Of all the SDK limitations that Apple imposed on its new iPhone SDK, the one that seems to irk developers the most is the limitation on running background processes. While the ability to run in the background is a fundamental part of programming for Windows or Mac, Apple is trying to make the point that developing for the phone is quite different from developing for a PC. So here are 3 reasons why Apple made the right decision:
1) Its clear that mobile apps should conserve battery and bandwidth. There's an limited upside to multitasking on the phone.
2) Extending the API to include lifecycle management will make the iPhone API more complicated.
3) The network is the computer. Phone developers should make use of the communication protocols built into mobile networks such as SMS, inorder to send and receive notifications.
People are dwelling on #1 but #2 and #3 are more important. The only way to have a large number of high quality, bug-free apps is to have a simple API. Making developers responsible for suspending program execution and persisting program state is really going to increase the probability of bugs. As for communication protocols, it doesn't make sense for independent developers to re-implement them. Your typical GPRS/EDGE/UMTS mobile networks are not really packet-based transports, and designing communication protocols for these kinds of networks are difficult. Apple and the operator will have to standardize on a few communication protocols such as SMS or XMPP, like Google has done with Android.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Saturday, March 1, 2008
Will Apple's SDK come out before June?
At the Goldman Sachs symposium, Apple dropped more hints about the new iPhone SDK. As expected, Apple will control the distribution of commercial apps via the iTune store. Like I was musing in a previous post, this could be a good thing if it brings up the quality of apps. iLounge reported that they received an invitation to the March 6th event with the words "Entreprise", "SDK" and "Software update". Most likely the biggest problem will be the release schedule, a number of blogs are speculating that the full SDK will not be released until June. Given the nature of Apple, it certainly wouldn't suprise me. This means Apple's is pre-announcing the developer platform to divert attention from jailbreaking iPhones, much like Google did with open-social. It also means developers should be still be focused on webapps for the near future.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Developer satisfaction with Android continues to fall
Round 1 of the Android Contest isn't even over yet, and it seems developers already have plenty to gripe about. At first, it was the Android SDK and simulator, which was buggy and didn't include several important features. Google responded by releasing an updated SDK one month before the contest was to expire and extended the deadline of contest until April 14th. Now more cracks have begun to appear. Developers on the mailing list have been complaining about the lack of web-based submission system to track their entries. Comments ranged from disappointment to disbelief:
"Maybe google have no time for better support. Maybe they have no resources or idea for this at this time. But I work hard and hope, that we and our work will be treated seriously. "
"So... it seems Google is kind of "unprepared" for this contest... I would assume if Android is such a big deal in Google's mobile strategy, they'd be putting mountains of resources in it to
make sure it reaches the maximum potential"
It is pretty incredible for a company, whose business is to create webapps, not to have a web-based submission of their own for contests. Especially one as important as Android. This ought to be raising questions about Google's priorities considering it recently announced a competition for sending robots to the moon, with the total prize money being three times that of the Android prize.
"Maybe google have no time for better support. Maybe they have no resources or idea for this at this time. But I work hard and hope, that we and our work will be treated seriously. "
"So... it seems Google is kind of "unprepared" for this contest... I would assume if Android is such a big deal in Google's mobile strategy, they'd be putting mountains of resources in it to
make sure it reaches the maximum potential"
It is pretty incredible for a company, whose business is to create webapps, not to have a web-based submission of their own for contests. Especially one as important as Android. This ought to be raising questions about Google's priorities considering it recently announced a competition for sending robots to the moon, with the total prize money being three times that of the Android prize.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Should Apple sell 3rd party iPhone apps with ITunes
Wired is saying that apps for iPhones developed using Apple's official SDK will be sold on iTunes. Just like how iPod touch users can buy the 1.1.3 maps, emails apps from iTunes store. While there is no confirmation yet, if Apple goes ahead, it will position the iPhone app platform as a serious alternative to the Android platform. There are numerous benefits to developers:
1. Apps can make real money and not just pie-in-the sky advertising dollars (which is as low as $0.15 CPM for facebook apps).
2. Apple will create a directory for apps and possibly vet them for quality and trustworthiness. Conversely, this will mean that to succeed any app must be approved by Apple.
3. No stupid apps or app spam because people won't pay real money for them. Instead of contrived metrics like "number of daily active users", iTunes can use the number of paying customers and their average feedback. Smart developers will let users try their apps for free, and the willingness to pay is the best measure of quality.
4. Successful apps will be able to demonstrate their commercial potential and get funding to release on other platforms such as Android or Windows Mobile or J2Me. Android is offering prizes of $20,000 - $100,000 to developers, but winning a prize from a committee of technologists doesn't demonstrate market acceptance.
This could really be a huge development for the mobile industry. Up until now, a few games companies like Jamdat mobile has monopolized the development of games for cellphones, which imo range from the trivial to the infantile. Operators have been unwilling to sign deals with developers without the "right" pedigree and the "right" set of ideas. This is about openness and open markets succeeding where walled gardens and planned economies have failed
1. Apps can make real money and not just pie-in-the sky advertising dollars (which is as low as $0.15 CPM for facebook apps).
2. Apple will create a directory for apps and possibly vet them for quality and trustworthiness. Conversely, this will mean that to succeed any app must be approved by Apple.
3. No stupid apps or app spam because people won't pay real money for them. Instead of contrived metrics like "number of daily active users", iTunes can use the number of paying customers and their average feedback. Smart developers will let users try their apps for free, and the willingness to pay is the best measure of quality.
4. Successful apps will be able to demonstrate their commercial potential and get funding to release on other platforms such as Android or Windows Mobile or J2Me. Android is offering prizes of $20,000 - $100,000 to developers, but winning a prize from a committee of technologists doesn't demonstrate market acceptance.
This could really be a huge development for the mobile industry. Up until now, a few games companies like Jamdat mobile has monopolized the development of games for cellphones, which imo range from the trivial to the infantile. Operators have been unwilling to sign deals with developers without the "right" pedigree and the "right" set of ideas. This is about openness and open markets succeeding where walled gardens and planned economies have failed
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Mobile industry creating FUD around Android
As if sensing the threat of an open platform to their world of closed gardens, companies from the mobile space are trying to create FUD around the Android platform before it even launches. This from CNET, mobile security companies claim open Android and open iPhone will be a security threat. The claim that closed mobile operating systems like Symbian will be more secure than future open phones is a naked attempt to talk up their own business models in the 'mobile security' biz.
The irony is if Android or the iPhone platform turn out to be half as insecure as existing cellphones, then users will be well advised to turn off their bluetooth. There's plenty of bluetooth hacks floating out there in the wild. But its hard for users to gauge the threat of those bluetooth viruses, because until now cellphones have been closed and cellphone companies don't like to talk about bugs in their phones or offer patches.
Having open platform means security companies and developers can test the vulnerabilities of a platform and make Google or Apple to fix them. Open-ness doesn't mean that consumers will be able to trust and install every application that presents itself as benevolent. After all if anyone can write an app for Android, there will be spammers writing apps which steal your contacts or even worse. That is already scary enough; but take a look at existing mobile phones with their 'App Spam'. Like a cheap PC from a discount store, they often come preloaded with annoying and useless apps, and I can't even uninstall or replace them.
The irony is if Android or the iPhone platform turn out to be half as insecure as existing cellphones, then users will be well advised to turn off their bluetooth. There's plenty of bluetooth hacks floating out there in the wild. But its hard for users to gauge the threat of those bluetooth viruses, because until now cellphones have been closed and cellphone companies don't like to talk about bugs in their phones or offer patches.
Having open platform means security companies and developers can test the vulnerabilities of a platform and make Google or Apple to fix them. Open-ness doesn't mean that consumers will be able to trust and install every application that presents itself as benevolent. After all if anyone can write an app for Android, there will be spammers writing apps which steal your contacts or even worse. That is already scary enough; but take a look at existing mobile phones with their 'App Spam'. Like a cheap PC from a discount store, they often come preloaded with annoying and useless apps, and I can't even uninstall or replace them.
Yahoo acquisition by MSFT good for startups
The pundits commenting on the MSFT-Yahoo deal are missing one obvious reason why the deal is going to be good for startups and good for Silicon Valley: People still hate Microsoft and once the deal is completed, that just means startups will have a captive audience of 300 million users to poach
Facebook, MySpace Valuation
As per my last post, Google's missed earnings had led to questions about the revenue and valuation of social networks. Soon afterwards, Facebook revealed that it was targeting a revenue figure of $300 - $350 million this year with a EBITDA of $50 million. When Facebook raised money from Microsoft, their valuation was $15 billion giving the company a PE of nearly 300x.
Now, MySpace and Yahoo are in talks to merge, and supposedly Rupert Murdoch wants $6 - $10 billion for MySpace. Murdoch is a pretty shrewd dealmaker, so we assume thats the maximum he can squeeze out of this deal. But that means Facebook is worth 2-3x what Myspace is. Although Facebook is growing faster than MySpace, it still has only half as many users, and it's recent growth spurt has ended because of Facebook Beacon and because users are un-installing useless and annoying apps. (Also, note that Bebo is rumoured to be on sale for $1 billion) Its seems more likely, Facebook raised money at an inflated valuation and Microsoft should think twice about the value of their investment.
Now, MySpace and Yahoo are in talks to merge, and supposedly Rupert Murdoch wants $6 - $10 billion for MySpace. Murdoch is a pretty shrewd dealmaker, so we assume thats the maximum he can squeeze out of this deal. But that means Facebook is worth 2-3x what Myspace is. Although Facebook is growing faster than MySpace, it still has only half as many users, and it's recent growth spurt has ended because of Facebook Beacon and because users are un-installing useless and annoying apps. (Also, note that Bebo is rumoured to be on sale for $1 billion) Its seems more likely, Facebook raised money at an inflated valuation and Microsoft should think twice about the value of their investment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
