iPhone Lockup and Apple's True Colors

I’ve found the fracas regarding Apple (AAPL) and the recent release of software for the iPhone rather ironic and worthy of comment.

The iPhone was introduced as a standalone consumer electronic device with little or no modification possible by third parties. In the months since launch, the iPhone attracted hackers by the dozens who bypassed the phones security functions to add many interesting applications, as well as unlock the device for use on any GSM/EDGE network.

Apple spent years battling Microsoft (MSFT) in an effort to attract developers to the Macintosh OS. Corporate developers, 3rd party developers, even Microsoft itself hesitated to assign duplicative resources to the Apple platform, which had much less market share than Microsoft.

Now, Apple has seized the commanding heights of the OS war, except in the mobile domain this time. Users and developers were jumping through hoops for the privilege of writing applications for the white-hot iPhone with no compensation in return. It is impossible to understand why Apple, after a long history of playing #2 to Microsoft for a lack of platform applications, would choose to ignore such an advantage over incumbents such as Symbian and Microsoft Windows Mobile.

Steve Jobs once accused mobile carriers of being ‘orifices’ that forced specific products into the hands of consumers and eliminated real choice. Apple appears to have taken on the same characteristic, forcing consumers to accept only the applications it deems appropriate and locking out those who seek to add value.

Apple could believe that the mobile market, unlike the PC market, is best served by an OS under strict control of the corporate mothership.

More likely - Apple is driven by the profit motive it once ridiculed, preferring the walled garden strategies (and the lucrative revenue schemes they promise) of exclusive carrier bundling with revenue sharing as well as fee-based application licensing.

Apple’s true colors will show when and how they allow third parties to author iPhone applications - and whether Apple gets a cut. My hope is they do this soon, and they make it free.

Author owns no positions in companies mentioned. Source image and inspiring editorial from Engadget.

See also: Apple's iBrick Episode Should Be A Corporate Branding Disaster

Comments

[Tom B:]

It's a bit early to pontificate. I would argue that the exclusion (so far, anyway) of Java and Flash are pro-consumer; I know that other than YouTube, Flash is worse than useless 95% of the time. It is used by annoying, CPU-cycle sucking ads. Battery life is always a consideration with a mobile device. As for "bricking" modded phones-- Apple is under no obligation to check with hackers before conducting an update. Nor does this matter to the overwhelming majority of customers who are not modding the phones. With regards to 3rd party apps.; I think some might be useful, but I think Apple is wise to "go slow" if that's what they are doing. I have already read FUD articles in well-known publications suggesting that the iPhone could lead to cell-phone virus outbreaks, even though Apple's current 'walled garden" makes the iPhone a more challenging target than other more "open" devices (Palms, Win Mobile, Symbian, etc).

2007 Oct 01 04:33 PM

[top_tier:]

Apple already sanctions, encourages and promotes apps written for use over Safari correct?

You're saying that Apple should allow developers to write ad hoc apps on the OS at will? Should not Apple have some concern about incompatibility and security issues that likely will arise by allowing a free for all, especially right out of the starting gate as they get their feet wet in the wireless world.

Then too, what about their carrier partners and protecting those relationships?

I think it would be irresponsible to just open up the iphone willy nilly, there's a lot to be said for a walled garden approach when it comes down to reliability. Perhaps down the road a bit they can put out an SDK, right now developers ought to just stick to apps that run over Safari.

2007 Oct 01 05:25 PM

[David Steve...:]

I think Apple rushed iPhone out (all the apps in 1.0 ran at root level, leaving the opportunity for lots of mischevious "benign" apps. I think the infamous 1.1.1 update was to bring the iPhone up to the security level of ipod touch (which hasn't been hacked to date (Oct. 1). I wouldn't expect an iPhone/Touch SDK until the ARM OS X has been locked down as well as its big brother (Mac OSX)-- maybe MWSF (Jan) at the earliest, maybe ADC (June) if they hurry, more likely later. There's a lot more riding on security here than just some more bucks for Apple at the expense of more bad PR.

2007 Oct 01 05:37 PM

[Andrew Schmitt:]

Perhaps the SDK and OS wasn't ready... like I said it will be interesting when they show their true colors.

It never fails to amaze me how followed Apple is.

2007 Oct 01 05:52 PM

[peter02l:]

As long as people are getting the excellent support at genius bars for free, they should understand that it is imperative for Apple to control what gets installed on the iPhone. I don't think customers appreciate given the run-around as to who is responsible if an unsanctioned app should cause problems.

2007 Oct 01 08:58 PM

[Dion Almaer:]

Wait and see is the key here. If you were creating a new phone like this would you maybe be a TOUCH conservative? I wouldn't want to see viruses. Or apps that kill the system. Or flood the network.

You can still build great apps for certain domains (e.g. facebook's iphone application is outstanding) and I am sure that Flash and a real SDK will be coming.

I am more excited about using Dashboard widgets as a platform too.

2007 Oct 01 09:40 PM

[John Watkins:]

Your article is poorly thought out and you ignore Apple's past actions in similar situations. YOUR true colors are best shown when you say,

"Apple could believe that the mobile market, unlike the PC market, is best served by an OS under strict control of the corporate mothership.
More likely - Apple is driven by the profit motive it once ridiculed, preferring the walled garden strategies (and the lucrative revenue schemes they promise) of exclusive carrier bundling with revenue sharing as well as fee-based application licensing."

What a set of false choices and how inane!
Of course the OS is under strict control. It has to run a regulated device. And of course Apple is driven by the profit motive! Since when have they ridiculed it? They are in business to make money. And their strategy is to make lots of it by offering a superior product experience of high value. This necessitates control by them and their partners. But that's hardly a "walled garden." There are thousands of phones available in the market. If you want this one accept that is has some limits on it (as do all the rest.) That hardly represents a monopolistic hook-winking of the customer.

Certainly since OS X, and long before, Apple has taken a very friendly approach to open standards and 3rd party developers. On stand-alone platforms they have been consistent in not going out of their way to allow or disallow hacking, i.e., the iPod is quite hackable but not supported. But a cell phone is intrinsically quite different, mainly because the device is licensed by the FCC. Additionally, it has only been on the market a few short months, and Apple has a partnership with ATT. For the moment anyone can create web based apps. In the future I'm sure you will see a restricted but extensive SDK. But where did you get the idea Apple should be required to give you unrestricted access to the whole enchilada?

2007 Oct 01 10:43 PM

[Ruski:]

And if Microsoft would do the same to your PC with the next Windows version, you would be fine? - "As we need to control the PC from viruses and other malware, no other software than that developed by Microsoft can be allowed to run on this PC". And don't say it is a different thing, because it isn't. And if you still claim that it is different (with that FCC crap etc.), why is Nokia (Symbian and S60), Motorola (Windows Mobile), HTC (WM), Sony-Ericsson (Symbian and UIQ), etc. able to produce multimedia handsets with open software platforms?
Apple is such a great company and a great brand that almost whatever they do (wrong), they will still always have hundreds and thousands of "totally blinded" defenders to back them up. That is impressive.

2007 Oct 04 06:41 AM

[jimhsu:]

Then again, it is quite difficult to argue that a proprietary, licensed SDK to interested software developers would not help Apple more in the long run than some hacked up together solution that compensates Apple in no way. Despite the ideals of an open platform ... I'm quite skeptical that it's going to become reality. After all, Apple only turned around in market performance when it transitioned into closed source...

2007 Oct 02 02:21 AM

[menk:]

Having bought an iPhone (two actually - one for my wife) I fail to understand why all the whining about the fact that Apple wants to retain some control of the iPhone to ensure that the user experience is good.

I ditched my Treo for the iPhone and have been extremely happy. The phone works as advertised (perhaps better). Having had the crash prone and sluggish Treo which was unusable without adding software for everything from e-mail to a decent UI, I am happy to abandon that user self service model of phone integration. With the iPhone, I don't need the ability to dump a bunch of crap on the phone making it unstable and unsupportable for the vendor.

At some point, Apple may allow third party apps on the phone but given the only one you mentioned that is even useful (iChat native client) I applaud Apple's approach to keeping the system closed, safe and supportable.

If you want to load a phone with cruft get a treo. If you want a phone that works and is light years ahead of the rest of the industry by an iPhone.

To all you whiners. STFU

It's a phone not a Mac so get

2007 Oct 02 04:38 PM

[Jon T:]

WHAT RUBBISH!

Apple has to reward AT&T for their risk in having taken it on. If it wasn't for them this may not have happened. Just look at the Verizon's and T Mobile's who declined the risk.

Hackers, other telecoms nor customers took any of the huge risks and they DO NOT DESERVE THE REWARDS FOR IT. Customers get a great deal and should not abuse it.

Later of course it will become more open, it will go to other networks, it will take external apps, but for now LET IT DEVELOP and KEEP IT SECURE!

I want iPhone to have 40% of the phone market in 3 years, not be relegated to the dustbin of technology because of lousy coat-tail hangers on wrecking it and AT&T's network.

2007 Oct 03 03:14 AM

[Ruski:]

Great comment Andrew. It is amazing how little criticism this walled garden approach by Apple has raised. At least so far. Interesting to see how successful the European launch now in Q4 will be. Nokia is likely to become much more aggressive with at least its N95 and N81 offerings, both in terms of ads and pricing.

2007 Oct 04 06:31 AM