It’s easy enough to get hits with bad tech journalism: just rile the Apple fanboys. The Mobile Technology Weblog’s Microsoft Announces iPhone Killer deserves accolades for not involving any kind of actual announcement, nor in any way substantiating how its topic might be capable of “kill”ing the iPhone.
Android is a far more credible competitor to the iPhone, and as I said earlier, I’m interested to see if it can disprove some of Apple’s assertions about the way it conducts the iPhone ecosystem, such as the tightly-restricted review process or the prohibition on background apps, or if it will fail and thereby vindicate Apple. Still, whatever success Android might achieve, it’s hyperbole to posit it as an iPhone killer, at least at this stage.
Honestly, the two biggest threats I see to the iPhone come from the iPhone ecosystem itself.
In the worst case, one leads to mere tragedy, the other to catastrophe. Not that I’m predicting such a thing; I’m not a Cassandra (except when playing Soul Calibur, but that’s another story). But I do think these are issues that have the potential to cause great harm to Apple, its users, and its developers.
1. iPhone development is a bubble economy, already severely overinflated
Rilo Kiley, “The Execution of All Things“:
Soldiers come quickly, I feel the earth beneath my feet.
I’m feeling badly, it’s not an attempt at decency.
Surely only the most foolish and greedy developers at this point think they’re going to write a simple game and make a million dollars, like Steve Demeter, who pulled $250,000 in two months with the indie game Trism. The easy, early money has been made. Now there are 100,000 apps to compete with for attention, and only the top 2,000 have any significant usership.
But still, lots of developers are picking up Objective-C, learning from books like ours (thank you!), and putting their own time and money into writing their own indie apps. Even if they don’t expect to become iPhone millionaires, they’d at least like a shot at being, as Dan Grigsby aptly put it, warm, clothed, and fed with the proceeds of their iPhone work.
It’s possible the door has already largely closed to this too.
When I say that iPhone development is a bubble, I welcome you to interpret that in very literal economic terms. A developer who puts time and money into learning iPhone development does so in hopes of realizing a significant return.
And if you’re well off, well then I’m happy some for you.
But I’d rather not celebrate my defeat and humiliation here with you.
Personal case study: I put about two months of full time work into RoadTip… actually, three when you account for the month spent on the nightmare of implementing in-app purchase. That was time that I lived off a credit card, meaning I used a high-interest loan from Capital One to fund my development. I also put fixed costs, like artwork for the icon (from a former CNN colleague who used to work in the graphics department) and trademark registration on my card. So this is serious skin in the game.
After two weeks of sales, it is clear that I will never make back this investment. Not even close. I may never even make back the fixed costs, to say nothing of paying myself.
OK, there are reasons for this, not the least of which is the fact that there were no exit-finder apps when I started, and at least four others now (none of which seem to have bothered licensing their map data… would love to know how they’re not violating their providers’ terms of service). In the hit-driven App Store, you fall off your section’s “recently released” page after just a day or two, and unless you make the top 20 or have something else that makes you findable (a brand name, a well-travelled incoming link), you’re already dead.
Someone come quickly, this place was built for moving out.
Leave behind buildings, the city planners got mapped out.
Bring with you history, and make your hard earned feast.
Then we’ll go to Omaha to work and exploit the booming music scene, and humility.
If this is a hit-driven business, then the winners may be the ones who best understand marketing. And that’s the scenario by which we get lots of name-brand big-company apps, where there’s enough money to get the app in front of lots of people. The indie developer, who knows more about code than marketing, is at a severe disadvantage.
And if the risk of failure is not paying the mortgage, then it’s probably time for a lot of indies to bail out.
And this is still classic economics: too much money is in the iPhone market, chasing too little reward, and eventually there’ll be a pullback.
The question is if anyone will notice. Will the average user really miss 200 different Twitter clients or unit converters? Or is there some special, unique, topic-specific niche app that some tiny group of users would dearly love, and now will never get, because the developer who could write it is instead going to go take a contract to write the “American Idol Sing-A-Long Fun Kit”™ or god fucking knows what else?
Who knows? But much as I continue to think the world needs a touch-driven “IDE for podcasts”, something that might be extraordinary on a hypothetical OS X-powered tablet, I’m not going to risk any more of my own precious lucre developing such a thing. At this point, I expect my iPhone development to be largely for-hire works.
And we’ve been talking all night….
So that’s just sad, this one is dangerous:
2. Some of Apple’s iPhone development policies could violate anti-trust law
Anti-trust?! You should think I’m nuts. You’re probably thinking: Apple’s just a small player in a very competitive market, prone to lose their position at any time to strong competitors. You want to talk monopolies, let’s talk Microsoft.
No, I don’t want to talk monopolies. That’s the Sherman Act. I want to talk restraint of trade… the Clayton Act.
Consider this: the crux of the 90’s antitrust case against Microsoft — successfully prosecuted, if you’ll recall — was that Microsoft abused its dominant position by bundling its Internet Explorer web browser with Windows, to the disadvantage of Netscape Navigator, which had to be installed separately. Microsoft was branded as evil incarnate for the act of simply including a browser.
On the iPhone, Apple not only includes a browser, it prohibits developers from using any web-rendering technology other than WebKit.
Oh god come quickly, the execution of all things.
Let’s start with the bears and the air and mountains, rivers, and streams.
Then we’ll murder what matters to you and move on to your neighbors and kids.
Crush all hopes of happiness with disease ‘cause of what you did.
But that’s just the beginning. Consider some other technological and commercial restraints put on developers:
- You may not use any interpreted language or a virtual machine in an app.
- You must use Apple’s in-app purchase API, and pay Apple a 30% cut, for any post-sale commerce in your app.
- Effective December 2009, streaming video to an iPhone can only be delivered with HTTP Live Streaming
There’s more, but that’s enough to get us started talking about tying, the practice of compelling a customer to purchase one product as a condition of buying another. The crux of my argument is: could this be applied to Apple’s App Store policies?
Maybe, if a court is sufficiently inventive. It’s been 18 years since I took Prof. Litman’s telecomm economics class in grad school, but he was particularly interested in antitrust law, and I recall the significant issues of that area of case law. In one case — and I’m sorry, I forget if it was FTC vs. Proctor & Gamble (the “Clorox Case”) or U.S. vs. Alcoa — the court was basically willing to invent a market within the defendant company’s operations, in order to claim that the market was closed to competition.
Let’s play with this line of reasoning. Can we imagine parties that might have a complaint against Apple for shutting off a market to them?
- Sun (Java) and Adobe (Flash) for code-execution environments (i.e., interpreters and virtual machines)
- PayPal and other payment processors for selling apps and handling in-app purchases
- Adobe (Flash) and Microsoft (Silverlight) for video playback and streaming technologies
- Opera and the Mozilla Foundation for web rendering technologies
All of these companies have services that they could sell to iPhone developers, but for the fact that Apple forbids their use on iPhone by fiat. Of course developers contractually agree to that, but they don’t really have a choice: it’s Apple’s way or the highway. And you may agree that it’s better that way; that’s entirely reasonable.
But if you successfully make the argument that things like in-app purchase processing or video streaming are competitive markets, then you might have a case that Apple’s App Store terms violate the Clayton Act.
Granted, I’m not a lawyer, and if it were such a slam dunk, then it’s fair to ask: why haven’t Adobe, Sun, PayPal and the rest sued on exactly this basis? Fair enough.
Still, if we woke up next week to an antitrust investigation of Apple’s App Store practices, it wouldn’t surprise me in the least.
And lastly, you’re all alone with nothing left but sleep.
But sleep never comes to you, it’s just the guilt and forever wakefulness of the weak.
It’s just you and me….
The execution of all things.
The execution of all things.
The execution of all things.