I’m getting really fed up by the unjustified apple bashing that goes on these days. Just 24 hours after the launch of the iPad and the net is overflowing with whining complaints about Apples continuing stance against a more open platform model when it comes to hardware and the App Store. Again.
Before reading on, you probably wonder if I’m a fanboy myself. The answer to that is both yes and no. Yes because there’s no denying the abundance of Apple made devices and solutions that enrich my daily life, both professionally and personnally. No because I have no problem recognizing the faults and strangeness to be found in the Apple eco system. But this is not about Apple in general, but the specific case of the path Apple has chosen when it comes to app third party development, approval and distribution.
Alex Payne writes on his blog:
The iPad demonstrates that if Apple is listening to these complaints, they simply don’t care. This is why I say that the iPad is a cynical thing: Apple can’t – or won’t – conceive of a future for personal computing that is both elegant and open, usable and free.
This pisses me off because it lacks perspective. If a company is manufacturing products in low-cost countries, well aware that the cheap production price comes at a high health price for the workers—and lets face it, maybe Apple is— then that’s cynical. But choosing a strategy that locks as much as possible of the inner workings of a commercial device down, simply isn’t. It might be disappointing at worst. Some argue in their own right that it’s unwise. But the bottom line is that it’s the right of any business, just as it’s the consumers right to choose not to spend their money there. The majority of western world economies are based on this general principle, and whether we like it or not, it applies to Apple as well. Complaining about cynicism in this context tells me you haven’t thought this through.
As explained by Steve and his subordinates on numerous occations, Apple believes they need control over as many aspects of their production and delivery chain as possible in order to deliver the best user experience they can. Remember, this is a belief converted to a strategy that Apple applies to the products they make and own. This has enabled them to create breakthrough products that raises the bar for everyone else in the industry and has led to real paradigm shifts in the way we work, play and communicate. HTC, Nokia/Symbian and the rest haven’t even come close in terms of sales and widespread adoption. No matter how hard you try and pick that statement apart and devaluate it, there’s no denying the fact that the sales, adoption rate and most importantly; customer satisfaction tell the same story. Apple puts this down to the very same platform model that’s been getting the worst of the tech press lately. You may argue that an equal success would have been possible if Apple had taken their combined product design, UI design and engineering wizardry and walked the open road, and you may even be proven right one day. But so far that’s been the path of their jealous competitors.
What I explain to many fresh switchers from PC to Mac is that to get the best experience you kind of have to buy into the whole eco system of the Mac. I don’t particularly like to give that advice, but it’s the truth. Apple has a vision. Where that vision deviates from many other’s is in the holistic nature of it; the fact that Apple products are designed to work best with other Apple (approved) products and to make more decisions and assumptions on the user’s behalf. To make all this possible it makes sense to control larger parts of the environment the product lives in.
As a user interface developer, I’m the middle man between the designer and the back end developers, which puts me at the center of UI/business logic debate. From this experience I know how challenging it can be to get a success from the collaboration involving just three creators that might even be used to working with each other. The designer has the vision, I may share it and execute it or break it depending on several factors. The backend guy might do either himself. Expand that example to involving, hardware, firmware, OS, software, peripherals and third party providers, and you can easily see why anyone might choose to keep this all under the same roof, within the same company culture, under the same visionary leader. You can easily say it’s hard enough as it is without providing the means for others to mess with it all they want.
I suspect that inside most of us, we like the idea of openness an sharing. I’m no different and as a Flash Developer I try to make my own contribution whenever I can. If Apple were to go 180 in the question of an open platform, I would certainly applaud them for it. Until then I’m a generally happy, relatively IT problem-free participant in the Apple eco system.
…and I’m not getting an iSlate iTablet iTampon iPad because I also think it’s an oversized iPod Touch and I don’t have a need for it. Loving my iPhone though!
EDIT: A few links to great posts on the subject:
[...] to a conflict of interest of course, but earlier in the course of the Flash/HTML debate, I even advocated Apple’s stance. And given the same set of circumstances, I still agree with [...]
“best user experience” is not conflict to “open platform”. I developed on all three big smartphone platform: iOS, Android, and Blackberry. Android API is much better and more powerful than iOS. BB is the worst.