It is almost religious orthodoxy in the tech community that “open” is better than “closed.” For example, there have widespread complaints about Apple’s “closed” iPhone app approval process. People also argue Apple is making the same strategic mistake all over again versus Android that it made versus Windows*. The belief is that Android will eventually beat the iPhone OS with an “open” strategy (hardware-agnostic, no app approval process) just as Windows beat Apple’s OS in the 90’s.
With respect to requiring apps to be approved, consider the current state of the iPhone platform. There are over 100,000 apps and thus far not a single virus, worm, spyware app etc. (I don’t count utterly farfetched theoretical scenarios). As a would-be iPhone developer, I can report firsthand that the Apple approval process is a nightmare and should be overhauled. But what’s the alternative? Before the iPhone, getting your app on a phone meant doing complicated and expensive business development deals with wireless carriers. At the other end of the spectrum: If the iPhone OS were completely open, would we really have better apps? What apps are we missing today besides viruses?
With respect to the strategic issue of tightly integrating the iPhone/iPad software and hardware, a strong case can be made that Apple’s “closed” strategy is smart. Clay Christensen has given us the only serious theory I know of to predict when it’s optimal for a company to adopt an open versus closed strategy for (among other things) operating systems. The basic idea is that every new tech product starts out undershooting customer needs and then – because technology gets better faster than customers needs go up - eventually “overshoots” them. (PC’s have overshot today – most people don’t care if the processors get faster or Windows adds new features). Once a product overshoots, the basis of competition shifts from things like features and performance to things like price.
The key difference today between desktop computers and mobile devices is that mobile devices still have a long way to go before customers don’t want more speed, more features, better battery life, smaller size, etc. Just look at all the complaints yesterday about the iPad - that it lacks multitasking, a camera, is too heavy, has poor battery life, etc. This despite the fact that Apple is now even building their own semiconductors (!) to squeeze every last bit of performance out of the iPad. Until mobile devices compete mainly on price (probably a decade from now), tight vertical integration will produce the best device and is likely the best strategy.
*It’s worth noting that Steve Jobs wasn’t the one who screwed up Apple. Jobs co-founded Apple in 1976. He was pushed out in in May 1985 when the company was valued at about $2.2B. He returned in 1996 when Apple was worth $3B. Today it is worth $187B.
Related posts:
View Comments ↓
[...] big thanks to Chris Dixon for writing “Should Apple be more open?” I was going to write basically the same thing but he saved me the trouble. If you [...]
Browser-based apps will make Apple's decision for them.
in a world where all the apps you need are in your browser, all OS's are commoditized anyways. i think native apps on mobile will be better than browser apps for a long time.
You hear that Mr. Anderson?… That is the sound of inevitability.
http://blog.wolfire.com/2010/01/Web-application...
From a selfish perspective, as a developer, I'd like to see them open up. But would it make sense from Apple's POV? No. The current strategy is working well – very well. Upending things by opening up wouldn't be a good idea at this point. The UX for “normals” is what's winning the game for Apple right now and going open isn't going to improve that.
Couldn't agree more about PC's overshooting their customers. Simple, functional, and beautiful (aesthetically) products sell. That's my opinion of why Steve took Apple from 3b to 187b. That and his amazing presentation skills.
what are you kidding? Sure it might be ok to keep a vetting process in the Istore but in general Apple remaining a closed OS is so AOL. This is why they have teenage market share in the PC space. This is also why the Iphone will end up being a tiny player in the smart phone space 5 short years from now.
http://twitter.com/A_F
Would it have better apps? Don't you think their current approach pushes devs back to the era of retail software. Design, build, ship. What about fast iterations and lean startup, customer-focused nimbleness? It surely is slowing down innovation – but where I agree with you is that lack of innovation is not a problem right now for Apple (Android phones still catching up) or even consumers, just for ambitious startups. Anyway, my hope is that html5 gets around this issue.
The reason the iPhnone has “no” viruses is not because of the app store. It because virus developers are not targeting it. And that is because there is no money in it, yet.
no, i'm not kidding. can you actually point to an app that's missing because they their approval process? otherwise you are just repeating conventional pieties without actually trying to understand underlying dynamics.
ha, that's the same silly argument people have made about the Mac OS for years. People have made the argument so often that at this point if someone did hack it they'd be legendary.
you need to design, build, ship for windows native software too. approval process slows that down slightly but doesn't change the basic process. agree that web apps would change things.
“If the iPhone OS were completely open, would we really have better apps?”
Not many, but a few. I think censorship is a bigger issue than quality. Ridding the store of censorship would give developers more flexibility because they wouldn't need to worry about bordering on core functionality, which Apple has declared a no-no. The obvious example here is Google Voice, which depending on who you believe, was either blocked or “not yet released” over fears that it subverts the native method of making calls. I imagine there are less severe examples, too (i.e. would the Skype app be any different if it didn't have to comply with this?). Users lose in these instances because developers are forbidden from improving on the status quo. So to that extent, yes, apps would be better, but only the select few that fall into this category.
Another new example that comes to mind: now that Apple has a centralized book platform built into the iTunes store, do you think they'll let Amazon and Barnes and Noble update their mobile reader software?
I think we open should be a function of scarcity. A protocol is scarce for example, if we go up the stack to API's …. maybe(but do we all need to be able to implement it?) , a Platform even less so.
But keep in mind it's all gray, there is no black and white in this.
Then there seems to be this illusion that open means innovative, but there again. Where did it start and stop, tcp/ip …. http to Browser, or even GUI. Gnome/KDE more innovative than OS/X GUI, application build for these environments.
There seems to be a wobbly line after which openness doesn't equate to any more innovation. Or I need more coffee.
The assumption that the overshoot theory holds and vertical integration is the best success strategy is fine if there is only one feature/attribute that is the #1 purchase decision feature for all consumers. That's not the case, though. There are still multiple undershot features/attributes in mobile phones (enterprise capability, e-mail sync/typing/etc, apps, media, location functionality, social features, etc). Android will be better at certain things that will be the #1 purchase decision feature for some, while iPhone will be better at other things that will be the #1 purchase decision feature for others. I'd be more interested in a debate as to what are the key decision features for mobile device purchases and which ones are likely to be better served by an open vs closed structure. Likely, both approaches will be successful both now and in the future, when mobile devices overshoot on all relevant features like PCs do now (although even PCs aren't there on media and probably other features that are important to certain consumers).
Thank you, thank you, thank you for writing this! You just saved me 90 minutes of digging in Innovator's Solution to find the reference and writing my own blog post.
While I agree with all the fervor one can muster for open, distributed, and startup friendly markets. Let's play the devil's advocate.
Closed will win because one business can do everything better than the rest of the world.
Ok I can't do it, how in blazes can one entity determine and create value better than the sum total of everyone else.
Maybe in an utterly closed system, where all the best developers work? The only way it can do so is if it is completely disconnected from network effects. So closed that no one knows outside what folks inside are doing. Even the slightest interface breaks this Wall o Apple.
What do I know? I don't own a 187b dollar company.
But Apple did build the majority of it's total value since the Internet's inception. They are leverging network effects, but in this bizarre funnelled way.
That just sounds a little silly.
The “open” model works best in markets w/ the following dynamics: 1) commodity hardware 2) fixed and centralized 3) “management” offloaded from the user. To a large extent this fits the PC market (when professional IT support staff exist), but it’s an even better fit with the server market. It simply does not fit mobile at all.
Users want a platform which offers regular feature updates, but not at the expense of being exposed to viruses, adware, spyware etc. In the mp3 market Apple also dominated with a tightly controlled OS. In fact, the only major “open” success story in mobile licensing has been Symbian, but this was largely a partnership where the major phone makers simply shared work on kernel development.
Let’s not forget Microsoft – their efforts with WinMo are colossal failures, predominately because HW/SW integration issues that impact PC users (or servers) are not nearly as critical as those that impact handheld devices – power management, app integration, service provider integration, performance, user interface issues etc. In servers, yes all these ARE critical but there is no need for a vendor to tightly control the experience because professional IT staff do this.
I guess it comes down to the definition of “slightly” – I've heard horror stories but haven't done an app yet myself
Right on Chris. It's like Disney, they need to control the experience to give people the level of quality that they expect. If anyone could run around Disneyland dressed like Mickey Mouse or build their own rides, that would ruin the quality and consistency of the experience.
It's not really a matter of open or closed either with Apple — in a sense they are open — if you want to play in their world though, there area few restrictions and a filter. In fact, a lot of media and applications online could use a good filter these days.
I've thought about this a lot. In the history of electronics, only one platform has been open and successful: Windows/DOS. Why is everyone so convinced that this is the norm and not the exception?
good insight!
Once the mobile market develops more, say in a year or two even, Android and Mobile handset manufacturers will be akin to Windows and PC manufacturers.
People will call Google wondering what's going wrong with their phone and frustratingly be directed to Motorola and vice versa. Then there'll be a vocal minority that prefers just working with Apple, knowing there's a singular store and singular phone number to call upon. Not to mention that the products in question will be as good if not better than the rest as well as safer as you mentioned.
Open is becoming more like Communism – better on paper than in practice. Google and Apple are proving this, but I prefer Apple's stance of being more direct about it.
I also just wanted to point out something I noticed. Within three years of the launch of the iPhone, multi-touch interfaces and technology have become commonplace. Not necessarily that every device has it, but more so that no one is impressed by it. When the iPhone launched it was multi-touch that wowed us, I don't think we'll be wowed in the same way until a device comes along that removes any need for touch at all.
There is no app for:
– adobe flash
– Browsers other than Safari
Chris- love the post and for the most part I agree with you, people are benefiting from Apple's closedness more than they realize. What I don't agree with is your question above, “what apps are we missing today besides viruses?” I think a lot!
This implies that the majority of innovation & creativity is done. It's not even close. As GPS gets better and user behavior catches to enable technology we're going to see some amazing innovations that we may not even imagine today. So, yes we don't have viruses, but there are tons of apps that we are missing, and I'm excited for them to be here…
Chris, I'm going to pose the same question to this post as I posed on the Google post a while back: how would becoming “open” benefit the company's owners? And if it wouldn't benefit the company's owners, why should the company's managers pursue that policy?
I suppose the difference here is that, in contrast to Google, Apple doesn't give much lip service to being an “open” company.
The notion of viruses as a compelling reason to have a closed ecosystem is a red herring. Apple's desktop operating system isn't closed, and you don't see viruses there.
Chris, there are lots of examples of applications that have been excluded from the app store for one reason or another.
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=denied+app+store
Perhaps more importantly, there are many more examples of new versions of approved apps that can't be posted to the app store in a timely fashion (in some case, to fix critical security bugs) because of the Apple approval process.
Being open benefits the company because openness comes sooner or later, and it's always better to disrupt yourself than to wait around for others to do it for you.
Apple should have learned this lesson from its past, when a desktop operating system that was fundamentally worse yet far more open nearly wiped out its desktop computer business.
Chris – one big issue is Apple rejecting apps for competitive reasons, not because of malware, etc. This is the case for almost all of the native apps Google has submitted. This is just bad business. Apple doesn't want to risk competing with certain Google services and so just rejects (or doesn't approve) them, e.g. Google Voice, Google Latitude and others. This is a huge part of their problem and will only be compounded by the iPad and their general trend of approving all apps for their platforms.
I hear you. I think Apple should improve their process and change their policies. I'm not defending their current implementation of the process (I did say it should be “overhauled”).
Agree. I think some rejections like Skype are due to AT&T demanding it. (Why would Apple care if AT&T get commoditized?). I hope that as carriers continue losing bargaining power these restrictions will get loosed.
True, but this is an argument against Apple specific implementation of closed (which I am sympathetic to), not the core idea.
Well, Windows/Dos was probably the most profitable product in the history of mankind so its a notable exception
I'd actually argue that in any stratified value chain you kind of have “openness.” Semi conductor components etc.
“Once the mobile market develops more, say in a year or two even, Android and Mobile handset manufacturers will be akin to Windows and PC manufacturers. “
What do you base this on? I'm arguing against it using Christensen's framework. I think simply assuming that mobile will evolve like PC misses important underlying differences.
true. they need to add flash. i don't think most “normals” care about other browsers as long as Safari continues to be great.
Hey Ryan – Oh, I by no means think innovation is over. I just mean what's missing in the sense of apps that Apple blocked.
hm, not sure. i challenge you to figure out how to get a virus through the app store. certainly makes it a lot harder.
My main claim (echoing Christensen) is there is a certain point (when you “overshoot”) at which its optimal to go open and mobile is far away from that.
if I can restate, you trust their curation?
currently, no, not really. but its probably a good business strategy.
Gotcha. thanks for the clarification bud.
RG
I basically agree with your points, but the open/closed, Android/Apple dynamic isn't just going to play out in terms of time and when the product overshoots user needs. There's also a strategic positioning aspect that I think Bill Gurley really nailed: http://bit.ly/aSZZ9T. Apple only needs or wants 5% of the phone market, and the closed strategy is a good fit for that. Google, on the other hand, is trying to create a platform more than maximize profits, and the Android strategy seems perfectly appropriate for that.
You're asking me to prove a negative. I'm saying that since viruses are not a problem on Apple's open (desktop) OS, it doesn't make sense to argue that they're a valid reason for keeping their closed OSes closed.
Christensen also teaches that by the time you permit one of your competitors to disrupt you, it's usually too late to respond.
Great article and great point but I am also missing the connection free-of-virus and closed-process. There are open platforms out there that are also virus-free.
And why would a someone hack an iphone anyway? to steal your playlists? It's a business decision: PC are 90% of the market AND it's way easier to hack a PC.
Your argument that the approval process protects us from viruses makes no sense – you don't have viruses on your Mac either, but you can install anything you want on it. So why it should be different?
From a developer point of view, this whole approval process just kills the joy of development. After being used to the rapid development I can do on the web, who wants to wait 2 weeks before pushing a bug fix to the user (or just a new feature)?
And I wouldn't mind much a “closed” phone, but this is very unacceptable on a more generic device (like a Tablet). And what I'm mostly afraid of is that once this practice of AppStore/approval process becomes common in their products it will leak to the Macs too. Imagine if your computer was as crippled as your iPhone…
Sorry but this is is not a logically valid argument: X doesn't have viruses and is open, there Y isn't safer for being closed.
Bill Gurley definitely has one of the more sophisticated takes on this market, but I think he still falls prey to the false analogy between the overshot PC market and the (vastly) undershot mobile market.
Oh, sorry – I agree with you that it's safer for being closed, but what I meant to say is that it's just an over-safety that is generally unneeded (given the down sides of it).
On Facebook, for example, you can create any app you want, but Facebook proactively verifies that those apps comply with their TOS and shut them down misbehaving apps. I think this kind of model makes more sense.
i see. i think we agree then.
I think the difference between us is that you believe this will change, i.e. – Apple will improve their approval process. While I'm afraid that this is will become only worse.
I really hope that you're right
Hi Mark.
Allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment…
Who does the App store really favour (sic)?
Developers? Sure, it must be great fun having a different SDK for every mobile phone. And what about product alignment across all platforms? Perhaps for a few milliseconds – between Apple authorizing 1.2 and 1.3 hitting Android.
Users? What about all the posts from iPhoners saying they would seriously consider switching to Nexus if they hadn't already dropped their wad on iPhone apps. We call that lock-in down my way.
The App store favours Apple and only Apple. That's why they don't want Flash, that's why they've been dragged screaming into exposing the localisation, touch, and accelerometer functionality to the browser.
They know the browser will commoditize their franchise – and relegate them to a supplier of smooth-corned, brushed aluminium (sic) boxes.
I'm simply drawing the similarities i see between the current mac & pc
market and that of an emerging iPhone and android market. One is
vertical controlling most levels of development and distribution while
the other aligns with multiple partners and has more points of access
for additional stakeholders.
We're so developing for browsers David (both yourself and VM).
But I understand the guys that are strapped for cash with a good idea now. There's a market (albeit a short term one) where folks can capitalize on locked in users for another year or so. And those devs can make $0-million(s) if they have a breakout app.
I'm going with “reality distortion field“.
Something we founders would all do well to learn from.
What about this vulnerability?
I believe Apple patterns an IBM of 30 or so years ago. Who will be the mobile Microsoft?
there's a trade off between the open/closed even when device undershoot requirements: you gain some performance from close integration(because of exactly matching the devices and interfaces) , but you loose access to better technologies and smart engineers which limits your performance.
I think apple's decision to use self developed microprocessor is a good example of this. For some uses the tegra processor would be much better then the iphone A4.
So maybe the right way to build would be a competition between internal team and external suppliers.
Or in a more generalized way, to break the dichotomy between open and close in a more dynamic way.
very interesting point. if apple is smart (and they certainly seem to be) they'd let a separate decision maker decide between the internally designed chip and external ones and be willing to toss out the work they did internally.
Agree – my 2 cents on why Android / mobile does have similar DNA to Windows…but will not mirror the success of Windows / PCs.
1. Google is not serious about building a platform – they built Android to ensure Microsoft won't control advertising / search in mobile. Plain and simple.
2. Android has small install base right now, we know that. once it takes off, we will see all the latent problems of permissive platform management – these will grow into serious problems (security threats, commercial legitimacy, interoperability across devices / OS variants) These are not even on Google’s radar right now. The history of Windows suggests these will not solve themselves. Android is actually patterned after WinMo (which was based on desktop Windows).
3. Apple forces developers to follow OS upgrades and controls app approval accordingly. OK so let’s look how this worked in PCs – MSFT didn't exert pressure on developers – this resulted in a fragmented platform always trying to accommodate too many variants of applications, poorly coded SW, SW for the wrong screen resolution etc.
4. Security issues will befall Android. On the iPhone SW must be co-signed by the developer and Apple as trusted parties. Apple can pull rogue apps from the store or shut them down remotely by revoking the app’s certificate. None of these practices have been applied under Android. Trouble is, this “fix it later” strategy may crash and burn (let’s talk after the first major security breaches on Android)
5. Ecosystem – in channeling all app development thru Cocoa, Apple has severely weakened mobile app development under Java ME, Flash, .NET etc. These are no longer the base dev tools. Cocoa apps are not trivially ported to other mobile platforms. This network effect is beyond powerful and creates a halo around iTunes, the iPod, and will do so with iPad..
Read your article about Kasparov. You should check this site out – http://www.chesstweets.com. Its my favorite way to play chess by far, and offer some promise as to a different sort of chess engine.
[...] From cdixon.org [...]
Great analysis. Thanks.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Atul Arora, Atul Arora, Eric Ries, Jesse Farmer, chris dixon and others. chris dixon said: @erickschonfeld hey @cconover feel free to beat me up in the comments on my blog post today on same topic http://bit.ly/cbZbO9 [...]
I'm waiting for the ipad 2G already…lol, lets see if they can come up with something better
Ron: That is the one area where I agree. The competitive rejections are ones I question. I can see why they do it but I don't like it, it spurns the spirit of innovation.
Chris: Overall, I agree with you. What core apps (when you set aside open principles) are we missing? It is a good question. The one thing I would say is that there is an element of “you'll never know” what innovation could get blocked by it being closed. That is the danger of a closed system.
But from a business perspective. This strategy has worked for Apple, created a unique marketplace and works for them. Why should they change it?
[...] Should Apple be more open? cdixon.org – chris dixon's blog [...]
[...] Should Apple be more open? cdixon.org – chris dixon's blog [...]
It's one thing to preapprove every code that goes in the app store, and make sure the code has no viruses. It's different to keep away competitors and such. This is where the problems begin.
The approval process can exist in the form of a community supported service. It will be interest-free and still keep the community safe
Some more thoughts open v closed – for iPad
http://stevecheney.posterous.com/apple-ipad-a-w...
good stuff steve. i'm digging your blog.
makes me really happy chris. can use all the help in building an audience
my advice would actually to make your posts shorter. lists can be overwhelming. probably some of those bullet points can be their own post. I try to think “one meme per post” and make larger points over a series of posts.
funny you say that – i was just thinking the length may be overwhelming. i've loved your model, it gives a clear sense of structure, making your individual points layered and nuanced. thoughtful advice – thanks
[...] Should Apple be more open? cdixon.org – chris dixon's blog [...]
[...] Should Apple be more open? cdixon.org – chris dixon's blog [...]
[...] Should Apple be more open? cdixon.org – chris dixon's blog [...]
Browser-based apps were Apple's first idea when it came to iPhone applications, but that went nowhere. They may have a resurgence with Google doing Voice as a web-app, but we'll have to see.
[...] Should Apple be more open? cdixon.org – chris dixon's blog [...]
Spot on.
Android & iPhone are different beasts and most of us will support both to get at slightly different audiences. But there are a couple of reasons developers need to calm down about the approval process and quit bitching:
1) like you say, as someone who launched mobile product pre-iPhone (and i'll add took it to market leadership position) it was a nightmare… really, really hard, and so open to random glitches that success one time round was almost certainly not replicable with a second application/service
2) you get paid
It's number 2) that is really underappreciated. The system for simple payments, with a not-egregious cut being taken by apple is amazingly powerful. It got people paying for content, services and applications. In fact some of our users are knowingly paying for content they can get free online!
If you want to get paid, Apple is still the bigger priority when it comes to development resources.
you're right… one way to think about it is that even if native just adds 10% additional functionality to an app that could be done in-browser, that 10% is the difference between LIKE and LOVE the app…
…I think a lot of folks are not fully appreciating what apps really are and why they're changing the game when it comes to accessing internet-based services.
Well I understand why the author would think this.. but there are several things that are not correct that are actually basis for this opinion.
1st:
“Before the iPhone, getting your app on a phone meant doing complicated and expensive business development deals with wireless carriers”
- Not true.. you were free to develop a Java based application for a looooong time across the globe and people could install them without problems. Sure, there were issues with problematic applications but unfortunately such is the nature of choice. As soon as the market is free you will have those with malicious intent but at the end of the day we have the freedom. This is what counts.
To talk about “closed” better than “open” is to discuss dictatorship vs democracy. Same thing. I can tell you that a lot of people love living in dictatorship because everything is provided from them, they don't have to think and things just work. Unfortunately it comes with one big sacrifice, if you want something else or freedom or a say in anything you don't have it.
2nd:
At the other end of the spectrum: If the iPhone OS were completely open, would we really have better apps? What apps are we missing today besides viruses?
- Look no further than Cydia and unlocked iPhones. Applications developed for the “black” market for iPhone provides much better and free applications by design. The reason is that people don't want to pay $99 to Apple to develop for the platform plus be tossed around by Apple with the approval process and always be in fear that if you come up with something great and goes against Apple's interest your app will be prevented. Look at Google Voice just as one simple example. Closed, stifles growth and innovation and even though I do like some products by Apple I don't want them telling me how I should use hardware I paid and be at the mercy of Mr. Jobs and what he thinks is good.
Google's Android platform will steamroll over Apple in the next couple of years. The reason? It's free, it's open and allows unhindered improvements and evolution. It's not interest based but user based. I can take Android and put it on my prototype of machine tomorrow and build upon it a unique interface that will blow minds and offer possibly a better experience than iPhone OS or anything out there (hypothetical). That's the beauty of open. Innovation. Sure it comes with a price that there might be those who have malicious intent but such is price of freedom. To say that it's ok to be controlled for the sake of not worrying about viruses or malware is to say “it's ok to live in a dictatorship because nobody can do something harmful to you but the dictator”.
I strongly disagree that closed is smart. Actually, the better question is, smart for who? Certainly for Apple it is because it makes them unlimited amounts of money as they tie you to their platform and don't let go. So tomorrow when you buy a book or a movie or some future digital asset Apple sells you will only be tied to their devices. That's not something I consider smart or good for a consumer.
Now let's look at an open platform. Buying non-DRM stuff, open source and overall collecting assets for your mobile or any type of device will allow you the freedom to transfer it to something better, more intelligent or more stylish down the road, which is again a choice. I may like iPad for example (i don't but let's say I do) and i buy a bunch of stuff from their store, tomorrow I'll want some new tablets that are better spec-ed, better technology and overall more advanced and I would want to use what I bought on the new device. With Apple this most likely won't be the case. The only reason they liberated music from DRM was because they started getting endanger by other stores like Amazon because they sold non-DRM stuff but in essence as long as the platform is closed to Apple you will always be at their mercy and choice, not your own.
[...] Should Apple be more open? cdixon.org – chris dixon's blog [...]
[...] Should Apple be more open? cdixon.org – chris dixon's blog [...]
[...] argue (using Clayton Christensen’s theory) that Apple does not need to open up since customers will continue to value higher-performance mobile devices over lower-priced [...]
[...] Should Apple be more open? cdixon.org – Chris Dixon’s blog [...]
[...] Should Apple be more open? [...]