Linked by snydeq on Thu 5th Jan 2012 15:10 UTC
General Development Fatal Exception's Neil McAllister sees a glaring omission among the proposed plans for the new Application Developers Alliance for mobile app developers: any clear focus on easing cross-platform mobile development. 'Currently, the leading mobile operating systems are all vertically integrated "walled gardens," and developing versions of the same app for multiple platforms is both challenging and costly,' McAllister writes. 'That's where an organization like the Application Developers Alliance could help. By organizing app developers from all across the mobile OS market, it could act as a unified voice to put pressure on Apple, Google, and others to lower barriers to entry for their platforms. ... But as long as it's being underwritten by leading proponents of the status quo, it seems unlikely that the Application Developers Alliance would rock the boat by taking a stand against walled-garden-style mobile platforms.'
Thread beginning with comment 502278
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Make Paid Apps Portable, Now!
by curio on Thu 5th Jan 2012 19:04 UTC
Member since:

If all developers in the Application Developers Alliance were to agree to make choosing platforms simpler/cheaper by allowing their customers to move their paid Apps between iOS and Android etc.., they would greatly enhance their prospects for success in establishing some sane, cross platform common App solutions. So too, independent third party App's stores and/or an Alliance version should be encouraged and supported as viable alternatives to the growing list of platform specific App portals that are becoming ever more tightly locked-down by the day. Apple, Google, Amazon, B&N, ArchOS, etc, etc.... Even Microsoft is planning to go walled-garden for much of Windows 8's Metro software. With either the open or locked-in model, App's store fragmentation is inevitable. We might just as well choose to support the free-est version.

Reply Score: 2

Alfman Member since:

Well, if developers wanted to take the notion of portability seriously today (from a user point of view, not necessarily programming), and they WANT to differentiate themselves from others by selling fair-use apps licensed to run across all the user's devices without committing users to vendor lock, how could they do it?

Without the approval of the...uhm..curators, it seems like a lost cause.

Ideally, the government would step in and exclaim that users have a legal right to choose their own app distributors and vendors would have a responsibility to enable them to do so.

Then the various stores would have to compete on merit.

Edited 2012-01-05 20:23 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

curio Member since:

Just support the one's who play nice now. If iOS users can move to Android and keep all their Apps but Android users can't move to iOS with all their Apps because Apple refuses third party access, then Android obviously becomes a much better value. Starkly so. Developers should probably only allow this app portability to platforms that allow access to a/their open, yet curated community portal. This would likely break the lock-out. Do you think Apple will sit still for one-way portability if it isn't in their favor?

Unless the App developer community wants to continue to be treated like these walled-garden's bitches, they'd better figure out a way to join forces with a generic, community solution. App portability being made available to only those who play nice is an extremely big stick.

Also, make sure that this paid app portability works with all jail broken devices too. It'll be like getting paid to jail-break your iDevices.

Edited 2012-01-05 21:33 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2