Betting on Windows - iPhone a closed platform?
I've stayed quiet on the iPhone announcement because I figured that it was getting more than enough coverage from everyone else - I certainly had nothing original to say. It looks like a very nice device - although the name is in some dispute!
This quote, however, got my attention.
From this post on Michael Gartenburg's Jupiter Research blog, in regard to the iPhone being a closed system (as opposed to an open platform for 3rd party developers), Steve Jobs said:
Hah.
We have received a bit of heat for choosing .NET (and by extension - favoring windows) for the first version of Touchstone. The early adopters among us (probably most people reading this blog) seem to have a cult like 'appreciation' for all things Apple and some refuse to accept that perhaps a small startup should target the platform with the most users first (i.e. Windows).
Putting the 'Crossing the Chasm' arguments aside - and I will get a lot of flak for this - one of the reasons I actually like Windows and will typically bet on Microsoft every time is because they understand that ultimately while overall user experience and style are becoming more important (and to me they are VERY important) - better tools and platforms will win every time.
What does that mean?
With the XBOX 360 they understood that it was not about building the most powerful hardware mix, but rather building the best overall entertainment solution. A solution that had a known platform and comprehensive development tools.
With Windows Mobile, they understood (before Palm did) that they should separate the software from the hardware and make the development tools easy.
With Windows Embedded and Windows Media Center they are doing the same thing and will therefore outplay Apple TV and Tivo etc.
And each time they do what they do best. They leverage Windows (in this case the many, many windows programmers - both amateur and pro) to create broad developer adoption for devices based on their OS.
By building a great software platform and the tools, they empower developers to more quickly (and therefore cheaply) target the device. The result - more content/software for your device and more extensibility.
User choice.
All that being said though, I thought the iPhone is based on OSX? So why can't developers write apps for it?
Update: Read/Write Web has some coverage of this too.
This quote, however, got my attention.
From this post on Michael Gartenburg's Jupiter Research blog, in regard to the iPhone being a closed system (as opposed to an open platform for 3rd party developers), Steve Jobs said:
"You don't want your phone to be an open platform", meaning that anyone can write applications for it and potentially gum up the provider's network, says Jobs. "You need it to work when you need it to work. Cingular doesn't want to see their West Coast network go down because some application messed up."
Hah.
We have received a bit of heat for choosing .NET (and by extension - favoring windows) for the first version of Touchstone. The early adopters among us (probably most people reading this blog) seem to have a cult like 'appreciation' for all things Apple and some refuse to accept that perhaps a small startup should target the platform with the most users first (i.e. Windows).
Putting the 'Crossing the Chasm' arguments aside - and I will get a lot of flak for this - one of the reasons I actually like Windows and will typically bet on Microsoft every time is because they understand that ultimately while overall user experience and style are becoming more important (and to me they are VERY important) - better tools and platforms will win every time.
What does that mean?
With the XBOX 360 they understood that it was not about building the most powerful hardware mix, but rather building the best overall entertainment solution. A solution that had a known platform and comprehensive development tools.
With Windows Mobile, they understood (before Palm did) that they should separate the software from the hardware and make the development tools easy.
With Windows Embedded and Windows Media Center they are doing the same thing and will therefore outplay Apple TV and Tivo etc.
And each time they do what they do best. They leverage Windows (in this case the many, many windows programmers - both amateur and pro) to create broad developer adoption for devices based on their OS.
By building a great software platform and the tools, they empower developers to more quickly (and therefore cheaply) target the device. The result - more content/software for your device and more extensibility.
User choice.
All that being said though, I thought the iPhone is based on OSX? So why can't developers write apps for it?
Update: Read/Write Web has some coverage of this too.
Labels: .net, iphone, Mac, media center, microsoft, platforms, programming, Windows, xbox
3 Comments:
It's not about the OS, it's about the phone network support. Apple picked Cingular (any single carrier with quick upgrade ability would do) to support the phone because it requires changes to the phone network itself. The cost of a network upgrade to support a single handset would not be cost effective without an exclusive contract for a popular handset. The network change is required to support the new form of voicemail handling.
This choice has nothing to do with developers, technology or end users, it's all about business costs.
"It's not about the OS, it's about the phone network support. Apple picked Cingular (any single carrier with quick upgrade ability would do) to support the phone because it requires changes to the phone network itself. The cost of a network upgrade to support a single handset would not be cost effective without an exclusive contract for a popular handset. The network change is required to support the new form of voicemail handling.
This choice has nothing to do with developers, technology or end users, it's all about business costs." Scientaestubique.
I don't believe you understood what he was saying about the iphone or the comment that originated from the New York Times interview with Steve jobs. He was not complaining about the network, he was complaining because the phone is a closed platform, which means no non-apple or non-apple affiliate applications for it, no 3rd party. With a device like the iphone the idea of no third party software support is almost unfathimable.
The idea something that powerful being stuck to using very specific software that is very likely going to cost money and come from only iTune, is, rather outragous. It would be like having a smartphone where you could only get software directly from the maker or service provider of that specific model of phone.
On top of all of that, no one application for a phone/PDA is likely to bring down Cingular's or any one else's network. The protocols for these networks just don't work that way. All steve is trying to do is keep it the way HE wants it, and don't think I am some Mac or Apple basher, I use a Mac exclusively.
This does not mean however that just because I do, does not mean I blindly go along with things. Now especially, with the steady decline in quality I have seen in the resent years in some areas of there products.
I would give examples but then I would ramble for a rather extended amount of time.
Oh I agree that it's rubbish to close the development to 3rd parties, but like I said, it's got nothing to do with technology, it's about recovering development costs at the carrier end. The truth is just not very sexy.
Post a Comment
<< Home