When I read the WWDC 2007 coverage (or here, or a dozen other places), what I heard was the first real cry for offline web apps. On desktops and notebooks, web-based apps are trying to displace desktop apps that don’t generally have an offline “problem,” but Apple has, at this point, forced the issue by creating a popular (?!?!) platform with no desktop apps to displace.
This completely changes the value proposition of offline-enabling technologies like Google Gears. If the iPhone is to be used as any sort of general computing device (not just a phone, and not just an iPod), and all 3rd party applications are to run in the browser, then it is absolutely necessary that there be some offline capability for web-based applications. There simply is no option.
This new-found dependence on Safari is consistent with the just-released Safari 3 Beta for Windows XP, Vista, and OS X, and a deep reliance on Google technologies is consistent with the built-in Google Maps for the iPhone that seems to be demonstrated every time an iPhone is turned on. So, the big question, where is Google Gears for Safari?
Anthony Apple, Google, iPhone
Nate Anderson at Ars Technica says that Apple is singlehandedly keeping DRM alive in 2007. I disagree completely: If DRM is to die in 2007 it will be because of Apple. Everyone else’s DRM scheme is failing because Apple controls so much of the digital download market, leaving anyone who wants to sell content without going through Apple only the option of selling it unprotected. If FairPlay were open to partners, then I believe that most distributors would happily adopt it at this point to get onto those precious iPods. Not only are would-be competitors in the area of distribution throwing in the DRM towel, content producers themselves are more likely to give up on DRM because, in today’s market, selling DRM protected content means giving Apple control over pricing.
DRM has been very good to Apple. By selling DRM content, Apple locks buyers into their hardware as long as the DRM scheme is viable. DRM has allowed Apple to create a switching cost that is, for many customers, now higher than the cost of switching from a PC to a Mac as a general computer (thanks to Boot Camp and Parallels).
If Apple had been less successful with the iPod and iTunes, we might have seen customers revolt at an ecosystem of incompatible DRM schemes. Had Apple been less successful, there could have evolved an industry-wide DRM standard (for whatever industry one wishes to consider) which would let content producers sleep more soundly at night, and let digital distributors compete on their competencies. But Apple has been successful, phenomenally so. There has been no customer revolt because there aren’t any DRM compatibility issues as long as you stay true to the iPod/iTunes path. There is no industry-wide standard, because Apple, through its success, has effectively become the industry.
So here we are, back to the future. Competitors looking to negate Apple’s advantage need to negate DRM. MP3s, here we come.
Anthony Apple, Technology
The question I have regarding Adobe and Apollo is whether this will be a revolution or just another cross-platform GUI framework. The differences this time are that you should be able to avoid having to recompile, and you’ve got first-class web-related constructs featured heavily. I think both Apple and Microsoft have ample opportunity to provide technologies that compete on at least some issues, but it’s not clear that they will do so in the near future.
A significant challenge for Apollo will be letting application developers present the unique user experiences that have helped drive web popularity without clashing with the rest of the desktop experience. If just a couple applications are available, and they are horribly dissonant with the rest of the desktop, then this efforts runs the risk of being nothing more than a niche for developers who have no choice but to be cross-platform and use languages popularized by the web. On the other hand, if those aspects are instead leveraged as advantages in addition to a base that already competes with existing desktop development models, then Apollo has a wonderful opportunity to become a major player on the rapidly changing desktop.
Anthony Apple, Microsoft, Software, Windows
