Apple's new announcements touched so many startups it's scary. iMessage takes on all the free/group messaging apps that have been built lately. iCloud takes on (maybe not very well) rdio and other streaming music services. Airdrop takes on dropbox, box.net etc. Reminders takes on rememberthemilk and other GTD services. How about the camera plus app that Apple took off the app store for making the volume button a camera button? Now Apple implemented that feature!
The Paul Graham quote used in this article was spot on, especially the part about "...you may find that you were merely doing market research for them."
This is the problem with building apps on top of another company's API. You will forever be subject to their rules. Whether you're building on Facebook's API, iOS, or even Amazon AWS...you will always be competing to a disadvantage.
>How about the camera plus app that Apple took off the app store for making the volume button a camera button?
Not exactly. Camera+ was not approved for the app store because of the volume button as camera shutter feature, so they resubmitted but hid the feature from the reviewers by including it as an easter egg. It was removed for a while from the app store because of that intentional deception. They're lucky they were allowed to resubmit the app at all after that (and so are we all, it's a wonderful camera app).
"Lucky"?? This is why I'm glad I'm not an iOS app developer.
So the app with the "volume button as camera" feature was rejected, then within a year Apple turned around and implemented the same feature themselves.
Even if they didn't directly steal the idea, it seems like a pretty slimy tactic to me.
Slimy? What exactly would you have had them do? If they let the app through using a non-public API, they have to explain why some apps are allowed to use private APIs and some not, opening a can of worms which it is easy to understand they would prefer to keep closed.
They couldn't change the public APIs until the next release of the software, which is exactly what they did, and I imagine that Camera+ will be able to benefit from that API much as any other app.
Is it about the use of a private API or just the violation of the Human Interface guidelines? Everything I've read has said it's just about the guidelines, not because an API needed changing.
For me it's all about the timing. They should have relaxed the guidelines and/or policy about reusing the volume buttons for other purposes (not just for use as a camera shutter, presumably) at some point before they released an implementation of the exact same idea as a third party.
>>EDIT: Re-read the original rejection of the Camera+ featur
It's kind of insane that they wrote that blog post explaining what other developers are doing (and the penalties they face for doing it) and then turned around and included "Volumesnap" through a back-door anyway. So yes, they're quite lucky they were able to resubmit the app later. There's no doubt they knew exactly what they were doing.
You might say it's slimy, but turning it on its head (and without looking at the new APIs, etc.): Apple realised with Camera+ that there was a need for a physical button for taking a picture, the inclusion in iOS5 of this feature means that all camera apps (presumably) get the ability to use the physical button, rather than the camera apps hacking it in.
Again, I don't know if Apple is opening this up, so I won't describe it as slimy or not.
Someone like Red Pop [1], however, might be worse off though...
Edit: Re-reading the rejection notice from your link [2], it seems clear that Apple won't be able to reject people based on that clause again. At least, using the volume button for camera now seems to be pretty standard (IANAL so YMMV).
[2] »Your application cannot be added to the App Store because it uses iPhone volume buttons in a non-standard way, potentially resulting in user confusion. Changing the behavior of iPhone external hardware buttons is a violation of the iPhone Developer Program License Agreement. Applications must adhere to the iPhone Human Interface Guidelines as outlined in the iPhone Developer Program License Agreement section 3.3.7«
Google doesn't block you from releasing your own apps, though. They don't use the Market to enforce their interests (and if they would there's Amazon's app market etc).
That's one line out of a 30 line post. Yes, but the issue is them competing with you (with regards to this iOS5) not them not allowing you to do the feature.
Except none of these services are cross platform. Thus, many users will not be interested. The IM apps will do fine because groups of friends very often have several types of phones. Same goes for dropbox.
This is why competition is good and investing all your eggs into a single walled garden is dangerous.
No if you use the tools correctly then you'll be a major advantage because it's a lot easier to use the Facebook / Twitter API than to construct those things yourself. If you're building a telco probably not a good idea to use someone else's telco infrastructure, if you're selling chairs, it's probably a good idea to buy phone service, rather than construct your own infrastructure.
Does iCloud work on Android? Does it work on a PC? I doubt dropbox and instagram are in any danger because they have barriers to entry that Apple is likely unwilling to take. How many dropbox subscribers are going to go away? Probably not many. Could they lose a bunch of free users? Certainly.
I don't have the data, but I wouldn't be surprised if DropBox had a disproportionately large market of users that were purely on the Apple stack -- and tended to share with other Apple users (when they did share across ppl).
Joel Spolsky spoke about this on the SO podcast a while back in terms of people who develop extensions for Visual Studio (though it extends to all IDEs and indeed a lot of software).
He described certain applications as grabbing nickels from the path of an on-coming steamroller. Effectively what he was saying was that there are things which are going to be added to products eventually and while there is money to be made by getting there first, the developer needs to accept that it's inevitable that they're going to be ploughed down eventually.
But this isn't just Apple and it's not just iOS, it's software and in particularly operating systems everywhere (or does someone want to tell me that the differences between Windows 1.0 and Windows 7 hasn't impacted on any developers anywhere?).
If your business model is taking what someone else does and doing it just a tiny bit better this comes with the territory. You either need to live with that or keep doing it better so they don't catch up.
Marco Arment wrote a piece on how he didn't care about a rumoured forthcoming addition to iOS despite it competing with Instapaper because he felt he could bring more to it than Apple would and in fact it might bring him new customers by raising awareness of this sort of feature.
If you're not thinking that then I'm sorry to say that your product really wasn't strong enough or different enough in the first place for it to be anything other than a short term venture.
> (or does someone want to tell me that the differences between Windows 1.0 and Windows 7 hasn't impacted on any developers anywhere?)
Actually I think Microsoft is partly responsible for the sense of self-righteous indignation that developers have when they get displaced. They deliberately held back on introducing even basic features into Windows for a remarkably long time. Things like anti-virus, paint programs, text editors, photo management - even opening zip files - were left with token or no support for 5 to 10 years after they were no brainers in terms of expected or useful functionality. Of course, MS had (and still has, though less so) a regulatory threat to worry about that nobody else does.
Google's regulatory threat is probably stronger now, although Apple is looking to control more of the user's interaction with their product. I think Apple gets away with it because their spread makes sense to regulators: They make the product, make the software to make it work, and provide the services to make it useful. That makes sense to regulators in a way that integrating a browser with the operating system didn't, even though it's the exact same thing.
> Apple gets away with it because their spread makes sense to regulators
I'm not sure it's that. I think it's just that their strategy of only ever targeting the top 20% most profitable customers means they never broach market shares that make them a threat to competition by the conventional measures used by regulators.
I think you're right, there. By focussing on the high end, they likely avoid any accusation of monopoly and so avoid anti-trust investigations. That they approach a monopoly on the markets they target doesn't really matter if their market share in total is <10%.
Apple steamrolls over 3rd party apps (including implementing features that they rejected another app for including), developers get angry and... this is somehow this is partly Microsoft's fault. Interesting.
Well, the poster I was replying to was kind of saying the opposite. Implying that Microsoft 'spoiled' developers by not implementing those things themselves.
I guess there's a kind of double meaning of "responsible" at work here. I didn't mean to suggest MS was wrongful in their actions - what they did they did for their own purely business oriented reasons and it worked well for them. It just happened that it resulted in a perception that there is an invisible line between an OS and its apps that an OS vendor won't cross and that if you establish a business on one side of the line you can trust that the OS vendor won't squash you. That line was never real, it just happened that Microsoft couldn't cross it for business & regulatory reasons, so they didn't. But now we come to MacOS and iOS and Apple has no qualms about crossing the line but developers still seem to expect them not to. I attribute that partly to this historical perception that came from the MS era.
There's sort of a point there but MS dropped that approach a good many years ago (look at security centre, movie maker and so on) so I'm not sure it's really relevant today.
Even still, anti-virus and movie maker are not default installs (and not even delivered on the install media) which is at least partly attributable to MS still being hesitant to cross that line.
I seem to have movie maker installed and I certainly didn't download it.
Possibly it came down in a Windows Update (I tend to just say "everything") but if that's the case it's surely only the finest of whiskers away from being a default install.
> because he felt he could bring more to it
> than Apple would
Until his next update is rejected because it duplicates functionality that iOS already provides and would 'confuse' consumers (so could you please stop attempting to compete with us, please?).
It's been pointed out on the other thread, but this tends to happen when iOS had the functionality first, not the other way round. Apple allows plenty of camera apps and other such "duplicated functionality" to remain in the app store.
That may be, but it becomes something of an 'unenforced law,' which is something that I'm not very fond about. If the terms of service allow them to boot that App at any time (but for the time-being they are going with an interpretation that is favorable to you), then you are still on shaky ground.
I think you right, companies like Devexpress and JetBrains who develop .NET controls, add-ons seems like doing great. They are making money by being one step ahead and they always will be, therefore developers will keep spending money to resharper even though VS.NET 2010 comes with refactoring features.
If you are willing to be more agile than the vendor you'll always have something, but if all you do provide something basic which can be simple replaced by the vendor, then yes, all you can do milk it as much as you can until vendor get there. (and for small project, one-man shops even this makes a lot of sense)
And ironically his company produces a bug tracker/version control for Windows. Do you think any of the developers inside MSFT see the need for a bug tracker/version control system that integrates with visual studio?
Do you think it's on anyones roadmap?
Frankly, what do you expect them to do? They are in it for the money. Operating systems in the narrowest sense (scheduler, memory manager plus file system) became commodities decades ago. Graphics libraries, networking, printing, video and audio player libraries, databases, etc. followed. Even DOS had a fullscreen text editor, in later versions.
With complete 2GHz systems costing $250 or so, they would have a hard time selling people "we worked hard for a year, and here it is: it does the same, but it has a slightly faster/more memory efficient/more robust kernel" (battery live drives developments here a bit, but that is about it)
So, they start adding features. They could have made APIs for features and allow third parties to plug into them, but I guess doing that would have been more of an effort than building a good one (Android has it easier there with its Java infrastructure), and it just isn't in their DNA to sell a Lego set or to focus on making money from their hardware.
Yes, this will hurt some third party software, but I can understand why they 'have' to do this (and no, I do not think they could have gotten away with adding a totally new set of original features instead; people would still have complained about the lack of a decent notification system)
I'm not sure who you're speaking to here, but I'm the author of the post and I wasn't criticizing Apple at all. I'm just explaining why it is the way it is.
Your article came off fairly neutral, yes. But a lot of people seem to be taking an upset posture. Your parent comment seems to be speaking to them, on the same topic as (but not in contradiction to) your post.
That is correct. Sometimes, I cannot find a clear place to 'hook' a comment into a discussion. I then tend to make a top-level comment. I should have made it clear that my response wasn't aimed at your text.
> Don’t try to one-up Apple by doing slightly better versions of what they do, or offering apps they’ll inevitably need to add themselves.
Not sure I can get behind this statement. Are developers shortsighted for filling in those gaps until Apple did it themselves? No; the shortsightedness comes in when they assume that just because their product fills a gap, the same gap will always exist. Nobody is ever guaranteed that something bigger, better, and bundled won't come along.
Fair enough Nathan, if you use your gap as a foundation to build something that has legs, then that's fine. I can't think of many examples, but something like Instagram comes to mind. They one upped the Photo app, but used it grow a community.
I won't stop using Instagram now, as I follow great photographers there. It's no longer about easy sharing or photo filters.
This conversation reminds me of the discussions we've had about software patents. We're all against those, of course.
Yet we're taking umbrage with Apple integrating functionality from existing apps into iOS/OSX.
Aren't these conversations fundamentally about the same concept, the protection (or lack thereof) afforded to the owner of an executed idea?
It seems like it's the same conversation with the only difference being our role in the vignette. If it's the story of Lodsys, we're accused of infringement. If it's the story of iOS5, we're the infringed.
I'm anti-patent and also OK with Apple baking these features right into the OS just like I'm OK with Microsoft (or any other OS maker) shipping a browser with the OS.
If the features are useful to such a great number of end-users, they should be there in the base install, it makes for a better user experience even if it does cause pain for some small business owners. Nobody is owed a business just because they already have one, this goes for app devs just as well as anyone else. As with browsers on Windows there will be plenty of room for alternatives to the base implementation so long as they offer a decent value proposition.
The only thing about this that would get me up in arms is if Apple started blocking updates to the existing apps because they "duplicate functionality". I don't think we can really count them out from doing that based on some past events, though I do hope they've moved beyond that by now.
It's weird -- you're the only person in this thread so far that's got the same takeaway from all of this as I have. I was starting to wonder if maybe I missed something.
I've been using and developing on Macs for as long as the Mac has existed, and I've never been more pessimistic about getting in bed with Apple. It's clear that they want to own their entire ecosystem; they want to own the application delivery, they want to own the advertising delivered by it or associated with it, they want to own the hardware and peripherals, they want to own the social atmosphere associated with it, they want to own their customers' data storage ...
And that's fine, for Apple and for their customers. But, I can't imagine any reason why any developer in their right mind would see competing with all of that as anything more than a short-term prospect. If you're successful, Apple will eventually try to own you (either by buying you, or, more likely, rolling out a competing product leveraged by the rest of their ecosystem); if you're not successful, it might not be worth doing in the first place.
Short-term (say, 1 to 2 year) projects can make decent money, and I guess that's good enough for most people, but there's no point to trying to develop longer-term relationships with customers, or branding, or a market of your own.
It's also possible to provide a sufficiently large moat in your product that Apple wouldn't be able move across without some decay in focus. E.g., suppose you created an amazing CAD software for Macs. Not just a 3D sketch, but a heavyweight competitor, analogous to AutoCad or 3DStudioMax.
Apple can't take your lunch without crossing your moat.
I see these addins to the OSX deployment as things that did not have a sufficient moat to cross. And let's face it, if you can build it alone in 6-8 weeks, so can most other hackers, and when a big player comes in, 6-8 weeks is dried peanut shells to them: you lost the game (unless you can move into a niche they won't steamroll over).
As far as building a moat goes, I'm skeptical about whether there's any profitable field that Apple wouldn't, eventually, venture into. I'd agree that it would give you a longer runway, but I don't think it's enough to altogether discourage Apple. Look at where they've gone already: music (in a big way); phones (in a big way); eBooks (in a more failed way); heck, they couldn't even leave well enough alone with the iPad, they decided to market directly to the medical profession and compete one-on-one with startups in that field too.
I betcha that, somewhere on one of Apple's campuses, there are individuals using Pro/E (or similar), and that makes Steve Jobs grind his teeth at night. And, they've got more money than god at this point; like the Eye of Sauron, all they need to do is move their gaze into another market, and they can compete in it.
You're right about the effort required to build a thing, though. I was thinking more along the lines of longtime independent Mac software brands, like Panic.
> It's clear that they want to own their entire ecosystem
Hasn't Jobsian Apple always been like that?
They want white-knuckled control, unless it benefits them to cede a little, and they never remove their hands from the wheel, they just relax the grip a bit. But they're always spring-loaded to grasp it back.
This was my biggest hesitation in switching from PC to Mac as a personal usage platform: the controlling nature worried me. A couple years after switching it still bugs me, but not enough to act as a deterrent.
It's possible that Jobs' Apple has always wanted to be this way, but it's only in the last decade or so that they've been able to gather the momentum to pull it off. With the prospect of the Mac App store taking over all software delivery in the near future, it's now enough deterrent for me.
But is your point that this is commendable behavior from Apple? Or that developers should just shut up and put up with it regardless?
What gets me is that software developers aren't a little more discerning when it comes to fawning uncontrollably over all the good stuff Apple does and just explaining away (is that what you're doing here?) or blinkering out the bad.
Why can't this same energy and enthusiasm be directed towards keeping the hardware and software we all depend on for our livelihoods as open and accessible as possible?
We are the early adopters and the evangelists. We're the ones our friends and family turn to when they need suggestions on a new computer or MP3 player. Why perpetuate Apple's "our ball, our game, our rules" environment any more than absolutely necessary?
My point is that this is expected behavior from Apple. This is what they do. They build amazing platforms.
The chances are that whatever Joe Bloggs little app is, Apple want to do it better/differently. So they will. Why should Apple leave the "to-do list" market alone when they believe they can do it better. And in fact they almost always can do it better because they can integrate in a way no one else can.
I don't think this behavior is good or bad. I think it's expected.
I didn't criticise Microsoft when they did it. I don't criticise Apple now. I do laugh at folks who do the former but not the latter.
It's just business. The only point to take away is, if you are considering developing something for the Apple ecosystem, take into account the business risk that anything you do that is highly successful has a strong likelihood of being "steam rolled". Don't delude yourself that you'll be able to pick some low hanging fruit and make millions. You'll either solve something hard and have a barrier to entry or you'll solve something easy and get steam rolled, hopefully after having enough time in the sun to make it worth your while.
I think part of the difference was that M$ was intentionally putting up roadblocks on their platform with no other purpose than to block potential competition (e.g. Netscape vs IE). Apple will be guilty of the same thing if they in turn start using the AppStore guidelines of 'no duplicate OS functionality' to boot all of these players off of the platform rather than letting them continue to compete and differentiate their offers from Apple's.
I remember reading yesterday that some camera app was forced to remove the use volume buttons as photo taker or so.
There was several examples of apps that essentially 'went out of business' like Konfabulator, some early theming engine for Mac and the like with some dubious practices from Apple.
Well what happens typically is people stop going for the low hanging fruit, and focus on specific verticals. When the best and brightest devs are working on specific areas they love then everyone wins.
When they're gap filling, then their best hope is acquisition, no matter how much they love their product. And remember acquisitions aren't guaranteed, and there are only ever one or two of them.
"Search" is not a vertical market. It's something ALL of Google's customers use (or would use, in your hypothetical). I guess I do agree with Des on that main point. Plugging a gap in someone else's software may not be a great long term strategy.
Search alone isn't vertical, search alone isn't even a market if people don't pay for it. You misunderstand the (Google) business and who the customers are. Those doing the searches are not the customers. Advertisers are the customers. Eyeballs of those searching are the primary product. Search isn't the product, only part of the means to obtain the product. Search is a supporting part of a vertical structure that produces revenue for Google.
It's the same thing with commercial broadcast television. The viewers are not customers, the programs are not the product.
In both cases, the choices that produce maximum advertising revenue are not necessarily those that deliver what the person searching or viewing considers best.
In the case of Google, there are elements of a vertical market in the sense that they're combining pieces. They just aren't combining the same pieces or using them the same way as most others. They don't actually sell a mobile OS, or (with past exceptions for developers) handsets. I don't believe they're directly producing much video either.
And while they mine data, that is yet another companion component to drive sales of or increase value of the advertising. The will tell how apps fit into their revenue model. They relate to attracting users, more ads in some cases, and a cut of sales. Even if not a big part of the total phone revenue stream, apps are still something that they're stuck dealing with.
There was search before Google, there was data mining before Google, there were ad brokers before google. They're well beyond all of that, more vertical than any of those things alone. In some cases they're filling in gaps or providing alternatives in other vertical products (handset/OS/carrier) only to insert their ad business into the equation. Mapping, video hosting and other things they do also are methods to increase the value of ad business, or build pathways to insert themselves into other ad funded businesses (perhaps broadcasting)
Whether a particular model or product is "good" all depends on perspective. A model where the OS is nearly free appeals to some handset makers or carriers. Low budget "reality" tv and infotainment news programs with 18+ minute of ads an hour may appeal to a tv network if it has a better viewer/cost ratio than obtained with more expensive quality programming.
So what's the difference between a vertical and "gap-filling"?
If Google didn't have product search, or blog search, and someone went and did that, would they be gap-filling or going after a vertical? Seems to me they're one and the same.
The OP quoted Spolsky mentioning “a feature... for dentists”. That’s one example of a vertical market.
My last employer made a search engine specialized for geography: government agencies and energy companies (two other vertical markets) paid beaucoup bucks for it. (Not beaucoup enough to satisfy the VCs, alas, but the product itself is still being sold by another company.)
I used to work at Stonesoft, a company which was back then selling a high-availability extension for Check Point's firewall (http://bit.ly/ivZ22L). A really lucrative business, especially as Check Point's existing customers were an easy market to sell to.
Then one day Check Point released their own high-availability solution. Stonesoft hasn't been profitable in the approx. 10 years since.
When I joined McCutcheon Graphics in 1986 to sell Apple's then-new "desktop publishing" hardware -- the Mac and the LaserWriter and Aldus PageMaker, the prescient genius David Henry Goodstein (http://williamshepherd.blog.co.uk/2006/06/10/thursday_8th_ju...) warned us: Remember "Apple will always eat its children".
Perhaps it's just my business background talking here, but why is anyone surprised or even upset that Apple continues to do this? All companies are looking for value adds and providing a good/better/best/integrated/whatever version direct in the OS layer is a great way to do this. If you owned a platform, you would do the same thing where appropriate.
Smart businesses don't just build an app or a feature, they build a whole business and potentially even a whole platform. For example, look at Remember The Milk or Evernote. Sure, Apple can make their own cloud-synced todo list app. Great. But, RTM is on many different platforms, as is Evernote. They have thousands of customers that will keep using their app even though a system app might do the same thing.
My point is just because apple turns your feature into their feature doesn't mean you can't have a successful business. It just means you have to adapt and change. It's no different than if you were running a successful little coffee shop and Starbucks opens up across the street. You can whine that it isn't fair that Starbucks Megacorp Inc. just showed up next door stealing your thunder, or you can take care of your customers so that they don't go across the street.
In the end, business is competitive. You have no inherent right to build software or sell it on a given platform or in a given store. The fact that Apple, Google, Microsoft, HP, Amazon and so on make worldwide distribution for indie devs so easy is completely 100% incredible.
Just try and sell a physical copy your $0.99 todo list app or game at every Wal-Mart, Target, Best-Buy, Gamestop, Verizon/At&t/Sprint shop in the country then maybe you'll have an idea of just how good you have it.
Agreed. I understand the outrage & fear, but in the eyes of their customers & shareholders, this is exactly what they should be doing.
I believe destraynor realizes this too. He wrote, "Apple always look out for their customers." And that's exactly what businesses should do.
However, I hope, Apple can handle their relationships with their development community better than Twitter did. I'm curious to see how they'll deal with that.
Well, you can still out-execute them or build apps better than they can. I don't think fear of competing with Apple should stop you from building products. If anything, it can server as motivation and spur better products for users.
The only real businesses affected by this are Instapaper and Dropbox. The rest are just cool applications that our bubble media props up as enterprises.
Being "the guy" who solves "the problem" that everyone has is really tempting. Everyone will say things like "Oh you should install that app by Des Traynor, it lets you do X (where X is anything everyone wants to do)
Its great for a short term publicity kick, to get your name out there. It's just not something to build a business on.
Why do people think this is endemic to desktop software, or even just Apple? Web developers are as much at risk of a major player, like Google, moving into their product space and "stealing" their business away.
I'm not defending the practice and saying that it's right or justified. I'm just pointing out that Apple isn't the only company that does this, and Mac OS X and iOS aren't the only platforms where this can happen.
It's a bit different to have Google begin competing with you, unless you've built your product on Google's APIs.
If you're competing with your provider, you're probably not on an even playing field. They can use internal APIs or just completely lock you out if they choose to.
On the flip side, Apple has been thinking this way for years, as Steve Jobs tries to minimize Apple's external dependencies. (Adobe Flash, PPC, etc)
I'm not a developer, but i think it's the "that won't happen to me " syndrome that humans tend to suffer, just to deny reality. We do it in our lives everyday, till it happens to us.
So what is reality? That this will happen to majority of developers?
It's the same as with app rejections: if you were listening to the tech media it was like every other app was rejected. In reality there are 425 000 apps in App Store and developers have been paid $2.5 billion.
Sorry i didn't explain well, i don't mean it will happen to everyone or that all the developers are denying reality, what i meant is that everyday we take decisions and even when sometimes the risks are well known we decide to not see it, it's someone else's problems i'm different, i think there are iOS developers that know that problem can happen and make a bet knowingly , but other just prefer not to see the "danger" and then act like it was a surprise , and that happens in all aspects of our lives. And if i were a developer i would probably make the bet, i think the risk is valid.
But how big is the risk really, unless you are thinking about living all your life with income from just one app, or if you spend to years working on it and then Apple makes it obsolete before you had a chance to release your work.
Otherwise you make some money, then make another product and make more money from it. Or is my thinking completely off the track?
I don't think you are off the track, from what i understand of this market (and maybe i'm completely wrong) , you are right, no one can think about solving his life with one single phone/pad app, and if you have success with one i like to think that even before that you are preparing another one. It would be like being "one single hit song" band or singer, you can get a lot of money but if you want to live you need more than that, and i think software market is harder than music. There's no magic but i can understand that people can risk a lot of work to give a step so they can make a second one and so on. But i think no one can say that if the land lord fires you from his land is a big surprise, you are the servant and have to pay your tithe while he's interested in you.
What's their alternative? Not work with Apple? Are any of the other vendors any better about this (i.e. "let's not implement good features in our OS because some of our third party devs might be upset")?
How would they "stop" Apple from doing this to them?
Should they ignore the iOS market and let someone else pick up the money they're leaving on the table, or try to own their idea by patenting it and suing everyone else?
That is the wrong question to be asking. A better question is: why do most developers let themselves work on software that is not defensible and/or not disruptive?
Care to explain that a bit? I fail to see a direct parallel between farmland tenancy arrangements and Apple's relationship to iOS developers.
Also, that's a mighty powerful rhetorical weapon (going all the way back to African-American slavery) to be dropping in a discussion about some ticked-off software developers.
This is kind of inevitable in any evolving platform . The best we can hope is open standards, that's why my bet is on web apps and better mobile browsers
The Paul Graham quote used in this article was spot on, especially the part about "...you may find that you were merely doing market research for them."
This is the problem with building apps on top of another company's API. You will forever be subject to their rules. Whether you're building on Facebook's API, iOS, or even Amazon AWS...you will always be competing to a disadvantage.