There is an unfortunate climate of fear in the software community today. It is primarily in ephemeral video interviews and podcasts that we get any semblance of coherent criticism and even then it is reticent. Worse than the fact that this criticism is relegated to verbal discussions is that it is later renounced by the very same designers and developers when they are interviewed in the more permanent-seeming medium of the written word. In written interviews, these fair-weather critics go on to reverse their opinions and praise the products of modern minimalist UI design because it is more convenient not to risk questioning powerful industry leaders.
If there is just one article you read this month, let it be this one. Do not skip this.
Post a Comment
Member since:
2012-07-27
There isn't a really a wide understanding that the main contribution made by Apple Computer to the technological world wasn't hardware nor software but a book: "Human Interface Guidelines" for the original Macintosh. Apple Inc. is pissing on Apple Computer since the Mac Os 9 funeral.
So we have to understand that the decline in software and interface excellence began long time ago. iOs 4 and 5 era was just a short bright point that foolish a huge amount of users ( including myself ) with no good evolution.
Edited 2015-03-25 01:53 UTC
Member since:
2011-01-28
All in all, I agree it's a good article.
Member since:2013-02-27
Member since:2008-09-11
Member since:2006-02-14
I have developed an app for iOS and Android simultaneaously, and I started the distribution process on the same time. Guess what, it is already 10 days available in the Play Store, but nothing in the App Store. The procedure for releasing, testing and publishing iOS apps is a real nightmare for the developer. The whole process is over engineered. With Google it is 10 times easier and 10 times faster
Edited 2015-03-25 10:44 UTC
Member since:2008-09-11
Member since:2006-01-25
All in all, I agree it's a good article. "
I agree too. But I would point out that a tiny percentage of people making a fortune and most everyone else getting next to nothing is the textbook definition of "gold rush". That is exactly what the gold rush was and is why it was called that...
Member since:
2013-02-27
Member since:
2005-07-12
Member since:2005-07-10
Member since:
2014-01-08
Member since:
2008-09-11
Member since:2009-12-05
Member since:2013-01-05
Yes, I'm convinced there is no great problem with Apple's software. It has flaws of course, just like Windows or Linux. Whether those flaws are worse or not will depend on your needs.
The perception that Apple has developed a major software problem is really just that people who were invested in the idea that Everything Apple Does Is Right are now coming back down to Earth and recognizing that Apple has shortcomings like any other company. Not a revelation to rational people, but for the True Believers, it's devastating.
Member since:
2008-09-11
I believe that all people seeing a parallel between Mac OS (OS X)/Windows and iOS/Android situations are right.
In maybe 10 years iPhone will have a few percents of market share while Android will climb to over 90%. You can't beat a combo of hardware that anyone can make and software that anyoane can install with locked platforms.
Member since:
2005-11-10
Member since:2010-09-23
[quote]I'd like to see Mac houses switch to making Linux apps.[/quote]
In Linux those are called programs, just like they used to be on OSX and Windows before those added appstores. Do you mean Android apps, or are you really talking about Linux?
[quote]Despite the appearance, Linux users will pay for quality apps -- and more on average than Windows/Mac users.[/quote]The only evidence I have ever seen for that used to be some Humble Bundles and even there it is often not the case. All other evidence points to "nope, people don't like paying for Linux software". Most people don't even understand the difference between Linux, Open Source, Gratis and Free.
And even if Linux users would pay the same as Mac users, why would "Mac houses" switch to making Linux programs? Mac is basically 1 target platform with 5-10 times the amount of users that Linux has while Linux is lots of platforms resulting in much higher support costs
Member since:2005-07-20
Member since:2005-11-15
Member since:2006-01-14
First, on every regular Humble Bundle that contains linux games, Linux always averages more per buy than Windows or OS X. And even if software is free, a lot of users donate to software they like to help keep it going. Otherwise, no one would ever pay more than $.25 for a humble bundle.
Second, why act like its any more difficult to write software for Linux than any other OS? And yes, a Gnome 2.16 app will still run on modern linux. Gedit only recently moved to gtk3.....
Member since:2006-03-14
Second, why act like its any more difficult to write software for Linux than any other OS? And yes, a Gnome 2.16 app will still run on modern linux. Gedit only recently moved to gtk3.....
Charity-ware then?
It's not buying if you don't have to pay the "price".
Member since:2009-03-17
Member since:2005-07-06
Other than increasing the developer base on Linux, is there any reason for this?
As far as I can tell the applications available for Mac is not particularly interesting. It's either cross platform stuff/applications also available on other platforms, or competing applications delivering the same functionality(and often more) for the other platforms.
Is there anything like "killer" applications on the Mac, e.g. an applications that by it's existence makes a great initiative to switch to Mac?
Edited 2015-03-25 21:56 UTC
Member since:2006-05-30
Member since:2006-01-14
I will concede your point, but it would be exactly the same if I started on Windows and went to Linux and OS X or started on OS X and went to Windows and Linux. There are pains porting things, but they exist in all directions except for a very few combinations. Even Java, designed to write once and run everywhere, doesn't work smoothly.
Member since:2006-10-28
I suspect that would only be true only to a point. Once the Linux market becomes saturated with paid applications and users are overwhelmed with choices profits will go down for anyone that doesn't have a top rated application or game.
Also Linux users are accustomed to getting basic system utilities and a reasonably high quality base set of applications (video and media playback, office, and web) for free. Unless your application is really good, it would need to be outside those categories and non-trivial to re-implement as FOSS.
Member since:2006-01-14
Also Linux users are accustomed to getting basic system utilities and a reasonably high quality base set of applications (video and media playback, office, and web) for free. Unless your application is really good, it would need to be outside those categories and non-trivial to re-implement as FOSS.
And pretty much any software you may want is also free on Windows, or did you forget about that. I can't name, out side of games, the last piece of software I HAD to buy. And that's on the WIndows side. Most common apps just are free these days.
Member since:2006-10-28
Okay I think I may not have been fully understood so here is an expanded comment to try to make what I am thinking clearer... I hope.
The Windows ecosystem is a mature market where "the market became saturated with paid applications and users are overwhelmed with choices". Not a great market for new developers... However, obviously it is a much bigger market that can support more professional developers. Windows users as a whole are not fully aware of FOSS and free software, because much of what is easily found for download on window comes with strings attached I.E. trialware and malware. (thanks cnet)
The issue for smaller developers is competing with big companies who can put boxes on shelves at Wal-mart, afford lots of marketing, or put a trial out for free and hope people buy a full version etc.
In the beginning smart phones were a new market and the small developers rushed in and made small fortunes. The consumers were willing to pay for even relatively simple applications as there was little competition for their money.
The only good reason to develop for Linux at this point is there is an unfulfilled demand in some application categories. Most notably games. But if there were a large rush to Linux, a much smaller consumer market than Windows, Apple, or Phones then saturation likely would not take that long. Right now things are trickling in at a good rate. Games are getting ported and the market seems to be able to pay for the current rate of development. Perhaps a higher rate of development could be supported, but I don't think Linux could support a consumer development "rush".
Edited 2015-03-27 20:10 UTC
Member since:2006-01-14
matthekc,
I understand what you are saying. This thread having stretched over days left me somewhat confused on points. We started mainly talking about mobile apps. Mobile apps and desktop apps are really different creatures and they behave differently. I personally see no problem selling desktop software for Linux versus OS X or Windows. On the mobile side, Linux I think will be the clear winner. As iOS races to the bottom, Linux can take advantage of something that iOS and Android don't. Community contributions. You aren't going to make a ton of money off your mobile app. But if it integrates with the desktop app you sell, it will help sell your product or service. Look at Box.com: an all linux based company, its the service you are paying for, not the technology and software.
Edited 2015-03-28 05:50 UTC
Member since:2006-10-28
The OP was I assumed talking about small independent developers who want to make money. I think at least some of the people who rushed into the phone marketplace wanted to make some money. I agree that most of the mature markets don't seem to be good for small developers.
I think it will interesting to see if hobby development as a career bullet point becomes the norm or how we will fund continued software development in the industry. Especially as the mature FOSS products become the leaders in more software categories. I love FOSS and support it, sometimes with donations, as developers have to eat and live too.
Member since:
2006-03-14
The article likes to make broad brush generalisations which are ipso facto true, but ultimately worthless.
For instance, asserting that apps are largely obscure is prima facie true. There are 1.3 million (and counting) apps in the app store. There is no world in which a majority of those apps were ever going to be successes, let alone nearly all of them. When you have 1.3 million things to pick from, each of those is going to be obscure. Yes, the number of really successful apps is going to number in the low thousands, and "nearly all" apps are going to be failures, particularly from a revenue perspective.
Apple's featured page is very limited real estate. Of course any app that is featured there is going to see an uptick in interest. It is not Apple's job to help app writers maintain interest in the apps once it leaves the featured page. In fact, the app store is a poor discovery medium. As a developer, you should advertise your app heavily outside the app store to generate and maintain the interest. There is a reason why I keep seeing ads for Boom beach on TV. The developers aren't waiting to be featured on the featured page. They aren't waiting on the benevolence of Apple to make bank.
On the App review process, I am sure much has been written about the good and the bad that comes from it. Apple has to try and make sure apps are behaving correctly, in part to avoid future problems. For example, if apps use undocumented APIs, this might constrain Apple's ability to possibly alter and remove those APIs without causing their users real issues. Yes, any process that is staffed by humans is going to experience human failings. But that is no different to businesses in any other walk of life really.
Edited 2015-03-25 12:23 UTC
Member since:
2012-06-20
Apple is still in business?
They should be gone soon, that closed ecosystem will never attract any users. Sheeps all of them. Fruit computers are toys.
Sincerely
Common wisdom,
1984.... 1988... 1991... 1995... 1999... 2002... 2007... 2010
or, put like Kimmy from Unbreakable when seeing an iPhone for the first time (in 2015) - "Oh my god this is a macintosh?"
Member since:2005-09-21
Member since:2006-01-10
They should be gone soon, that closed ecosystem will never attract any users. Sheeps all of them. Fruit computers are toys.
Sincerely
Common wisdom,
1984.... 1988... 1991... 1995... 1999... 2002... 2007... 2010
Apple are an anomaly, but I believe their long term prospects aren't rosy, as a computer company at least - they have an enormous amount of cash and I do see them hanging around for a long time manufacturing something or other. Companies have highs and lows and Apple are a prime example.
The computer market has consistently consolidated from the myriad of platforms we used to have at the beginning of the microcomputer explosion.
Apple sells glorified PCs(after trying to "Think Different" with PowerPC) and is only marginally different from many other computer manufacturers. I believe the consolidation will continue and Apple, as a relatively minor player in the computer market will become less and less relevant(even if we include phones their worldwide share is already quite small compared to Android).
So, although you were being sarcastic, and I do see Apple hanging around for a long time, I believe the laws of platform consolidation in the tech market will catch up with them sooner or later.
Member since:2006-10-28
I think that is why they and the other major players are working so hard to create and ecosystem of services and devices that are connected. One it makes it harder to switch platforms and two it does add value to the platform when all the programs and devices play together nice.
Member since:
2009-08-22
A quote from the linked story.
But after Arment's article made its rounds in the news cycle, he updated it with a label that reads "I regret having published this." He continued, "I should feel good about this, but I don't. I inadvertently caused a shitstorm of negativity, and it feels horrible." He asked with an existential tone, "Is that really what I want to be known for?" For him, "It’s not worth it." For measured critique to not be worth it, there must be some justification for why developers would hold their tongues.
Marco Arment's response.
I’ve heard from quite a few people who think my Functional High Ground article and my regretful follow-up indicate that I’m censoring myself for Apple’s benefit, afraid of getting on their bad side. This is a profound misinterpretation and misrepresentation of what I actually wrote and feel.
As anyone who’s read my site and listened to our podcast for a while would know, I criticize Apple all the time. A developer’s view of their computing platform and software distribution partner is like any developer’s view of their programming language of choice: if you don’t think there are any major shortcomings, you just don’t know it well enough yet.
No sensible developer should be worried about angering “Apple” by fairly expressing legitimate criticism.
There is no single “Apple” to anger, as the company comprises thousands of people across many different departments, all of whom can think for themselves. I’m sure some of them can’t take criticism well and may be vindictive — any large group of people will contain almost every personality type — but that’s not the attitude of any of the Apple people I’ve interacted with.
Quite the contrary, actually: every Apple employee I’ve spoken with has not only been receptive of criticism, but has practically begged for honest feedback from developers. The idea that you’d be penalized in the App Store for being critical of Apple on your blog is ridiculous and untrue.
Full response by Marco is here
http://www.marco.org/2015/03/25/censoring-myself-for-apple
Member since:
2005-07-06