I wrote a whole rant about how anti-competitive Apple’s App Store model is, and I was all set to post it here. But when I was fact-checking myself I found out that actually Apple approved Opera Mini for iPhone on April 12. So Apple is in fact willing to approve apps that compete with their built-in functionality.
That weakens the argument I was going to make. Hmmm. I’ll have to think about how much this changes my position. Just because Apple decided to allow competition this time doesn’t change the fact that they have the power to block any competition they don’t want. I suppose it comes down to a question of whether you think Apple is an “enlightened despot” or just a despot.
Congrats to Opera, though!
April 21, 2010 at 5:18 pm
Opera in the app store is not a web browser in the traditional sense, though. It’s essentially a glorified image viewer app with some metadata attached.
April 21, 2010 at 7:20 pm
iCab Mobile has been available for a long time (a year today if one assumes “first public version” means “first available on the App Store”; I haven’t followed iCab closely for a few years, so I don’t know for sure when iCab Mobile first appeared in the App Store). Granted iCab has been a WebKit browser for the last several years, but Apple certainly has allowed competing web browsers on the iPhone. That’s not to say that there aren’t problems that make competing web browsers a less-integrated experience, but it’s certainly not the case that Apple has been rejecting “apps that compete with their built-in functionality” in the web browser space, and it hasn’t been this way for a long time (despite what the internet-mind would have us believe
). I have heard that there are other WebKit-based web browsers in the store, too, but I haven’t tried to confirm this.
Opera Mini is the first non-WebKit “web browser” approved, sure, and this was a big deal—but I agree with Limi that Opera Mini isn’t really a web browser in the sense of Mobile Safari and iCab Mobile. This is a good layman’s technical overview of Opera Mini (written before approval) and this has some good screenshots that illustrate what the not-a-real-browser tradeoff means in UI/UE terms.
April 21, 2010 at 7:33 pm
It is true that Apple allowed a form of competition but not in the same sense as a browser, more an internet viewer. Opera’s servers do all the leg work, then compress it and send it back to the phone. It works sort of like a proxy.
It is just a shame that opera is not a full browser on the iP[hone/od/ad] as that would mean that others – such as Mozilla maybe – could then develop their browser for the platform and a whole new era of web innovation could be spawned.
April 21, 2010 at 10:33 pm
Nothing’s changed. Opera just jumped through the right hoops and played their cards well. They appeased their dictator.
April 21, 2010 at 11:24 pm
If you are that easily fooled, then there’s no hope.
Application approval on the iVanity world is arbitrary, discriminatory, subject to censorship and show that humans in their quest for absolute control are absolute disgusting.
What the purpose of two world wars, tens of millions of death, much more injured, countless revolutions, all in the name of freedom (liberty) and democracy if then we, as society, voluntary subject ourselves to this kind of tyranny, oppression and discrimination? And praised it!
As I said: disgusting.
April 22, 2010 at 2:32 am
Jack, he two world wars, revolutions, etc were fought for power. “liberty” was used to sell them all to the masses, but that’s not why they were fought, by and large.
April 22, 2010 at 6:17 am
Ultimately, many people find that even through the tyranny of Apple that they can choose to not use, they obtain extra utility through buying Apple product. Would I work with Apple product? Not unless I thought I could increase my net worth in doing so. Will I write a blog post condemning their actions? Not really. I have money I can choose to not spend instead.
April 23, 2010 at 3:05 pm
Havvy: IMO, just not purchasing is not enough. People will keep buying into heavily controlled devices and assume that is status quo (therefore, making them the status quo), unless there is a loud voice saying that there is a better way.
April 24, 2010 at 9:32 am
I was just reading a debate on the topic (restrictions put by technology providers), around the 10 year celebration of Larry Lessig’s “Code”, and in which Lessig partipated too: http://www.cato-unbound.org/archives/may-2009/
I agree with the proposition side (Declan McCullagh and Adam Thierer), which is that Lessig’s prophecy is still unrealized and the technology providers’s “control” is always kept in check by competitive and market force.
Although Apple still makes some apparently boneheaded mistakes (a subjective judgement), I am glad to see how much pressure it receives from the community.
Ultimately, consumers express their preferences with their wallets and free speech. Android and Windows phones will certainly try and take advantage of this opportunity to attract buyers. Or people may choose not to buy either, and stick with laptops.
Regarding Jack’s “… all in the name of freedom (liberty) and democracy if then we, as society, voluntary subject ourselves to this kind of tyranny, oppression and discrimination?”
Your butcher’s (and Apple’s) liberty is also worth protecting, right? Your butcher is free to offer his own products as well as a selection of third-party products in his shop. His choice in his own shop. Why shouldn’t Apple?
I personally think that Apple’s restrictions are a pain too. We’ll see which platform ultimately gets more innovation and is more appealing to consumers.
But this saying that Apple’s practices are against liberty or democracy is ludicrous.
Btw, I wrote a broader post on Apple’s market power: http://dumky.posterous.com/monopolies
April 26, 2010 at 11:52 pm
“Your butcher’s (and Apple’s) liberty is also worth protecting, right? Your butcher is free to offer his own products as well as a selection of third-party products in his shop. His choice in his own shop. Why shouldn’t Apple?”
Unfortunately, Apple is also dictating what knives you’re allowed to use to cut the steak you buy from them, and how you’re allowed to cook it.
April 27, 2010 at 6:48 am
Not really. You can do whatever you want with your iPhone. Blend it, microwave it, etc.
You can even put your own bits on the device (I’m assuming the iPhone doesn’t come with a contract or end-user license agreement), except that it may be unsupported and/or very difficult and Apple certainly doesn’t make it easy.
In other words, I see no coercive interference by Apple against the user’s freedom. It is legitimate for Apple not to support some scenarios (even though many users demand it).
May 4, 2010 at 5:09 pm
The moment you find a fault in your claim that Apple is about total control, you should not conclude that Apple’s logic is screwed. You should retract your claim because you disproved it yourself.
The iPhone offers dual access for third party content: Web+Apps. Web is liberal, Apps are controlled. Apple has heavily promoted their mobile web browser since January 2007, so this is not a coincidence.
If you want to casually learn programming using the iPad, start with HTML or one of the highly regarded web languages like Python or Ruby