CloudKit now handles server-to-server networking

Right on the heels of Parse shutting down, Apple have announced they’re expanding the capabilities of their similar API, CloudKit:

In addition to providing a web interface for users to access the same data as your app, you can now easily read and write to the CloudKit public database from a server-side process or script with a server-to-server key. Learn more about generating a server-to-server key and composing web service requests.

Now users of CloudKit can interact with the data from their own server. To be a serious replacement for Parse, however, there needs to be a way for non-Apple clients to interact with it.

Parse and what it means for mobile app economics

Parse, the mobile backend as a service provider bought by Facebook, is shutting down, and there’s a lot of speculation around why it’s being shut down and what it means for the business of mobile apps. Allen Pike wrote an excellent article where he explains:

As much as Parse will try to get the word out that they’re shutting down, many apps’ owners don’t even know that they’re reliant on Parse. Parse’s overly generous free plan made them popular with freelancers and consultants building quick app backends for their clients. Many of those clients don’t know what Parse is, let alone that the little app they commissioned a couple years ago is a ticking time bomb.

There is an obvious danger in running a business in something you do not understand or can not control. This is hardly the first time that a platform has fallen out from underneath of honest business people at inopportune times. It’s happened time and time again, where a startup has shipped a product which relies on a titan’s API, only to have it pulled out from under them when the provider realizes the startup has worked out how to monetize their service or that it’s no longer strategically valuable for them to continue.

Nicholas Carr has a classic article where he outlines that the relation that Web 2.0 developers stand in with the titans is the same as the relationship that farmers stand in with the massive agribusiness corporations:

One of the fundamental economic characteristics of Web 2.0 is the distribution of production into the hands of the many and the concentration of the economic rewards into the hands of the few. It’s a sharecropping system, but the sharecroppers are generally happy because their interest lies in self-expression or socializing, not in making money, and, besides, the economic value of each of their individual contributions is trivial.

This relationship works tremendously well when everyone’s interests are aligned: when developers are making things that are interesting, when users are paying for a quality product, and when the titans get their cut for hosting, everyone wins. In fact, there’s something very optimistic about it: indie developers are expressing themselves, earning enough to keep their hobby business in the positive, and letting the titans worry about the accounting.

But the App Store economics are changing. In the past, you could develop an iOS app, perhaps a Twitter client, that was genuinely good with unique features that differentiated it from the competition. Users expected to pay and were looking for quality software, and there weren’t many apps so a query for “Twitter” would probably reveal your app, and everyone would get paid: the user would get a quality app for the cost of a latte, and the developer and the host would get their cut. You could have a hobby with a decent return.

But today things are quite different. As Marco Arment, in response to Allen Pike, puts it:

One of the most damaging side effects of unhealthy App Store economics is that developers have little motivation or resources to keep apps updated.

In the flush early days, Apple could release a new screen size or entire platform (like the original iPad), and developers rushed to support it as quickly as possible because we knew we’d probably see a return.

Today, Apple’s shipping new platforms and screen sizes like they’re going out of style, but so many apps are rotting in disrepair that very few developers are adopting them.

This is where the problem with the Apple App Stores really lies: it’s not that Mac App Store is an unreliable web hybrid app or that the iOS App Store needs better discovery tools or that the tvOS App Store needs more apps or that the watchOS App Store needs a better SDK or that Apple need a framework like Parse – it’s that developers need a better business model. Indie developers no longer figure that they’re going to see a return on hobby project on iOS, and so they don’t start. On OS X, we’ve already the exodus from the up-front model happen, where high-profile apps are leaving to distribute their app themselves, with the intention of building their own upgrade or subscription model pricing. There, you can distribute your own apps, given that users need to jump through a few hoops to give your application permission to run. But on iOS and watchOS and tvOS, it’s not possible to distribute without conforming to the App Store’s economics, which are:

  1. Make your app free and get paid by advertising (Facebook, Twitter, iAd apps);
  2. Make your app free and get paid by in-app purchases (Candy Crush, Clash of Clans);
  3. Make your app free and get paid by outside subscriptions (Adobe, New York Times);
  4. Make your app free and sell physical things (Amazon, Ebay);
  5. Charge for your app and wallow in obscurity.

These economics, along with the fact that many large companies do not have the internal resources or knowledge to ship and app, is why Parse was so popular: contracted developers used Parse to ship faster and to make more money. Because the App Store’s economics have become a race to the bottom, developers have cut corners when developing the backend out of necessity. And just like when Twitter shut loyal developers out of their platform and Apple are complacent in the App Store’s race to the bottom and Google and Microsoft have taken land from sharecroppers in the past, Facebook taketh Parse now. As Sascha Konietzke, founder of Parse competitor Contentless, explains,

When Facebook acquired Parse back in April 2013, many people thought this meant Facebook goes all in on becoming a developer platform. If you recall, Facebook was at a crossroads back then, with a share price below IPO level, desktop traffic plateauing, and mobile revenues a big question mark. Enter Parse, which brought immediate mobile app developer reach, helping Facebook to distribute its SDKs and ensure developers are using Facebook’s login system. That in turn helped secure mobile adoption and a foothold in user profiles and mobile advertising. Fast forward to 2016, and Facebook essentially owns the mobile ads space, and its SDK is #1 in terms of mobile reach. Meaning Parse has run its cause as an SDK distribution vehicle. In other words, they never wanted to host your app, they just wanted you to use Facebook login.

It would be easy to read this post and think I’m endorsing never using a vendor to ship anything because you never can trust them. But of course that would be wrong, because many fruitful businesses rely and one another every day to create value. Instead what I’m endorsing is an awareness that developers are sharecroppers, and to have contingency and growth plans for your business ideas. Insofar as you can use social media or mobile platforms or advertisements or frameworks to grow your business, you absolutely should: but be ready for the day when you’re shut down, sherlocked, or acquikilled.

Apple's declining software quality

Software quality is a nebulous and divisive topic. There are many parameters to software quality – reliability, speed, user experience, design, discoverability, and more – and a move towards any of these virtues leads to sacrifices in others, especially on a limited time schedule. Additionally, a number of forces influence software quality over time, like accommodating for different use cases, changes in platform, changes in hardware, changes in design preferences, changes in market, changes in expectations, and more. Finally, software is not like digging a hole, say, where more people really can dig a hole faster than fewer people: in fact, more people can often slow down a software project.

Nobody knows this better than the technology titans of today: Apple, Google, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft, IBM, Oracle have all experience unanticipated software problems and regressions and high profile bugs. These are organizations with thousands of programmers writing and maintaining millions of lines of code for billions of devices. And these devices are machines which require perfection: one slight ambiguity of intent, any minor breach of contract, any single unexpected 0 where there should be 1 or vice versa … has the capability the bring down the whole system. In fact, it often does. Countless kernel panics, stack overflow errors, null pointer exceptions, and memory leaks are plaguing poor users and tired system administrators and overworked programmers right now. Machines are fast, but they can be awfully dumb.

And no company is feeling the pain of software’s nebulous nature and hardware’s mindless computing more than Apple right now. The underdog that many loyal fans rooted for is now the world’s (perhaps previous) most valuable company. With that, comes insanely high expectations: they need to grow the world’s biggest company every quarter to keep Wall Street happy, and even harder, they have to keep those nerds that kept them alive through the hard times happy too. And with release after release of the most revolutionary operating system ever, it’s tempting to picture Apple like an actual Titan, in particular Atlas, holding the world upon his shoulders. But it seems more and more every day that another Greek tale is more fitting: it’s time to admit that Apple have flown too close to the sun.

Walt Mossberg, technology journalism’s elder statesman, has this to say about Apple’s software quality:

In the last couple of years, however, I’ve noticed a gradual degradation in the quality and reliability of Apple’s core apps, on both the mobile iOS operating system and its Mac OS X platform. It’s almost as if the tech giant has taken its eye off the ball when it comes to these core software products, while it pursues big new dreams, like smartwatches and cars.

On OS X this is especially true: OpenGL implementation has fallen behind the competition, the filesystem desperately needs updating, the SDK has needed modernizing for years, networking and cryptography have seen major gaffes. And that’s with regards to the under-the-hood details, the applications are easier targets: it’s tragic that Aperture and iPhoto were axed in favor of the horrifically bad Photos app (that looks like some Frankenstein “iOS X” app), the entire industry have left Final Cut Pro X, I dare not plug my iPhone in to my laptop for fear of what it might do, the Mac App Store is the antitheses of native application development (again being some Frankenstein of a web/native app), and iCloud nee MobileMe nee iTools has been an unreliable and slow mess since day one.

This isn’t the first time that a prominent member of the Apple community has criticized Apple’s software quality. Here’s Marco Arment from January of 2015:

Apple’s hardware today is amazing — it has never been better. But the software quality has fallen so much in the last few years that I’m deeply concerned for its future. I’m typing this on a computer whose existence I didn’t even think would be possible yet, but it runs an OS with embarrassing bugs and fundamental regressions. Just a few years ago, we would have relentlessly made fun of Windows users for these same bugs on their inferior OS, but we can’t talk anymore.

This is still as true today as it was last year. Macs and iPhones have gotten thinner, more beautiful, and more powerful; the Apple Watch and the new Apple TV are magnificent additions to the product line up. But I’d speculate that part of the problem Apple is having is that if it took 1,000 engineers to write software for Mac when that was the only product, it doesn’t necessarily take 4,000 people to write software for four product lines. In fact, 10,000 of the same grade of engineers might not even do it, especially without proper management and unified goals. Apple may not have listened to rockstar developer Marco Arment, but Walt Mossberg will definitely get their attention. Here’s an anecdote about Steve Jobs from the last time that Mossberg complained about Apple’s software quality:

In Fortune’s story, Lashinsky says Steve Jobs summoned the entire MobileMe team for a meeting at the company’s on-campus Town Hall, accusing everyone of “tarnishing Apple’s reputation.” He told the members of the team they “should hate each other for having let each other down”, and went on to name new executives on the spot to run the MobileMe team. A few excerpts from the article.

“Can anyone tell me what MobileMe is supposed to do?” Having received a satisfactory answer, he continues, “So why the fuck doesn’t it do that?”

Jobs was also particularly angry about the Wall Street Journal’s Walt Mossberg not liking MobileMe:

“Mossberg, our friend, is no longer writing good things about us.”

It really is time for Tim Cook to take action as drastic as this regarding software quality on Apple’s existing platforms. What worries me is that AAPL the stock ticker and Apple the company are in a (self-driving) crash course with one another: AAPL needs to launch new products to drive growth and Apple needs to improve the products that have already shipped. The most valuable asset that Apple own is their brand, and that’s the brand that’ll drive sales of any car that may or may not be in development. If that brand name is tarnished by regressions and performance problems, what consumer would buy a car from the brand? In fact, anecdotally, talking to my friends, the Apple Car already has an uphill battle with the kerfuffle surrounding the Maps launch.

Jim Dalrymple, in response to Mossberg, writes:

I understand that Apple has a lot of balls in the air, but they have clearly taken their eye off some of them. There is absolutely no doubt that Apple Music is getting better with each update to the app, but what we have now is more of a 1.0 version than what we received last year.

John Gruber, in response to Dalrymple:

Maybe we expect too much from Apple’s software. But Apple’s hardware doesn’t have little problems like this.

The best thing for Apple to do is to re-take their position as a leader of software quality before it’s too late: consumers know that Apple’s hardware is the very best, but more and more they’re using apps made by Google and Microsoft and Facebook. If this trend doesn’t turn around, Apple will find their breakout product and all of its growth will be owned by competitors. And when the time comes to launch their car, they’ll find that loyal fans and everyday consumers have lost trust in the brand. Having said that, I’m still a Mac user at home and at work, my iPhone is a wonderful device that I enriches my life, and I’m still finding new ways to make use of Apple Watch. And to give credit where credit is due: Logic Pro X has improved a lot recently, and Music Memos is a welcome addition to Apple’s music line up. I even use Apple Maps. Apple can do this. It’s not too late. But for sake of all us poor users, and Apple’s tired system administrators and overworked programmers, I hope they started 6 months ago.

Fitbit announces the Alta

Fitbit have announced a new fitness tracker, from iMore:

Fitbit has announced its latest fitness tracker, the Alta, which is one of the nicest-looking offerings from the company. Pre-orders are now open for the tracker, with shipments beginning in March 2016. […]

Here are the Alta‘s features:

  • All-Day Activity
  • Auto Sleep Tracking
  • Reminders to Move
  • SmartTrack™
  • Auto Exercise Recognition
  • Tap Display
  • Call, Text & Calendar Alerts

And some pricing information from MacRumors:

Fitbit’s new wearable also has a few band accessories to choose from, including a $29.95 Classic Band, $59.95 Leather Band, and $99.95 Metal Bracelet.

Given that it’s launching in March, is a wearable, and has bands, it’s easy to see that this is FitBit’s response to the Apple Watch. Their smartwatch did not fare so well, but their other bands aren’t so fashionable, so I see this as the compromise positions of “stylish fitness band.”

It looks like a great product, and the auto-fitness and auto-sleep recognition are excellent features that, as an Apple Watch owner, I envy. However, there’s one critical feature that’s missing which would make this an impulse buy for me: HealthKit integration.

The reason is that Health is a non-networked, shared silo for health information. When or if Fitbit bite the dust and their apps and hardware aren’t supported, I want that data somewhere other than their servers. In fact, I’d prefer my data wasn’t on their servers at all.

Microsoft acquihires SwiftKey

Microsoft have made a number of acquisitions of popular productivity apps, most recently with the acquisition of Guiness typing word record holding keyboard technology SwiftKey.

Harry Shum, VP of Technology and Research at Microsoft:

This acquisition is a great example of Microsoft’s commitment to bringing its software and services to all platforms. We’ll continue to develop SwiftKey’s market-leading keyboard apps for Android and iOS as well as explore scenarios for the integration of the core technology across the breadth of our product and services portfolio. Moreover, SwiftKey’s predictive technology aligns with Microsoft’s investments and ambition to develop intelligent systems that can work more on the user’s behalf and under their control.

Federico Viticci:

Above all, SwiftKey is good tech for Microsoft. The acquisition gives them access to a large database of typing habits and patterns spanning 100 languages, and it’ll likely help them build text features on desktop and mobile. Long term, it’s hard to predict how Microsoft’s string of mobile app acquisitions will play out, but, right now, it’s clear that Microsoft is buying the best apps around.

This is why tech companies hoard money. Microsoft is now aware of its situation, of the waning popularity of Windows and the declining important of Office. The strategy of incorporating populist products into their admittedly still ubiquitous but stodgy product suite is a good idea, and their iOS apps in particular are arguably better than Apple’s now. Compare this to Apple’s strategy of acquikilling obscure startups for key technologies instead of whole products.

Microsoft want to replace every one of the default applications on your iPhone, they want you using their keyboard with their email client sharing documents from their productivity suite, and to do so their using their considerable cash hoard to fund development. Their in a good spot to do this, because Apple can’t compete with them on Android and Google can’t compete with them on native applications. I think the end game for Microsoft is to hook consumers on their products at home, and have them request support for them at work.

Of course, the other part of the SwiftKey acquihire is their machine learning talent, which is seriously competitive.

Porsche won't make self-driving cars

On how Porsche CEO isn’t interested in self-driving cars, Shawn King comments:

Even though some Porsches do come equipped with Apple’s CarPlay, it makes corporate sense to take this line. Besides, why would you buy a sports car only to let a computer have all the fun?

Just like manual cars exist despite automatic transmission for reasons of either cost or preference and feature phones still exist despite smartphones, the market for enthusiast’s cars will remain. It’s a bit different however, because I’d wager that Porsche owners, in general, don’t own just a Porsche, and I similarly doubt that they drive their Porsche to work every day. Absolutely, I’m not going to let to computer have all the fun when I’m driving my (still imaginary and rhetorical) Porsche down a beautiful country road, but computers can absolutely have all the fun of driving my (equally imaginary) Camry to work every day.

If I were in charge of Porsche, I don’t think I’d make self-driving cars either. But I would absolutely invest.

Power using email and email clients

Federico Viticci

Over the course of (almost) seven years of writing for MacStories, I’ve seen email pronounced dead (multiple times), reinvented, redesigned, and, most recently, made smarter with machine learning and cloud services.

Shawn King:

I consider myself an email power user (I get approx 2000 emails/day) and there is no way I would try and deal with that many emails on the iPhone or even an iPad.

Call me grumpy, but I’m not willing to re-learn how to use the email client du jour every time the companies that make them either get bought out and closed or go bankrupt. If you want to consider productivity, I’d argue there more email productivity lost in re-tooling every 6 months than there is gained by the tool. I need email to be in a stable client, with a reliable backend,  fast sending/receiving, with a consistent and familiar UI. I highly doubt that any indie app is ever going to match the development might that the tech giants can throw at their sunk-cost development of email clients, even Mozilla shuttered Thunderbird because it was dragging down Firefox.

Apple's ecosystem health and BaaS

Marco Arment:

Apple needs a healthy developer ecosystem now, more than ever, as customers clamor for their new platforms to have more and better software — but now they’re paying for their own neglect of healthy App Store economics and tense developer relations for so long.

I hope Apple sees that as a problem. With the recent consolidation of the entire App Store under new leadership (Phil Schiller), maybe they do.

Apple’s developer ecosystem is healthy, with two exceptions:

  1. Backend services: iCloud and CloudKit are to platform dependent and iOS developers aren’t (in general) competent in backend development;
  2. App review: compared to web development, taking up to 3 weeks to ship an app because of a review process is a huge burden.

These are no insurmountable challenges for the developer ecosystem, but it does pose some challenges for Apple. In order to provide an integrated backend solution that would really be an option for indie developers, they would have to risk ending the thermonuclear war and allowing Android and web to access the service. It’s apt that this discussion should arise on the shuttering of Parse, a Facebook-bought company, because this wouldn’t be a problem for Apple if they have bought Parse. But had they bought Parse, just like when they bought TestFlight and Siri, Apple would have immediately shut down the the Android component. The sad and ironic fact of the matter is that Apple are actually in a great position to run a service like Parse at a loss, because all of Apple’s software (in a sense) is the cost required to make the stupendous profit on the iPhone. Perhaps a reasonable compromise position for Apple to enter into the *aaS space would be to subsidize development by making iOS use of CloudKit free, and provide other platforms at cost.

On the second challenge, I’m not sure what challenges there are in scaling Apple app review process, but anecdotally, the last time I heard of someone going through the process recently, it took 5 days from submission to store. If this proves to be consistent this year, it still isn’t fast enough to submit hot-fixes like the web can, but it would definitely be a welcome improvement. But the pain of the submission process goes further than just the review process, it’s also the incredibly clunky iTunes Connect and the inconsistent enforcement of the guidelines. These complaints just cover the iOS App Store, however, Apple have a lot more (a less profitable) work to do on there other three App Stores.