Wow, the iPad. Cocoa developers are going crazy about this because it reeks of iPod-level success with the possibility of changing the face of computing forever. It’s a gorgeous new all-purpose device that anyone can learn to use, nearly as powerful as a normal computer but so much easier to understand; it’s an inspiring machine that calls for a totally new breed of elegant software. And, it might make some of us lots of money. Considering that many more people need a simplified computer than a fancy phone, I think Steve Jobs is probably right when he says the iPad will be a second gold rush for developers.
It wasn’t until dinner at NSConference this evening that I really thought thoroughly about the iPad. Wolf and I had a soulful discussion about different cultures with our new friends from Argentina, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, and Switzerland. We lamented the flaws of human nature and worried together about losses of liberty all over the world. It seems that as governments gain more and more control, corruption is inevitable—unless, perhaps, an intense dedication to freedom is baked into the system.
The conversation turned to technical topics, and disturbingly, the observations we made about governments could be applied to companies like Apple, Google, and Oracle. We started to discuss the closed nature of the iPad.
Oh god, what if nobody actually does make a fantastic, open competitor to the iPad? After all, it can be argued that nobody’s made a solid competitor for the iPhone yet. What if the iPad really does become completely embraced by the 80% of normal people who don’t need a real computer?
At this time, I suspect the closed nature of the App Store is not as worrying as it should be because it only concerns our smart phones. We can still develop anything we want for Macs, the “real” machines. However, what if the iPad starts to replace the Mac to such a degree that it no longer becomes profitable to write apps for the Mac? It seems that to be a Cocoa developer will eventually mean to have one’s business chained to the App Store. To be chained to the App Store means Apple makes the final decision on whether your apps can be sold the way you like them, or at all. Perhaps that’s not as worrying right now due to the relatively low number of App Store rejections, but who knows what the future will hold if Apple actually gains a majority control over the computer market. There are many things I love and respect about Apple, but their current approach to the App Store makes me feel like we’re all doomed.
Maybe no BigCo will make a better iPad and all of this is inevitable. But I consider the massive creativity of the Cocoa developers and designers around me, and I can’t help but think that if some of us formed a company driven to compete with the iPad, we could do it. With our skills for creating beautiful, simple, and intuitive software, and a commitment to developer and user freedom, why wouldn’t we have a chance at making a better computer for the masses?
During the presentation Jobs stated a few times “holding the Internet in your hands.” While the Internet encompasses net-connected Cocoa apps, I’d suspect most people think of the web. Despite all the faults and limitations of working with the web, it would be hard to argue that the web is currently the best way to commoditize the hardware and underlying OS. Commercial web apps also benefit from being commonly perceived as subscription services rather than one-of products. It’s a better model that covers the ongoing costs of maintenance and support. Plus subscription apps can maintain simplicity, as they aren’t required to become feature gluttons to appease upgraders.
So yes, it is scary what App Store could become, but in many cases there is no absolute requirement that we expend our efforts to increase the value of Apple’s products at the expense of being locked into their policies and platform. That is, depending of course on the application requirements, and just how much of this new multitouch goodness gets exposed into Mobile Safari.
What I find more disconcerting is that the iPad is a digital consumption device, oriented around activities that produce very little. Yet it actually could be a good fit for many people, much of the time. That says a lot about our culture and how we spend our time.
oopsies: “hard to argue” would more accurately read “hard to disagree” “one-of” should be “one-off”
The App Store and the policies surrounding it is one of the reasons that has kept me from getting an iPhone. I held off on getting a smart phone until a decent competitor to the iPhone came out. I like the openness available with the Droid much more. You can always download a program from somewhere else; it doesn’t have to be on the Android Market.
Yes. I’ve been working on the same thoughts myself the past couple days (linked above). Poking at it a bit, Apple has set a very high bar indeed. I argue that the competitor doesn’t necessarily have to be open, but really, there are no closed codebases that can compete at this point, so open source seems to be the only hope.
Personally, I see Apple gaining a monopoly as the best-case scenario, because then antitrust regulation becomes Apple’s enemy the same way it was Microsoft’s in the ’90s. Once they’re a monopoly, as soon as Apple rejects an app that competes in the same space as one of theirs, they will be obviously guilty of anticompetitive behavior far more flagrant than MS was ever accused of and pretty much every government on the planet will smack them silly until they open up the iPad platform (and probably the iPhone as well).