Why Instinctiv avoided the iPhone SDK

A few days ago, I posted about Instinctiv's Shuffle application for the iPhone and iPod Touch. It's an interesting piece of software that addresses a growing problem for some discerning listeners--how to get a meaningful playlist without having to program it song by song--but it only works on so-called "jailbroken" devices.

Instinctiv found Apple's iPhone SDK to be too restrictive for its needs.

(Credit: Apple)

Instinctiv's FAQ alluded to problems that made it impossible for it to use the iPhone software developer kit (SDK), but I was curious to hear more, and Monday I had a chance to talk with Instinctiv co-founders Justin Smithline and Peter Brodsky.

As Brodsky put it, "Apple's not really releasing an iPhone SDK." To paraphrase his explanation, the iPhone runs Mac OS X. Apple could simply have allowed developers to write applications to that platform--that's more or less how jailbroken apps work--and let the developers figure out how to distribute them. That's the traditional software development model.

Instead, Apple is trying assert tighter control over the iPhone by allowing only code-signed applications to run on it. The only way to get your application code-signed is by participating in Apple's iPhone Developer Program. Which requires--among other things--developers to use the new SDK.

Developers can download the SDK for free to see whether they're interested in applying to become an official iPhone developer. But Instinctiv says the SDK was useless to them because it doesn't provide a way for applications access the music library. (One of many restrictions it imposes.) According to the Instinctiv co-founders, this is not about protecting users from badly written apps--it's possible to write an "approved" app with the SDK that degrades performance on the iPhone--but is being done strictly for business reasons.

I'm not a developer and am not qualified to evaluate this claim. But even if it's correct, so what? Apple spent a lot of time and money creating the mobile phone that everybody wants, and absolutely should be able to control the user experience, enforce exclusive arrangements with its carrier partners, and extract fees from third-party application developers.

But this strategy works only as long as there's no viable competition. Right now, there are plenty of other mobile platforms that third-party developers can write applications for--Symbian (which Nokia recently bought in its entirety and turned open source), RIM's Blackberry, and Microsoft's Windows Mobile just to name three. But those platforms either have inherent flaws--the Windows Mobile UI comes to mind--or the devices they're used on don't have the combination of style and features that the iPhone is becoming known for.

Google's taking the opposite approach of Apple, building its Android mobile phone platform on open-source software such as Linux and promoting it heavily to third-party developers. Instinctiv is bullish on the platform, and has already designed a version of its Shuffle app for Android.

But I'm pretty skeptical about Android's chances of changing the world. When buying a phone, are consumers really looking for a large choice of applications? No. They're looking for a cool phone that does a few things very well, and a service provider that offers reasonable service in the widest possible range. The iPhone has the edge in hardware design, it has most of the features and applications that most people want, and while AT&T's service isn't perfect, neither is anybody else's. Android might have been great five years ago, going head to head against Symbian and Windows Mobile in their infancy. But competing against the iPhone's unified array of hardware+software+online services will be a tough task for any company.

[Pete Bardo]

The SDK is $99 for developers of free or commercial apps, $299 for in-house/proprietary apps. I guess that's ok. But why place an artificial limit on functionality by not including access to certain parts of the hardware? That doesn't make sense--but, then again, selling iPhone only through AT&T doesn't make sense to me either. Apple may be making a comeback, but it still seem myopic to me.

[~Neo~]

"Apple spent a lot of time and money creating the mobile phone that everybody wants, and absolutely should be able to control the user experience, enforce exclusive arrangements with its carrier partners, and extract fees from third-party application developers."

I would not say that "everyone" wants one, iPhone overpriced, underperforming, locked down, childs toy compared to other devices from HTC.

[cbazza]

If the iPhone has most of the features and applications that most people want, then why is Apple bothering with an SDK for 3rd party developers ???

Android hasn't even being released yet and you say it would have been good 5 years ago !!! Android is going to attract some much 3rd party innovation that is going to leave iPhone behind, kind of like what Windows did to the original Macintosh.

Makes me laugh to read your comments about Apple having the right to extract fees (30%) from 3rd party application developers. What is going to happen is that most developers will ignore the iPhone and continue to developer for other phones.

[MacKirk]

Well, your comments are interesting because they could not be any more wrong. When Apple released the SDK they got 250,000 downloads. They had 25,000 people apply to be developers. They have so far accepted 4,000 developers and expect real live applications to appear as soon as September 11. The iPhone App Store, with it's low costs, it's frictionless administration and flexible pricing, is going to turn the iPhone into the next legitimate platform. And we won't have to wait long to see who is right. The revolution begins on the 11th and repercussions should begin almost immediately.

[MacKirk]

Why assume that Apple's limitations are arbitrary? Apple is one of the rare companies that really seems to think things through. Just because Apple hasn't EXPLAINED the reason for a limitation doesn't mean they don't have a reason for the limitation. If they've limited functionality, there is probably a very good reason (at least from Apple''s perspective) for it.

[setgo]

I guess that's why your following and commenting on iPhone news articles huh? If this is how you really feel dude then be like me. I hate Windows Moble (after owning a Q) so I don't read any related article and couldn't give a d@#$ what they are doing with it, so therefore you will not read a post from me about it. Stop trollin' around.

[setgo]

-Neo-

I guess that's why your following and commenting on iPhone news articles huh? If this is how you really feel dude then be like me. I hate Windows Moble (after owning a Q) so I don't read any related article and couldn't give a -- what they are doing with it, so therefore you will not read a post from me about it. Stop trollin' around.

[Cirbirus]

Apple has their own way of doing things and they pretty much don't give a toss if you like it or not. They are happy only dealing with the people that like them. They have some of the best tech support around but complaining to them about their corporate policies is like spitting into the wind.

As an iPhone developer I can say it SUCKS that we can't access the iTunes library. I understand why they do it; they don't like people downloading stuff off iPods because they think you'll just share your music with everyone, and you would. I know I would have written an app to beam items from one phone to the next. So as much as I hate it I do understand it.

But it still gets my goat. The way I feel is if I bought the hardware, it's mine. I can do what the hell ever I want with it and no silly EULA is going to stop me. In fact I think EULA's are ridiculous so I just say out loud when ever I encounter them, "I DO NOT agree with this EULA and if you do not agree that I should be able to open and use this without agreeing to the EULA then make it magically disappear, otherwise you accept that your EULA is null and void." That's about as binding as a EULA.