Design Element
Comment on "Apple's Name Change"
by David — Jan 10
Mike writes:

Like it or not, this (mobile-dependence) is a direction the world appears to be going. Ultimately, we'll look back and wonder why we were ever frightened, or how we ever got along without our future mobile devices. Just like cars, planes, trains, and pc's

[musings follow. if you get upset by this sort of stuff, look away now]

The problem is not the devices themselves -- they are an expected result of convergence. The issue is about Mac development.

Right now, we're looking at an Apple which could effectively be hived off into two divisions: Mac and Gadgets.

For the most part, the iPod is a closed platform, controlled by Apple. To get in to that club, you need money and you need a business case that you can present to Apple. And if Apple decides that they can do better, or more likely, can squeeze out more money, then they have no qualms whatsoever about releasing an official iPod-related, competing product.

OK, that's business, fine.

So we come to the next great gadget of our time, the iPhone. So far, it's looking like another closed platform. Some people are claiming it's a Mac. Look, it's not. No more than an iPod is a Mac. There is every chance that this will be a closed platform where only certified apps from certified developer$ will get to play, probably only through the iTunes Store.

Apple, naturally, would have us believe that what is good for Apple is also good for Mac developers. Some developers will agree: it increases brand exposure, increases overall Mac marketshare, and, presumably, this will lead to increased sales for Mac software and other products.

Really? Does it? But wouldn't creating more, better Macintosh products do that even more effectively?

Wouldn't displaying an actual Mac at Macworld be more effective?

Does the success of such devices increasingly lead to platforms where Apple effectively control development and distribution of acceptable product? How long until Apple once more see their developer base as less of a force that helped them stay in business during the bad years and the OS X transition, and more of a resource that can be harvested?

Apple has been pushing iTS as its chief media provider. (To the point yesterday where it seemed that you could hardly play anything on the AppleTV but iTS purchases!) How many of you have sold your products through it?

How many of you are going to be writing apps for the AppleTV?

The iTablet. Let's pretend it ships this year. Right now, would you say it's more likely that it would be an open product, with an open API that we could ship products for, or is it more likely that it would also be a closed platform with a category in the iTS?
Back to "Apple's Name Change"
Design Element

Copyright © Scott Stevenson 2004-2015