Mashed Articles

Let’s begin with a quote. “Apple’s recent amendment to its developer agreement – which forces developers to write applications its way, using its tools – has done three things: isolated Apple even more from the wider technical community; wasted the time and money of companies and people who have invested in building iPhone-compatible developer toolkits (and the developers who have used them); and diverted industry attention to other smartphone technologies.”

This was the response I got from Mark Rodseth, Technical Architect at web design company Fortune Cookie, when I asked him for his take on Apple’s recent announcement that it is banning the development of iPhone OS applications using third-party compilers. The likes of Rodseth – and his clients – are responsible for the majority of apps that currently populate Apple’s App Store. And Mark’s isn’t an isolated opinion. I’ve had similar responses from the majority of developers that I’ve spoken to in the last few weeks.

Apple can’t be naive enough to have thought that this move would go unnoticed, and it clearly expected some kind of backlash, but – by the very fact that it included the new stipulations in the conditions for iPhone OS 4 application development – we have to assume that it was a risk the company was willing to take. I find this a staggering example of Apple’s arrogance, and – in the light of a recent report coming out of the US – I think that the company has made a huge mistake.

The report in question is a Mobile Metrics release from AdMob, one of the world’s largest mobile advertising networks (recently bought by Google). Whenever an ad is served to a mobile device via the AdMob network, the company stores and analyses handset and operator data to optimise ad serving. It also uses this information to highlight major trends, and hidden away in the report for March – well, it wasn’t really that hidden – was a very interesting nugget of information. As well as showing facts such as 54 per cent of Android traffic comes from devices with QWERTY keyboards (one of the ‘standout’ figures pulled out of the report for the press), there was a graph in the body of the AdMob report that should act as a serious warning to Apple.

According to the report, March was the first month in which Android ad traffic overtook iPhone traffic in the US: Android’s American OS share increased to 46 per cent, compared to 39 per cent for iPhone OS. These figures weren’t replicated in markets outside the US though, with the iPhone continuing to bag the top spot globally – it has 46 per cent of overall OS share– and Android OS a fair bit behind, with a quarter of the mobile OS market. But despite iPhone OS still being far and away the global leader, the figures released in this report should act as a bellwether for non-US mobile markets. Where America goes, the rest of the Western world tends to follow.

As we’ve already mentioned, AdMob is a company owned by Google – the leading company in the Open Handset Alliance, and the firm now responsible for the development of the Android mobile operating system. You’d be forgiven for pointing out the obvious here – it does seem somewhat suspicious that the first report produced since Google took over the company points to an advantage for the Google-backed OS for the first time. However, given AdMob’s previous pedigree, and the pains taken to establish the credibility of these figures, we have no reason to question their validity.

So, assuming that these figures based on advertising can – by and large – be extracted to represent overall web traffic from mobile devices, Android is now the top dog in the US. When the new iPhone launches this Summer, we can expect a spike in traffic emanating from iPhone OS-based devices – it’s happened after every major iPhone release so far – but the writing is definitely on the wall for Apple. With Android Market boasting more than 38,000 applications at the time of writing, and the developer community embracing this open platform for mobile development, Apple’s decision to kick developers in the face has never seemed more foolish than it does right now.

“While many developers watch from the sidelines and consider where best to invest their time and creative energy on smartphone platforms, I’ve picked my side already. It’s called Android and everyone’s invited,” Rodseth concludes.

Despite being an open-source stalwart, I’m ashamed to admit that I’ve always had something of a love-hate relationship with Apple. In the ’80s, I owned – and still do own – an original Apple IIe along with a real hard drive and two 5.25in floppy drives. It was inherited from the video shop that I worked in, and I put it and its immense customer database to all kinds of nefarious uses. But eventually I moved on to the upland pastures of colour displays, 880kB of storage on a 3.5in disk and four-channel sound. All thanks to Commodore.

In the ’90s, Apple’s expensive and closed hardware meant that an upgrade was never on the cards. This was now the world of Windows, of cheap hardware and modular upgrades. It was the time when Microsoft solidified its dominance, and the time that many of us were looking for a more open alternative. Developing applications on Windows was expensive, especially if you wanted to share the source code. That left us with only one option: Linux. And I’ve never looked back.

But I’ve continued to follow, and occasionally invest in, the progress of Apple, especially in recent years. The move to Intel and a BSD-based operating system has made OS X eminently more hackable, and Linux-
based open-source applications are far easier to build and port to OS X than they are to Windows. This has helped make the venerable MacBook Pro one of the most common laptops in use at open-source and Linux conventions, despite Apple’s obsessive control of the hardware. Apple, for many, has become an acceptable compromise for those who believe in free software but still want a machine that can resume from hibernation without the need to build a custom kernel.

But it’s the iPhone, and now the iPad, that has built a brick wall of division between what most of us are willing to ignore, and what Apple hopes will become their ultimate cash cow. Both are the result of a singular, draconian vision, the antithesis of what the open-source community represents. This isn’t a bad thing in itself, especially when the results leave a lot of free software products wanting. The interfaces of iPhone apps tend to be refined, simple and intuitive. The apps are consistent, responsive and cheap. Our parents could use an iPad without fear of viruses, malware and updates. For almost all the same reasons I’ve been telling them to switch to Linux, they can now switch to Apple for about the same cost.

But doing so is a pact with the devil, because you’re forgoing technical complexity in exchange for loss of freedom. This is the reason for Richard Stallman’s GNU manifesto. And while there’s little doubt that Apple’s enforced gateway to new applications has helped to make it a success, it’s this subtle trade of simplicity for complicity that is perhaps the biggest threat to free software in 10 years.

My fears were proven when Apple recently changed clauses 3.3.1 and 3.3.2 in its developer’s agreement, stopping programmers linking to third-party APIs. Its motivation may have been to halt apps using Adobe’s new Flash-based building tools, but it could also stop applications using open source-based frameworks such as MonoTouch and SDL. Apple refuses to clarify what will and will not be allowed through its vetting procedure. Presumably Electronic Arts games will still be allowed to use the LUA scripting engine, for example, while many independent developers aren’t going to know whether their approach is acceptable until they submit their app for review.

This type of business plan shows the very worst of what closed-source development has to offer, and exactly what open-source software blossomed to combat. But we can’t fight it with rhetoric and positive spin while our hardware and applications aren’t as good as those from closed systems. Public development and public scrutiny should lead to a better, more usable and more stable product. It worked for Linux servers and desktops, but it hasn’t worked for mobile devices yet. This is the challenge for free software developers.

It’s going to be tough, but this point in time probably marks the biggest opportunity for free software to prove its worth. It’s going to be a simple battle between closed, proprietary development on a single platform, and open innovation on open hardware. Open-source developers need to rise to the challenge or face a future that will be closed to collaboration, community and conscience.

The eBrain Forum of Zambia would like to see the Zambian education system improve to a level where access to education will no longer be limited by distance and fewer places in Schools, Colleges and Universities.
In an interview with eBrain Chairperson, Lee Muzala said the eBrain Forum of Zambia’s mission was to contribute to the improvement of quality of life through promoting the use of information communication technologies (ICTs) for purposes of development by raising awareness, conducting monthly meetings, baseline surveys, research as well as building capacity among members.
Explaining their role in the eLearning Africa Conference, Muzala said eBrain Forum of Zambia had representation on the eLearning Africa 2010 Organising Committee, and was playing a key role in ensuring that Zambia was prepared to host the event.
“We have also managed to bring on board our funders who will be supporting the preparations by providing and paying for Coordinating Officer as well as paying for a survey to measure the extent of eLearning usage in Zambia,” explained Muzala.
He added that eBrain together with their cooperating partners, the International Institute for Communication and Development (IICD) will be exhibiting at the conference, and that they have several members that will make presentations during the conference, as well as chair some of the parallel sessions.
He explained that the eBrain Forum willl also be having a special event called “Teachers Forum”, on the pre-conference day, which will enable around 50 pre-service and in-service teachers to share their experiences of using ICT in the classroom. Some will be familiar with ICT in the classroom, others will have little or no experience of ICT.
The goal is to allow Non Governmental Organisations (NGOs) and teachers to showcase a wide range of tried-and-tested ICT initiatives and tools. This will be done in an informal ‘Market Place’ environment with a view to inspire teachers to replicate similar activities in their own schools, where possible. IICD and the eBrain Forum of Zambia are co-organising this half-day event, which includes space for an interactive discussion and presentations.
Muzala noted that hosting the conference brings with it, its own benefits as pointing out that it will allow local firms, teachers, schools heads, government officials and other interested parties to see technologies being applied in the area of eLearning through the various organisations that will be exhibiting. He said hosting the eLearning Africa event in Zambia will also help give insight to the country as to cases of eLearning in other countries.
He looked at eLearning not look at eLearning as a technology but a process that is there to help students learn even better and differently.
“I would like to believe that eLearning brings with it several benefits such as reducing some of the costs associated with education if implemented correctly. He said it also allows schools to educate people they could not previously like those working for a living and those people who are geographically dispersed and many other kinds of people.
Muzala also added that studies have shown that students who would not raise a hand in class will be very active in posting to discussion boards showing that they communicate better in a web based environment than in the traditional classroom.
Meanwhile, Muzala who is also Managing Director of Trio Consult/Global Teenager Project (GTP) will be part of a discussion panel to discuss issues of content generated during GTP activities and how best they can be packaged and re-used by other students as referal materials. They will also be looking at the benefits of adopting the concept of Learning Circles used as the core activity of GTP, and how they can be used locally to enable learning among Zambian students.