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.

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.

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.

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).