Ted Landau complaining about Steve Jobs’s responses to Ryan Tate, taking issue with Jobs comment that “There are almost 200,000 apps in the App Store, so something must be going alright.”
“More to the point, suppose there was a car that offered excellent reliability and 100 MPG. With these admirable characteristics, the car becomes very popular, deservedly so. But suppose people complained that the car had practically no trunk space or that visibility from the rear view mirror was very poor. What if the company’s only response to such complaints was: ‘Our car is the number seller in its class. We must be doing something right.’ Would you consider this an appropriate and sufficient response? I hope not.”
I’m sorry, but that’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard. If the car had the problems he’s saying it had (poor visibility and no trunk space) it would never have become so very popular as he describes. On the one hand he’s arguing that the App store should be free and open and follow the market principles of letting the customer decide, then he presents an argument against judging a product on its success in the market. You can’t have it both ways.
I think Ted’s problem, like that of many analysts/bloggers/journalists/geeks etc on the issue is that they’re confusing fundamental flaws with not liking something. People like Ted don’t like the closed nature of the App store, but that doesn’t mean it’s fundamentally flawed, or a lack of choice. If it was fundamentally flawed it wouldn’t be a success because people would have chosen to buy something else. That success been determined by the market you so desperately want to preserve the freedom of.
These people are constantly decrying the failures of Apple for not giving customers/developers etc a choice, but they have been given a choice. The iPhone is certainly not the only phone around, and by now everyone who cares knows what the limits are. They just don’t care. They’ve made their choice and made it by the millions. You can’t argue that you want the customer to be able to choose and then not agree with the results.
What I find fascinating about all these anti-apple rants lately is that people are arguing about what the company is doing wrong as if it was a failing company desperately in need of direction. It seems that a whole hoard of Apple commenters are still stuck in the nineties era of Apple being on the brink of collapse and that they still know better. Apple though is a huge success. It’s products are a huge success. It seems to me that it’s the only highly successful company out there that people still argue that its business model is massively flawed. The company constantly breaks every record, constantly makes huge profit after huge profit and yet somehow its devilish ways are so evil that there’s no way anyone would buy anything from them if they had a choice. They do, they have, get over it.
People are arguing for choice. They don’t want you to have choice, they want their choice. There’s a big difference.
No related posts.
Subscribe To RSS feed
game. set. match.
You make a great argument.
Good one!
This is the same conundrum Microsoft fell into. Consumers chose Microsoft because they wanted the same as they use at work. Now consumers want more, but if Microsoft adapts to consumers then it won’t be the same anymore. Microsoft’s “hands” are tied by IT.
Excellent post, Thomas. I replied to Ted and I couldn’t even follow what he was asking. If he was asking for something. It sounded like a little child wanting his way yet not sure what he was asking for.
The critics of Apple have a choice: go somewhere else. It’s the easiest method of avoiding Apple and getting on with your life. I choose to like Apple, as a Mac user for 22 years and an iPhone user. I like the “walled garden” approach, and the vast majority of iPhone users must agree, and I doubt they even think about it when there are 200K apps available.
Apple was a dog to kick in the ’90s, and now they are on top. People hate Apple when they are bleeding money or raking it in. That’s the real issue: some people just don’t like Apple no matter what.
Choice is a funny thing. Far too many people ‘want it all’ and the consequences be damned. For example, you can have that Porche 911 Turbo, but when your wife becomes pregnant, you’ll probably have to get rid of it and get a car that seats three and is a bit safer for the baby. You can drain that marshland so the cattle will have more land to graze, but you’ll kill off 90% of the indigenous birds.
The same goes for computers. You can have that tablet computer that runs Windows 7, has upgradable RAM and hard drives, and a slew of ports but you’ll give up simplicity and battery life.
We all make choices, every day. Some good. Some not so good. It is a testimony to Apple that the choices that they’ve made have had such a lasting impact on so many lives.
This is not about choice; it is about control. Who will be in control of what is sold in the App store?
Tate wants that he be in control; Steve jobs disagrees. Since the App store was created and is owned by Apple; it seems a given that Apple will be in charge. Apple is no danger of losing developers; therefore it can demand an end to cross platform Apps. It can also place any limits on the Apps which it thinks is appropriate.
What is your response, Tate? Will you refuse to develop for the iPhone? Will Apple care?
What many people forget is how new the App store is; it is still a work in process. I believe that Steve has big plans for the App store which he is not yet ready to reveal.
The Toyota Camry is a huge seller despite being slow, mushy, and mundanely styled. It has neither what I would consider an appropriate level of handling nor is does it have the level of horsepower or torque which I desire (though I am by no means one who requires a Lamborghini to be happy).
I would not, in short, drive this vehicle even though the vast majority of Americans seem to prefer it. That is in no way an indictment of those who do; it is simply not my preference.
For Toyota to say “suck it, you. It’s good enough” would be the height of folly.
Apple is not telling me that I must purchase one particular vehicle so much as it is refusing to sell me one (or more) particular type(s). This is a pretty big distinction.
Toyota is not the only manufacturer. If I don’t want to buy a Camry and they don’t make anything I like, I can get a Ford, Fiat, Mazda, or Holden.
A more appropriate comparison would be with Nintendo and their software walled garden. They license and allow Intellectual property within their frameworks. It almost killed them, but it’s also what sets them apart today.
I suspect that the people are most vocal against Apple are so vocal because they are jealous — they want an iPhone and iPad so badly, but Apple’s approach offends them, so they refuse it. Then they whine and complain!
I might as well whine and complain that the Ferrari I want is too expensive and that’s unfair and unopen and unethical, etc. It is what it is. Either accept and take the good with the bad or go find a different product.
Excellent post, and I have only one thing to comment on:
“…by now everyone who cares knows what the limits are. They just don’t care. They’ve made their choice and made it by the millions.”
It’s true, they have. However — and I don’t know if this is a product of the “Me Generation” or what — many people are indeed buying a device that they KNOW doesn’t do certain things they want it to, and are then lashing out from a false sense of entitlement. They’ve already passed their decision-point, yet now they feel they have some kind of leverage to whine some changes into existence? It’s amazing, and it’s sad. All it would have taken was a bit of integrity and freakin’ _gumption_ (now there’s a word you just never hear anymore) to pick the device that wouldn’t have disappointed them so. But, turns out, false entitlement is far easier to muster than integrity these days.
just replace “Apple in 2000′s” with “Microsoft in 1990′s”, and you can argue all you say you can’t
also, windows was/is the most successful, but anybody (and especially someone like you) would probably argue it was deeply flawed, at least in some respects (like “poor visibility and no trunk space”)
Someone like me?
Okay….
Yes but I’ve chosen not to buy Windows. That is my choice. It’s a big difference from complaining that you’re forced to buy something. People are arguing that Apple isn’t giving them a choice – Apple is the choice.
At the beginning of a new technology (or anything actually), consumers have a simple choice. You either buy it because it satisfies a basic need and lack of competition forces you to put up with whatever idiosyncratic annoyances it has. Or you don’t buy it.
Then when the market matures and competitors enter the fray, consumers now have a choice and the best (not first) to market is going to win.
As Don Norman says in his book The Invisible Computer, “When technology delivers basic needs, User Experience dominates”.
You better believe it.
I myself feel that while not fatal, the closed nature is a flaw. Consider that one of the selling points of an iPhone or iPad are the apps. Apple wants developers for their platform, but at the same time they don’t seem to consider their needs when making policy.
I’m by no means an Apple hater. I’m typing this on an iPad with an iPhone and MacBook pro on the nightstand beside me. I like their products; I criticize them because I’d like to like them even more.
consider dev needs? hmm. so are the majority of apple developers unhappy? do they not wish to be creating their apps for the iphone?
as a consumer, im pretty happy w/ the state of my apps. i like what they do, and i dont mind paying for them. id bet that my developers like cashing the checks, too.
There are quite a few things I’d like to be able to do with my iPad or iPhone that I can’t because the apps aren’t approved. I’d like wireless syncing, I’d like a central file system where I can share PDFs between applications without resorting to the sloppy work around of e-mailing them to myself, bluetooth file transfers, and a wider variety of games that would exist if it were easier for developers to port code between platforms.
Like I said, I don’t dislike their products. I just think they could be even better.
I don’t know enough about the iPhone/iPad development community to have an accurate feel for their opinions on Apple. Taking into account historic sentiment surrounding development for other platforms though, I don’t think it’s a stretch to assume a good number of them are there mostly because it’s where the money is and not necessarily because they genuinely want to develop for it using the tools and methods provided.
this is a buffoonish misrepresentation of landau’s argument.
landau basically asked for no more or less than permission to install apps on his phone w/o having to have them blessed by apple corporate.
he didn’t predict doom if this didn’t happen, he just called steve jobs a troll for arguing how he did.
We all heard off hotrods, and they were definitely some of the best US cars there ever were. So if you want to bust open the “wall garden”, just jail break your iPhone. What? you also want Apple to sanction your jailbreak apps? And to keep the warranty on your hot rod?
Stop whining, get to it and write that app for the jail broken iPhone.
I don’t think Ted is being unreasonable – he’s saying that just because something is successful, doesn’t mean it’s beyond criticism.
At no point did he go into ‘Apple doomed to fail’ mantra.
What he’s talking about is whether it’s right for Apple to exercise the control they are doing on the iPhone app marketplace, while they are the only marketplace.
When it comes to music or eBooks, this isn’t an issue – there are alternative retailers, without having to buy different hardware.
My view – Apple can have whatever retail policy they like in the App store, music store, etc – but that needs to be clearly separated from the platform.
I find that Ted’s car metaphor fits this situation perfectly, as was clearly highlighted in the post above. And any attempt to indicate that simple consumer choice will prove a point is sheer folly. It is perfectly valid for people who choose a product can dream of a better one, name me one person (iPhone or not) that does not have ideas and improvements for their phone. We all make both choices and compromises in our buying decisions, and with the iPhone most consumers who purchased it were fully aware of the closed nature of the app store, and what’s more they were perfectly happy, because for such a beautiful device it is a small price to pay. I know, because I was one of these people!
However, the one difference in this case is that the consumers could not have predicted how Apple would police their App Store. Saying there are hundreds of thousands of apps is all well and good for adverts, but not to me when they are denying whole classes of applications that I desire. If this policy was set out in writing at the start, detailing who they have made deals with, what apps will not be allowed, and those that will, then I believe nobody could complain. However, we are in the horrible positon that the devices we bought, which had so much promise, are now less valuable to us, due to the barbaric and in many cases anti-competitive app store policies. If I would have known about these approval policies, and how they would change (removing adult content, banning ‘edgy’ cartoons, blocking VOIP application, and how Apple’s corporate wars with other companies like Adobe and Google would restrict my the platform further, then you can bet I would never have ‘choose’ this device.
I understand Apple wishes to control every aspect of the device, from both a quality and (i suspect primarily) commercial standpoint, and that their high standards can keep consumers returning despite these restrictions. But you must be able to see how this unpredictable policy can shake the confidence in the whole approval process, will I wake up tomorrow to find out all Google applications are gone, or all magazines that are not child safe?
It is not that people are misunderstanding what Apple is doing, everyone can see it clearly, and although we have no legal right to be so judgemental with them, it still hurts us. And it hurts all the more simply because it is Apple, the company that can design anything to make you fall in love with it, and the company that once used to ‘think different’. Well, unfortunately those days seem to be gone, and different will get you punished in the app store, and they are doing it again with their advertising platform…
yes, it is *exactly* that people are misunderstanding what Apple is doing – at least judging by your post. you “suspect” that apple is trying to protect its commercial interests, as if this was an ulterior motive. to the contract, apple has stated quite clearly (jobs said so himself) that they are protecting their product investment, which in turn equates to higher revenue. thats his job.
id hardly call their app store policies “barbaric” as you do. go to the Darfur if you want to see barbaric atrocities. not the app store.
and the ban on adult content was stated from the very beginning.
so im curious — will you vote w/ your feet and drop your iphone? if not, whats stopping you?
“from both a quality and (i suspect primarily) commercial standpoint” will, the two are the same. only by protecting their platform investment — by ensuring quality — can they maintain commercial success; or so goes their thinking anyway. this is not a secret and steve has said it plainly. thus he’s doing his job, and i think the shareholders are pleased.
as to adult app content, it was prohibited from the start, so im not sure whats changed for you on that front.
as for “barbaric” app store policies – please. the atrocities of the Darfur are barbaric. app stores are not.
If you think about it, that car that gets 100mpg and handles like a dream probably has those characteristics BECAUSE OF poor visibility (comes with good aerodynamics) and a tiny trunk (ditto and also due to huge emphasis on weight reduction).
Maybe the right way of saying it is that it wouldn’t be iPhone or iPad without the closed ecosystem.
In the mean time, honestly, can you name a marketplace of applications that is even close to the vibrant, incredible universe of iPhone/iPod Touch/iPad apps?
Yes, there are boundaries, and I’ve run up against them a time or two. Avoid sex and politics, show respect to their guidelines, and your app will be approved.
But those guidelines are there for comprehensible reasons. Apple does not want to get tangled in political disputes, and it would lose all the kids if porn was supported.
Above all, Apple’s guidelines and approval process ensure that there won’t be a “Bank of America” application that will send your bank account information to Chinese hackers who will use it to order a dozen iPads from the online Apple store.
Because I know apps are safe, I download them in surprisingly large numbers. And that makes the marketplace vibrant and profitable. I think this is a big reason why the Apple app store is far more profitable for developers than Android. People trust Apple, and so far Apple has acted honestly and honorably in all their business dealings with customers and app vendors.
Apple is imperfect. The App Store is imperfect. We are all imperfect people. But I can say the App Store is closer to greatness than any similar effort I’ve seen.
D
People, the super-popular 100mpg car with bad visibility is a terrible argument, as it’s essentially a straw man: set up an extremely contrived set of circumstances that supposedly represent the point of view you’re arguing against, and make it super-easy to knock that contrived argument on its ass. It’s a weak debating tactic at best.
So, why is it that the whole world feels that Apple is doing wrong by controlling what Apps can run on the iPhone?
It seems like a presumption that this is a huge mistake, and that its hurting iPhone sales. What if that is not true, but in fact, helping sales?
Android, and WebOS have been around for a while (and available to larger number of mobile customers in the US), yet the iPhone is comfortably outselling them (well, the Android narrowly edged it in the last quarter, but if 3 major releases on 4 carriers, compared to the quarter before the one everyone knows precedes a refresh, can get Android parity, based on BOGO schemes, then thats a net win for Apple, IMO).
While I do believe the closed nature is hurting sales, I think I would possibly trust Apple in this regard. Especially since there is literally no evidence proving them wrong, and much proving them right (higher sales, higher spending per user, higher downloads per user, higher revenues per developer, more developers, more apps, and many more businesses sustaining themselves solely of the App Store).
All the people who are taking Ted’s side of the argument still can’t answer the simple question – who ever said you *must* buy, or even just like, an iPhone, iPad, or any Apple product? It is a *choice* you can make. What we see from your side is nothing more than a taking out your inner emotional conflict in the open, which, with all due respect, just makes you look childish.
Make up your mind, people. Make a decision like an adult person. Compare aspects that are positive for you with the ones that bother you. If the positive ones are stronger, choose Apple. If not, don’t. If it’s a tie, go on a nice holiday or something, anything really to get your heads clear.
In any case, please stop whining and complaining. Or do you want to be the people responsible for fueling the image of the “nerdy, awkward IT guy” in the public opinion?
fascists tell you what you’re given is more than you deserve.
other people look at the options and think of improvements, BECAUSE they love it.
where would computers have got if enthusiastic users never asked for more?
where are you, bernd. maybe it’s the same place.
but people are not ASKING, they are demanding, and claiming that they are harmed by Apple’s not aquiescing to their demands.
And you make th same mistake: the iPhone/iPad is not “computers”, but “dell”.
And I claim Godwin’s Law for the win.
“But suppose people complained that the car had practically no trunk space or that visibility from the rear view mirror was very poor.”
- this describes almost all Super cars! No-one complains much about them after they bought one – though they don’t do 100MPG…
Most Anti-Apple rants are there to get “Air time” and what’s funny, is they probably own an iPhone and (secretly) love it.
Thomas, did you even read Ted’s article? You’re building a straw man here.
Ted isn’t arguing that it’s a fundamental flaw. He’s simply saying that it’s something that he doesn’t like. As such, he would like for the arguments about the App Store to be based on the merits or otherwise of the App Store, not blunt general arguments about the popularity of the iPhone, which arguments are just distractions from the specific discussion about the App Store.
As he says, he’ll happily agree that the iPhone is the best in class and is willing to hear arguments that actually relate to the App Store itself, rather than blunt irrelevant defences.
I think you should try actually reading the article you’re attempting to respond to before posting diatribes such as this in future, it makes you look silly
I don’t believe I was building a straw man argument as I was taking issue with his specific analogy, however I do agree that I did misappropriate wider issues to Ted’s views which was bad writing on my part. I’ve followed up and explained how I jumped to some of those conclusions here: http://www.thomas-fitzgerald.net/2010/05/20/ted-responds-i-respond-back/