An atheist is a man who has no invisible means of support - Fulton Sheen
|
|
|
Device agnostic app stores could spoil Apple party
AS MOBILE PLATFORMS get engaged in an application store war, there is one company that is trying to converge devices and applications into a single app store.
The biggest change in the way we used mobile phones in the last decade came with Apple's Iphone. It certainly wasn't the phone's mediocre hardware or the fact that it looked better than anything out there. In fact, it was Apple's gift to the whole mobile industry, the shift away from expensive hardware iterations to relatively cheap software. After the Iphone, devices are no longer judged on their hardware specifications alone but also on the applications they can run.
This gift, of sorts, allowed Apple to get away with charging an above average price for hardware that was, at best, below average. Leveraging the considerable effort Steve Jobs put into building up the Apple brand, the Iphone gave mobile operators a headache, aside from having to give a cut of their call revenue to Apple. As devices based on other platforms such as Android and Blackberry also got their own app stores, mobile operators weren't able to provide homogeneous experiences throughout their product ranges.
While there's always been a degree of service level fragmentation throughout an operator's range thanks to hardware differences, devices with similar hardware characteristics were showing a gaping disparity in functionality. As Apple's App Store has grown, this particular snowball effect made Jobs' Mob increasingly happy as the attractiveness of its device grew thanks to the hard work of developers, who bend over backwards to meet Apple's draconian App Store policies. Luckily for mobile operators and more importantly, users, Antenna Software's latest mobility platform might break the device to app store link.
The idea behind Antenna's AMP platform is the ability for application developers to not worry about a particular device but rather the functionality of their code. The firm's latest version of AMP will see it support the Android platform in addition to the Iphone, Blackberry and Symbian's S60. The idea of not supporting a particular platform irks Jim Hemmer, president and CEO of Antenna Software, who frankly says that his company's interests is best served by "supporting all platforms". To that end, Hemmer also mentioned that AMP will also support Microsoft's upcoming Windows Phone 7 Series mobile operating system.
For developers who are used to writing platform specific code, AMP 3.0 will sound a lot like the troubled J2ME platform. That ultimately fell by the wayside because of the idiosyncrasies in the software and its inability to isolate the developer from the low level hardware intricacies of the device itself, something which is at the core of all Java platforms. AMP however doesn't try and prescribe a particular programming language or development environment, instead offering a rudimentary conversion service allowing mobile operators to run device agnostic app stores.
AMP brings further possibilities to the table, with firms able to run their own branded app stores to employees and the public at large. The idea of having branded app stores may sound similar to Coke's ill advised attempt at flogging DRM encrusted music, but Hemmer is keen to point out that for brands, the ability to wrap their name on applications is vital to build up recognition. However, it isn't the idea of having a caramel flavoured beverage app store that makes the AMP platform attractive. Rather, it is the ability for operators and developers to free themselves from the shackles of Apple that should be a boon for all parties concerned.
Hemmer wouldn't be drawn on which operators are likely to provide their own app store in the near future but did opt for the safe, "we're currently in negotiations" answer. Although it's a shame that Antenna didn't announce mobile operator partners, the firm recently revealed a tie-up with AT&T in the US to market Workbench, an enterprise oriented application framework for firms that gave up fighting the preferences of employees who want to make a fashion statement rather than having a functional device.
Although Hemmer was keen to stress that Workbench wasn't an app store, the potential is clear to see. Features such as authentication and the ability to control deployment of applications could easily be extended to include billing. Workbench, by using the local storage features in HTML5, is able to bring some resemblance of multi-tasking to the Iphone, something which we may see in the upcoming Iphone 4 software. Again, Hemmer wasn't willing to provide firm details on which mobile operators Workbench would appear on outside of the US, but did say the content delivery platform was indeed coming.
Workbench, although impressive, shouldn't be a benchmark for AMP to beat as the two have fundamentally different goals. Workbench is about providing a walled garden for enterprises to deploy applications. AMP on the other hand should enable available applications on the majority of mobile platforms. For mobile operators, the ability to provide a single content delivery platform should level the playing field for those products in the operator's portfolio that aren't graced with the fruity toymaker's marketing halo.
For developers who think that AMP might be an easy way to avoid the censors on Apple's store they will be disappointed. Hemmer was frank in saying that some sort of control will need to be retained by those brands who want to portray a certain public image. So it's unlikely that we'll see a Walt Disney app store putting out an app based on Song of the South.
Mobile operators may look at Hemmer's offering and feel that it represents the only viable alternative to simply taking what Apple is offering and undermining the rest of their product range. Developers on the other hand will see AMP as a way of getting their software out to more devices without the investment in their most precious commodity: time. For Apple, more so than Google, should AMP based app stores take off, Jobs' Mob will see its significant investment in promoting its own App Store take a hit.
Punters, however, are the ones who should be most excited at the launch of such an applications framework. It's hard to see how being able to get apps for just about any device will be a bad thing. The question is how long will it take for a mobile operator to step up and provide its customers with access to the applications they deserve. µ
Share this:
Share
" So the Iphone has one-half the processing power of the Nexus One.
Apple---Pay More-Get Less! It's been their motto for years.
posted by : Ed, 08 April 2010"
--- Hey Ed, you are a *****. Those are the specs of the original iPhone from a couple years back.
The iPhone 3GS (almost a year old now) has a Samsung 600Mhz ARM Cortex-A8 (ARMv7) and SGX 535. In fact, it was one of the first ARMv7 devices to come out.
Woo, the must-buy-Apple zombies are out in force today. Don't worry, there'll be a lull after 4pm when the so-called batteries on their iPhones run flat.
The Inquirer has the audacity to call Apple substandard!
Funniest thing I read in ages!
:))))))))))
The idea to me sounds more like the fact that the framework for the store is universal and controlled/distributed by telecom operators is the key part. This doesn't mean any app you make will work on all existing phones, but since it would mean the operators would have the power to control the app stores, you can be sure if it were to catch on, the phone makers would support the technology because the telecoms would demand it or the telecoms wouldn't sell their phones. If the platform is ported to existing phones, it sounds like the telecoms could still just make sure certain apps don't show up on the store on your model if your phone doesn't support it. Or maybe they leave it up to you to make sure you don't pay for an app you can't use (sounds like a tech support refund nightmare) Or if it's an app that they don't want you to have, they can block it. If it's a popular enough app, people will buy a different phone, or switch telecoms, so they're not going to block something the competition offers unless the phone can't handle it. It sounds like the idea would work to me because, telcoms want to control content, and not be at the mercy of Apple (or Microsoft, if they go the same route with Zune on their Series 7, but maybe they're keeping their 6.5 OS's around to hedge, just in case) I'm not into the iPhone, they seem nice, and I'm not here to bash Apple and iPhones, because lots of people love them, but you don't see Sony Ericcson (sp), Samsung, LG, HTC, etc. dictating content distribution to the service providers. Sprint, Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile <usa have their own ways of offering services and would not like to change that. Also, if you haven't noticed, with the market flooding with smartphones, there's not 1000 different OS's like before, you've got some major players vying for market share, and with 500,000 Android based phones alone on the way, soon you're many different phones will be running similar OS's. It no longer makes sense to make simple proprietary OS's any more, and currently, from my perspective, Android OS seems most likely to trickle down into cheaper mass market phones, which is what I'm waiting to see. A high percentage of users only take whatever phone they can get for free with their contract or for around $50 with the contract. So, unless Apple, MS, Palm, etc. are willing to make their OS's scalable/ make phones for the Average Joe, they might see Android or someone else swoop up a big chunk of the market. Not everyone is willing to shell out $300-$500 for a phone.
Apple make a couple of phones, a couple of music players and a few pc's. And they have an online store like Amazon, ebay etc.
Honestly the hardware inside the iphones has never been "the best". Has it? Check that launch dates and compare it to HTC's phone hardware specs. HTC always beat the Apple phone.
New Iphone and new HTC Evo - HTC Evo will have 8mp camera with flash, gps with Tomtom, etc etc. Iphone will not.
Compare the hardware specs and Apple loses on internals but it's customers are happy to pay more for less inside. Apple customers like the shiny outside and the simple to use interface.
If you prefer lower hardware specs with an easier interface, and paying more for that, how skilled are you? ;-)
"Hey, I want the pc that looks shiniest and is easiest to use, has the poorer hardware spec, and I want to pay more for it too!"
- Apple Fanboi # 135543345
Have you ever seen those beat up pickup trucks where the owner erected a home-made wooden shingled camper in the back? It has two bicycle racks on the front, a spare luggage rack on top overflowing with stuff, barely working Home Depot louvered windows on all sides, a back door with a huge NSA-type of lock, and might even have a chimney and a dish attached to it. Inside there's a stove, lounge chair, bed, fridge, and a closet.
The author hints that everyone should have access to these architectural, mobile marvels.
Will the apps get onto an iphone or win7 phone without being signed? Web apps?
Will they be like the crappy java games they sell for phones now? Stuff that looks like it was ported from a vic20?
Iphone CPU: ARM 11 412 MHz, PowerVR MBX-Lite graphics
Nexus One CPU: Qualcomm QSD 8250 1 GHz
So the Iphone has one-half the processing power of the Nexus One. I'd have to agree the Iphone is mediocre at best when it comes to CPU speed.
Both phones cost about the same.
Apple---Pay More-Get Less! It's been their motto for years.
I wish people would stop using the word "agnostic" as a substitute for "platform neutral". Agnosticism has nothing to do with computing & communications as we know them. The term "platform neutral" is both more descriptive and more accurate.
"Wipe!"
It'll be interesting to see how well this really works. Considering Sun JAVA was 'SUPPOSED' to be agnostic, I have my well reasoned and experience drawn suppositions already.
“This gift … allowed Apple to get away with charging an above average price for hardware that was, at best, below average.”
Never mind that no mobile phone, whether smart, featureful or dumb, had anything remotely close to the iPhone's capability, speed and usability at introduction. The INQ is referring to what ITS OWN ultra-smart designers could have produced.
Here's a plea to the site: Please UNSHACKLE your writers and let them do what they could do better than Apple, Android, or anybody else. It would be a favor to tech users worldwide, and to them, to give them the sack when they display such genius that is so badly mis-directed by writing at the INQ.
Well, do some on your own first.
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1002967/inquir
Sorry, but niche products don't sell 7 million units a quarter with over $600 revenue on each unit. And I'm not even counting the iPod touch (which has similar unit sales) and the just released iPad which has already sold 300K units in one day.
Also, niche companies generally do not have $30 billion in the bank, the world's best selling mp3 players, the largest online digital media business and world's most profitable-per-square-foot retail chain and the largest, most profitable app store.
You may think these factors are unrelated to the current and future success of the iPhone but they are the very factors that are making the iPhone near unstoppable.
And iPhone 4.0 will only keep the gravy train rolling and continue sucking the oxygen out of the room for everyone else. What WILL they complain about when the iPhone has multitasking and an HD screen in June?
it's the little things that matter the most. this author spells iPhone "Iphone", either because he's too lazy to do a few minutes of research on his subject and find out the correct spelling, or he's just plain stupid. it's on par with other horrible writers that call them "MAC computers" (what? i use a mac, not a MAC, and they're Apple Computers).
once i saw how he spelled iPhone i knew i was reading an article written by an idiot.
shame on the editor.
Actually, the whole concept of a device agnostic app store is an oxymoron in the mobile space. In the PC space it worked because Microsoft had an ironclad grip on the OS and there were few constraints on batteries, RAM and screen size and no touch interface to worry about. But the mobile space is completely different. What do we have now, about 6 different OSes? Apple, RIM, Symbian, MeeGo, WinMo, Android, Bada and Palm. And that doesn't even account for the variations within each OS.
Apple= one vendor that sells one phone and you can only get apps for that phone from one source (APPLE). Android = a multitude of phones and apps can be gotten from a multitude of sources. Contrary to popular belief, not everyone wants an iPhone and not ever developer wants to be limited to selling one line of apps for one phone in one store. Sooner or later, Apple will be surrounded by better phones with a better OS (Android) with more apps available from more sources. It's only a matter of time. Niche market. Niche Vendor. Niche product. Enjoy your iPhone. It's just a fashion statement, really.
Six months from now no one will remember this.
Way off base, my friend.
With the various mobile phone operating systems, it will be problematic - if not impossible - to produce an app store that fills the bill for all possible mobile phones. Tell me how an app developer can possibly produce the EXACT same user experience across apps that are designed for Blackberry, Android, iPhone (and please correct your typing - it's iPhone, not Iphone), WebOS (Palm), Windows Mobile, and all of the other phone OS systems). It will cost too much to develop agnostic apps that will work across all of the platforms. It's more likely that the mobile app developers will target the most widely-used mobile devices instead.
Sorry to disagree, but it's simply not a tenable solution.
Device agnostic apps won't spoil anything for Apple as long as they keep selling 7 million iPhones, 7 million iPod touches and 5 million iPads per quarter and that trend doesn't seem to be slowing.
I think he was referring to the tech specs, the things mentioned by other commenters are clever uses of the hardware but purely in terms of specification the iPhone was, and still is, lagging behind other handsets. Not that it seems to matter to the millions of people who have bought one.
***Maybe*** from a specifications perspective, original iPhones could be deemed below average, but really?? It was the first to have accelerometers and sensors to turn off the touchscreen and lcd when held to the ear. It was the first to make intelligent use of a touchscreen. How can you deem this as below average when no other device at the time was doing this?
I should have expected this from a supermarket tabloid.. can't believe MacSurfer would stoop to linking its readers to this trash.
[quote]This gift, of sorts, allowed Apple to get away with charging an above average price for hardware that was, at best, below average.[/quote]
I got here and decided it was another "hack" piece and stopped reading. Talk about bird cage liner...