Its functionality is locked in, though
Apple can change it through remote
updates. Indeed, to those who managed to tinker with the code to enable
the iPhone to support more or different applications, Apple threatened
(and then delivered on the threat) to
transform the iPhone into an iBrick.
The machine was not to be generative
beyond the innovations that Apple
(and its exclusive carrier, AT&T) wanted. Whereas the world would innovate
for the Apple II, only Apple would innovate for the iPhone. (A promised
software development kit may allow
others to program the iPhone with
Apple’s permission.)”
3
illustration by John hersey
The parenthetical remark has since
come true (the iPhone Software Development Kit was released in March
2008), and as of this writing in late
2008, several months after the introduction of iPhone 2.0, it is difficult to
imagine the iPhone without its outside apps. This is a partial vindication
of generative technologies over sterile
ones, but with caveats that may make
this the worst rather than the best of
both worlds.
The application environment for
the iPhone flips from the PC-with-antivirus-software’s blacklist system
to a whitelist scheme unchangeable by
the user. With rare exceptions, such as
a special ad hoc program allowing very
limited distribution. Outside developers must register with Apple, promise
not to disclose anything about how
apps are written, and if approved they
may then submit their software to Apple for review and possible inclusion in
the iPhone App Store, the only way for
the public at large to obtain it.
Apple can change its mind at any
time about a particular piece of software’s inclusion in its store. And even
software already obtained from the
iPhone App Store can be recalled—
that’s just a subset of Apple’s ability to
remotely reprogram any aspect of the
phone at any time.
For vendors of iPhone apps, Apple’s
goodwill is thus vital. Apart from deciding whether an app lives or dies, Apple
can feature favored apps in its store,
and it can make app updates and bug
fixes available slowly or quickly. For
these reasons a gag order in the license
agreement demanding that software
authors not discuss codewriting for
unreleased software was taken very seriously among app developers. Apple
doesn’t need to bring a lawsuit against
a developer who violates license terms;
it already has the power to destroy the
iPhone-based livelihood of anyone disfavored, for any reason.
NetShare, an app that allowed users
to gain wireless connectivity for their
PCs through a connected iPhone, disappeared, and as of this writing the company says it doesn’t know why. Box Office, an app that provided movie times,
was removed from the iPhone App Store
for several weeks. Its developer has declined any comment since its return.
Other developers for mail and podcast-related programs say their apps were
turned down with the explanation they
were “duplicative” of (that is, competitive with) existing iPhone functionality.
Should we care? Apple likely
wouldn’t kill apps people really like
since they make money along with the
authors: 30% of all sales. And people
think of an iPhone as a more unified
device, expecting all of it to work at
