The Future of Apple and Closed Development

I just saw an New York Times article by Miguel Helft about whether Apple's model of tightly-controlled development can work any longer now that Android devices are selling in larger numbers in the US than Apple's iOS-based products. The article talks about how while Apple releases a new or refreshed product every few months, there are a couple new Android products released every week. Furthermore, the iPad is also facing competition from Android-based tablet computers. Finally, the article discusses how the last time Apple's products (Mac OS) were challenged by competitors (Microsoft Windows), it was almost driven out of business. The article also discusses how Apple isn't likely to even be put in a bad business situation because the iPod Touch, iPhone, and iPad all compete in the market for touchscreen mobile devices, so they aren't just banking on one product to succeed. Plus, to call Apple cash-strapped is to say that unicorns exist: it isn't (and they don't).
While I sort of agree with the article's overall assessment of Apple's situation, there are a few points with which I beg to differ.
First, the comparison to the previous episode of Mac OS X vs. Microsoft Windows isn't especially apt. Unlike Android, Microsoft Windows cannot be modified by manufacturers for use on their devices. That was true even then (for Microsoft Windows; Android obviously did not exist). Furthermore, Apple's development process was far more open then than it is now. The Apple ][ was known for being the computer of choice for computer hobbyists everywhere due to its simple design and huge flexibility in hardware and software. As far as I know, this was true for early releases of Mac OS, though to a lesser extent. Hence, Apple's troubles weren't because of closed development (although I guess this could be a reason if this is the reason why they refused to adapt to a changing market in the 1990s); they were because Microsoft bought enough companies in the 1990s to form essentially a monopoly and grind sales of Mac OS (though not directly) to a relative halt.
While I don't disagree with the assessment that Apple will soon bring the iPhone to Verizon to bolster sales, I actually think it's good that it has so far been only available on AT&T; if the iPhone was available to all networks, it would have probably killed Android before Android could even try to compete. Verizon, not having the iPhone, looked to alternatives, and that alternative was Android; since then, Android has flourished and spread to other networks because it started with the largest wireless network in the US (I think).
While I don't disagree that apps in the Apple App Store are generally of better quality than in the Android Market place, I think it's a little surprising that the author doesn't link this to Apple's tightly-controlled development process.
Well, that's all I have to say about that. Stay tuned for my next post about my respins!

Apple to Third-Party iOS Developers: You Can Return Now

I got this from an OSNews submission on this. In a previous post on the subject, I lamented how Apple exercises near-total control over third-party developers' abilities to write applications, such as what programming language and tools they use.
Well folks, this just in from Apple itself: the requirements have been relaxed! Now, developers can use any tools and languages they want (as long as no other code is downloaded); in addition to this, Apple is being more transparent (or so it says, but we'll see about that) about its review process.
These are both huge pieces of good news for iOS developers who have been shut out of the process for reasons never fully made clear (until now). Hooray, and bravo Apple!

Adobe vs. Apple in the Fight for Flash

Recently in the computing world, there has been a back-and-forth argument between Steve Jobs and the developers at Adobe. The dispute, of course, comes as a result of Apple's decision not to support Flash for the iPod Touch, iPhone, or iPad.
A lot of other people have made remarks about the argument, so what I have to add is very little.
Steve Jobs constantly talks about the need for the web to be open. He mentions that Apple does make proprietary products, but continues with the idea that Flash is too proprietary for the web and that a more open standard is necessary.
The Adobe developers respond by saying that further innovation can't happen without openness. That is very true. They continue by saying that they have made most of the Flash platform open-source and open to modification by anyone. That is commendable.
However, neither side has the moral high ground when it comes to openness. It is still quite difficult to get the proprietary features of Flash to work on truly open systems like Linux and BSD (though that has basically been resolved), and Adobe isn't exactly willing to help out in this regard.
That said, Steve, your company has the most closed computing culture I have seen (in recent years). More so than Microsoft, and that is saying something.
Apple is paranoid about 3rd-party developers of apps for the iPod Touch and iPhone, so it is restricting developers on which programming languages they can use (despite the iPod Touch and iPhone being clearly capable of running apps written in other programming languages).
Apple has on more than one occasion hinted at essentially disallowing any unapproved 3rd-party apps from being installed on the iPad.
All of the hardware for Apple's computers are made by Apple/its manufacturing subsidiaries.
One can't even install Mac OS on a non-Apple-made computer.
How can either company seriously make a claim to hold the moral high ground regarding openness?
That doesn't mean that there is no winner here at all. A common fallacy in these arguments is to regard the 2 sides as the only possibilities.
There are alternatives to Flash, like H.264 (which is proprietary) and Ogg (which is open-source).
So people, start using Ogg (and other open-source multimedia standards) and push for more stability and better features; then only can we have a truly open web.

Steve Jobs and Android + India's Copyright Bill

This article (MG Siegler, TechCrunch) talks about Steve Jobs's position on applications on the iPhone, iPod Touch, and iPad that have to do with sexually explicit images (a.k.a. prXn). He has said that Apple will not allow such applications, so if one wants to do such things, one should buy a device with competitor Google's Android OS to fulfill such desires.
Follow the jump to see my take on this, as well as my take on India's new copyright bill.