just tech. it gives me the creeps (while Google still at a level that merely annoys me and keeps me suspicious)
Open source models largely failed (don't bite my head on this one) to gain a real substantial piece of the desktop environment, however, on specialized devices such as pads and phones the platform demonstrates stability and capabilities that give it a real chance.this approach is by and large promoted by Google, and it certainly has the potential for a very strong showing.
in terms of stability and capability of the engine we can argue on merits here and there, but the end user experience is largely successful when there is a tight coherence in the metaphors used, that is the winning ticket.
Apple understands this very well, Open source designers need to figure out a better way to make the metaphors used coherent, it remains to be seen if its possible in this environment. Style is not trivial
"Here is my position, restated as clearly as I possibly can:
1. Apple should not charge to put applications you’ve written onto your personal iPad (or iPhone, for that matter). If you purchase one of these devices, you should be able to install software of your own creation on it without any intervention or approval on Apple’s part, other than creating a free developer account. Essentially, take today’s iPhone/iPad developer program, and make it free."
This is key to me. The day Apple allows me to program whatever I want and deploy to my device without giving them an annual "developer fee", I'll buy an IPad, ITouch and MBP.
I am no Open Source Zealot and am perfectly fine with the closed OS and somewhat ok with the AppStore policies, but I find "developer fees" a very patronizing idea, specifically when I have to pay it every year! wtf! if I paid for the damn device. why should I rent my right to develop on it with 20% of the device cost annually?!.
So hopefully someone in Apple will listen people like Payne and revoke the developer fee (at least the "annual" bit).
I am an "Open Source Zealot". If Apple waved a magic wand and killed all the open source software on my Macbook (not even counting the stuff they bake in themselves) then it would be useless to me.
The App store process seem to break the open source model for no obvious gain. I can't modify some app to suit myself, my company or my family. I can't find a bunch of willing collaborators. Everyone has dollar signs in their eyes and is forced to invest in a Mac, a yearly fee and dealing with bureaucracy to get releases out. This is probably accidental but I want the same process that creates all the code I appreciate on my other computers to be at least tolerated, and preferably encouraged on my mobile ones.
I thought we'd left the shareware and freeware days behind, yet here we are again.
Personally, I'd prefer that Apple would release all their code on some sort of open-source license that enables me to compile and study it at will, in addition to the freedom of letting me re-distribute that software any way I want to.
The main problem with any company that releases a piece of software and demands that you pay for it is that the company is trying to create value that isn't there. Information, be it code or anything else, is not valuable because it isn't scarce; I can get the number of copies I have of any piece of data arbitrarily close to infinity very easily. Apple, however, denies this simple fact and decides to use copyright law to extract some artificial value that would not exist under true free-market principles. Granted, Apple is not the only company that does this, but they're not more moral than Microsoft or any other corporation that uses these same tactics.
The main problem with this imaginary value is that it's very difficult for companies to adopt open-source licenses when they don't want to lose their steady stream of revenue. Of course, customers should be free to pay for code if they want, but they shouldn't be coerced by government-granted monopolies in the form of copyright law.
>the device launched with a PHP IDE in the App Store on day one, amongst other code-related applications.
I can't seem to find any of these applications (I'm not sure how to browse for iPad specific apps in iTunes). Does anyone know which apps he's talking about?
Given the rule against scripting on the device, it can't be a particularly useful IDE...I would guess maybe it's an app front-end to some online PHP sandbox.
after thinking a bit about it for a while, ipad to me, seems to be more of a media consumption device than either a computer or a phone. i can read books, play video-games etc on it, and it seems to be of the just right form-factor for such activities.
given that, i don't think i would be interested in running any arbitrary program on it. i would prefer my computer for doing that. apple store thus becomes more of a alternate clearing-house of published information. i am probably more concerned about some fundamental erosion of fair-use-rights here than anything else, as building strict copyright controls on such a device is probably much simpler .
if content-providers/distributors find ipad to be a viable platform for disseminating media, then copyright would be back with a vengeance. libraries / physical books might then be passe...
[+] [-] jkincaid|16 years ago|reply
I don't get how one would feel less strongly about this point than the others. To me, the notion that smart kids would stop tinkering with things never seemed like a real threat. It's more fun to tinker with things when it's against the rules, anyway. My concern has always been the long term implications of embracing this closed app distribution platform.
I've read plenty of arguments for and against it. Inevitably, I am left with a sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach. Yes, I understand that this gatekeeper system could help keep users from hurting themselves. But Apple has also shown that it is not just looking out for its users — it's also being anti-competitive, namely with its decision to block new Google apps.
I've seen people try to argue that Apple is in fact very open because it includes Safari, which is HTML5 compliant. But I've yet to experience many HTML5 apps that are as snappy or easy to use as their native counterparts, and it seems like 'native' will continue to evolve faster than 'web' for quite a while.
I bought an iPad. I really like it, and was thrilled by how quickly my parents learned to use it. But I can't shake this feeling that the App Store's entirely closed ecosystem is a bad thing.
[+] [-] akeefer|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Zev|16 years ago|reply
* There are APIs that date back to 2.2.1 (at the very least) that haven't changed but won't be made public. And these are APIs that - nearest I can tell (and this is with a rather large amount of testing) - work perfectly fine. Or, better yet, APIs that have existed on Mac OS X since 10.0 (and likely taken from NextStep) still being considered private! (Well, until very recently in at least one case; NSAttributedString was made public without any UIKit additions)
* The docs suggesting the use of private APIs located in PrivateFrameworks. (They still suggest this, by the way.)
* This one is probably my all time favorite: All but calling the task the API performs does trivial and pasting a few lines of code (using APIs that have existed publicly since 2.0) that can reimplement the function in the report, rather then make the API public.
If the API is that trivial to do and the engineer behind the radar is so sure that the code won't cause any problems that they can tell people to use said code, then, why wasn't it simply public in the first place? Someone obviously felt it was useful enough for Apple to have..
* Reimplementing something that the system can already do. In what is, in all likelihood, the exact same way the system implemented it; in a lot of my cases, I end up (unknowingly) creating methods and vars with the same names Apple used for their methods and ivars.
Yes, there are legit reasons to keep APIs private. Big Hacks™ to get a release out the door do happen. But, in my experience with the iPhone/iPad (which is, admittedly, one sided towards what I've experienced), Big Hacks™ and things disappearing between releases isn't the case and keeping many of the APIs private is more of a hinderance than anything else.
And FWIW, relevant radars have been filed for many of these issues as the situation arose, mostly to what feels like an unvarying degree of futility; Radar doesn't get called a black hole for no reason.
[+] [-] glhaynes|16 years ago|reply
But apparently at least iBooks (and maybe iWorks?) on iPad use private APIs. That doesn't seem fair at all: selling side-by-side with 3rd party competitors on the store that can't do the same things Apple's apps can.
[+] [-] nnutter|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] theBobMcCormick|16 years ago|reply
For example, on an Android phone, by default you can only install apps from the Android Market. However, by checking one checkbox in the phone's preferences, you can install non-market apps. Those might be apps you upload using the Android developer tools (if you're a dev), or you can download and install apps from a website, or you can use a third party market (like SlideMe).
[+] [-] grumpycanuck|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] symesc|16 years ago|reply
Great article, Alex.
[+] [-] doron|16 years ago|reply
This is not to distract from the fact that the Ipad is pretty amazing, and i think anybody who engages with technology, and is able to look beyond his own personal passions and biases will concede this is a ground breaking elegant device.
There is much to like about this brilliant device. but for me, who relies (and prefers) Linux, the reliance on Itunes is a complete no for me, and many other aspects are giving me pause. The centralized approach Apple projects as a philosophy is very troubling to me, on level that goes beyond just tech. it gives me the creeps (while Google still at a level that merely annoys me and keeps me suspicious)
Open source models largely failed (don't bite my head on this one) to gain a real substantial piece of the desktop environment, however, on specialized devices such as pads and phones the platform demonstrates stability and capabilities that give it a real chance.this approach is by and large promoted by Google, and it certainly has the potential for a very strong showing.
in terms of stability and capability of the engine we can argue on merits here and there, but the end user experience is largely successful when there is a tight coherence in the metaphors used, that is the winning ticket.
Apple understands this very well, Open source designers need to figure out a better way to make the metaphors used coherent, it remains to be seen if its possible in this environment. Style is not trivial
[+] [-] plinkplonk|16 years ago|reply
1. Apple should not charge to put applications you’ve written onto your personal iPad (or iPhone, for that matter). If you purchase one of these devices, you should be able to install software of your own creation on it without any intervention or approval on Apple’s part, other than creating a free developer account. Essentially, take today’s iPhone/iPad developer program, and make it free."
This is key to me. The day Apple allows me to program whatever I want and deploy to my device without giving them an annual "developer fee", I'll buy an IPad, ITouch and MBP.
I am no Open Source Zealot and am perfectly fine with the closed OS and somewhat ok with the AppStore policies, but I find "developer fees" a very patronizing idea, specifically when I have to pay it every year! wtf! if I paid for the damn device. why should I rent my right to develop on it with 20% of the device cost annually?!.
So hopefully someone in Apple will listen people like Payne and revoke the developer fee (at least the "annual" bit).
[+] [-] ZeroGravitas|16 years ago|reply
The App store process seem to break the open source model for no obvious gain. I can't modify some app to suit myself, my company or my family. I can't find a bunch of willing collaborators. Everyone has dollar signs in their eyes and is forced to invest in a Mac, a yearly fee and dealing with bureaucracy to get releases out. This is probably accidental but I want the same process that creates all the code I appreciate on my other computers to be at least tolerated, and preferably encouraged on my mobile ones.
I thought we'd left the shareware and freeware days behind, yet here we are again.
[+] [-] randomCSNobody|16 years ago|reply
The main problem with any company that releases a piece of software and demands that you pay for it is that the company is trying to create value that isn't there. Information, be it code or anything else, is not valuable because it isn't scarce; I can get the number of copies I have of any piece of data arbitrarily close to infinity very easily. Apple, however, denies this simple fact and decides to use copyright law to extract some artificial value that would not exist under true free-market principles. Granted, Apple is not the only company that does this, but they're not more moral than Microsoft or any other corporation that uses these same tactics.
The main problem with this imaginary value is that it's very difficult for companies to adopt open-source licenses when they don't want to lose their steady stream of revenue. Of course, customers should be free to pay for code if they want, but they shouldn't be coerced by government-granted monopolies in the form of copyright law.
[+] [-] jstevens85|16 years ago|reply
I can't seem to find any of these applications (I'm not sure how to browse for iPad specific apps in iTunes). Does anyone know which apps he's talking about?
[+] [-] SwellJoe|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|16 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] signa11|16 years ago|reply
given that, i don't think i would be interested in running any arbitrary program on it. i would prefer my computer for doing that. apple store thus becomes more of a alternate clearing-house of published information. i am probably more concerned about some fundamental erosion of fair-use-rights here than anything else, as building strict copyright controls on such a device is probably much simpler .
if content-providers/distributors find ipad to be a viable platform for disseminating media, then copyright would be back with a vengeance. libraries / physical books might then be passe...