Monday, July 14, 2008 1:40 PM/EST

Is This Any Way to Launch a Platform?

News Commentary. It's the question I repeatedly asked myself over the weekend. The answer is yes.

The platform I'm referring to is twofold: iPhone 2.0/iPhone 3G and the iTunes App Store. Apple seems to be doing the right thing, by surprisingly bucking convention. The approach reminds me of the Macintosh following its 1984 release. Apple exercised great control over Mac software development; its approach with the iPhone and the App Store is looking to be similar. By contrast, young Microsoft opened the doors to just about anybody. Apple got better applications, but Microsoft got more of them. More applications and more developers turned out to be the winning strategy nearly 25 years ago.

Apple has embarked on similar strategy of tighter control as it turns the device into a platform and the App Store into a symbiotic second platform. I'm convinced the strategy that failed in the late 1980s and early 1990s will hugely succeed today. The nature of the cell phone is one reason.

Nearly from the beginning, the PC was an open, flexible platform. The mobile phone started out more closed, largely because of carrier and connectivity controls. Microsoft, Palm and Research in Motion tried to create more open development platforms—Google as well, with the forthcoming Android platform. But their strategies have failed to embrace the cell phone's more closed attributes and its captive audience. Nokia has done much better than rivals, but Apple just jumped way ahead. The App Store is well suited to the mobile market's character and what users expect from a cell phone: something drop-dead easy.

What Makes a Successful Platform?
No platform can succeed without compelling applications. The killer application for the cell phone is its core feature: telephony without wires, service availability anywhere. But most smart phones don't yet have a killer application, other than telephony, with the BlackBerry being the glaring exception; it's got mail. The problem: Too many devices do too many things not very well.

In that respect, the iPhone has glaring deficiencies compared to some other devices. The camera is borderline OK, and there is no video capability. The battery is fixed and can't be easily swapped out. But the iPhone also does so many other things really well. For the first-iteration iPhone, Apple chose to do more with less. Web browsing is better than on any other mobile that I've used. E-mail setup and synchronization is nearly touchless. These and other data features improve with iPhone 2.0 software, iPhone 3G and MobileMe.

For me, Web browsing was iPhone's killer application (what the killer app is to me now, I'll explain in a few paragraphs). It's what drew me back from other devices, like my beloved Nokia N95. For other people, the killer app might be e-mail, music, video or photo sharing. These features all work exceptionally well compared with most other mobiles that I've used—and that would be many.

But these features, for all they're worth, aren't good enough for iPhone to succeed as a platform. All successful platforms share a few common traits:

They have at least one killer application people really want

They make available a breadth of useful applications

Development tools and APIs make it easy to create good applications

Third parties make lots of money

Applications and broad third-party support predicate any platform's success. This truism is broader than just technology, but that's as far as I want to go for this post. The Mac started out with some excellent applications for writing and for graphics, supplied by Apple, and third parties quickly delivered more applications. But Apple controlled an end-to-end model and extended some of that control to developers, which limited how quickly the platform grew.

By contrast, in the early days of DOS and Windows, Microsoft allowed lots of free developer rein. Microsoft would suffer for the approach years later, as errant applications would become the biggest source of Windows performance problems or crashes. Microsoft didn't exercise enough control, and with the exceptions of the Xbox and the Zune, too many third-party Microsoft platform applications cause too many problems.

In the 1980s, Apple put the customer experience first, which was a good choice for building up the brand. Microsoft was more concerned about building up market share, and fast. Its platform offered developers more flexibility, more choice and more ways to profit. Microsoft's flexibility and software licensing model helped DOS and Windows to chew up and spit out the Mac's early market share success.

One App Store to Rule Them All
Conceptually, the more open approach, which favors development choice, should work as well on the mobile as the PC. But Microsoft, Palm and others have been there, done that with limited success. Sure, there are plenty of Windows Mobile applications. But are people standing in long lines to buy Windows Mobile phones because of the apps? No.

People don't really want more choice, they want better choices. (Sorry, Charlie, people don't want tuna with good taste, they want tuna that tastes good.) App Store only has 800 applications, but they have been downloaded more than 10 million times since July 10.

App Store is sure to succeed as a platform and make the iPhone—and even the iPod Touch—a complementary, successful platform; all with Apple pulling developer strings more tightly than would Microsoft. I'll break down the reasons into the aforementioned platform success criteria and mobile market/iPhone characteristics. Platform attributes:

iPhone has two built-in killer applications that people want: Multitouch and mobile Web browsing. And those capabilities are available for third-party applications.

App Store provides many good and useful applications—the kind of stuff that really extends mobile utility.

The iPhone SDK brought 800 good applications to the mobile platform in just a few months.

Developers can make lots of money and from the best kind of audience—captive. Apple's revenue sharing model is unusually generous (developers get a three-quarters cut). The store is easily available to all iPhones or iPod Touches running the 2.0 software. People don't have to look lots of places. There is a single, simple source of distribution.

But the platform attributes would mean much less if not for how well Apple's typically end-to-end model resonates with the mobile carrier and device market. Carriers have sought to control and even directly deliver data services. That's what business users and consumers are accustomed to. The App Store resonates well with carrier or consumer behavior. Expectations aren't the same as for PCs. They're quite different.

Apple could go nowhere with the iPhone/App Store platforms if the device had no appeal—and not just to buyers. Developers, too. Multitouch, motion sensing, screen size and, of course, the App Store, are compelling foundation for delivering applications. That said, Apple isn't always the easiest company for developers to work with. Apple likes its control, because the user experience is such a top design priority.

Cell phones are the most personal devices that people carry. App Store provides a means of personalizing the device's uses. More importantly, the apps are contextual. The store is always open for business. Twenty-four seven. If you're bored waiting for the bus, the App Store could provide applications for connectivity to friends or games to play. What's Wii to you when the Metro is late and you can't get home? App Store application Super Monkey Ball could be great fun in that bored and waiting context, and iPhone's motion sensors make playing fun without a controller.

As I mentioned some paragraphs back, Web browsing was my personal killer application for the iPhone 2G. Now there are so many, because of the App Store. Suddenly, the Web is in my pocket—OK, strapped to my belt—in a way it has never been before.

I should concede that the aforementioned carrier resonance is in part contradiction. Where iPhone 3G differs is who delivers the service. The iPhone 3G carriers are ceding some control to Apple by letting the company directly deliver many services through the App Store. The carriers profit by increased data fees. What's that saying? Give a little, get a lot?

Related Posts: