Apple is using the Console Model

[tatteredpotato]

The funny thing is I've only just realized it. I'll admit I've had bad feelings towards Apple over how they manage the iPhone platform, but we've been dealing with the same business model for years with game consoles.

Think about it, on a console you are presented with a pretty much standard "dashboard" that allows for some very limited customization. Everything is about maintaining the same experience from console to console, so many features are limited. Third party software can't run in the background because it could cause games to perform undesirably.

Speaking of software, there's no way that you can get any software onto a console without the platform holders blessing. Just as Apple has some strict rules for what gets approved for the App Store, MS/N/Sony all have restrictions as to what types of software they allow and what that software is allowed to do. Also all the licensing fees devs pay to the platform developers are akin to the cut Apple takes from the sale of each App on the App Store. Also lets not forget that there are no third-party software sources on consoles either.

I'll admit I don't only not mind this business model for the console gaming market, I handily support it. It makes me wonder why give Apple such a hard time for bringing this model to the mobile sector, especially because it's a market with a history for usage restrictions. Perhaps it's because there has yet to be a viable and competitive console that is "open" in the sense that Android is on a mobile phone, or perhaps it's just in my mind cell phones are more inherently aligned with PCs than Xboxes.

Just some things to think about, and a reminder that the iPhone platform may not be as overly draconian as many of us like to think at times.

 

[TheWart]

Apple get's a lot of flak mostly because it is in vogue to hate on Apple. Much like MS was villified by tech geeks in the late 90's and early 2000's, Apple is the favorite target for self-proclaimed tech know-it-alls. This is due almost solely to the fact that Apple moved from being merely a niche computer company to a major tech organization (thanks to the iPod). It is common for people -especially on AT- to hate on things that are popular, and Apple happens to be popular at the moment, with a few of their product lines being pretty ubiquitous.

That is not to say that Apple doesn't make some ridiculous gaffes and enforces strange policies from time to time, but every company does. Where is the nerd rage over Google backing down to China's filtering earlier this week? I guess all the "open is teh best way?!" mantra we get from certain fanboys is only applicable when Apple doesn't approve some lame app store request.

 

[gorcorps]

Apple get's a lot of flak mostly because it is in vogue to hate on Apple. Much like MS was villified by tech geeks in the late 90's and early 2000's, Apple is the favorite target for self-proclaimed tech know-it-alls. This is due almost solely to the fact that Apple moved from being merely a niche computer company to a major tech organization (thanks to the iPod). It is common for people -especially on AT- to hate on things that are popular, and Apple happens to be popular at the moment, with a few of their product lines being pretty ubiquitous.

That is not to say that Apple doesn't make some ridiculous gaffes and enforces strange policies from time to time, but every company does. Where is the nerd rage over Google backing down to China's filtering earlier this week? I guess all the "open is teh best way?!" mantra we get from certain fanboys is only applicable when Apple doesn't approve some lame app store request.

Yup, pretty much. I used to be a pretty blind Apple hater too, but I'm starting to realize how unjustified all the hate I had was. If anything I just hated the fanboys, but NOW I hate the annoying anti-apple asshats even more. Can't have a decent phone discussion without somebody starting some shit.

 

[tatteredpotato]

Yup, pretty much. I used to be a pretty blind Apple hater too, but I'm starting to realize how unjustified all the hate I had was. If anything I just hated the fanboys, but NOW I hate the annoying anti-apple asshats even more. Can't have a decent phone discussion without somebody starting some shit.

I don't classify myself as a "Hater" (I just talked my sister into buying a 13" MBP actually), but when it comes to Android v iPhone I sit on the Android side of the argument. I realize there are people who I would definitely recommend an Android phone to, and there are others who I would talk into an iPhone.

I've always had a problem with the way Apple handles apps on the iPhone, and this thread is really more about if I think those thoughts are justified or not.

 

[gorcorps]

I don't classify myself as a "Hater" (I just talked my sister into buying a 13" MBP actually), but when it comes to Android v iPhone I sit on the Android side of the argument. I realize there are people who I would definitely recommend an Android phone to, and there are others who I would talk into an iPhone.

I've always had a problem with the way Apple handles apps on the iPhone, and this thread is really more about if I think those thoughts are justified or not.

I understand. I don't classify non-apple fans all as "haters", just like not all ipod/iphone users are fanboys. There are just VERY vocal minorities on both sides that are incredibly annoying.

Back to your OP though. The big difference I see is that consoles have always been "closed" and are actually getting a little more open now, where as smartphones have generally been more open until Apple jumped in with their more "closed" device. Think of all the things you can run on the PS3/360 now: Netflix, Hulu (on it's way), smaller arcade games, media playing, etc... Until recently you could even install linux to the PS3. That's pretty open and it wasn't like that with the older consoles.

If you look at smartphones, they've been dominated for a long time by RIM, Palm, Windows Mobile and such before Apple came in. Those are all phones that are fairly open comparatively, and I remember doing a lot of stuff to my Windows Mobile phones just because I could. Now Apple comes in and locks things down too much IMO. If I couldn't jailbreak I would definitely not have an iphone, and I won't get the new one until it's fully jailbroken.

So it seems like consoles really are getting BETTER over time, where as Apple came in late and locked it down.

 

[randomlinh]

Yup, pretty much. I used to be a pretty blind Apple hater too, but I'm starting to realize how unjustified all the hate I had was. If anything I just hated the fanboys, but NOW I hate the annoying anti-apple asshats even more. Can't have a decent phone discussion without somebody starting some shit.

It's not as much of hating Apple, is as how ridiculous some of their fanboys are. The same goes for most fanboys, but for some reason, the Apple ones are more annoying.

The company itself is like any other company, just very successful, heh.

 

[TheWart]

Back to your OP though. The big difference I see is that consoles have always been "closed" and are actually getting a little more open now, where as smartphones have generally been more open until Apple jumped in with their more "closed" device. Think of all the things you can run on the PS3/360 now: Netflix, Hulu (on it's way), smaller arcade games, media playing, etc... Until recently you could even install linux to the PS3. That's pretty open and it wasn't like that with the older consoles.

I don't think you can classify something as "open" just because it adds features. It is not like you can install stuff willy-nilly from the Xbox marketplace. Microsoft built and approved the Netflix integration, not some random blogger dude. Microsoft also takes a very dim view of Xbox modders (much harsher than Apple and jailbreaking), and Sony's recent move with Linux on the PS3 indicated a step in the "less open" direction because they wanted to ban it. I would argue that what you say is "open" about the Xbox and PS3 is simply the fact that improving technological capabilities allow their manufacturers to offer more features, like Netflix, ESPN, etc.

If you look at smartphones, they've been dominated for a long time by RIM, Palm, Windows Mobile and such before Apple came in. Those are all phones that are fairly open comparatively, and I remember doing a lot of stuff to my Windows Mobile phones just because I could. Now Apple comes in and locks things down too much IMO. If I couldn't jailbreak I would definitely not have an iphone, and I won't get the new one until it's fully jailbroken.

I gues WinMo was/is open in that you can install applications from just about anywhere, but RIM? Before Apple popularized -and simplified- the concept of an "App Store" for smart phones, how much stuff could you really download for your Blackberry. In addition, the security provided by RIM's locked-down system is part of what makes BB's so appealing to corporate IT folks.

Also, look at what direction WM7 is taking. It is clearly a step towards the Apple-like centrally controlled approach, and a step away from the free-for-all but haphazard WinMo style of old. I think this is a smart move as more customers (imo) care about user experience than being able to change their bootloading icon.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

WinMo was a total free for all thing. It's just like windows now. It was all about registry hacks, custom ROMs, apps you download from obscure sites.

Yeah, a centrally controlled App store changed everything. You could talk about the 30,000 WinMo apps before but those are all useless. You couldn't find it from a single repository. It made customization a biatch and I had to always surf XDA to find what I wanted. I mean even for phone gurus, I hate spending hours just to customize one aspect of it and then get the right apps loaded. I would never want to do that again and the few times I had to reformat my Pocket PC I nearly cried and gave up on tweaking it...

 

[DivideBYZero]

I
I gues WinMo was/is open in that you can install applications from just about anywhere, but RIM? Before Apple popularized -and simplified- the concept of an "App Store" for smart phones, how much stuff could you really download for your Blackberry. In addition, the security provided by RIM's locked-down system is part of what makes BB's so appealing to corporate IT folks.

You can install anything you want on a BlackBerry, even unsigned apps, even on brand new devices. A BES admin has the option to restrict to signed apps, a list of apps or even deny all apps, but this is a policy decision, not a platform restriction.

There was a thriving micro eco-system of applications and apps before App World arrived. AW just popularised and centralised this for folks that had no idea that BB had apps, or thought that phone apps were invented by Steve Jobs.

 

[tatteredpotato]

I agree that the centralized software repositories are a step in the right direction, I just don't like when that is the ONLY option. I see carriers liking it because they can control what goes onto the platform, but the Android market really doesn't limit anything (wifi tether apps included).

Essentially the average user won't download from 3rd party sources and the geeks will find a way to do it anyways so I don't see the point in working so hard to control these aspects.

 

[theeedude]

Yep, Apple and WP7 are going to be console model, Android the PC model for smartphone.
With Apple, you buying an iPhone is just signing up to be a cash cow for them to milk. Razor+blade model.

 

[dwell]

You just realized this?

 

[tatteredpotato]

You just realized this?

Yes, you can review the first sentence of the OP for a recap.

 

[TheWart]

Yep, Apple and WP7 are going to be console model, Android the PC model for smartphone.
With Apple, you buying an iPhone is just signing up to be a cash cow for them to milk. Razor+blade model.

Umm what?

The cash cow for Apple is the hardware, not the software. How are they 'milking' iTunes. By taking a whopping 30% cut? lol

 

[theeedude]

Yes

 

[dwell]

The cash cow for Apple is the hardware, not the software. How are they 'milking' iTunes. By taking a whopping 30% cut? lol

30% of 10 billion songs -- do the math

 

[TheWart]

Yes

Let's see here: Apple announced that it has given developers $1,000,000 for App Store sales. That means Apple's cut was about $400 million or so. That is chump change for a company that generates $15 BILLION in a quarter.

Even if we look at what the entire iTunes store is expected to make, it is just about $1 billion of said $15 billion.

Hardly a cash cow. The App Store is just an additive to make the iPhone better and more versatile. As a point of comparison, how long has it taken MS and Sony to turn a profit on their console hardware? The answer is "years."

 

[theeedude]

Are you talking about profit or revenue? Don't confuse the two.

 

[TheWart]

Are you talking about profit or revenue? Don't confuse the two.

Revenue. Profit would reinforce my point even more. Apple makes $.10 from each song on iTunes iirc...not very much.

 

[TheStu]

Revenue. Profit would reinforce my point even more. Apple makes $.10 from each song on iTunes iirc...not very much.

Last I heard, Apple only has to pay the record labels on a quarterly basis. In those intervening months, Apple is still getting the interest off the proceeds from each song. Still a fair chunk of change.

 

[TheWart]

Last I heard, Apple only has to pay the record labels on a quarterly basis. In those intervening months, Apple is still getting the interest off the proceeds from each song. Still a fair chunk of change.

No doubt, but my point is that iTunes is icing on the cake for their real money winner (the iPhone hardware). By contrast, the hardware is a loss leader for MS and Sony - at least until recently.