Apple’s so-called ‘walled garden’ is a complex system. It vastly simplifies the experience for users by seamlessly allowing information to sync across devices and offers an easy way for people to find and install apps that have been curated to minimise the risk of malicious software or accidental data leaks. But it’s also an anathema to many as it limits flexibility and limits developers by taking a slice of every sale.
How did we get here
When Apple launched its first App Store in 2008, purchasing and installing software was complex. Once you’d handed over your credit card details or purchased disks from a store, you had to manually load the software, often choosing from a bunch of options (most people just accepted the defaults, sometimes to their detriment). And there was always a chance that a new application could mess up the operation of a new one.
The App Store, first introduced for the iPhone, changed that. It vastly simplified the process for both users and developers. Developers had a marketplace where they could list their apps at no charge and users could easily find and install apps with a tap or two. Apple’s checking processes meant that the risk of an app messing up your phone was minimal and developers didn’t have go through the hassle of setting up download sites and payment gateways.
Bu two things changed.
- Some users craved more flexibility and so the jailbreaking movement was born. With a bit of messing around, users could, if they chose, side load applications and bypass the App Store.
- Developers voiced their disapproval at Apple’s 30% cut of the purchase price. Apple has reduced and amended the way it charges these fees since those early days but there is still angst about the fees.
Those were the first small chips made in Apple’s walled garden.
The response
Apple has found itself in the crosshairs of regulators all over the world. The European Union (EU) has effectively forced Apple to abandon its proprietary Lightning connector in favor of USB-C. And, more recently, the EU has directed Apple to open its software to competitors. That has resulted in new app stores appearing in that region.
Apple’s argument is that it weakens the security controls it has in place as well as allowing potentially questionable content becoming available to minors. It also means that the version of iOS and iPadOS that ships in the EU is different to the software that goes to the rest of the world.
In the United States, a different fight has taken place over the way Apple collects revenue from developers. Appel has been fighting Epic Games, the developer of the popular game Fortnite, in the courts. MacRumors has a handy timeline of the dispute and subsequent litigation, which is still continuing.
The United Kingdom has also launched its own battle with Apple. The British government wants Apple to enable a backdoor into its systems so encrypted communications can be intercepted and read by law enforcement. Apple (and the USA government) have argued strongly that this would weaken security for everyone and give criminals the ability to break encryption and thus jeopardise personal information.
Other governments around the world are watching these cases closely so we could see the push against Apple accelerate.
Apple’s monopoly
Apple’s wall garden is a tightly integrated network of hardware and software that, Apple says, puts their customers at the centre and enables them to seamlessly and safely share information between their won devices and with other people in the garden that they trust. It’s why I could AirDrop event tickets to my wife last night, of quickly share photos firstly to a friend on the weekend, of start writing this article on my office Mac and continue on my laptop when I went out.
There is a cost to this. If my wife used a phone running Android or I bought a cheaper Windows laptop this would not have been quite so seamless. I would have needed to text the ticket or have the iCloud app installed on the laptop – and I would not have had the same app to work from.
But people should be allowed the freedom to choose the best device they can afford, and enjoy easy and secure connectivity and information sharing. And this is at the crux of the EU’s directions forcing Apple to open up its software.
The commercial questions of what and how Apple charges developers for access to the App Store will take time to resolve. They’re being tried in the USA where regulators tend to take a much lighter touch than the EU. And you can bet the lawyers will stretch it out while the parties involved have deep pockets.
The endgame
I’m old enough to remember when WordPerfect was the dominant word processing software and Microsoft Word was the upstart. Eventually, Word won out (WYSIWYG was the killer feature) and the .doc format became dominant. Microsoft kept it proprietary to protect its market share. But, eventually, that file format (and PDF and a bunch of others) became standards that any software maker could adopt.
While Apple’s reach is considerably wider and deeper than a single piece of software, like Microsoft Word, the problem is not dissimilar. Apple’s hand is being forced to make its platform more open and fair in the eyes of the market and regulators. And that means sharing some of its intellectual property or, at least, making it far more accessible.
That could happen in a number of ways. At one extreme, Apple could offer two versions of iOS for users to choose from when they first start or factory reset an iPhone. They could choose Apple iOS or Open iOS with the former living entirely in Apple’s walled garden and the other in what I could euphemistically term the ‘Wild West’.
That would give users a choice.
With alternate app stores, Apple could create a sandbox where ‘unauthorised’ apps (those that don’t come from Apple’s App Store) work in virtual isolation from the rest of the operating system and other applications. That would enable side loading and reduce some of the risks that Apple says come from using apps outside its curated environment.
It’s about culture as much as technology
Apple has, almost since its inception back on April Fools Day in 1976, been different to almost every other consumer technology company. The famous “Think Different” advertising campaign in 1997 showcased this and it continues to be a philosophy that infuses much of what Apple does.
The first Mac, iPhone, iPad and Apple Watch all changed the way the expectation of consumer electronics hardware could look like. When Apple introduced the MacBook Air, with Steve Jobs sliding it out of an inter-office envelope, it came at a time when netbooks represented the best the market could offer when it came to small, portable personal computers.
The App Store flipped the software distribution model inside out, much as the iPhone did to the telecommunications industry.
Apple has thrived by not doing things the market expects. But it has been so successful that it is not in a position where its culture must change. It must innovate in a new way.
It’s no longer enough to create new and exciting products and services. It must adapt to a world that is demanding greater openness and interoperability between platforms made by competitors. And, if Apple’s products are better than those of its competitors, it will continue to thrive as it evolves.
Microsoft did something similar when it shifted away from its heavy reliance on Windows as an operating platform and embraced more open cloud standards. Microsoft Office is still the dominant office productivity suite on the planet and it has achieved this by being more open.
Apple’s challenge is retain its strength while becoming more open. Rather than building more walls around its garden, it could look at allowing more variety.
Anthony is the founder of Australian Apple News. He is a long-time Apple user and former editor of Australian Macworld. He has contributed to many technology magazines and newspapers as well as appearing regularly on radio and occasionally on TV.