With the appliancization of the Internet, more and more consumers are accessing the web using a variety of non-browser based applications. Because the applications are built for specific platforms, the shift to apps gives more power to the owners of the platforms. Developers have to choose whether to build their apps for Android, Apple, Windows or a combination of the options.

So far, Apple has been falling out of favor among developers. With its much tighter restriction on which App gets approved, Apple is losing to the Android operating system where developers enjoy more freedom in designing their programs. As Windows mobile platform starts to pick market share, Apple might fall further since Microsoft plans to sets its restrictions on app distribution and approval process somewhere between that of Android and Apple.

            In 2009, Google filed a complaint against Apple for rejecting its Google Voice app, citing the decision as outrageous and requesting FCC to investigate. Another bad press for Apple was when it rejected Google Latitude on the ground there was already another map app on iPhone, and it would be confusing for users to have two. Despite the negative PR, theoretically Apple should be allowed to choose whichever program it permits on its platform. Some would argue that Apple is just like a supermarket that provides platform for products, such as fruit and vegetables. The supermarket reserves the right to decide which products it takes on, and Apple should be allowed to do the same with apps from developers.

However, the fundamental difference between Apple’s platform and a supermarket is that unlike the supermarket, Apple does not purchase the apps from developers. Instead, it takes a 30% cut on the revenue generated by the program. Though Apple still has the right to decide who to partner with, it should not just arbitrarily decide which app to reject. Often the decision standard Apple uses becomes controversial, and its practices reflect excessive protection of the App Store revenue model. Earlier this year, Apple rejected a few apps that used Dropbox, because once a user is in Safari in the “Desktop Version”, it was possible for him to directly purchase additional space from the website without going through Apple’s App Store. This violated the App Store Review Guidelines that outlaw Apps using a system other than the Apple’s In App Purchase API to buy services. Dropbox saved developer’s apps by getting rid of its “create account” option in one of its APIs. However, it seems Apple is simply getting too much control over what external links can be referenced in an app.

Unfortunately, developers are losing in the battle in software distribution as well. Instead of the freedom of software distribution spreading to App stores, we are experiencing the opposite. A Forbes article compared the new distribution model to the Hollywood studio model where a few large companies, such as Warner Brothers, are in control of all the distribution. Just as Paramount and Columbia Pictures decide most all movies’ distributions, we will have Apple, Google and Microsoft deciding the fate of software. Apple gained additional leverage by introducing the Sandboxing requirement. Apps will have to be Sandboxed before introduced to the Mac App Store, and through the process Apple will have the power to determine whether to restrict certain resource access of the Apps. Software programs will be completely at Apple’s mercy in term of whether it could access internet, networking or write access.

As appliancization continues, platform and app store providers will act as the Gate Keeper to check for security issue, copyright violations and other regulations. App and software developers will lose more and more freedom as they become increasingly reliant on the distribution functions of Apple, Google and Microsoft. Unless developers rise up and revolt against Apple’s control, the Gate Keeper’s restrictions will dampen creativity, freedom of speech and innovation.

Additional Resources:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerkay/2011/11/04/apples-mac-os-lockdown-to-end-developer-independence/
http://thenextweb.com/google/2012/11/13/google-declares-flash-is-now-fully-sandboxed-in-chrome-for-windows-mac-linux-and-chrome-os/
http://www.nationalreview.com/agenda/244145/chris-anderson-appliancization-internet-reihan-salam#
http://www.businessinsider.com/iphone-app-rejections-2009-12#google-voice–latitude-7

I sit here in one of the world’s most hallowed institutions of higher learning, attempting  (to no avail) at writing a inventive yet sensible blog post, one whose whit and charm will only force you to read it from beginning to end. But, alas, my efforts are to no avail.  So, as anyone in my position would ask himself or herself, who is to blame? Is it the result of my education thus far, one that has lacked to instill in me any sense of creativity? Are years of rote memorization at fault?  Would the use of an iPad or a computer have helped me in any way to avoid situations such as the one I find myself in right now? Wikipedia, where are you when I need you most?

In all seriousness, the education crisis that we see within our own country has prompted policy makers and schoolteachers alike to reexamine what it means to have a “western education.” More specifically, within the past decade, the prospects of incorporating technology into a traditional western education have become more and more appealing.  If we expand our focus more globally, the use of technology would allow for regions that lack fundamental infrastructure and manpower to have the ability to successfully educate a population.

However, society presents us with a paradox, of sorts. On the one had, as Issac Asimov contends within his short story “Profession,” technology may accelerate the weaknesses of our current education regime, one that, some argue, promotes rote memorization and, ultimately, the attainment of a job, rather than developing the ability to think critically.  In essence, he illustrates the appliancization of the human with an education regime which not only governs whether or not you will “be educated” with pre-determined programing, but also prescribes your line of work, ultimately robbing all but a small fraction of its population the ability to think freely and to learn.   Yet, others contend that the current “text book” status quo, cannot continue. Consequently, in examining the traditional methods through which a “Western education” is administered and how these methods will ultimately intersect with technology, (both in the sense of actual hardware and accompanying networks, like the internet) we are forced to ask ourselves, as Asimov contends, what the fundamental purpose of “getting an education” should be.

The introduction and development of programs, such as Khan Academy, providing lessons on topics ranging from chemistry to philosophy all housed within cyberspace, have, in part, restored what Asimov sees as the ultimate goal of education: a life long pursuit of knowledge for the sake of learning that will allow for innovation rather than appliancization. To this end, these programs help alleviate the problem of exclusivity not just within our own country’s education system, but within a broader global context.

Moreover, it is the “generatvity” of technology itself that may ultimately secure its foothold as far as modern education is concerned. Take for example, the One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) project beginning in 2005.  Aiming to give one hundred million hardy, portable computers to children in the developing world, the goal of the project is “to create an infrastructure that is both simple and generative,” allowing children the ability to think critically within a community setting while “fixing most major substantive problems only as they arise, rather than anticipating them from the start.”   In conjunction with such developments, we see that access to knowledge and science has become “protected by Article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights . . . [balancing] the right of access with a right to protection of moral and material interests.”

Yet, we would be remiss to assume that technology will solve all of our problems. While the number of open courses at universities like Yale or MIT are growing and the development integrated teaching platforms online help provide equal access, they do not completely address the underlying socio-economic and cultural barriers that we are faced with in reality.  Furthermore, there is no point in having these technologies available for little to know cost if those who need it most will not have the infrastructure (i.e. computers) to make use of such opportunities.  There is only so much projects and organizations can do.

As for right now, and I’m sure for decades to come, a college degree will continue to be a signal to employers and society “that you’ve passed a certain bar.”  Time will only tell if we can develop as Neeru Paharia, founder of Peer 2 Peer University which allows users to set up or participate in online classes, puts it, “alternative signals that indicate to potential employers than an individual is a good thinker and has the skills he or she claims to have—maybe a written report or an online portfolio.” It is clear, however, that we are experiencing the beginnings of “ unbundling,” where the four elements of education—design of a course, delivery of that course, delivery of credit and delivery of a degree—will no longer be housed under “the same institutional setting,” as suggested by Roger C. Schonfeld, research manager at Ithaka S+R, a nonprofit service that helps academic institutions use technology for research and teaching.   Ultimately, as technology and education walk hand and hand into the future, a balance of sorts must be found, preventing our society from heading down the same path that Asimov so strongly heads against.

Freedom.  It’s a word that stirs deep feelings in the heart of any American, as much as the words of Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address or Ronald Reagan’s inaugural speech.  So when I tell you that your freedom is threatened by your attitude about computers, you will no doubt listen carefully.

What is Appliancization?

It’s actually not me but Jonathan Zittrain who’s out to convince you that “appliancization,” the transformation of personal computers from flexible generative platforms to locked-down appliances, threatens your freedom—or perhaps more accurately, the freedom of technological progress.  Appliancization is particularly apparent in Apple products.  The typical iPhone can only run software from the App Store, and the App Store can only contain apps that confirm to Apple’s nebulous whim.  This means that if you buy an iPhone, you are buying not a completely customizable platform, but an appliance whose functionality may be limited by Apple’s judgment.  With their Mac App Store, Apple threatens to do to the personal computer what they have done to the smartphone.

Why do we allow this ostensible appliancization to happen?  According to Zittrain, we trust Apple-approved products because we value our computers’ safety above all else: “Viruses, spam, identity theft, crashes: all of these were the consequences of a certain freedom built into the generative PC. As these problems grow worse, for many the promise of security is enough reason to give up that freedom.”  Whether or not Zittrain is intentionally paraphrasing Ben Franklin here, the way out of our appliancization conundrum is clear: we must show that, as consumers, we value generative freedom over security.  The first step is to, um, give up your Apple products.

Maybe Apple Isn’t Evil, Yet

Let’s be honest, the technical word you just learned about isn’t quite enough to convince you to relinquish your Apple fetish.  In fact, I’m pretty sure you don’t care that much about generative freedom, as long as you get to keep playing Angry Birds and taking artsy Instagram photos.  Zittrain might give consumers too much credit when he claims that people use apps out of an informed desire to avoid bad code.  What really drives us to apps is not security but convenience.

I’m not ashamed to admit that we’re all sheeple, guided by our desire to get the products we want with the minimum amount of effort.  Apple has made thousands selling a smaller version of a bigger version of a 5-year old product.  Now it is profiting off of, quite simply, a convenient market in which to acquire software.   What would really drive people into the App Store isn’t, as Zittrain claims, a network security crisis, but some crisis where Google breaks and it becomes even more inconvenient to search the web for software.

Moreover, I would hesitate to call Apple’s actions outright “appliancization.”  Sure, Apple might push its own apps and occasionally act irresponsibly as a gatekeeper, but its products are far from appliances.  The iPhone is a platform, albeit a shiny, somewhat limited platform: apps can serve a vast variety of different innovative functions.

A Widespread Problem

It’s not just Apple that holds us under its corporate thumb, either.  Zittrain claims that the rise of “Web 2.0,” the increasing use of browsers to do just about anything, also threatens technological innovation.  Do you remember the days when you used an email client instead of Gmail, an instant messaging client instead of Facebook chat, and your computer’s built-in calculator instead of Wolfram Alpha?  Or are you too busy listening to Pandora and browsing Tumblr to care?  This very WordPress site demonstrates the ubiquity of Web 2.0, from its reliance on user-generated content to that weird gray sidebar on the right that doesn’t seem to serve any purpose.

Despite being a PC user who considers himself completely above all of those unthinking short-sighted mac users out there, I spend 95 percent of the time on a word processor or a web browser.  I am completely dependent on the structure of the internet and the integrity of my web browser when it comes to most of what I do on a computer.

Sheeple Aren’t That Dumb

Web 2.0 presents a structural vulnerability in our network that is not immediately apparent, but Apple presents a more manageable problem.  If you believe my claim about sheeple consumers, in the end, it’s not norms or laws, but the market that will decide our future.  Zittrain can’t stop people from buying Apple products, but Apple can.  As soon as the App store starts infringing on our convenience, customers will take notice.  And if the infringement grows to the extent that it outweighs the convenience of using the App Store, a separate market will emerge to satisfy consumers.  If Apple decides to use its control over its hardware to block such a market, even fewer people would buy Macs.  The average consumer might be dumb, but he’s not that dumb.

Developers, too, still have a stake in the survival of the App Store.  They no longer have to process transactions or track licenses on their own.  As soon as a critical mass of developers see the App Store as a detriment to their work, an alternative will emerge.  If Apple blocks an alternative from emerging, they will lose the developers and the generative capacity they offer.

As we witness the development of Apple-style appliancization, we should also note the benefits that come with it.  First, people unfamiliar with technology find app-based computers easier to work with, and those people matter too.  Second, Apple doesn’t dictate the future of the PC; there remains a significant portion of the population that prefers the more open, non-Apple personal computer.  We’ll sit back, grab some popcorn, and wait for what Apple does next.

No, probably not. But that’s not what some people think. Ever since it was the little guy fighting big bad Microsoft, Apple has been known as the more controlled, more protective alternative. But now that Apple is a giant in its own right, that tight-to-the-vest nature can seem a bit… possessive. Critics call the iPhone App Store a walled garden where Apple rules all and generally has too much power, while Apple itself calls the store a “curated platform,” where apps are assured to be quality-controlled and safe. No matter which side of the debate you’re on, everyone can agree that as it stands Apple is the gatekeeper to a huge amount of content, and, more importantly, brand-obsessed Apple junkies. So who’s right, Apple or  critics? Maybe they’re both right. Better investigate.

From the point of view of software developers, it’s unclear whether Apple’s walled garden, including the Mac App Store, is a boon or a curse. Yes, when a developer sells their product on the Mac or iPhone store Apple takes a sizable junk of 30% of the profits simply for the privilege of being there. But perhaps more important than that 30% is the increased exposure a product gets when it is a part of the App Store, as well as the implicit Apple seal of approval. Instead of having to advertise independently and seek out ever-so-elusive customers themselves, developers in the App Store have access to an already-established audience, and one that immediately has trust in the product simply by virtue of it being in the App Store. Though some critics say that this will reduce the presence of software bundles and the amount of information a developer has on their customer, or will destroy developer independence, it doesn’t seem like many developers have rejected the App Store in favor of independence. Sure, some might object to the platform, but that certainly didn’t stop Apple from having 650,000 apps on its store as of July 24th, 2012. And the $5.5 billion Apple has paid to the developers of those apps is certainly nothing to sneeze at either. For many, it seems, it’s better to be in the club than outside looking in.

From the viewpoint of non-tech savvy consumers – and I include myself in this group, the judgment on Apple is a no-brainer. We don’t want independence; we wouldn’t know what to do with it. Rather than having hundreds of various email apps, all which differ in small, insignificant ways to me, the non-savvy, I’d rather just have a choice between two or three. While Apple may be criticized for some of its sillier rejections, on the whole, I would really prefer not to have access to a Baby Shaker app. While the Android App Store may have  the smaller list of rules that the more independent-minded might crave, for those who would simply be more confused by more choice, the Apple App Store is the way to go. The only downside for those who don’t know any better is the long-term potential for less innovation. Developers making apps for a marketplace run solely in Apple’s garden are necessarily going to be limited by some restrictions, although not, I think, to the extent that doomsayers might suggest. Steve Jobs once said that “95% of all apps submitted are approved within five days.” Apple might be curating, but not that much. Besides, in this era, where the tech scene is ruled by a handful of giant companies, is dramatic innovation, rather than incremental change, really even possible? And, if dramatic innovation doesn’t seem feasible, couldn’t it be sacrificed for better quality products?

Really, the debate over the controlling nature of Apple comes down to two values: quality and freedom (with a little security thrown in) Some developers and critics may want freedom from Apple’s restrictions, but the marketplace has shown that the consumer doesn’t. As long as the majority of consumers do not realize what functions they are missing by only playing in Apple’s backyard, quality will win out over freedom for many. The rapid devotion some people have for Apple products will blind them to the alternatives. As much as Apple has been criticized for being a Big Brother figure, as long as it turns out pretty, functional products, that  criticism will be confined to small minority.

Earlier this month, Apple sent an email out to its developers delaying the implementation of sandboxing to Mac App Store submissions, stating:

The vast majority of Mac users have been free from malware and we’re working on technologies to help keep it that way. As of March 1, 2012 all apps submitted to the Mac App Store must implement sandboxing. Sandboxing your app is a great way to protect systems and users by limiting the resources apps can access and making it more difficult for malicious software to compromise users’ systems.

Simply put, sandboxing serves as a security enhancement. It’s a container  in which an application is allowed to function–unable to perform any tasks or access any resources that would mean transcending the container’s boundaries. Essentially, one application is prevented from affecting another in any malicious way (i.e. its prevented from potentially/theoretically using UNIX commands to delete files on your hard drive without your knowledge, or attempting to extract passwords and share them, etc). I think, conceptually, this sounds fantastic and a great deal for the end user, but there are other consequences that should also be taken into account when it comes to sandboxing and its implementation. Often the case is that applications need a certain level of outside access in order to perform whatever they have advertised to do. For example, a photo editing app, wouldn’t be of much use if it wasn’t even able to access your iPhoto library. To address this, Apple allows for “entitlements” that app developers can request for the application they submit for Mac App Store approval. A quick glance shows that the complete list is fairly straightforward (there are a couple temporary exemptions) …although if you happen to need access to hardware from something other than USB (e.g. Thunderbold, Firewire, or Bluetooth), you’ll be hard-pressed to find a way to do so.

The mobile world has generally always had sandboxing. Apple’s move to apply it to the Mac world seems to imply that engineers thus far have found it such a great idea that they wish to see Mac users benefit from it as well. Yes,  as I said earlier, on the outset sandboxing presents a method for furthering security–unfortunately, as we’ve seen in the jailbreaking community time and time again, code isn’t perfect and it’s only a certain amount of time before someone finds a loophole and continues the constant game of cat and mouse. Just to think of a few areas where sandboxing may fall through:

1. Apple seems to be  relying on its ability to implement the entitlement limited code perfectly. If Apple could write in perfect code, then it would have, I would think, been able to immediately fix the PDF & TIFF submodules so that they were exploit/bug-free. Unfortunately, code is imperfect.
2. For apps not sold in the Mac App Store, there’s nothing requiring them to use entitlements. And if there  even was such a requirement, malware could just be distributed in applications with entitlements including basically everything the system could do.
3. This brings us to the following: Apple has mentioned that it will look closely at apps requiring a lot of entitlements. And again, I can see how that might make sense as it might look suspicious if an app requests sixteen entitlements…but at the same time, looking closely at such applications in some ways can be seen as an admission that entitlements do not work since it leads to what many may consider as code auditing.

To further emphasize the idea that sandboxing is far from full proof: earlier this year, security researcher Charlie Miller submitted an application to the iOS App Store, which was audited and approved. The application allowed Apple’s iOS software to run arbitrary code and therefore download new, unapproved commands onto the device and execute them at will. For example, he demoed the phone being able to vibrate or produce sounds, steal user photos, read contacts, etc. In response to this news, Apple revoked Miller’s developer account.

At this point, I think the real question this comes down to is whether Apple’s latest move has to do primarily with security or Apple’s intent on further exerting control on what’s installed on users’ desktops. To many, sandboxing is seen as the beginning of locked down desktop machines similar to iPhones and iPads, where any development not sanctioned by Apple is effectively diminished.

After Apple sent out the updated timeline for sandbox implementation on applications, Jonathan Zittrain, the author of The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It, tweeted:

Zittrain: Apple one step closer to locking down PCs as predicted in The Future of the Internet at http://t.co/yYhvdrEE ; see http://t.co/e4kmgQWi

What Zittrain is referring to here is the predictions found in The Future of the Internet, where he begins by discussing the concept of generativity–or the openness of a system to new and unplanned changed from its users. Today we have open internet and open computers where you can run any programs and protocols you want and connect to anyone you want. This has been tremendous in establishing what he describes as a generative system. It is important to note, however, that what may seem as a strength can also serve as as weakness for the very same system. Computers can get viruses and crash. They can start to slow down. Thus, the very same force that attracted so many users in the first place can now lead users to go for the safer options available, systems they can be assured will work reliably. Hence Zittrain’s tweet.

One can argue that Apple seems to be closing off the Mac App Store and forcing users to choose between the “open” and “closed” worlds that Zittrain mentions.  Apple justifies sandboxing by appealing to users wanting their Macs to run more smoothly. From their perspective, any users that want to run unsandboxed applications found outside of the Mac App Store, can still do so. Thus,  Macs can function as computers that support safe and unsafe modes–one focusing on increased security, and the other for increased generativity. Because of this, there have been mixed reviews when it comes Apple’s choice to implement sandboxing: some fully support Apple 100%, while others fear the dumbing down of the Mac store.

Furthermore, if you look at this situation of sandboxed applications in the Mac App Store vs. unsandboxed applications found outside of the Store from the developer’s perspective, then I think it’s highly unlikely, that over time, those developers that are at all concerned with market share will choose to create at least two different versions of an app–with one including extra features that the sandboxed version could not have. This therefore brings us back to the concern that sandboxing maybe dumbing down the set of features available to even those who choose not to purchase through Apple.  Hence, at this point, there seems to be a lot of uncertainty surrounding what a sandboxed future means for both the distribution of, and applications themselves.

Overall, Apple’s decision to postpone till March, I think is reason to be somewhat hopeful that developers may play a greater role between now and then in the final implementation of sandboxing; Apple seems to recognize that the concept isn’t exactly ready yet. At the end of the day, however sandboxing is executed, I dont think there is any doubt amongst both developers and users that this is just the beginning of Apple’s overall plan to “IOS-ify” OSX.