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
what do you have against competition? itunes was purchased and enhanced by apple because MP3 playback on the mac was no better (or worse) than windows. With iTunes, Apple now has the best most powerful Mp3 player around and if someone wants to come up with a better one, GREAT! The truth is that Apple’s market share has shrunk so much that few if any developers are putting out applications that really stand out on the Mac.
As for Watson, this was “Inspired” by Sherlock. It is no surprise that apple would take the same next step (hell before there was Watson, apple was showing off it’s RPC abilities with apple script). And correct me if I’m wrong, but Watson is still being sold and enhanced to compete with Sherlock.
How bad do I feel for Extensis who is trying to create it’s own monopoly? Did you know they charge twice as much form the mac version as the windows version? Maybe a little competition from apple will force them to drop their prices and/or enhance their product.
The list continues with iChat which is arguably the first video conference application that was “done right” (if we can just get a windows version as well). Address book which puts nobody out of business and which anyone can link into. iCal which competes with what?
Oh yes, there is Safari which challenges microsoft’s total domination of the web clients. Not to mention making a web browser that didn’t make the Mac look like it sucks. You also seem to dislike iMovie but you should note that there was no consumer level video editing product even close to this when it was released. You could argue that Apple created this market and the same can be said for iDVD and to some extent iPhoto.
Now what would you recommend Apple does? They keep making cool tools for developers but nobody takes advantage of them because they are not available on the 95% of other systems. Does the Mac actually have an advantage if nobody takes advantage of the unique mac features?
Answer me this. Why don’t all OS X applications support the system level spell checker, plain talk or OS X services? Remember, Apple is not hiding these technologies from developers. They encourage developers to take advantage of all apple technologies. Apple created nothing secret or special with Safari. There are no special system calls or OS level integration. It is an application. None of the iApps limit or preclude the use of other similar applications.
Lastly, the only thing you have anything to concern yourself with are free/bundled applications. DVD studio Pro, FinalCut and Soundtrack are purchased applications and have to compete for money just like anyone else. This is simply competition.
Apple has to make it’s platform compelling and unique. If a developer leaves because they don’t want to compete with an Apple product maybe we didn’t loose much by loosing that developer. Site me one application that apple has distributed that was inferior to the existing competition (Watson is the closest thing but again I believe this was the natural progression of Sherlock and RPC applicatins)
iPhoto - There were a hundred photo editors but nothing like this for cataloging.
iMovie - Created a whole new industry
iDVD - The first and best consumer level dvd authoring tool
iChat AV - Best audio/video chat application available
iCal - Unique calendar system, that requires no dedicated server to share/publish calendars
iTunes - The most polished digital audio player around
Safari - the fastest most feature rich browser on the mac (a bit immature but growing)
By the way, FinalCut only offered upgrades after Premiere was discontinued.
Apples strengths are it API’s and its strong hardware integration. If nobody uses apple’s unique features because they are going to port to windows apple looses one of it strengths.
Just my thoughts.
I understand the reason for this article and agree that the loss of good developers is a concern. Competition is a good thing. But should Mac users not have the advantage of FCP today because of something Premiere may do?
It is not like Apple gave away FCP. It’s $1000 price tag means it had to be everything Premiere was and more. Adobe could have updated their product or reduced price to avoid being “decimated”.
There are only 3 reasons for apple to make free applications.
1) New type of application iMovie, iDVD, iPhoto (I’d also put iCal here as I think it goes beyond Entourage in simple collaboration and does not really compete with the likes of ACT, Yet!)
2) Third party developers are lagging behind the Windows world. Safari, iChat, iTunes.
3) Show off unique OS X features that third party developers are ignoring to force their hand.
They only reason to worry about purchased applications, like the PRO line are
1) Developers are not being given the same tools Apple uses so they have an unfair advantage (I see none of this in FCP, DVD Studio, or Soundtrack)
2) Lack of cross platform support. If Keynote did not accept PowerPoint presentations it would be a mistake to make it, and if Apple creates iOffice, and Mac Office Pro, without full MS Office compatibility, that would be a mistake.
A cool operating system with nothing to run on it is use less. But an OS with superior tools that nobody uses, is not really superior. Apple has been walking this line very well over the past few years. I hope they continue.
I disagree with Doug on point 2.
Safari, iChat, and iTunes are still lagging their Windows counterpart in terms of features. In terms of usability, of course Apple is superior. But this has to do with design (engineering and interaction) enhances functionality but does not increase total amount of functions.
Mozilla is the most functional browser, and it is available on the Mac.
AIM is the most functional AIM client, and it is available on the Mac.
iTunes doesn’t even come close to WinAMP 3 in functionality if we disclude The iTunes Music Store (the only reason for this is because it has only recently been added after years of iTunes) I would say Apple singlehandedly stunted the growth of all Mac compatible mp3 players - iTunes included.
I entirely agree with you (and hmurchison) on point 1. Apple should make apps that are new, that properly introduce users to new technology/functionality. 3rd party devs should then climb on Apple’s shoulders and make a “better” version with more functionality and even.... better usability. Webcore/Webkit as hmurchison points out are incredible technologies made available to devs, and Apple used Safari to show off how they can be used. I missed that point about Safari, thinking it was “just another browser”
I agree with most of you…
I do think , however, that apple has great interest in delivering computers that have all the mainstream apps out of the box.
A first-time user or be it a switcher that buys a mac and is able to do word processing, fiddle with digital photos or videos, video-chat on the internet who gets this kind of functionality with his computer will more likely discover the possibilities of the platform, as opposed to a wintel-user.
We all know that the adobe apps are industriy standards as are quark and most of the non-apple applications mentioned here.
It is only nice to find the basics in the box and go for the real thing once you get the hang of it.
A real power user, that needs a serious scheduler or contact-manager will stumble onto NOW; someone who wants to do serious photo-editing knows photoshop and final cut is a standard that fits the adobe philosophy and interface protocols.
So, buy a mac, play for a while and then start working with the real stuff…
Maybe, I need to be educated about these applications, so instead of just stating it as fact, tell us all why. Here are my reasons for why I classified them the way I did.
Features in iTunes I believe are superior to WinAmp.
Music Searching
Play lists
Music encoding
CD authoring
MP3 sync
Music sharing between systems
Music Purchase (sorry, it is a feature)
And don’t dismiss ease of use.
The superior features I know of in winamp are Skins, ability to play movies, more visualizers, and some additional music formats supported. Please let us know of additional features that make WinAmp more compelling that iTunes.
AIM vs iChat
Ok lets start with the obvious:
AV support (killer AV support).
spell check
Finder and mail integration
Intranet support (rendezvous)
To AIM’s credit it does support stock quotes, and news groups (not sure what this has to do with making a better chat client). Please let me know what else AIM has going for it that would make up for AV and spell check features?
Finally we have Safari vs Mozilla. This is not as easy because a single web site could change my mind on this. The most important features for browsers are Rendering quality and browsing speed. Mozilla currently has the edge on quality but Safari has more than just an edge in speed. Everything from application start, to page rendering, to window resizing and scrolling. Safari is faster than Mozilla. Want proof that Safari was a good thing for the industry. check out firebird. Browsers had become bloated (the mozilla team said as much in interviews and actions).
As for other features I prefer in Safari:
Search
autofill (it just seems to work better)
spell check
tabbed browsing implementation
Address book integration
bookmarks.
Now on the mozilla side you do have a number of features, but few that have to do with browsing. Depending on your personal needs, I would not question you if you have different priorities. But regardless, Safari has made a positive impact on the competition, by showing off a very important weakness in the speed of 3rd party browsers (something the Mac was getting bashed for in the press) and showed how it could be don MUCH better. So I think this fits into my criteria.
The bottom line is that Apple is enhancing its platform with these applications and should continue to do so where 3rd party developers drop the ball or where they see new and innovative uses for computers.
http://www.creativemac.com/2003/08_aug/reviews/dvdsp2030818.htm
Apple DVD Studio Pro 2.0 Hits a Homerun. Guess we don’t need Sonic Solutions after all
While you did speak of Adobe dropping support for Premiere in OS X, etc..., I’m surprised no one has mentioned Apple’s acquisition of Emagic, and the implications of this for professional audio production by third party developers such as Steinberg (Cubase) or MOTU (Digital Performer).
I have raised similar concerns about Apple’s aggressive new foray into the software market on other forums, and in particular my concerns over the so-called “real world” tests at the recent developer’s conference. If anyone recalls, Apple showed off it’s new G5 running Logic Audio, against the “competing” PC running Cubase SX.
Now while Logic is now a mac-only app. Cubase SX is dual platform, though arguably it was not ready for a “panther” demonstration at the time. The point, however, was that many audio users noticed how poorly the “demonstration” made Cubase SX appear (audio dropouts, etc.) , apart from the PC performance. Consequently, Apple seemed to be sending a message asserting it’s own audio application over that of competing third-party offerings.
This seemed to me to be a very strange thing to do at a developer’s conference. I have not been able to dismiss this as being simply benign on the part of Apple either, particularly in light of the many issues that you’ve raised here. I’m also conflicted as I feel some competition is good, especially if Apple is raising the bar for developers to follow as some of you say.
Finally, of interest to me, is the release of Soundtrack, which though previously available as part of Final Cut Pro, is now a stand alone audio “ i-type” app. This program will not replace some more sophisticated programs. like Reason or Live, but it does assert itself as a potential future contender of sorts, especially as it might snag newer users of these other audio production applications. With Emagic as a subsidiary, I wouldn’t rule out future implementations that will pose more of a challenge to competition.
Just my thoughts.
I think Watson was the only case of Apple being a software bully. While some software makers won’t see fit to compete with some of Apple’s applications (which I think is silly, there’s always room for competition if there’s room for a better way to go about it), I think what they’re developing in-house and especially for free, is a very good thing. Why? Because of the problem that plagued all of the first Macs.. When you bought a Mac you had a nice OS but you couldn’t do anything. No Apple-born and included software to do anything with pictures, words or anything. Not even a game or two.
Over time they’ve gotten better about bundling software like AppleWorks and such, but the iApps mark a new and better way to include out of the box ability to actually do something with a new Mac. They set a new standard for modern software and they’re free. They may not be perfect but they’re a hell of a lot better than nothing, which is the alternative. I think they just need to fill a couple more holes in the basic utilities for iApps and they’ll have it covered. A couple apps to deconstruct Appleworks, a sound editor (simpler than Soundtrack), an iSyncable NotePad, and maybe an RSS browser, or something in the 3d area like a basic composer/animator with a large object library. What good is an expensive computer and an expensive operating system if you have to pay MORE for applications to do anything on them?
Providing nothing creates stagnation. Providing something inspires user creation.
I don’t this is a fair assesment. Take e.g. IE. MS was not doing a good job with it. Mac’s looked bad because they got very bad performance on web browsing. E-mail and web readers are so important that they can’t just leave it up to chance that there will be good web browsers available. So to have control over the situation they have to make key software themselves.
E.g. I think that Apple should make development tools, email and web browser software themselves simply because that software is so important to the platform.
I think the deal with Final Cut Pro is that apple needs some killer app to differentiate them from Windows. If it was all left to Adobe there would be no way to differentiate, becaues they make software for both platforms.
Apart from that Apple doesn’t hinder 3rd party to make competing software. If it is better then people will buy that instead. But I think it is understandable that Apple wants to make sure that there is a minimum quality available for key software.