- Posts tagged Software
- Explore Software on posterous
Asymco on how Google’s lack of Android control affects their value chain
Google today is faced with the prospect that not only the devices (which sit on its OS) but also services and apps on top would choose to remain on old versions of Android. There is nothing to stop them from doing just that. Unlike Microsoft, Google does not enforce licensing terms for Android. It is at the mercy of the value chain.
The article also points out that even if Google wanted to stop the above scenario, they do not have the license terms to permit it.
Android or iPhone: Where is the Mobile Developer Money?
Android has more developers, yet its percentage of paid apps is much smaller than the iPhone platform. Why is that?
One might think the "open" nature of Android attracts a larger base of developers willing to contribute for nothing, but the fact is it's hard to sell apps on Android. You can only pay for apps in 13 countries, and you can only sell priced apps from nine countries. This is nuts compared to the iPhone's 90 countries, and just another Android "dirty little secret." Take heart, though, you can always sign a petition to make it better.
I know it doesn't have to be about money. Many people do labors of love for "free." Maybe it's a learning experience, a way to unwind, or a sense of community or connecting with people. These could all be valid payments for your work. Not wanting monetary compensation is a personal choice that can't be judged. Indeed, though I buy a lot of apps I appreciate "free" software as much as anybody.
Having said that, if money's what you're looking for the iPhone platform is clearly where you want to be in mobile development.
Laptop Magazine: Adobe's Weak Android Flash Player Proves Jobs Right
After spending time playing with Flash Player 10.1 on the new Droid 2, the first Android 2.2 phone to come with the player pre-installed, I’m sad to admit that Steve Jobs was right. Adobe’s offering seems like it’s too little, too late.
The only thing that bothers me about this is that he's "sad" to admit it. What is it with some tech writers that make them hate to admit Jobs is right about anything? His track record is better than most tech pundits and analysts put together. (Update: See first comments from Scott below for an alternate take.)
Anyway, the article is an interesting read, with lots of crashing, sluggishness, and just plain non-functioning examples. The high points (if you want to call them that) are very few, leading to this conclusion:
Adobe needs to have a better answer to whether or not Flash is still relevant in a world where other technologies have rapidly started displacing it. Based on my early experience with Flash Player 10.1 for mobile, it could soon join the floppy drive in the tech graveyard, something else Steve Jobs helped kill.
As I said a couple days ago, Flash is just not practical for 20 out of 20 handset companies.
Analysts Report Apple Not Finished Releasing Products
Several analysts today claimed that Apple is not finished releasing products, and that the Cupertino company may have devices in the pipeline for release in the coming months and years.
According to Piper Jaffray analyst Gene Munster, new products could come as early as this year. “Apple’s iPhone has had a camera since the beginning, which is why I think a touch-based iPod shuffle is in the works.”
Citigroup’s Rich Gardner agrees. “MacBook Pros and iMacs are selling, and I think CPUs, graphics chips, and other stuff inside PCs is still being made, right? I believe Apple might update those products in the future.”
RBC Capital analyst Mike Abramsky is more bullish. “I think Apple may actually introduce something new, like they have countless times over the last decade, though I can’t say why I feel that way.”
Not everyone agrees with these reports, however. AmTech’s Shaw Wu is doubtful. “Apple has invented everything there is to invent. The Magic Trackpad is clearly the end of the line; what could possibly be left? From here on out they just coast.” He also noted that Apple will likely shut down its web site by the end of 2011.
Google's lax vetting allows almost any app in the Android market. Unscrupulous developers rejoice.
It collects a user’s browsing history, text messages, your phone’s SIM card number, subscriber identification, and even your voice mail password. It sends the data to a web site […] That site is evidently owned by someone in Shenzhen, China. The app has been downloaded anywhere from 1.1 million to 4.6 million times.
Though the research comes from a maker of Android security software, they've identified what the malicious app does and where the data is sent; the issue is real.
No vetting is perfect. Apple recently approved a flashlight app that housed a tethering application (though it harmed no users). But Apple shows concern about iPhone privacy. The excellent location services in iOS 4 are a great example. I appreciate the work they do on this.
For Android, we can and should excoriate the developers of this particular app, but we should also excoriate Google for barely trying to avoid this sort of thing.
So this is Android:
- Available apps with little curation, and security issues being exploited.
- Multiple OS releases and features that may or may not be coming to your particular hardware.
- Multiple devices from multiple vendors each having vendor-specific software/services (crapware).
- A real possibility that soon running security software will not only be prudent, but a foolish thing not to do.
Do these sound familiar? It's the Windows OS model of the 1990s. Android resembles it more every day.
Thoughts On Today's Ruling About "Legal" iPhone Jailbreaking [u]
First, Jailbreaking was never really illegal. If legality is what kept anyone from doing it I think they were misinformed. It was a gray area awaiting a ruling either way; Apple wanted the court to settle the question as to whether jailbreaking violated copyright, and they did, though not in Apple's way.
There is zero evidence to support Apple would have gone after individual jailbreakers (had the ruling gone the other way), any more than they go after one-off Hackintoshers.
I believe Apple wanted the shield of illegality not to go after geeks, hobbyists, etc., but rather to stop the unscrupulous who may now crawl out of the woodwork to make a quick buck on this.
I can practically see "Jailbreak Kits" for sale already. Their marketing copy gushing about how this once forbidden activity is now available to the general public. They'll publish a link to the Library of Congress statement that few will read and fewer will understand. They sure as heck won't dwell on the practice being unsupported, or that the next iOS release will likely kill it. Money in hand, they're off to the next sucker leaving their current "customers" yelling at Apple as if it's Apple's fault.
Finally, Apple will continue to "break" jailbreaks. Not only does the statement not mean Apple must allow the activity, but I believe every jailbreak so far relies on a security exploit. Of course Apple's going to plug that hole. They better.
[UPDATE:] See this excellent post for more information what today's copyright ruling really says.
Dear Apple: Only 235,000 Apps? Only 47,000 Developers? Your "Closed" Model Sucks.
Total Active Apps (currently available for download): 234,915 […]
Number of Active Publishers in the US App Store: 47,370
I'm surprised Apple hasn't shut that site down for regularly publishing Apple's shame.
Meanwhile, I'm certain Android's freewheeling, "open" (except for the native API, or Flash), look-the-other-way, Lord of the Flies approach to app development has resulted in numbers that embarrass Apple's.
Right?
And even if the numbers aren't quite as high, I'm sure Android apps are overall of a higher quality, and will run on a higher percentage of phones than Apple's.
Right?
And even if fragmentation is a bit more of an issue, I'm sure Android developers are raking in cash from the reported 160K activations (potential new customers) per day.
Right?
For shame, Apple. Don't you know "open" always wins?
Dear Apple: Please add decent mobile control over MobileMe photo galleries
As a MobileMe subscriber I enjoy using the Gallery for photos. I think the interface and options for viewing photos in the galleries is beautiful. However, every time I maintain the site I can't help but be frustrated at the lack of control Apple provides. The only real control comes via the Mac using iPhoto or Aperture. And even then, photos placed on the galleries have less utility than on the desktop.
The Mac
With Aperture or iPhoto you can create albums for upload and sync to MobileMe. You can add or delete photos and the albums stay in sync. You can add new albums, drag and drop photos between them, and any keywords or star ratings added to photos in a MobileMe album work just like any other album.
Unfortunately, once you get off the Mac some of this data is not used, and your ability to make changes are reduced drastically.
The Web
The Gallery interface for MobileMe on the web isn't too bad. Here you can add/delete albums. You also have some control over albums, but are missing the ability to set privacy or the download quality of the photos (see album settings below, MobileMe on top, iPhoto on bottom). These are important settings, yet they can't be controlled via the web interface.
As for photos, you can add/delete, rotate, and drag and drop them among existing albums. Not bad, but there are no other editing controls, no ratings, and no keywords. Further, even if ratings and keywords are used on the Mac, they're not available on the web interface. You know the keyword searches you can do in Flickr? Yeah, there's none of that in MobileMe.
The iPhone
On the iPhone it gets much worse. You cannot use the web interface, instead you're routed to a page that tells you to load Apple's Gallery app. The app is beautiful (below) and great for viewing pictures, but that's all it allows. There's no facility to edit information or change settings for albums or photos. There's no upload facility, and not even the ability to delete a photo from an album. Aside from viewing all you can do is email a link to a photo or album.
It should be noted that a picture viewed in the native Photos app can be uploaded to MobileMe, where you can select an existing album (but not add a new one) and a title/description. Again, no editing, deleting, ratings or keywords are allowed.
The iPad
Sadly, the iPad is the worst mobile device of all for controlling one's MobileMe galleries. Like the iPhone, you can't use the web interface and must download the Gallery app. But the Gallery app has not been upgraded for the iPad, so it's either very small or very ugly, take your pick.
The Upshot
In short, you have good control of galleries via your Mac, but some of that data isn't stored online, and when you leave the Mac you're limited. The Web interface is OK, but lacks privacy controls, and the iPhone/iPad have essentially no controls at all.
Apple ought to change this. The Gallery app could take some cues from Flickr's own app, which allows title, description, photoset (including adding a new one), tags, image size, geotag, and privacy level for each upload. Further, it allows editing an existing photo's title, description, photoset, tags and privacy. It also allows you to delete photos.
It's frustrating that real maintenance on my MobileMe galleries requires I get back to a Mac. Frankly, it takes the "mobile" out of MobileMe. It's no wonder I use Flickr more often.
Google: You Too Can Be A Developer In The Privacy Of Your Own Home
Not only is the Android Market an open platform for developers (with no approval process, ala the App Store), but now we’ll likely see a vast array of specialized apps built by non-developers. This could radically increase the volume of apps in the Market versus the App Store.
I've written about Google's seeming goal of getting mobile devices on the web instead of running local apps. I outlined some things that could keep Android app quality relatively low:
- Fragmentation - Minimal app compatibility, or a lowest common denominator app that can't take full advantage of a device.
- Lack of vetting - Lets weak apps through, including potential security risks.
- Flash support - Another way of encouraging lowest common denominator apps.
I wrote "In short, while appearing to do all they can to let as many apps be available as possible, they've created a platform to breed lower-quality, inconsistent apps"
If there was any doubt about Google's desire to have lots of apps while keeping the app experience relatively weak, their latest move should make it clear: they're letting anyone write apps.
Google's App Inventor is like a late-night informercial: "Why bother learning a language and coding techniques, now anyone can be a developer with the Develop-O-Matic." I can see the infomercial endorsements now: "I was skeptical, but I just followed the simple steps provided. As a programmer I make more money each month than I ever dreamed of, and was able to quit my job snaking toilets at Wal-Mart. If I can do it, so can you!"
With everybody and their little brother submitting apps there's little question Android's app count will make huge gains. It probably won't take long before the number exceeds Apple's App Store, which is something they're gunning for. And with weak "competition" of local apps like this, Google's web-based solutions will look that much better, which helps lead people right where Google wants them.
I have no issue with lots of web and local apps; let everyone decide what works best for them. But what I see is Google poisoning the well from which local apps are drawn. They don't appear to want a fair fight, and make local apps too difficult (their market place appears to be a mess), generic (soon to include Jr. Developer Kit apps), and risky (potential privacy or security issues) so web apps look far superior by comparison.
Google is completely open except when they're not
Like any company, Google is open in what doesn’t make them money and proprietary as heck in what does. Android is open (under the Apache license, not GPL — which should give the philosophical FOSSies pause) but Google certainly hasn’t opened their search or AdWords platforms. Likewise Apple open sources WebKit (which Google uses for their browser) and OpenCL and Grand Central and FaceTime, but keeps their crown jewels equally closed. So enough already with the open stuff. You give me free services so you can mine my data, I sell my soul to you to use them. Deal. Just don’t insult my intelligence while doing it.
Good article. It's not the lack of "open" in Google's business I take issue with—it's just a business model, and a successful one at that. No, it's bullSchmidt statements from their CEO that bug me because he's rarely called on it.
Perhaps, albeit slowly, more and more tech writers will catch on like the one above. The open-but-not-really vs. closed-via-tiny-wall argument detracts from the actual products anyway. Offer something great, not rhetoric.
