At the other extreme, Google enforces much less control over content or presentation for apps listed in Android Market. While Google reserves the right to block unauthorized distribution of its proprietary Android apps, it doesn’t mandate that apps have to look great or have to follow any strict guidelines, and there’s doesn’t seem to be any sort of restriction on potential third party copyright issues, such as selling emulators designed to run other platform’s video games. This lack of restriction has resulted in clear difference between the apps available for Android and those for the iPhone. Android has become the tinkers’ destination, not the place where developers go to make money. This has created a wide gulf between the slick, commercial offerings in the App Store and the experimental hobbyist offerings in Android Market. Given Android’s current installed base, Google can’t really erect significant restrictions on software. Even without much management in place, Android’s offerings are still pretty bare. The biggest problem for Google, however, is that once its market takes off, the latent problems of permissive platform management will grow into serious problems. Security, commercial legitimacy, and professional presentation are all factors Google seems to think will solve themselves. The history of Windows suggests otherwise
First, take a look at what is unique about Apple’s mobile software store. Importantly, it builds upon experience and previous successes. Well before it even launched the iPhone, Apple began selling iPod game software on a small scale to work out the kinks in packaging and delivering mobile software securely in a way that avoids casual theft. Apple also perfected micropayments for music and video in iTunes, paving the way for a high volume, low cost mobile software store. Apple also built on its decade of progress in developing Mac OS X as a desktop platform, so it was able to release development tools that were both mature and familiar to a large number of coders. The iPhone’s hardware also clearly evolved under the influence of lessons learned during the development of the iPod.
Joseph says:
Again, it’s business and Apple can’t allow others to piggyback off of Apple trademarks. The Cisco case is a bad example because the value of Cisco’s ‘iPhone’ trademark comes no where close to Apple’s ‘iPod’ trademark – note that Apple essentially won that argument as proved by the fact that it used and uses ‘iPhone’.
And not all Apple fans have double standards. If Bill Gates told a developer to change the name of an app called MSWordRip because it violates and MS trademark, I’d have no complaints.
Tzvi Fabian says:
Jobs has no need to imagine, Apple was not so long ago forced to change the name of more than one of its products due to trademark infringement. MobileMe was upon a time known as iTools, but Tenon Intersystems was already using that name, and Bonjour was once known as Rendezvous, but Tibco Software already had a product with that name.
So programmers continue to develop iPhone apps, even though Apple continues to maltreat them. They’re like someone stuck in an abusive relationship. They’re so attracted to the iPhone that they can’t leave. But they’re looking for a way out.
“
| — | Apple’s Mistake |
