Analyzing Apple's iPhone Strategy

Galen Gruman submitted infoworld's summary of Apple's grand strategy for the iPhone. He points out that the real important part of the new iPhone is the software, not the hardware. He talks about the new SDK stuff, the ad-hoc app distribution, and other stuff. It's a reasonable read if you have been ignoring the iPhone and want to know what the hype is about over this release, but doesn't break any new ground if you've been paying attention.

Comments

it's the apps, stupid!

[AceJohnny]

He points out that the real important part of the new iPhone is the software not the hardware. Well sure, now that the smartphone hardware is becoming powerful enough that you don't have to constrain your app to the capacities of that hardware, people are starting to realize that the hardware is actually inconsequential.

But this shift has only happened recently, and we needed something like the iPhone to show us that the hardware is actually darn good enough!

This is also why I'm so fascinated by Android, which is a powerful software platform (ok, for a given set of hardware). ...and I say this as an embedded software developer :p

Re:it's the apps, stupid!

[Admiral Ag]

That's a weird thing to say from my point of view. The iPod has done well because the hardware and software were tightly integrated (both on the device and with iTunes), whereas the players that went for a common platform like PlaysforSure did not.

Google is much stronger than Apple with web services, but weaker with respect to hardware. I don't think hardware is inconsequential. The more diverse the hardware your system is on, the more likely there may be compatibility problems.

Maybe it will be different this time. Mac shareware developers must be salivating. The quality of Mac shareware is excellent for the most part (and some of it is much more polished, better designed and more mac-like than software from major companies), but crippled by the fact that it's shareware and people have to find it and buy a license off a website, if they buy it at all. I imagine that respected Mac shareware developers like Panic will thrive when their software is on the same store as the stuff from the big guys and is pay per download.

ATT Contract

[rodrigoandrade]

OK, I RTFA'd but I've yet to understand where the AT&T exclusivity deal fits Apple's oh so grand strategy. Funny the suthor doesn't mention it either... afraid to lose an advertiser I suppose...

Re:Objective C

[thermian]

objective C is unfortunately a career no go for most developers.

To get and keep jobs in almost all companies you need to know a current mainstream language or two. I haven't seen a job that listed objective-c as a requirement in, um, well ever.

I certainly wouldn't touch it.

We'll see how well apps catch on

[deanston]

Sure it's the software, but it's also the whole ecosystem, which Jobs likes to control to deliver a finer experience. Sure Google can offer so much more, but if somebody put Android on a crappy hardware with bad programming so it's experience sucks there's nothing Google can do about it. And who's going to install Adobe AIR on their WinMo or BB? Now Apple has basically become the first to hand you the whole cloud computing experience on a mobile phone.

Avoiding malware and crapware

[G4from128k]

I suspect that part of Apple's restrictive software distribution strategy is to avoid malware and crapware from creeping into the iPhone ecosystem. It's something like a walled garden or customs & border protection model for software distribution. Although I'm sure that enterprising criminals will find ways to break into the iPhone, Apple's approach does raise barriers to drive-by downloads, worms, trojans, and socially-engineered installations of malware.

Time will tell whether restricting software distribution for the iPhone is a net positive or negative in either creating a stable, easy-to-use, secure environment for mobile computing or in stifling development for a subset of developers.

Re:Objective C

[Goaway]

Because you are only capable of knowing a set number of languages?

Re:Objective C

[crmarvin42]

But I thought the whole idea was that full powered, desktop level, apps on a mobile device.

I'm not trying to slander Java, but I've never used a Java app that doesn't take up a disproportionate amount of processor and memory when compared to the same type of program written in some flavor of C.

I want to reiterate that I'm not a programer and I'm not trying to be contrary. I'm just a little confused is all.

Re:Objective C

[NtroP]

[Objective-C] The language is a serious turn off for most developers I know.

It takes getting used to, but I find it very elegant and powerful. I think the biggest turn off for most is "it's something new". It's C, but then it's not. I find myself having to think much more "MVC" and "object-oriented" than I'm used to (my brain is wired old-school procedural), but I also find that I can get an amazing amount done with fewer lines of code. The trade-off is that I don't feel I have the deep level of control I should. This is nonsense, of course, I can write any functionality and subclass all I want, but with the API's I usually don't find I need to, so I come away from a project feeling a little guilty - like I didn't *really* do any hard-core coding. Combine that with Interface-builder and it feels more like building with Legos than "programming". It's just that you find yourself getting so much functionality for free.

All that, combined with the fact that the syntax is different from C++ and you get a bit of a turn-off, but give it a chance. It's like transitioning to any new thing. You like what you know. It takes stepping out of your comfort zone for a while (which is hard for a lot of programmers who tend to be control freaks to begin with). Once you are used to it though you find going back a bit clumsy. At least that's been my experience.

Re:Strategy?

[porcupine8]

Yeah, I've actually been surprised - every single person I've known with an iPhone, I've seen using its non-phone features. Getting directions via Google maps, using Twitter, using the calendar, whatever. Usually you do see people paying way too much and then only using the most basic features, but people seem to actually be using iPhone as more than a standard phone.

Question

[Nom du Keyboard]

Will the iPhone eventually kill the iPod? If you're going to carry a phone and an MP3 player anyway, won't you want to combine them? Especially since Apple is ripping the iTouch people for extra dosh on every upgrade.

Re:Objective C

[ImdatS]

You know, I started developing in Objective-C back in 1990/91 on NeXTstep (yes, it was lc 'step' at that time...) - Coming from Pascal, C, Forth (and some Basic dialects), I found it a bit weird at the beginning (the first 4-6 months). Then, one day, it made "click" - as we say in German. And from that day on, I couldn't really imagine doing it in a different way than MVC & Objective-C.

In order to fully grasp it, I started experiments with Smalltalk (great), Eiffel (great, but ugly syntax), and some other languages I forgot.

Remember: those times were the times when we wrote our frameworks ourselves (I remember writing objects like "Float", "Integer", "String", ... - they didn't exist in NeXTstep those days).

You have to switch from "Calling a Function" or "Calling a Member of an Object" to "Sending a Message to an Object" and get used to the idea that everything is an Object (even classes are instances of the class class and so on) and then you are set.

The syntax may turn you off a bit - that's what happens with Python for me (the indentation is still a psychological issue for me) - but you surely get used to it quickly.

Now, after having developed in Objective-C for such a long time (including having learned Smalltalk and Eiffel), I can't actually look at the "ugly" C++ or Java syntax - and I (more or less) believe the worst thing that could happen to the world in programming languages was C++ (my two EUR 0.01, which, by the way, results in 3.14 UScents by a strange coincidence today).

Anyway, try it out and you'll either hate it or love it.

Also, for me, a good programmer is someone who is personally, privately, and passionately interested in Esoteric Programming Languages - which brings us to the "Indifference to Syntax" - or "Being amazed by Syntax" (some people should probably take this with a grain of salt).

foreign language bindings

[DrYak]

There's another reason.

One /.er humorously said that this was because it wasn't not Java.

There's a grain of through there.

Obj-C as pointed by a /. isn't popular at all. Only NEXTSTEP and its various clones (Mac OS X, GnuStep) use it.
iPhone developers will have to learn yet another C variant, to which they are most probably not used. Some of those developer may even never learned C or C++ in the first place.

Java is the platform attracting the most mindshare currently for embed platform (keep in mind it was initially designed for it) and the MIDP platform you find on lot of embed device is quite efficient. Java is a popular language for programming embed software.
Python is also a very popular platform for fast development. Lots of developers are singing it praises (see xkcd for a caricature).
Perl and Ruby are other scripting language that have some momentum too.

All those language have way to use native C and C++ APIs. (SWIG is an example of tool to automate such C/C++-to-scripting-language-of-choice bridges)

Had Apple gone for a C/C++ SDK, they would made it available to C and C++ developers (both are maybe the world's most popular language, even if not the most high level or efficient) but also for Java developers (very popular on embed platforms), for Perl/Python/Ruby (hello young motivate university students) for C# and other .NET language (hello microsoft drooldrones) LISP (yes (that even means (support (for it (in emacs))))) etc.

By going for Obj-C Apple made their SDK available to Obj-C developers. All 2 of them.
(and the third one who's motivated enough to learn Obj-C).

Re:foreign language bindings

[anomaly256]

If you've ever actually tried to build anything and run it on the iphone you'd know that you don't _have_ to use objective C to write iphone apps. It just makes it easier by providing frameworks for things like GUI and networking. I have a plethora of C/C++ apps compiled and running on mine just fine. Heck, I even have gcc and g++ _on_ my iphone.

Re:Software upgrade = new hardware?

[vallette]

Uh, you do realize that all but the new hardware features (GPS and 3G) will be available to iPhone 1.0 (and iPod Touch) users. You don't have to buy a new phone to upgrade to the new OS.

And out of curiosity how do you know they could port new features back to older models? I'd guess it had as much to with hardware as anything. For instance, I suspect playing video on a first gen nano simply wasn't possible.

More disk space!

[Larsrc]

All I want for my iPhone is enough disk space to do its regular stuff and have Wikipedia at the same time. Then it's the perfect gadget.

-Lars

Re:Apple's grand strategy? Lock-in.

[Jhan]

[A poor hobby programmer with Apples' developer plan] If I charge $10, I get to keep $7. If 14 people in the world buy it, I've broken even.

Yikes - yes, let's keep you away from the business side of the house.

Equally yikes - yes, let's keep you away from the OSS developers side of the house. This is about not losing money just because of wanting to play around with the platform.

You forgot to include the value of your time to develop the application,

This kind of app (the <=$100 expected return one) is made for fun, as a hobby.

If you were going on a holiday in the Bahamas with your family and you somehow managed to offload some ancient Trolls pencil sharpeners (or whatever) that paid for the flight and hotel, would you argue that the trip was a loss because it didn't pay for time lost at work?

any time it might take to market it

I won't, so no cost

(e.g., even if it's just posting to Slashdot),

OK, but again that's in the fun basket, not in the work one.

any support costs,

I will support not support it at all, or only at my leisure

taxes, etc.

Good point. I will report revenue and pay taxes and so will have to sell 20 copies instead of 14. Many won't since this whole scheme seems to be a tax-evasion mechanism, at least for non-American developers.

Also, if 10K people might buy your app for their iPhone, there might be 100K people who might buy it if had a wider cell phone base, or 1000K people who might buy it if it was available for PCs, etc., so you might be chasing a tiny "profit pool" anyway if you only target the iPhone.

If a million people want a better app based on this little thing I wrote, I would expect one of two things to happen

1. Many OSS developers join (preferred)
2. $BIG_COMPANY buys source code from me for $X million dollars. Also OK.

Re:Objective C

[Anonymous Coward]

The syntax is a little weird, and the targeted platforms are somewhat limited, so not many people know it or bother to learn (unless they want to develop for Mac or GNUStep). Actually, for me the syntax makes sense. Before I learned anything about Obj-C, I've used Fortran, C, C++ and a bit of Java. When I looked at an Obj-C code the first time, I went "WTF?" However, I gave it a shot and the main thing was accepting it without complaining that it wasn't like C++. That sped things up.

After learning the very basic stuff of Obj-C (@interface, @implementation) and learning that objects pass "messages" to each other with a syntax [object method] or [object methodWithVariable:var1 andAnotherVariable:var2 andYetAnotherVariable:var2], I was ready to go. It beats object.method(var1, var2) syntax IMHO. Other ideas like protocols, delegates make sense once you see an example and others like inheritance is similar to C++. InterfaceBuilder was a piece of cake. In short, I was quickly having fun writing stupid little apps. I hadn't had as much fun writing apps with any other languages. The only complaint I have is the abundance of classes and their methods. I can't remember all of them (I don't make a living as a developer), so I am forced to look them up on the web-based reference now and then. It slows me down a bit.

So, the first step is to take a plunge, and don't always compare it to the language you've used to then complain they are not the same. They are not. If someone who does it for fun can do it, shouldn't professional developers who make a living understanding and writing codes be able to do it more easily? If you are afraid or not intrigued of new things, I am surprised you can last long as a developer because being a developer means you've got to learn to adapt.

Re:Meta-summary: apple is still a software company

[amohat]

Actually, Apple is talking about designing their own chips, to reverse that trend: (prolly be posted tomorrow!)

http://www.appleinsider.com/print.php?id=4190

The market potential for proprietary mobile processor designs from chip makers like Samsung Electronics and Intel Corp. were dealt a considerable blow earlier this week when Apple chief executive Steve Jobs revealed that his company will start designing its own breed of chips to power the next-generation of Multi-Touch devices that won't be available to rivals.

South Korea-based Samsung has long been central to Apple's handheld efforts (1, 2, 3), supplying the primary SoCs -- or system-on-chips -- for everything from the iPod nano to the iPhone. Meanwhile, Intel has been in the running to assert its Atom processors at heart of a larger iPhone-like Multi-Touch internet tablet that's also under development at the Cupertino-based electronics maker, and was at one time believed to have sealed the deal.

Unfortunately for the two industry heavyweights, Apple appears to have other plans to further innovation around its Multi-Touch platform that will reduce its reliance on chip designs conceived largely by third parties. In an interview following his keynote address at the Worldwide Developers Conference on Monday, Jobs told the New York Times' John Markoff that his firm's recent $278 million acquisition of a small fabless semiconductor company called P.A. Semi was an investment in the future of its handheld products.

"PA Semi is going to do system-on-chips for iPhones and iPods," he said, ending speculation as to the precise motives behind the April buyout. The initial uncertainty stemmed from the fact that PA Semi was best know for chips based on IBM's Power technology, an architecture that Apple abandoned two years ago when it moved its Mac line of personal computers to Intel's architecture.

But as Jobs explained to the Wall Street Journal two months ago, Apple has always been integral in the design of chips used in iPhones and iPods even though they were developed by third parties like Samsung. It was to this end that the value in PA Semi emerged, not for its existing technologies but for its expertise in designing embedded processors to do almost anything the iPhone maker wants them to do.

For Apple, the advantages of bringing PA Semi in-house are many. In particular, it will afford the company to innovate in a way going forward that will differentiate its handheld products from a growing array of competitive devices that will be left to rely on technologies available to the broader industry. It will also allow the company, which is synonymous with secrecy, to keep a tighter lid on its intellectual property and future product plans.

Still, there's hope for chip makers like Samsung and Intel in that that Apple will still need to rely on a third party to manufacture the chips it develops on its own, given that PA Semi doesn't own a fabrication facility. It's also possible that the PA Semi team could build onto chip designs initially conceived by one of the semiconductor giants. That's of course assuming Jobs and Co. don't have an even bigger plan brewing to somehow serve as its own SoC manufacturer.

Seems like a good idea, to be able to separate from the herd. I think Apple has the resources to do it, too, what with their latest, greatest marketshare-gobbling product.

Re:Apple's strategy... unchanged

[molarmass192]

I like Linux. I use it at work on virtually all our servers. I dislike Windows because it's antiquated tech (even Vista). I think that Linux is very fast, very stable, and has excellent hardware support. That said, Linux as a desktop environment is *still* not ready for prime time. The reasons? The GUI toolkits are too fragmented, the GUI IDEs themselves are rudimentary compared to Win and Mac, there isn't a coherent look and feel, and there's virtually no market for packaged desktop apps. I say this as someone who WANTS Linux to succeed on the desktop. The fact is, we need a Linus for the Linux GUI side of things. We have Linux, and we have the GNU stack, but move up to the display layer and things get de-standardized quickly. Trolltech has something good with QT, but a) it's too expensive for the hobbyist market who don't want to go the GPL route, b) the GUI designer is particularly bad, and c) it sacrifices too much for the sakes of portability. The GTK remains a mess in dire need of rewrite. Not to mention that there are 4 dozen other GUI toolkits, some not bad (I'm thinking of you WXWindows), but with virtually no install base. Linux, as an ecosystem, needs to birth it's own LGPL GUI subsystem / window manager and make it the "standard". The means merging the thing into the kernel tree. Ugly, but that's what it will take to define a "standard". Then, there needs to be a really good free common IDE for it. That's a tough nut to crack. However, when that happens, and the Linux UI diaspora is a distant memory, then I think we'll *finally* see traction on the Linux desktop. For now, outside the geek core, all we'll see is closed-smart-terminal-type desktop roll outs like the EEE and kiosk type devices.

On a side note, as a relatively recent Mac adopter, I have played with GNUStep on Linux. It's actually ok to develop in, and has a decent GUI designer, but the widgets look like they're straight out of 1996. I'd like GNUStep to become the defacto UI for desktop Linux, but there's a mountain of work to be done there.