The-Source.com

Miguel de Icaza has offered up two theories on Apple’s recent change preventing non-Apple toolchain development:

Theory 1: The Business Case

Here, Mr. de Icaza argues that Flash’s “killer feature” is that the same code that ran on the iPhone could run on other devices, and therefore hurt Apple’s dominant position in the market.

Under this theory, Apple will permit Flash when other platforms catch up with the iPhone.

Theory 2: The UI

Here the reasoning is that Apple does not want non-native or “alien” looking applications.

Under this theory, Apple should not concern itself with how applications look or even offer any guidelines on application quality, as the market suffices to weed out undesirable applications.

My Theory: What you don’t say says a lot

Notably missing from Mr. de Icaza’s theories is this one: Apple wants to retain control over the iPhone.

What Mr. de Icaza does not – indeed can not – acknowledge is that if, say, Flash became the preferred development tool chain for the iPhone, then it would be Adobe and not Apple dictating when features were made available to developers and users.

That is clearly not a position Apple wants to be in, having been burned by Adobe in the past in just such a situation!

Furthermore, this is a theory in fact explicitly laid on in the very Daring Fireball post that Steve Jobs himself referred to (and which Mr. de Icaza in turn links to).

The Lesson

And there is the lesson: whoever controls the development toolchain controls the platform. This is exactly why Microsoft chants “Developers, developers, developers” and why Microsoft’s Mantra is:

Every line of code that is written to our standards is a small victory; every line of code that is written to any other standard, is a small defeat. Total victory, for DRG, is the universal adoption of our standards by developers, as this is an important step towards total victory for Microsoft itself: “A computer on every desk and in every home, running Microsoft software.”

Microsoft knows it. Apple knows it. Adobe knows it. You know it, I know it and the American People know it.

I suspect Mr. de Icaza knows it as well, though he dare not beathe a word on the matter for it would be tantamount to admitting he is working directly to put Microsoft in control of every platform.

Breaking it down a little further

Indulge me and consider the following hypothetical:

If Flash was the vastly dominant development platform for the iPhone, Adobe could hinder iPhone development as desired. It might eventually get displaced if it over-played its hand, but if say Adobe was a player in the smartphone market with its own phone offering it would surely be tempting to leverage that developer control.

Likewise, say that .NET became the dominant development platform for Linux – a more difficult proposition to be sure, but one that Mr. de Icaza has repeatedly expressed enthusiasm for.

Now, try this on for size:

If Flash .NET was the vastly dominant development platform for the iPhone Linux Desktop, Adobe Microsoft could hinder iPhone Linux application development as desired. It might eventually get displaced if it over-played its hand, but if say Adobe Microsoft were a player in the  smartphone operating system market with its own phone offering desktop and application suites it would surely be tempting to leverage that developer control.

Oh. Oh, my.

Predicting the future

Now, I’m not saying that if Flash was the choice of 99% of iPhone developers that Adobe would ever use that as leverage against Apple. I’m sure Adobe would be 100% dedicated to transparently delivering every feature Apple provided to Flash developers promptly and completely, would always maintain the same level of backwards and forwards compatibility that Apple offered, would never introduce any bugs, and never ever favor a non-Apple platform.

In the same vein, I am not saying that Microsoft will for sure use Mono against Linux. I’m just saying it is:

• Possible – there is nothing unrealistic about the scenario nor do any laws prevent it.
• Logical – Apple isn’t scared of a boogeyman here. It’s real-world strategic thinking.
• Under Consideration – we have numerous documented sources of Microsoft planning how standardizing portions of .NET could be used to “keep network effect” and ”gather IP advantage” for Microsoft.
• Historical – Microsoft has a proud history of half-standardized standards used to its own advantage, but deliberately crippled for others

Being crazy

Consider this posting about the Apple enforcement and how some people are hoping Apple tacitly turns a blind eye to products like MonoTouch and Lua and only locks out Flash:

And don’t give me that shit about Apple being selective in enforcing this clause, so don’t worry they won’t enforce it on you. It doesn’t matter. You have to be insane to risks large amounts of capital (tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars of developer salaries to write the app, if nothing else) that Apple won’t choose to enforce this clause. No sane business manager would voluntarily add risk to an already risky proposition (most software projects fail) if they can at all avoid it.

That’s how I feel about Mono: don’t give me that shit about Microsoft being selective in enforcing ECMA or non-ECMA coverved parts. Or that as long I get the software from a pre-approved source I’m covered by a “covenant”, as long as I am careful to stay within the lines of the covenant of course.

The bottom line is you have to be insane to risk large amounts of time and effort that Microsoft won’t choose to enforce its “IP” if your project competes with them. No sane developer would voluntarily add risk to an already risky proposition if they can at all avoid it.

Mono: you can avoid it.