Go and read: Beware the Garden of Steven.
So he is building an app store for Mac. Probably not much different from the tools that pop up now on dashboard. Basically leveraging apple’s electronic distribution he has perfected with iTunes. Looks like another billion dollars for the company. If the open system on droid is so great explain the buckets of money and the concentration of apps for apple as compared to what almighty Google has available and is generating with just as many devices on the market. That apple guarantees there will be no spyware or malicious code on my machine is ok by me. That it will work as Apple intended for the Apple experience is fine by me too. Through the journey Apple was always a software company who made devices to enhance that software. This model finally paid off just recently. Steve is doing what has put 45 Billion in the coffers. Perhaps this is a bigger deal for more power users who use these platforms for software development, but I doubt it affects 90% of the consumers. Besides you can always run a different os or download whatever app you like if you really want to. You made similar comments about iPhone when it first came out and somehow you gotten past it and seem to enjoy the experience.
The problem here is that by leading the Mac in this direction, he will damage the rich ecosystem of independent developers that help make the Mac a vibrant platform. I’m not interested in anyone but Chet deciding what software I can put on my Mac, but it seems clear that Steve would love to have a role in that. If the Mac app store is successful, Apple might well decide to try to lock down all Macs the way they’ve locked down the iOS — sure, you can go outside that ecosystem now, but knowing the control Jobs likes to exert, it’s easy to see a future where that isn’t the case.
BTW, you’re fundamentally wrong about what kind of firm Apple is. They are absolutely a hardware company. They make way more money on hardware than on software. In fact, they’re morphing into a consumer electronics company. Software just helps them sell the hardware.
As for the iOS platform’s lockdown, I stand by my earlier comments. The fact that I still use an iPhone doesn’t mean I think their choices there are the right ones. It’s highly likely that I’ll move to Droid as soon as I can get what I need on that platform — which, in a world with vastly more permissive and less draconian development rules, is likely to happen pretty soon.
Trading platform flexibility for stability and security is sort of like trading freedom for security. Steve may be able to market this into a dominant paradigm, and if he does, I think computing in general will be much, much poorer for it.
The kind of “What is Apple” argument is chicken and egg. Machines were built primarily for their own OS. While recent Mac machines have had ability to run several OS the truth is they are still purpose built for the Mac OS. iPad same for iOS, and the predecessor iPhone, and the predecessors iPod, same. The last three have capitalized on the efficiency and software interface surrounding iTunes. This will now be extended to Mac if Steve has his way.
Software is much more profitable for Apple on a per unit basis. As they become more of a consumers electronics company their profitability will decline as that model has diminishing returns on a per unit basis due to the need to subsidize units to compete with commoditized competitors SEE iPhone4. That ATT and Verizon are willing to write the check so that less affluent consumers can step up has made Apple billions. Not sure how long that will last.
An update I read said Steve will allow apps to be sold on any platform the author chooses to sell them on, including and not limited to the App store. So you can buy direct if you like. I am not sure this is the case on iPhone presently. Am wondering why there has not been an app developed so as to make transfer of independent apps easier than hacking the phones?
I get what you’re saying about chicken and egg (i.e., you need hardware to run software, and you need software to make hardware viable), but at the end of the day Apple is mostly a hardware company. They make good software in order to protect that market, but software revenue and earnings cannot compete with their hardware figures. We have to estimate (Apple doesn’t break things out by product line), but it’s a no brainer. Apple software price points are very, very low — but Apple hardware is generally hundreds if not thousands of dollars.
N.B. you see virtually no Apple software for sale anywhere. Everywhere Apple sells goods, it’s hardware.
The concern people have is that, with the iOS world, Apple has locked everything down to deliver what they consider a better experience, and what people like me consider an unacceptably controlled experience. It chafes me that Apple gets to decide which apps I can buy, and my phone is just a phone. There’s no fucking way I’d stay on an actual computing platform that included that level of curatorial control.
Yes, for now OSX supports multiple delivery methods. The worry is that, with Lion or some subsequent release, they’ll lock it down further and insist on controlling your desktop. I don’t know about you, but I consider my computer to be MINE, not Steve’s.