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!

[Anonymous Coward]

>Free Playstation 3, Nintendo Wii and Microsoft XBox 360 Are you fucking kidding me? Someone ban this shit NOW!

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:it's the apps, stupid!

[Anonymous Coward]

Thant's kind of shortsighted. Windows Mobile is not bad. It works far better as an embedded OS that Windows does as a Desktop OS. There are also thousands of applications out here for it.

Re:it's the apps, stupid!

[anomaly256]

The hardware has been capable for quite some time. It's just windows CE is so crap at what it does that everyone blamed the hardware for being underpowered. Point in case, the hx4700 ipaq has been available for several years, clocks at 627mhz and has the same ram as the iphone. Even an apparently decent 2d+mpeg accelerated gpu, yet totally fails at media playback for anything encoded at a quality resolution. That is, until you reflash it with a real operating system. I'm glad apple's set the bar higher though, maybe Microsoft's CE department will wake up and realize people want _real_ features right _now_ instead of slowly bleeding out miniscule advancements that are intentionally crippled. Although having said that, CE's poor performance has until now been the driving force in making the hardware better, so it's only fair to give them credit for that at least.

Re:it's the apps, stupid!

[c_forq]

It works far better as an embedded OS that Windows does as a Desktop OS

Seriously? I mean, have you used a Windows Mobile device? I have one I use every day, and I have had to reboot it about as often as Windows 95. One of the (many) reasons I will be picking up an iPhone this July.

Objective C

[thammoud]

The language is a serious turn off for most developers I know.

Re:Objective C

[crmarvin42]

Why?

I'll admit I'm not a programer and I have a tendency toward reading pro-apple sites, but I was under the impression that objective C is just an extension of C, and that regular C code would compile and run fine without extensive modification.

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.

Re:Objective C

[jo42]

Why? Because it's not Java?

Re:Objective C

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

I have no doubt most good programmers can pick up a new language pretty fast and even become quite productive. But it is the hiring manager you have to get through. Most HR bean counters go by grep $keyword resume.txt .

So many programmers feel it is better to stick with what they are asking for in the ads.

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

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

The language is a serious turn off for most developers I know.

Really? The only developers I can think of that it would be a problem for are those guys who learned Java or VB at their trade school and have never learned anything else. Pretty much everyone else has picked up C at some point and Objective C is just a superset.

I'd also note that from what I've read developers are raving about the ease of use of the iPhone dev kit. From the development forums I see a lot of happy people, with the occasional clueless person asking if they can develop for the iPhone using Visual Basic 6. I've seen some complaints about the slow rate at which people are letting developers into the program, but not about objective C.

Re:Objective C

[EastCoastSurfer]

If you know C and any OO language then obj-C should be easy for a real developer to pick up. Keep in mind that C runs just fine on the iphone (at least on the simulator) you just won't have access to any of the Cocoa frameworks and thus no UI.

Re:Objective C

[EastCoastSurfer]

Because today's programmers don't learn programming or engineering, but instead a language. A real programmer should be able to program regardless of a language. In fact they should be able to pick a language based on the problem at hand and not the other way around.

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:Objective C

[bsDaemon]

Obj-C is often considered what C++ would have been, if C++ were done right. However, for a right while only NeXT really used it. GNUStep, which was trying to copy NeXT Step, started supporting it as well.

When Jobs came back to Apple (he also formed NeXT), Apple acquired NeXT and all their technology. This is when OS X was born and why it uses Obj-C.

So, basically only MacOS X and GNUStep really use Obj-C in any significant way (at least that I'm aware of).

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).

Its a turn off because people like familiar things and would rather use C++ or Java rather than Obj-C, I suppose -- and Obj-C is sort of the barrier to entry to Cocoa and Carbon.

Re:Objective C

[mmurphy000]

If you see learning a new language as an issue, please just don't ever call yourself a developer.

Define "issue".

Is the choice of Objective-C a part of the reason why I'm not planning on doing iPhone development any time soon? Yes. Because it's a dead end.

While you can use Objective-C to build Mac applications, you don't need to — there are other languages that run on the Mac that are also commonly available on other platforms. And, outside of OS X and iPhone, there are no platforms I can think of where Objective-C is the "right answer", or even a "likely candidate". It's more like "you're using...what?" or "didn't that language die out a decade ago?"

Now, I'm not above learning a language solely to use a platform — I'm learning Python to play with Google AppEngine, for example. But Python has greater potential utility to me beyond AppEngine, more so than Objective-C does beyond iPhone, and so Python is less of an issue.

If the issue were solely language — say, for example, iPhone was likely to be as open as Android is likely to be — I'd probably overcome it. But, combine the language issue with the other issues, and iPhone just isn't compelling at present. Maybe that will change.

Re:Objective C

[m.ducharme]

Oh come on, how many HR bean-counters know how to use grep?

Re:Objective C

[afidel]

MIDP Java is generally pretty small and fast, it's what's used on basically all smartphone platforms other than the iPhone and Windows Mobile (ok there's Symbian native, but I don't think most new development is going that direction due to the portability of Java).

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).

Re:Objective C

[Lally Singh]

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.

And many have said that about C vs Assembler. The difference is that you'd have to add a zero or so to the end of the price of the app. Java's substantially easier to write apps for, in certain domains, in certain sizes of applications.

C doesn't have features which make it reasonable to write very large applications (namespaces come to mind). You can do it (e.g. Unix kernels, etc), but you have to be much more disciplined without those features. That discipline costs in terms of additional expertise required, (higher programmer salaries) and project management (more overhead for managers, documentation, etc).

Also, Java has features which make writing tools for it substantially easier than C. Better available tools also reduce the cost of software production.

For the most part, Java sacrifices starting performance for long-term performance. Letting a Java app 'warm up' for a while will show substantially better performance than when it first started running.

Re:Objective C

[Comatose51]

It's not just the language that matters. Yes any decent programmers can pick up a language in no time but the real issue is the libraries and frameworks and patterns that often go with a language and its environment. Re-learning the APIs for the environment takes time. Good documentation helps a lot and so does being open source (or use the Lutz reflector if you're doing .Net). Even then there are still certain conventions for different environments. Python programmers talk about code being "Pythonic". While there are many ways to do something in Python, there is usually a few good ways or patterns for a problem. So, it's not just the language but everything else that goes around the language that also matters.

Re:Objective C

[e4g4]

Amen brother. Programming languages are, in this way, a lot like spoken and written languages - once you've learned a few, picking up a new one becomes much easier. After thoroughly learning C++ and Java, Perl, Ruby, PHP, Python, Lisp, Objective-C and JavaScript took me almost no time at all to pick up - just a month or two of casual tinkering before I became proficient.

Programming languages are ultimately just expressions of logic, with different strengths for different applications. I once read that children who learn more than one language when they are young have a fundamentally different structure for the language center of their brains than those of us who learn only one, and a significantly greater facility for learning languages, because they essentially have a better data structure for storing and processing language. I think the same thing can be achieved with programming languages, one simply has to go out of one's way to *learn more than one*. I try to learn a new language every year or two, simply because it's good exercise for the brain.

Re:Objective C

[slawo]

Because you are only capable of knowing a set number of languages? Yes he uses the d20 system... When you are a level 3 programmer, you have little squares in your head so you can learn only 3 level 1 languages and 1 level 2 Language.

Re:Objective C

[Space cowboy]

Hmm - I have to assume you've not used ObjC much or at all - you have to take it with its class library (Cocoa), similar to Java, but it's ridiculously easy to use once you've spent a week or so learning it. Literally, it took me a week to be proficient in this "new" language.

Applications don't need namespaces - frameworks do, but applications should be perfectly happy being run in their own (default) namespace. I think most people will be writing applications on the iPhone, not frameworks.

As for tools, XCode comes with data-modelling tools to create entity relationship diagrams/models that integrate with your code, it comes with fantastic dtrace-driven graphical performance monitoring tools, and an excellent integrated gdb-based debugger which does things like fix-and-continue, step back, etc.

Just putting some context into place,

Simon

Re:Objective C

[bsDaemon]

Yes, you can write generic programs in Obj-C. What are you doing to do with it without the library framework, though?

If you want to actually **DO** anything with it, then you need GNUStep or Cocoa. Sort of like, you can write C programs on any system with libc and the header files available, but without all the fancy extras, like gtk or whatever, you're severely limited in what you can do without having to start from scratch.

I don't program in Obj-C. I don't use Mac. I don't want to do either of those things. Its not FUD as much as an explanation.

If you want to program Mac apps, you pretty much have to use it (or java) from what I can tell. If you want to use it without GNUStep or Cocoa, then you need bindings for your toolkits, same as anything else.

Just because you *CAN* do something, doesn't mean people really do. Yes, there are Obj-C bindings for GTK. I don't know how many people use them, but I would venture to guess its not that many. GNUStep software is written in Obj-C, same as Cocoa-using OS X software is.

That is the point I am trying to make. And I don't "prentend" to use bsd.

dick.

Re:Objective C

[QuantumFlux]

You don't necessarily need Mac OS X or GNUstep to use Obj-C in any significant way.

Debian Etch (and many other distros) has both the gcc-objc compiler and libFoundation libraries in the stable repository. I use them all the time to write GUI-less server applications. The Foundation library (the non-GUI toolkit for Objective C) makes it trivially easy (much like Java) to write a little piece of multi-threaded code that sits around waiting for input on a socket - WITHOUT all the overhead of launching yet another JVM instance.

Re:Objective C

[anomaly256]

Provided you're willing to install things from outside of Apple's AppStore Applet (I think i just broke my p key), Cydia and AppTapp Installer both have Python bindings for the iphone's Objective-C UIKit Framework and others. Not to mention Java wrappers for those frameworks too. And Ruby wrappers. Really, you're only limited to Objective-C if you _let_ yourself be limited to it.

Re:Objective C

[menace3society]

Okay, ready to learn Objective-C? Class names normally begin with capital letters and instances of classes begin with lowercase, just like Java.
You call a procedure from an object with the syntax [object function:argument], similar to lisp. If there are multiple arguments, it looks like [object function:argument arg2Name:argument2 arg3Name:argument3].
You declare classes as follows:

@interface :
{
          float aFloat;
          NSString *string;
}
- (NSString * ) string;
- (void) setString:(NSString *)newString;
- (NSString *) theFloat;
- (void) setFloat:(float)value;
+ (NSArray *) someArray;
@end /* of @interface */

Obj-C objects are always pointers. Methods (functions) that begin with a '-' are instance methods; they would be called by an instance of the object (i.e. [instance method]. Those beginning with a '+' are class methods; they are called with [Class method].
Use #import instead of #include. #import always checks to make sure it doesn't include a file twice, so you don't need to bother with #ifndef's.
Here's an implementation file
@implementation
{ /* private variables go here */
}

- (id) init
{
          if (self=[super init])
          {
                      string = [[NSString alloc] initWithString:@"This is a string.";
          }
returm self;
}

- (void) setString:(NSString *)newString
{
          string=newString;
}

- (void) setFloat:(float)value
{
          aFloat=value;
}

- (NSString *) string
{
          return string;
}

- (float) theFloat
{
          return aFloat;
}

+ (NSArray *) someArray
{
          return [[NSArray alloc] initWithObjects:
}

You can see that, as in Java, variables are in-scope within member functions.
The method alloc is implemented in the ObjC base class, NSObject, and allocates memory for the instance. It will always be followed up with an init method of some kind.
The keyword 'id' is a macro for any instance of NSObject or any of its subclasses.
The variable 'self' refers to the current object. The variable 'super' refers to the current object, interpreted as it it were its parent class. Since every object but NSObject begins with self=[super init], only NSObject needs to know precisely how the Objective-C runtime is implemented.
Not shown here is how flags are handled, which is usually of the form [object shouldDoSomething], which then returns YES or NO. To set behavior, it's [object shouldDoSomething:YES].
In Objective-C, NSStrings are denoted like C strings, but with an @ before the open quote marks: @"This is an NSString." [object description] will return an NSString that tells you something about object, usually for classes within the core frameworks it is a text representation of the data.
The null pointer as an object is called nil. nil, or indeed any object, will accept any method call and fail silently, so make sure you properly alloc and init your objects, and double-check that they actually respond to the methods you send them.
Write to the console with NSLog(NSString*).
There. Now you know Objective-C. How the fuck hard was that?
NB: I wrote this off the top of my head, and it's been a while, so there are probably a ton of bugs in it. But, you get the idea.

Re:Objective C

[Lally Singh]

Oh God, Categories make the fragile base class worse. So much worse.

Example: I add a method to NSString, and so does someone in a library I'm using. Or just another programmer on the team, and our dev process doesn't manage categories as the landmines they really are. Same name, different semantics.

Pop Quiz: which version gets loaded into the executable?

Answer: No way to tell! It depends on the linking order! And no matter what, someone's code is going to get the wrong semantics for this method!

Examination: There is no way to catch this at compile time. It happens and you have to run it in the debugger to figure out which category actually runs.

The fragile base class problem refers to C++'s binary layout dependencies for superclasses: if you change a base class in one binary, then you have to recompile every shared library, plugin, etc that it links to. Otherwise it will use the old layout, which will lead to terrible, incredibly-painful-to-debug things. Some code thinks you have a 24 byte object, and appends subclass's members at offset 24. Others think you have a 20 byte object, and append subclass's members at offset 20. Hilarity ensues.

Obj-C's binary layout mechanism avoids this. But categories are just as bad as the original fragile base class problem. It only works if you track *exactly whom* adds what categories to what classes. It's a hack backdoor. But in too many places, it's been encouraged as a primary method of problem solving. What happens when two people want to implement NSTableDataSource differently on the same container? (If my understanding of which interface you impl is off, remember it's been 4-5 years since I really used cocoa).

Slow news day?

[SimonGhent]

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.

Well, in that case, why is it on the front page?

Surely if a /. reader has been ignoring the iPhone up till now they're pretty unlikely to read past the thread title.

Re:Slow news day?

[dreamchaser]

This is /. as you pointed out. If Steve Jobs takes a crap it makes the front page. Everything Apple makes the front page regardless of whether it's consequential or not.

In short...you must be new here :-)

Re:Slow news day?

[Moofie]

You certainly ARE new here if you think that /. has always been pro-Apple.

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:ATT Contract

[UnknowingFool]

If it is a deal breaker for you, you can buy an unlocked one from O2 and have it shipped to the US, but it will cost you a lot more. Even if you got one on the T-Mobile network, I would suspect that the network connectivity features won't work that well. I guess the only solution then is to move to Canada. :P

Re:ATT Contract

[Kickersny.com]

T-Mobile in the US because T-Mobile uses the 1700 MHz band Wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-Mobile#United_States

https://support.t-mobile.com/knowbase/root/public/tm22037.htm

T-Mobile's domestic roaming partners all operate on the GSM 1900 band.

A first! A useful summary?!?

[Kostya]

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.

Thanks. That was truly one of the first useful summaries I have read in a while. Now I can skip TFA ;-)

Strategy?

[Monkey_Genius]

What strategy?

1. Make glitzy 'must have' consumer gadget.
2. Lock everyone into your distribution network.
3. Profit.

Business as usual.

Re:Strategy?

[ajlitt]

As an example, you could say the same exact thing about all of the people who are buying Blackberries because they're trendy. Most of these folks don't connect them to a corporate BIS. They're probably locked in to a contract and don't get use out of the expensive Blackberry data plans.

Re:Strategy?

[The End Of Days]

I guess you missed the part where nearly 85% of iPhone users regularly use the web from their phone.

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:Strategy?

[davecrist]

The iPhone for the vast majority of people buying it is about having the latest coolest toy.

I am sick and tired of reading/hearing this bullshit.

The iPhone is my 6th cell phone and the first that is an honest pleasure to use and powerful enough to accomplish more than playing 10 second ring tones. The iPhone literally represents the FIRST TIME I have been able to have a good phone, my iPod, email, calendar, contacts, maps, camera, web, etc in a single device that seamlessly syncs to my Mac computer. Period.

If you don't want to buy one, fine, but for me, having an iPhone is about having aall that stuff, and more, in a single device that elegantly works. The fact that it might look nice or 'cool' is merely icing.

Usability and functionally are not 'playing with a cool toy.' Getting things/work done in an intuitive way on your phone is still getting things/work done. Whether or not it was 'cool' or even fun to do it shouldn't take away from the fact that it was accomplished.

I am at a loss to understand why it is so hard for people to understand that futzing with poor UI is not fun for 99% of the people who use computers. The average user hates 'tinkering with their' tools (har!). They just want to USE them to Get Stuff Done. For you, perhaps menu-*-9-5-1-4-2 might be a fast way to access your pictures on your phone but for most people, myself included, it sucks way more than swipe-tap-tap-swipe.

Re:Strategy?

[Cro Magnon]

Wait a minute! Are you telling me that it has a phone too?

Come on Taco, this is neither interesting nor news

[drinkypoo]

Although it is "stuff", I guess. Apple has ALWAYS been about the software - there has only been one point at which buying their hardware was advisable on any level, in the age of the G4. The PC quickly whipped their ass and the Mac became a PC (in the x86 sense.) Irony.

However, Apple has always been pretty bad at the hardware, with the exception of the intel-based macbooks. It looked sexy, but had serious flaws. For example, macs didn't have accelerated graphics (not even ANY 2d accel) until late in the Mac II era. But we're talking about a machine designed to be used only graphically. This seems like a major oversight - and it is. If the Amiga had been competently marketed instead of the company being sucked dry, today it would be "Apple who?"

Apple has ALSO always tried to make you do things their way, and if you don't like it, you can fuck off. These days you can see that in the form of their latest bid to prevent people buying iPhones without a contract. You could also see it in the iPhone with the fact that originally there was to be NO user-developed software beyond webapps, and even today you have to run a special OS release that Apple can (and HAS) terminate at will, or accidentally.

I took a look at an iPhone the other day

[Centurix]

That someone imported into Australia, interesting device. Not sure I'm interested in it though.

There's a bit of scope in the market for software giants to chip into this.

gPhone - Targetting non-evil people, has 11 buttons, 0-9 and a "dial/hangup/camera/gps/play music/search" button
MSPhone - Steve Ballmer made one for himself out of a tennis racket, twine and bleach, bundled with a left over Zune to provide fully functioning WMA support.
jPhone (I know a lot of phones run java already) - You get two phones, a client phone which makes all the calls, and a larger server phone which does all the connecting to the towers. You can upgrade to a 3-tier mobile phone system, using mochaFrappeLite. Bundled with a free tweed jacket with leather patches.

Meta-summary: apple is still a software company.

[argent]

Apple is, like Cisco, primarily a software company. It's Apple's software that sells its hardware, so while their revenue model is based on hardware sales, it's the software that makes them happen. No matter how nice Apple's hardware might be, without their software they'd sell no more than any other boutique hardware vendor, and once they burned through their cash reserves and liquid assets they'd just be another Alienware waiting to be bought by Dell or HP.

Focussing on their hardware, whether it's the iMac or iPhone, is definitely missing the point. This guy definitely gets it.

One thing that I would like to see more of is details of the ad-hoc licensing. My google-fu is failing me there.

Apple's grand strategy? Lock-in.

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

Apple's grand strategy is the same as any highly successful tech company: lock-in based on a solid platform. e.g., Microsoft: proprietary OS platform with integrated business apps; Apple: proprietary hardware and music store with integrated components; Cisco, proprietary hardware overlaid with integrated interface, etc.

The real strength is the iPhone 2.0 software

Nah...as a developer I really don't give two hoots about this unless it's something I can use cross-platform. The iPhone is such a small player in the cell phone market that I'd rather just handle it through optimized web sites and web services than building some localized app that will break with iPhone 3.0 software.

Still no open source apps

[SilentTristero]

From TFA:

Still, neither of the iPhone DRM licenses enables the collaborative development that typifies open source projects. So Apple created a new "ad hoc" license that allows developers private distribution of iPhone executables to up to 100 registered handsets. Groups of coders can share work in progress binaries via e-mail or source code control.

However, even the ad hoc license is not the wide-open solution that the open source community ultimately desires. An iPhone user should be able to opt into installing and running unsigned applications, a capability offered by all competing mobile platforms. This is the showstopper for me. A smartphone without a real freeware ecosystem will never truly thrive, for the same reasons that that open source development and commercial s/w development drive each other on standard platforms.

Re:Still no open source apps

[UnknowingFool]

This is the showstopper for me. A smartphone without a real freeware ecosystem will never truly thrive, for the same reasons that that open source development and commercial s/w development drive each other on standard platforms.

From a geek's standpoint, you don't want a smartphone without open source options. For an average consumer, do they really care? They just want things to work. When the iPod came out there was a lot of griping about technically inferior the iPod was, and that it would never flourish. Hundreds of millions of iPods later, I would say that it's been a success. Really, my grandma didn't/doesn't care that the iPod can't play ogg-vorbis. All she knows is that when she puts her new CD into her computer in iTunes and then plugs in her iPod, she gets her music. If she got an iPhone she'd only care about getting on eBay to see if she won that cute figurine. She doesn't need to see the source code.

Re:Still no open source apps

[Jhan]

This is the showstopper for me. A smartphone without a real freeware ecosystem will never truly thrive...

So host your freeware on AppStore. They seem to encourage it since a few of the apps in the keynote where free downloads.

Make it, upload it, set the price to 0. Any iPhone user can download it for zero cost.

Of course it still sucks that this free program will have been DRM:ed by Aplle and can't be freely exchanged between phones, but such is life.

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:Apple's grand strategy? Lock-in.

[UnknowingFool]

I don't have the skills to be developer and maybe I'm don't know something you know but here is what I see: If I can develop an application for the iPhone, I can be an independent developer without having to go through anyone but Apple. Millions of users can buy my app easily. I don't have to worry about maintaining an infrastructure for a yearly $99 license. If I charge $10, I get to keep $7. If 14 people in the world buy it, I've broken even. If 10,000 people buy my app, I've made $70,000. That is why I think a lot of people are interested: the potential of it.

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

[mrchaotica]

If I can develop an application for the iPhone, I can be an independent developer without having to go through anyone but Apple.

And if you're a PC developer, then you can be independent without having to go through anyone full stop. It's a crying shame, and a testament to the egregious and undue influence the telecom industry has over our government, that the cell phone market isn't like that too. This kind of shit -- that is, requiring apps to have the "blessing" of the device manufacturer or service provider to work -- ought to be illegal!

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

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

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.

You forgot to include the value of your time to develop the application, any time it might take to market it (e.g., even if it's just posting to Slashdot), any support costs, taxes, etc. 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.

Microsoft has a similar model going with MSDN and lesser licenses and so do thousands of other vendors with a proprietary platform and a paid SDK/API/dev environment.

The $99 is there basically to protect Apple from the total time-wasters; Apple would otherwise give this away free so they can get developers, developers, developers.

Hope Steve gets better

[Gorimek]

In that case Jobs has a pretty massive constipation. I hope he finds relief in some way.

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:Meta-summary: apple is still a software company

[cowscows]

You're pretty much right, but I think it's worth mentioning that although the software is really the keystone of Apple's success, they've also got the ability to make decent hardware if the need arises. They didn't have to wait for someone to release an mp3 player with a scroll wheel. They decided that that'd be the best interface for their iPod software(or more likely the two evolved together), and so they designed their own hardware. The same happened to a lesser extend with the iPhone. Apple didn't need to convince a phone manufacturer to build a handset that was basically just a big multi-touch capable screen, they went and designed their own.

It's also important to notice that those hardware specifics are generally tied to hardware requirements to make the user-interface work. That is to say, it ties really directly and clearly back into the software. At the same time that Apple is designing new hardware features to interface with their software, they've been generally moving towards more commodity hardware for the guts of their stuff. While the iMac has a history of the outside looking rather unusual compared to most computers, the components inside the shell are usually pretty standard stuff that'd be just as at home in a PC as in a Mac. The recent-ish switch to Intel being one of the most obvious examples.

It's a pretty reasonable strategy for product design, especially considering the consumer market.

Apple's strategy... unchanged

[Anonymous Coward]

Their strategy is pretty easy to decode:

1. make money.
2. make money.
3. make money, so that we can
4. make even more money.

I think they are doing great. Just for kicks (and to kick myself), I looked at how much I could have made if I had just invested $1000 in Apple in 1985. Taking the stock splits into account, that stock would be worth more than $500,000.

Apple is a great example of how you can take a fanatical fan base, show them nothing but contempt, charge outrageous amounts of money for everything connected with your products... and be adored all the more for it. THAT'S the kind of stock worth investing in, but it's a shame that setup is so difficult to replicate.

And... best of all, they are eating Linux's lunch. If someone hates Microsoft SO much, they aren't going to get Linux. They are going to buy a Mac, of course, and get locked in to that money sink (at least $150 in El Jobso's pocket every time they make a point release is great for Apple's bottom line!).

While Linux likewise has the fanatical user base... they just have no way of monetizing it. Linux users like being locked into that platform, but not enough to actually pay for anything. They are happy to use hardware two generations out of date, happy with being completely locked into FOSS (since extremely few companies will write for Linux), etc, but not happy enough to actually spend any money supporting what they supposedly believe in. Look at Red Hat- they've been doing poorly for years now, and that's not going to change (although their dropping the failed "Linux on the Desktop" project will undoubtedly help them a great deal).

While Apple has been gaining market share (up to 4-5%)... Linux's has remained flat for the past ten years (always around 0.65%, even as the size of the market has virtually exploded). Meaning... every Apple sold is coming from Linux's share of the market (either actual or potential). Which is good, since Linux has no chance of succeeding in competition with Microsoft, while Apple can do quite well with a tiny market share.

Re:Apple's strategy... unchanged

[sgtrock]

"While Linux likewise has the fanatical user base... they just have no way of monetizing it. Linux users like being locked into that platform, but not enough to actually pay for anything. They are happy to use hardware two generations out of date, happy with being completely locked into FOSS (since extremely few companies will write for Linux), etc, but not happy enough to actually spend any money supporting what they supposedly believe in. Look at Red Hat- they've been doing poorly for years now, and that's not going to change (although their dropping the failed "Linux on the Desktop" project will undoubtedly help them a great deal).

While Apple has been gaining market share (up to 4-5%)... Linux's has remained flat for the past ten years (always around 0.65%, even as the size of the market has virtually exploded). Meaning... every Apple sold is coming from Linux's share of the market (either actual or potential). Which is good, since Linux has no chance of succeeding in competition with Microsoft, while Apple can do quite well with a tiny market share."

Sigh. You're wrong on so many points that I don't know where to start. The Linux vendors in the server OS and application space have been making money hand over fist for that same ten years, you know.

We just needed to see the desktop environment catch up, that's all. We needed the OS itself to get responsive enough in the face of no vendor support (and sometimes downright hostile responses to queries about drivers), we needed the applications to get good enough, and we needed some market force to get people to look at Linux as a desktop appliance. That'll settle the lack of vendor support all by itself.

We've seen the OS get very responsive indeed, to the point that running some games under wine are actually faster than running them in Windows XP on the same hardware. Applications are out there to meet the basic needs of most consumers, while other options are becoming at least tolerable. Driver problems are largely resolved with only a few holdouts refusing to either release binary drivers (not ideal) or provide any help at all to the people writing FOSS drivers.

Finally, the fact is that your information about marketshare is a bit out of date. Every Website tracking company that publishes its global stats, from Hitslink to W3 Counter to Xiti to TheCounter, all show that Linux began increasing its market share a while back. Depending on how far back a given site lets you see, you can argue that it started in early 2006. Certainly, every tracking site that goes back to December 2006 shows that when Vista was released, Linux began growing. That's market force number one.

The second is the release of the eee. All of a sudden, the hardware vendors realized that they could make a pot full of money selling a device without having to include Microsoft Windows or OS/X and people would buy it. Not just buy it, stand in line all night to get one!

Micrsoft's response? A warmed over, extremely limited version of Windows XP Home with a drop dead date that's only 2 years out, and even then they want the hardware restricted. It has the hardware vendors so unimpressed that they seem to be flat out ignoring it.

Asus stated that they expected to sell 40% of their eee line as Linux. Asus has also decided to include a small Linux distribution in the BIOS of every motherboard that they manufacture.

MSI figures 50% of the Winds that they sell will be Linux. Acer has publicly stated that they're moving their entire laptop line over to Linux. Dell is still adding desktops and laptops to the pool of preinstalled Linux boxes (including the mini-Inspiron). HP is offering the Mini-Note with Linux side by side with the Vista versions.

2008/2009 is the start of Linux moving into the mainstream. It's going to be fun to see how far it gets! :)

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.

Re:Apple's strategy... unchanged

[noewun]

Apple is a great example of how you can take a fanatical fan base, show them nothing but contempt, charge outrageous amounts of money for everything connected with your products...

I know this is Slashdot, where anecdote and off-the-cuff remarks stand in for real argument, but I wonder if you could explain the contempt bit. My experience with Apple products has been that they last me for years and years. My 2G iPod is still going strong on its original battery, and my G5 is three years old and looking like it's got another three years left in it. Fas as I'm concerned, that's great value for the money.

Re:Open Enough?

[operand]

I don't envision a place where carrriers will allow anybody to download and install Android on any device. They will try to lock it down as much as possible by customizing to their liking then pass the fee to the consumers

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:Apple's grand strategy? Lock-in.

[gutter]

I think the point he's trying to make is that he doesn't have to worry about any infrastructure. He doesn't need a hosting account, he doesn't have to create a license scheme, he doesn't have to worry that if he gets popular his server goes down. All he has to do is pay Apple the $99 and he's good to go. That actually seems like it might be worth the tradeoff of having to go through Apple.

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.

Re:Apple's Strategy

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Very simple. Make stuff that looks a certain way on the basis that you are appealing to the fact that some people are prepared to pay for exclusivity, rather than functionality, first.

I disagree. There are dozens of phones out that look very similar to the iPhone, by intention. Nah, Apple's strategy with the iPhone is the same one they used with the iPod. Enter a market with a product that is not cheaper or more featureful than the competition, but usability test the heck out of it, including the surrounding services and software. Provide only the features that work really, really well and easily. For the most part, people buy and use iPhones because a lot of the features present on other smartphones are just too hard to use for the average person. They're fine for geeks, but just not there for normal people. This explains why iPhone users actually use the features of their phones more often than users of competing phones. Is the iPhone the only one that can look up your location on a map and then find the closest sushi place and it's phone number? Nope. If it was my father using it, though, I'd sure rather he had an iPhone so he could do it in less than ten minutes and didn't have to ask me questions.

Basically, it is the same reason the Wii is selling so well, they expanded an existing market by making it more suited to the masses.

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:More disk space!

[Larsrc]

As a long-time Linux user, I appreciate being able to tweak, but over time I've also come to like things that "just work". I've spent so much time tweaking window managers, for instance, fortunately the defaults on current window managers are very close to what I want.

The interface on the iPhone is really delicious, more so than I've *ever* seen on anything open-source. It's all well and good to be able to tweak things, but on a small gadget, a well-thought-out interface can make the difference between another piece of uselessness and something that's helpful in your everyday life.

No, I'm not happy about the closedness either, and I'm starting to get worried about how Apple uses proprietary things all over, but for a "secondary" computer, it's a price I'm willing to pay.

-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.

So?

[JSBiff]

A one time fee of $99 isn't much money. I'm sure an open source project could come up with $99 somewhere. After all, if you are going to put thousands, or tens of thousands of dollars worth of developer hours into developing the project, what's $99? Developers also sometimes pay money for domain names (of course, that's more like $10, but it's still spending money to start your free software project). Developers pay for internet access. Web hosting sometimes. They typically pay for the computers they use to do development on, and for the electricity to run those computers. Remember, Free Software is Free, not free. Also, if the application idea you have is interesting, I bet you could get someone else to donate the $99 to get a key if you asked nicely in an appropriate forum, mailing list, etc. Someone who was interested in seeing such a Free Software application developed, but who wasn't interested in developing it themselves.

      Also, potentially multiple projects could share a key. The article also stated that you could sign as many applications as you wanted with that key, so organizations like Apache Foundation which sponsor dozens of projects can use a single key.

      In any case, an argument that you don't want to pay $99 dollars is not an argument that you cannot develop Free Software for the iPhone. Granted, it would be nice of Apple if they were to offer free or very cheap keys for Free Software projects (after all, they've benefited tremendously by using a LOT of Free Software, such as BSD, khtml/webkit, Samba, Apache, GCC, etc), but my point is, I haven't yet seen a good reason given why it would be particularly difficult to do Free Software for the iPhone?

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

[mrchaotica]

See, here's the thing: there's a huge fucking difference between having this service be available, and having it be mandatory. Having it available is good; I agree that it would be very convenient for small proprietary developers. Having it mandatory is bad, because it locks out Free Software and hobbyists.

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.

Linux's wide variety is a strength, not a weakness

[sgtrock]

I think you're missing the point of FOSS. The whole point is to allow people to scratch their own itch. Naturally, that's going to take them in different directions. Naturally, that also means that UI designers are going to go down different roads. Maybe an analogy will help explain what I mean.

There's an old carpenter's saying that has been adopted by us geeks that you may have heard: "When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." Well, I don't want just a hammer. I want a full toolbox, the pegboard full of specialized tools behind the workbench, all the power tools in the cabinet to the left, and the floor full of standalone workstation tools (lathes, bandsaws, table saws, etc.) for when I want to do some really heavy work. I don't expect my woodworking tools to all look and act alike. Why should I expect my computer tools to do so when they do such different jobs?

I should probably note here that I seem to be a rarity in that I really don't like OS/X's UI. It is missing features that I regard as basic requirements after years of using Linux. While not exhaustive, my list of things that I think it's missing include true maximized windows, multiple workspaces, the ability to having more than one app displaying by default, etc. OS/X showcased 'features' that I REALLY hate are things like the single menu bar at the top of the screen instead of letting each app display its own menu as part of the window, that incredibly annoying app dock at the bottom, and the very thing that you like most about it; the lack of flexibility in UI.

That's not to say either of us is right or wrong about UI choices, btw. What works for you doesn't work for me and vice versa. It's just that in my view, OS/X's major fault is that it assumes that everyone wants to work the way that their UI designers have laid things out. It thinks all anyone wants is a hammer and not a full toolbox.

In actuality, the incredible flexibility of the FOSS development model and therefore Linux is a strength, not a weakness. It is why you see Linux used for everything from the smallest embedded device all the way up to the largest supercomputers and everything in between. No other OS out there combines that flexibility (the *BSDs can actually exceed it depending on how you measure) with its level of popularity. At this point in time, no other OS out there has the breadth and depth of available applications. Again, you can argue case by case that specific Linux apps or classes of apps don't measure up to counterparts available on other platforms. Taken as a whole, however, it's clear that no other OS can boast as broad a range of successful applications.

In sum, my contention is that the very thing that you decry, the broad range of UI tools and interfaces, is what will benefit Linux on the desktop the most. The truly successful UI stuff will continue gain popularity and see more widespread use as time goes by. The less successful ones will collect a smaller number of adherents. Some will only see use in niches. Others will simply fade away over time.

In all of this, who loses? Certainly not the developer community at large, although some number of them will inevitably see their personal favorites wither and die. The developer community will be much larger than it would be if you forced everyone to follow a single model. (assuming you could force a bunch of FOSS developers down a single path. Talk about herding cats!)

Contrary to what you seem to believe, I don't think the users will be negatively affected, either. We are by nature an extremely adaptable species. You may find this hard to believe, but people have been adapting to new UIs ever since Ogg first tied a rock to a stick that Mog had been using to hit Gog over the head. It probably took Mog at most two tries to figure out which end was the UI and which was the business end of his new club. :)

Re:Parallels

[ohmpossum]

Didn't the Newton come out before the Palm Pilot? The iPhone is a do-over of the Newton in a sense with modern technology. Apple has become expert in determining when Moore's Law catches up to an application to make it worth while. On the iPhone you could say they jumped the gun by releasing the first one without 3G and they should have waited another year. Or it was a warm up to get the 'impossible to see ahead of time' bugs out. Before lowering the price making it appealing to the general population. Either way, I think they know what they are doing. Another example, they did this with the ipod too. The very first version only worked with Mac.