Is Apple Going to iApp Itself Into Irrelevancy?
It started with iTunes. In one fell swoop mp3 players on the Mac had been deemed irrelevant. Goodbye Audion. So long SoundJam (which Apple actually acquired).
And then there was the case of Watson. Outwitted by Apple, web search services is back in Sherlock’s hands. Bye Bye Watson. It seems that Apple announces another software category killer every couple of months. The fine folks over at Extensis can’t be too happy about FontBook (especially since they just acquired Diamond Soft’s Font Reserve.
Soundtrack, iChat, Address Book, iCal. The list literally goes on and on. We’ve gotten so used to the applications that it is quite astounding when you look at the current software picture on the Mac desktop.
And then there is Safari.
All this homegrown development by Apple is cause for concern on two fronts. One, irritating other software companies could wreak havoc on the Mac platform if those companies decided to retaliate by discontinuing their product development for the Mac. Two, monopoly does not equal innovation (just look at Microsoft for example); by having no competition within particular a software category Mac users are missing out on the innovation bourn from competition.
Let’s look at the irritation factor first. Pissing off small publishers like Karelia is one thing but pissing off Microsoft is like playing with fire. Microsoft could look at Apple and say, ok, you have killed IE for the mac (and thereby ensuring that at least 5 percent of the market will be non-IE users), you have killed Microsoft’s chat program by going with the AOL protocol and iChat, and you are going after PowerPoint with Keynote, and then there is Quicktime, not to mention the gall of the whole switch campaign so lets see what we can do to you. Just like Microsoft announced they are discontinuing development of IE for the Mac they could shut down Office. Suddenly the Mac is looking more an more like a Linux desktop box, powerful on its own, but unable to play nice in corporate America.
Another big player is Adobe. Apple has essentially killed the high-end video editing market for Adobe with Final Cut Pro (and the low-end market with iMovie). Now they are offering a trade in program for Premiere. Imagine if Adobe were to turn around and say, ok, Apple just cancelled our market for a high-end video editor on the Mac, let’s release Photoshop, Illustrator, GoLive, Acrobat, etc for Windows only. Devastating.
This infighting is one cause for concern. Perhaps a greater concern is the death of innovation that comes with a monopoly. Don’t like Apple’s application? Tough. Instead of multiple companies figuring out how to make a product better (whether it be an mp3 player, video editing program, or browser) we are stuck with Apple’s vision (unless we want to buy a Windows box). I have a lot of music, so much that until iTunes 4 came out I couldn’t have all the songs in my iTunes 3 library. The amount of songs I have (over the 32 thousand) exceeded the capacity of iTunes 3. In vain I searched for mp3 players that are still out there and couldn’t find one that could do all I needed it to do. Most of the players were made by software hobbyists (which is fine). Luckily iTunes 4 rectified the situation, but what if it didn’t? What if the problem I had was something that I was doing for a living? A feature that wasn’t available in Final Cut Pro but was available in Premiere (for Windows?)
These two factors, fighting with other software companies and the lack of innovation, could slowly bleed Apple to death. As developers see that innovation like Watson is rewarded with a swift slap in the face from Sherlock we Apple users will end up with only one choice, which isn’t really a choice at all. What do you think? Is Apple at risk of iApping itself to irrelevancy?
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Slashdot
StumbleUpon
Comments
First, there’s no “monopoly” on the apple side. Apple competes against the wintel solutions. People compare final cut pro to whatever’s available on the windows side. Apple knows this and has to make FCP better.
Same with iTunes, iPhoto, iMovie, iDVD. These programs are all outstanding already, collectively far far better than the “equivalents” on the windows side. But apple competes against those. If the iApps aren’t better, that’s one less reason to buy a mac. If apple slacks off and wintel catches up, every reporter out there will dutifully report to the windows masses that the iApps are no better than what’s available for the PC and there won’t be any switching.
Apple’s programs, and the overall mac experience including those programs, have to be better or apple dies. This is not a “monopoly” situation where lack of competition exists. There’s massive competition for apple - the whole frickin wintel juggernaut. This competition is so vigorous it almost killed apple.
Second, many 3d party developers don’t care about apple. They neglect us, and produce a lot of dreck for which they overcharge for upgrades. All they do is (1) port everything to windows and make sure they work the exact same or worse on the mac, but no better, thereby removing any reason to own a mac; and (2) drag their feet in implementing new mac technologies, again because they are producing a “least common denominator” cross platform program.
Apple is right on track. Sure, it’s risky and difficult and frought with danger, but is anything worthwhile easy?
I do think that Apple is walking a fine line here, although I think it’s a sad statement on competition in the software industry that companies just don’t want to compete. Apple makes good software and that should drive even better software from other companies, but they just give up. Same is true to some extent in the Windows world (but they benefit from MS’ less-capable products for the most part).
However, Apple should open-source their apps. They don’t make much money from them and this would drive sales of their hardware, which they really care about. If they open-sourced iTunes, iCal, etc. we’d get more innovation faster, more developers would be interested in developing these apps, etc.
It wouldn’t necessarily create more competition in the Mac world, but that’s not the point here. We just need the Mac to be a viable and growing platform and to do that we need good apps that people want to use. Of course, Apple’s software strength is the design and open-sourcing their apps doesn’t give that up since Apple still maintains control of the source.
Apple has open-sourced the kernel so they clearly “get it”, at least in part. I don’t see why the iApps can’t be open-sourced as well.
Apple has to do what it has to do to stay in business. They’re doing it. MS is bringing more and more into the OS itself. The only reason 3rd parties are able to still live is the sheer numbers. Apple though is compared to MS not with it’s 3rd party additional cost developers but OS to OS.
iTunes and the store with iPod are GREAT examples. Where do you think we’d be right now with SoundJam, Rio’s, and BuyMusic .com? Can you say “Irrelevant”? Do what you do which is write about Apple and leave running the company to those that have thus far keep it relevant and innovating.
For every door that closes...another one opens.
iMovie
iDVD
Keynote
and perhaps Safari
have spawned new companies and products that tie in.
Relevancy is a moving target and for Apple to aquiesce to the needs of 3rd parties in all situations would have deleterious effects on the Platform as a whole.
The only constant is change. I recommend Apple look to fill any gaps that exist. OSX has brought MORE unique apps with much more on the way. If Apple can show the way..the “Hungry” Developers will feast on the crumbs.
The points above are very strong - especially hmurchison’s on “For every door that closes… another one opens” This in fact has always been the goal for the Mozilla team - they built a platform for application development, not just a web browser. Likewise the same goal for Sun’s Java, which has spawned many developments and even competitors.
However, Mozilla is open-source, allowing for “You build it well, it will make it into the product”. iApps are a black box… sure you can request features and submit bugs, but not in the vastly superior method of open-source projects.
In my opinion, Apple was simply making up for their hardware, by creating incredible software. We all know Apple is a hardware company, that’s where the profits come from. Software is their differentiator. They have to innovate in this area because they will never be able to compete on a purely hardware level. And they definitely can compete with software - iMovie, iTunes, iDVD, etc. blow anything and everything out of the water.
Apple puts out higher quality applications in relation to competition (both independent developers and massive developers like Adobe) because they have to. If they didn’t they would have gone under in the late 90’s.
Don’t forget Apple killing off the most powerful DVD Authoring systems for the Mac. Sonic DVD Creator and DVD Fusion are not going to be updated for Mac OS X. DVD Creator was used by the vast majority of Hollywood studios. Now they are switching to Sonic’s WIndows’ based Scenarist.
DVD Studio Pro is a great app, but it’s not DVD Creator. You would foolish to Author a Hollywood title with it. Sonic guarantee’s 100% DVD compatibility, DVDs authored in DVD Studio Pro are only compatible with 95% of DVD players.
Sonics Mac support was lukewarm at best. Final Cut Pro is cleaning up at some Post Houses so if I had my Druthers at Apple I would want to be on the front end rather than DVD Authoring backend.
Tell us Jeremy...why would we be foolish to use an App that hasn’t seen the light of day. How can you toss percentages around without using a Beta for DVDSP 2.0. How can you guarantee 0 if you don’t control the burner. Your post develops more questions than answers. Enlighten us.
I contend Apple has unfairly competed in one area. I know if I had developed SDKs for Developers that were ignored I’d be tempted to do just what Apple has done. Continually show developers their products work. If some feel the smite of that Blade then they should have paid attention.
I’m surprised by this article. Applematters normally provides a insightful commentary about relevant Apple matters. I don’t know how ‘what-if’ theories of half-hearted, clueless developers running serious software companies made it onto this site.
Apple have stated publicly they are about offering the best solution, not just components of it. The iPod is an example - although they searched, an MP3 player meeting their vision didn’t exist, so they made one. They apparently started down the same path with a video camera with the same intention, and found they couldn’t better competitions’ offering, so it hasn’t yet seen the light of day. Consider software aquisitions in this context.
With this vision, it makes complete sense for Apple to aquire existing technology where it can, to save re-inventing the wheel. I can think of no aquisition that isn’t quite clearly to this end (even buying a controlling chunk of Emagic was a deal to get a serious Audio app onto OSX quickly). In addition, Apple’s software aquisitions have undergone significant (re)development to integrate into the solution Apple is striving for, but likwise, it doesn’t fix what ain’t broke.
The idea that Adobe and others might “retaliate” by ceasing development of their Mac apps is nonsensical. It is naive to think that any developer isn’t striving for the biggest slice of any market that is fiscally viable to develop for. At worst, Adobe’s market is 60/40 against Mac, but that is still a real 40%. Find me a developer that would willingly slice 40% or more from their established customer base because of sour grapes.
Microsoft is potentially different because a) its size allows it to absorb short-medium term impacts of willingly killing off a portion of its customer base (which is a much smaller % than that of say, Adobe) and b) because they possibly stand to actually gain something in the longer term from the Mac’s demise. For Adobe and others, there is no real gain, other than to avenge “irritation”.
And now with the advent of Keynote and the upcoming TextEdit /MSWord read-write features, I see the one possibly concerning hypothetical stated here of little concern also. Titles like Lotus Notes, MS Project, AutoCAD and a multitude of top-selling games are equally worthy targets for our angst, but the Mac platform has somehow survived without them thus far.
While laely Apple stands apart for its success though inovation during times where all other success from the tech sector comes from consolidation (Dell), I find it hard to believe I read this article on a site where presumably the author knows a thing or two about Apple.
Up until the last year or so, Sonic’s support of the Mac was actually quite strong. Especially across their professional audio and DVD product lines. But Apple has intentionally roadblocked Sonic’s ability to port DVD Creator to OS X.
As for your question about compatibility, you mentioned that Apple “controls the burner”. I’m not talking about burned DVDs. I’m talking about professionally authored “Hollywood-level” DVDs. These kind of DVDs aren’t “burned” to anything. They are mastered onto DLT (a tape format) for mass replication. Sonic has been in the DVD authoring business since 1995 and spends over half of it’s development budget studying the nuances of all of the DVD players and chip sets on the market, and then optimizes it’s DVD Multiplexer so as to be as compatible as is physically possible.
Like I said DVD Studio pro is a great “ProSumer” application. But even with 2.0 there is no way Apple could duplicate the research and effort that Sonic put into DVD compatibility over the last 8 years.
It’s sad that we will likely never see a Mac OS X version of their software. It has forced me to choose between an inferior product, or switching to Windows. Neither one is a good choice.... so maybe I’ll just stick with OS 9 and outdated hardware.
Apple definately needs to slow down a bit...I’ve got almost no non-Apple apps on my comp. Which isn’t that bad, but what will happen when Apple introduces iWorks, a MS Office-like app? Will Microsoft totally leave the platform? Then what...the Mac becomes a dinosaur again and people leave in flocks? And with all the pro apps made by Apple, will Adobe still stick around? iThink Apple needs to start working more on hardware for a while and let 3rd party developers do their jobs.
So Jeremy how long have you worked for Sonic?
I think you’ll be happy with DVDSP 2.0. It is the algamation of two decent products. Astarte and Spruce Technologies. Both companies were beyond the “prosumer” genre with their products.
I’m not sure I really see a weakness in DVDSP 2.0 that is a showstopper.
Apple has basically staked out Desktop Digital Video and is competing agressively. They have always identified certain area(ala Desktop Publishing) and ensured the Mac is strong in that area. What this means is that if you’re a Developer with a poor competing product. You’re going to get ran over.
I commend Hadley on this topic because it needs to be talked about. Just where does the line exist for Apple. Honestly I think iPhoto, iMovie iCal and others actually spur consumers to see the power of these technologies. At a basic level Apple has simplified apps but once the end user is acclimated to the app they will inevitably want more.
iCal not doing enough. Try Chronosnet or Poweron software.
Sherlock not cutting the muster try Watson.
iMovie getting you down. Try Avids free software coming or
iDVD bumming you out try DVDeveon or Capy
Fontbook too simple try Extensis’ product for more features.
The trick is getting people using the technology. Apple providing free iApps will not hurt 3rd parties as long as those developers stay a few steps ahead on features. Apple will market the “Technology” 3rd parties will market their products.
Va1entino- Microsoft a few months ago made a statement that they are unhappy with the sales of OfficeX. Ask yourself “If they are unhappy with the sales..then how likely are Mac users going to switch platforms for an app most aren’t buying anyways” Sounds kinda passive agressive doesn’t it?
Adobe- Guess where most of the projected revenue increase for Adobe are coming from. Tadaaaa! It’s not Graphics people. It’s Adobes ePaper products like Acrobat. The Graphics Industry is static right now with small growth. Graphics are not going to sink Apple. Apple’s best hope is to continue to grow the Consumer sales and put some muscle behind Smallbiz and Enteprise Solutions. That’s where the money is people. It’s where it’s always been. Business. So don’t fret over the Watsons or the Font Reserves out there. In the scope things they’re small potatoes. Apple has MUCH bigger fish to fry. The next two years will be fun.
>So Jeremy how long have you worked for Sonic?
Sorry, nice try. I own a multimedia company in Utah, specializing in optical media production (CD-ROM and DVD/DVD-ROM). I have never even been to Sonic’s offices. But I have been using their products for nearly 5 years, and I have been following this issue for some time.
Good we expect a full report on the merits of DVDSP 2.0 from you once you get your hands on a copy. If Apple is going to run Sonic Solutions off then they better have a robust product themselves.
to hmurchison - the trick is not getting users to use technology when it is easily installed by the OS itself (and most times, preinstalled) and heavily marketed by a billion dollar revenue company.
the real trick is small to mid-sized developers getting users to even know about a product that is superior to Apple’s offering.
I think iCal stinks. It is ugly, unconfigurable, extraordinarily slow and buggy. Can I think of anything better? Just one, Entourage by Microsoft. But I gotta by the whole damn thing to use it.
iCal is free, preinstalled, and “good enough” these are the things that allow a Apple product to squeeze everyone out. How long will Adobe offer Photoshop Elements for Mac? Not long, because iPhoto will take over Elements features and then it will cease to be relevant.
My question is - does Apple really need to create products that have limited use? Mail, iSync, iMovie, iTunes are great products that make complex tasks easy. They are a great place for Apple to compete against others in. Why waste resources for iCal, FontBook, Sherlock, even… Safari? Sure Safari is great, but Chimera was shaping up to be a great browser, with at least the parity of functionality, stability, and speed of Safari. In the end, Apple uses money and time to develop these apps, not even making a better version, and alienating their developer user base by muscling them out of opportunity.
Nathan- Good points. I guess I should reword some of my points. The trick is to get end user s “comfortable” with new technology. I have seen many people frustrated by iPhoto’s slowness and asking for more. I recommend they move up to iview Media Pro or something similar. The nice thing is they understand the idealogy behind the app and can “seperate the wheat from the chaff” .
iCal is nothing compared to Chronosnet and Power on products but we still have to get users comfortable with scheduling on a computer. The natural progression will be that they get aclimated to the basics and then seek out more full featured apps if they need more functionality.
For every Free Apple app I wish Apple would have a section on their site that promoted similiar 3rd party apps. It costs Apple nothing really and is an act of Faith and respect to their developers.
As for Safari, Sherlock Fontbook etc I think these apps are very necessary. Apple is a high volume OS provider. Not having a browser makes them seem low rent. I like Camino but Apple really needs to have their own browser. OSX has been ripped to shreds over it’s Font Handling. Many users expect a basic level of management and pre Fontbook it wasn’t there. ATM is not on OSX so Apple’s hand was forced here. Sherlock is very important. It’s not as good as Watson but then again how many users want to pay $30 per computer for Watson?
I think that while Apple may be alienating a very small group of developers they are actually improving the platform because we’ve seen the creation of new API like Webkit/Webcore. Safari uses it and if you’re a developer you can too. Addressbook has a SDK and most of the other technologies behind iApps . Apple is not freezin’ developers out of anything. Omniweb now uses Webcore and it shaved perhaps months off of development time. Apple needs “Proof of Concept” applications to promote Mac technologies. I believe the reason why some Developers are loathe to support them is because of possible future cross platform desires. As a Developer you may go lean on Apple Specific API/SDK to keep your app “Portable” if you decide to move to Windows. While this is great for the Company as a Mac user I want apps tailored to MY chosen platform.
Apple is showing us why. They have wonderful Tech that Developers should be keying on and improving their products with and it’s only going to get better.