Fertile Ground

http://www.marco.org/2013/06/11/fertile-ground

by mh_ • 13 years ago

326 210 13 years ago

jbail2• 13 years ago

"iOS 7 is different. It isn’t just a new skin: it introduces entirely new navigational and structural standards..."

Beyond the parallax effect, what are these new navigation and structural changes? I'm not trolling here, I'm genuinely curious. I'm about to build a new iOS app and I did not see major navigation or structural changes that would drastically affect how I design an app's UI or UX.

greendestiny2• 13 years ago

There are is support for physics effects in the UI now, I'm not really sure what navigational changes he could be talking about though.

muncheax• 13 years ago

There's a lot of awesome new multitasking and background stuff you can do now. It's a mix between the UI changes and the underlying parts that I think Marco is referring to.

Samuel_Michon6• 13 years ago

One change highlighted in the keynote presentation: instead of tapping the ‘Back’ button on the upper left corner of a UITableView layout, in iOS 7 you swipe horizontally from the left edge of the screen.

There are many more changes, you can read about them in the new iOS 7 Human Interface Guidelines: http://www.slideshare.net/evgenybelyaev16/mobile-hig-2278458...

jimmaswell2• 13 years ago

Physics effects? Momentum, acceleration, doing work, wave-particle duality? What's that supposed to mean?

bennyg4• 13 years ago

SpriteKit is going to be huge. Expect about a year of getting developers ready with it, and good at it, then Apple TV may have something awesome for us.

greendestiny2• 13 years ago

Interesting suggestion - I was surprised to see such a direct competitor to cocos2d, and despite the development budget of Apple I'm a little skeptical of their commitment to building a game engine. Maybe it'll form the basis of a better set of game engines. I'm definitely skeptical of their physics engine over Box2D.

Kiro• 13 years ago

What's SpriteKit? Sugar Cube Software's Cocoa Sprite Kit? How is it related to iOS7?

archagon• 13 years ago

Compared to Cocos2d, I'm not that interested in Sprite Kit as a framework. But combined with the new gamepad APIs, I think you might be on to something in regards to the Apple TV.

smackfu5• 13 years ago

Games tend to be the most likely apps to be ported between systems, so the appeal of a single OS API seems limited to me.

newhouseb• 13 years ago

Yeah, I think this is somewhat of an overstatement. UINavigationController? Still there. UITabBar? Still there. UIHamburgerController? Not there. Another radically different way to organize UIViewControllers? Nope.

That being said, there are a few new things that do stand out:

1) Everything is supposed to be fullscreen as often as possible, with the chrome hiding as much as possible. "Deference to content."

2) Transitioning between view controllers should ideally "zoom" in to new content. Like the calendar app zooming into a day view from a month view or a year's worth of photos zooming into a collection of chronological "collections." In other words, your transitions should communicate _how_ the view controllers relate more than just you're replacing one with another.

3) Text Everywhere. (only new on iOS)

4) More abstract but also more physical (read: mimicking the laws of nature, like physics, rather than mimicking things humans have made, read: skeuomorphism)

mamcx• 13 years ago

And how that fit for non-standar UIs?

cromwellian• 13 years ago

Fragmentation :)

Breefield• 13 years ago

I felt this way after IOS started to flourish in 2008-2009. "Why didn't I start building iPhone apps back then." Now IOS7, and Marco saying this, I can anticipate the same sensation if I don't hop onboard after this refresh.

jmduke2• 13 years ago

Another point that I think has been understated thus far:

Android, WP, and iPhone's visual philosophies are closer now than ever before. I can only assume this will lead to fewer "ecosystem-exclusive" apps, which I think is a net positive for everyone.

mehrzad• 13 years ago

I keep hearing about these similarities, but most seem superficial/only visual. How menu/table UI systems work aren't necessarily similar. How does that help apps get on every system?

gbog• 13 years ago

You give way too much importance to the visual part, the reason for some apps to be ecosystem exclusive are technical or legal limitations. Writing this on a rooted Android phone with third party keyboard, through a vpn...

kunai2• 13 years ago

iOS 7 is in many ways a new beginning for both Apple, its users, and its developers, but I think the OA is relying a bit too much on hyperbole. In the DP, there weren't really too many navigational changes, and the UI was still instantly familiar. Yes, there are new APIs and other neat fancy rendering stuff, and you can't discount the influence of the application's look and feel, but... it didn't feel very different, at least with regards to an experience perspective. It looks markedly better (apart from about 5-6 odd-looking icons on the home screen), and designing around that will perhaps be the most daunting challenge.

It will separate the best from the worst, however, and this beginning, this chance to start fresh, is what I look forward to.

idbentley• 13 years ago

This is ridiculous. One uninnovative developer getting excited about fewer choices and lower quality in iOS application.

pazimzadeh5• 13 years ago

You're ridiculous, and I predict that Marco will be laughing his way to the bank. Let's revisit this in say December or Spring of next year, shall we?

gwern• 13 years ago

getting excited about fewer choices and lower quality
laughing his way to the bank

Error: type mismatch identified.

ghshephard18• 13 years ago

Uninnovative?

Tumblr, Instapaper, "The Magazine.", atp.fm?

Just saying.

btipling3• 13 years ago

It seems hypocritical to laud fragmentation when it happens in iOS and decry it in Android. These changes seem similar to the Android differences in gingerbread and post-honeycomb. The resulting effect on developers will be the same. iOS 7 has made it apparent which bloggers are unable or unwilling to be fair in their criticism when it comes to Apple. The mismatched gradients on the new icons are beautiful to them, the wire frame and confusing UI elements are revolutionary, and fragmentation is simply just creating fertile ground for change. Great.

thisisdallas• 13 years ago

This is a very a good point. As a major Apple fan I completely agree with you. After looking over the iOS changes I see absolutely nothing that is more "revolutionary" than what we have now in iOS6, or even what Android and Windows Phone offers.

At best, it looks like iOS7 is nothing more than a mix of Android and Windows Phone plus a few extra UI elements.

I am not a big fan of Marco's obsession with drama but I do respect his opinion and find his take on certain thing within the tech industry enlightening. Unfortunately, this post does seem like nothing more than turning a blind eye to what Apple has done with iOS7.

btipling3• 13 years ago

I'm also an Apple fan. I love my Macbook Pro Retina, it's the best computer I've ever owned. Being a fan of a company shouldn't blind you to their missteps when they happen though. It shouldn't lead to unfair application of criticism.

ghshephard18• 13 years ago

Combine Marco and Gruber's [1] insight - This is a major house cleaning/forest fire. Someone (Jony, et al.) has stepped back, looked at the confusion that has developed over the last 3-5 years on the iPhone, and has decided to recreate the iPhone as a conceptual platform. The introduction (and hopefully consistency) of multiple dimensions onto the phone, and a cross-system approach towards geometry, means that iOS7 will be a complete re-think of how applications work and behave on the iPhone.

And don't be so quick to say, "or even what Android and Windows phone offers.." - Those are awesome platforms, and Apple can learn a lot from them (as Android and Windows have learned from the iPhone.) Indeed, the "Cards" approach in multi-tasking is actually reminiscent of what Palm's WebOS did [2] - so Apple has learned from them as well.

I am very intrigued as to how well the Multitasking/Notification driven background/User-interaction-Dependent-CPU-scheduling-for-background-processess will work - That's pretty innovative solution to a common problem of Craptastic background apps that you don't think about sucking your battery dry. [edit: And all the discussions about Apps checking in when you've got the radios on, when you are powered up, etc... - I've been dreaming about exactly that for 2+ years. Finally! (Non-ironically)]

Don't kid yourself - iOS 7 is the big one, and, will likely be as ugly as the upgrade was from 10.6.8 to 10.7.0 was on OS X - My prediction is that iOS 8 will basically be fixing all the glitches and problems created from this complete platform rethink - but, sometimes, to make an omelet...

Forest Fire Indeed!

[1] http://daringfireball.net/2013/06/ios_7_signature [2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c20uhGxSxWo

chasing• 13 years ago

It's not fragmentation. Within a year, the vast majority of iOS users will be on iOS 7. It's evolution.

btipling3• 13 years ago

Except for all those not so old iPhones that are stuck on iOS 6 forever.

dannyr5• 13 years ago

So fragmentation is ok as long as it's only for a year?

I guess we're moving the goal posts again.

bane• 13 years ago

and up pops a perfect examplar

tlrobinson• 13 years ago

I suppose it's not a coincidence Apple showed off how many users are running the latest version of iOS vs the latest version of Android.

melling2• 13 years ago

I think you forgot the part where Android fragmentation leaned more towards the 3 year old version. 2.3 is still huge. If Android had simply evolved fast and all the new phones had the new Android the problem wouldn't be so bad.

dannyr5• 13 years ago

2.3 is still big but its share is dwindling pretty fast.

Vine only supports 4.0 and above & there's no uproar. It is a Top 3 app on Google Play.

fpgeek4• 13 years ago

I think you forgot the parts where even devices with a 3 year old OS [1] regularly get updates of many APIs that have been (sensibly) decoupled from the OS, have access to substantial compatibility libraries and so on.

[1] By which I mean Froyo, Gingerbread doesn't hit its third birthday until December (at the earliest).

jusben13692• 13 years ago

Android would not have a real fragmentation issue if 70% of all users could easily update and did so within 12 months. Important distinction that negates this argument I think. (I am Android user for day to day phone)

Zr40• 13 years ago

But the fact is that they haven't upgraded, regardless of whether that's due to unwillingness or due to unavailability. Willingness to upgrade doesn't matter if you can't upgrade; you're still stuck on the old version.

gfodor2• 13 years ago

Fragmentation implies "fragments". iOS 6 has a 93% install base. An ever-shrinking 7% isn't much of a fragment to worry about. iOS 7, due to it's new shiny factor, will likely see an even faster adoption than iOS 6.

Samuel_Michon6• 13 years ago

It really helped that Apple introduced over-the-air updates and PC Free (activation without a computer) in iOS 5.

iOS 7 introduces automatic updates, but I don’t know whether that’s only for apps or for the OS as well. If both, then versions past iOS 7.0.0 should have an even faster adoption rate.

Negitivefrags• 13 years ago

Unless Apple has significantly improved new app discovery on the App Store, I don't think we are going to see any changes.

The algorithms that apple uses for the top lists promote established players, the search functions suck, and the interface for scrolling through lists of apps are so slow and clunky that it discourages users from exploring beyond the first 5-6 results in any list.

SwellJoe2• 13 years ago

I don't think this is going to play out this way.

Look to other operating systems that evolved their UI in similar fashion and a few of their dominant software players over the years:

Windows-Office, Quickbooks, Quicken, IE/Chrome/Firefox/Netscape (which have shifted favor over years, but not because of UI changes in the OS)

Mac OS (X and classic)-Adobe PS, Illustrator, ProTools, Office

UI changes, even major ones, have had little to no effect on the dominant software titles for those systems. There have occasionally been new categories of software introduced. For instance, high quality video editing software for the home market, which was made possible by better home cameras and major advances in speed and resources of home computers. Pervasive internet allowed the browser wars to happen. It wasn't minor UI changes in the OS that allowed new players to come onto the scene, it was major technological advances.

If you go back far enough, you can argue that the change from command line to GUI allowed for just such a revolution described (it definitely did: Wordstar/Wordperfect lost to Word, Lotus lost to Excel, AutoCad nearly lost its throne, etc.). But, nobody in their right mind is arguing that iOS 6 to iOS 7 is the difference between DOS and Windows 3.1 or between an Apple IIe and Lisa or the first Macintosh.

History isn't always the best indicator in the tech industry, but in absence of other indicators, I'll bet on history repeating in some form.

MichaelGG• 13 years ago

The chrome around something like Photoshop is a small part of the entire experience, and unlikely to change a purchase decision. This is not true for many smartphone apps, where the look and feel is one of the key features and selection criteria. Apps that don't update will feel crappy and old and that'll put them at a major disadvantage.

This will be a chance to catch any "lazy" dominant apps if they don't upgrade soon enough. I'm not sure if there are any dominant players that are lazy - seems like you'd need to keep on your toes if you're gonna stay dominant. So not a whole lot might change, anyways.

egypturnash• 13 years ago

There were some notable changes in the Classic-to-X change. Quark XPress replaced by InDesign, BBEdit replaced by TextMate. Probably a few others, too.

Adobe's tools stood unchanged in the X switch, in no small part because they got X versions out pretty quickly that felt relatively at home. Quark, IIRC, took forever to make an X version, so Adobe was able to bring out an X page layout app and eat their lunch. Of course, it didn't hurt that everyone pretty much loathed XPress, especially its heaviest users...

SwellJoe2• 13 years ago

While I agree there were some shakeups, I think it also proves my "major technological change" point. Mac OS to OS X was a major technological change. Went from a pretty, but clunky, single-tasking, OS to a quite advanced UNIX-based multi-tasking OS. UI was the smallest of the changes that happened there. There was also a major processor and architecture change in that story line. Big differences. Having a native app was mandatory to take advantage of a huge jump in capability.

bitops• 13 years ago

I hope I'm not in some crazy minority here, but I actually value stability and UIs not changing radically all the time. I feel like there's a craze afoot at the moment to "redesign everything all the time" and I'm not a big fan of it. If you're in tech, sure, it's the "price of progress" but for the lay user (i.e. the people who pay us money for software) it's just annoying.

kunai2• 13 years ago

I'm in the same minority as you, but you can't deny that iOS 7 was a necessary change, and not one just for the sake of it.

fpgeek4• 13 years ago

Just because a change was necessary doesn't mean this change was necessary.

I'm still flabbergasted that Apple did their big overhaul (apparently) without addressing inter-application communication, default apps, Siri APIs or most of the other "power user" issues that would have helped them grow their computing paradigm. To me, increasing the scope and power of iOS devices while maintaining the predictability and control that are at the heart of Apple's take on mobile/touch-based computing is the problem Apple has to solve over the next few years. Judging from what I've heard about iOS 7, it sounds like Apple couldn't disagree more.

smacktoward• 13 years ago

That was my thought too. I'm a bit agog at seeing a developer lauding a platform owner for burning down the platform. If you're going to invest time and money in a platform, the last thing you want is to find out after that investment has been sunk that the platform steward likes to periodically smash everything.

Marco argues that while this behavior is bad for incumbents, it's good for new entrants, but that doesn't make any sense; if you're a new entrant, your goal over the long term is to become an incumbent. Blowing everything up may benefit you today, but if you survive long enough to see the next demolition spree, then you'll be the one getting 'sploded. It's like arguing that living next to a volcano is good for development because it periodically clears out old building stock.

A good platform is one you can build a business on. Sudden, dramatic change that flushes your investment to date down the toilet is bad for business.

pazimzadeh5• 13 years ago

A platform that is popular or has the most apps is not necessarily the "best", as Windows proves. I'm not sure that Apple ever wanted 750,000 apps on iOS. It seems that they should prefer 100,000 great apps to 750k mediocre ones.

The platform was designed the iPhone platform between 2005 and 2007, and while it served its purpose very well I don't think that we should limit innovation for the sake of supporting old apps.

ghshephard18• 13 years ago

I think his point was that not that the platform is being "burned down" but that it was going "arise anew, like a phoenix from the Ashes" - it's not like iOS will be gone in three months - but it will be markedly different.

Also - he was highlighting that this will suck somewhat for incumbents (which, having sold Instapaper, and "The Magazine" he is not), but that it offers great opportunities for people willing to fully commit to the new iOS 7 worldview (who in turn may be wiped out in another 8 years - but hey, 8 years is a long time.

Regarding, "If you're going to invest time and money in a platform, the last thing you want is to find out after that investment has been sunk that the platform steward likes to periodically smash everything."

Heck, based on a small sampling of anecdotes from iOS developers I know - I bet 90% of all iOS developers make the majority of their income on an app in in less than six months, fewer than 10% experience "significant income" over a full year, and less than 1% have multi-year incomes from an app that is enough to have a comfortable six-figure salary. The nature of iOS application development is different from Desktop Application Development, and, for most (excluding the top 5,000 Apps) - the real money is in new applications.

So - yes, this may be jarring for that 1% - but the other 99% have a great opportunity opening for the next six - nine months.

ruswick3• 13 years ago

I agree with you. The iOS aesthetic, though imperfect, was stable and quite nice. In my opinion, Apple should have merely eliminated some of the more egregious skeuomorphisms and brought their apps more in line with the semi-flat look that the OS has had for years. This sort of total visual upheaval is superfluous, if not detrimental. From what I've seen, it looks insultingly bad.

There are better ways to allocate development time than reimplementing an already-fine OS.

leoc2• 13 years ago

I have to disagree. Inside-app navigation in iOS is, truth be told, bodgy and confusing. Throw on top of that the need to handle notifications and app intercommunication and multitasking better and some systematic rethinking was really needed. I agree that graphically the new "commercial-art retro-chic meets skinny Helvetica" look feels like hard going - "it's sorbet and Love Hearts for dinner, everyone!" - but hopefully they'll have tidied and calmed things a bit by launch.

kcoop• 13 years ago

So says the guy that just sold all his legacy apps.

lostlogin2• 13 years ago

Money where his mouth is? Although it would seem unlikely unless he had a prior glimpse of what was coming. Is this that unlikely?

ruswick3• 13 years ago

Although he wasn't aware of the exact details or extent of the changes, rumors of a total overhaul have been circulating for months. He probably anticipated having to input hundreds if not thousands of hours of development time to prepare for iOS 7. At the very least, this must have been a factor in his decisions.

ja27• 13 years ago

After seeing how mine look in the (hopefully very beta) iOS 7, I'm ready to sell half of mine rather than deal with UI updates.

Steko• 13 years ago

There's a huge tendency for designers to overstate the importance of "looking modern" as an actual end. A lot of people honestly wouldn't care if the buttons on their phone were modelled to look like 3d photorealistic rainbow poop. The designers tell them they don't need cases but they all buy the most garish hideous cases to say nothing of the bedazzler people.

Sign me up as skeptical re: the coming app store revolution.

foobarbazqux4• 13 years ago

Fertile Ground

I'm getting pretty tired of blog post titles that give no real hint at all as to the topic. My mind labels them as "pretentious" because they're pretending to be deep when they're not; by that I mean that rarely do the posts offer up any kind of non-trivial insight. (Compare with PG's similarly titled essays.) Earlier today we had "Two i's" from DHH's crew (where you had to infer from reading the post that it was i for interesting and i for important). Dustin Curtis recently had "Glass". Please, you will still be the coolest people on the planet if you don't try to title your posts per the ineffable style of Apple product advertisements, and as a bonus we will even like you and your work a little bit more.

pazimzadeh5• 13 years ago

I disagree that the title "Fertile Ground" gave no hint to the topic, but I agree about "Two i's".

foobarbazqux4• 13 years ago

I was only complaining because I literally had no idea whatsoever that it was about Apple, never mind iOS 7, and I wouldn't have opened the link if I had known that. Is "Apple's iOS 7 is Fertile Ground" really that atrocious?

I can understand how given the context of WWDC yesterday it might be more obvious, and that there is an argument for treating blog posts as ephemera, but in general I like it when things can maintain their meaning for months, years, or indefinitely.

ghshephard18• 13 years ago

You would, of course, prefer something like, "iOS 7 reset creates new opportunities for Developers" or "iOS reboot creates conditions ripe for disruption" or, ....

Honestly - "Fertile Ground" is a pretty damn good title. I can already imagine people casually discussing it at WWDC "Did you catch Marco's "Fertile Ground" post?"

foobarbazqux4• 13 years ago

I would be happy with "Apple's iOS 7 is Fertile Ground", "Hands-On with Google Glass", and "Two I's for Productivity: Interesting and Important Tasks".

Of course, these have all lost their Zen master cachet, but for me that's a distinct advantage. Good writing doesn't need to be cool.

kstop• 13 years ago

Considering the source, I assumed it was about coffee.

unalone• 13 years ago

Marco's not attempting to communicate clearly in the sense of "push data down foobarbazqux's infohole." He's trying to communicate clearly in the sense of "grab foobar's attention, state his perspective provocatively, and attempt to not only reach an audience but make them think and talk."

Clearly he's succeeded, from the conversation going on in this post. Marco is occasionally pretty obnoxious, and his ideas are frequently not always well thought-out, but I like writers who attempt to be not only clear, but compelling.

Paul Graham has plenty of terrible essay names, and plenty of terrible essays at that. One of the things that frustrates me about him as a writer is that on occasion he attempts to strike an "objective" tone while offering a skewed and entirely subjective perspective. Besides, conveying pure abstract information should not be the point of an essay. Tone, emotion, purpose, and construction should all be deliberate. Otherwise you get Mashable—ultraspecific titles geared to ultraspecific articles which are so drained of anything beyond pure bullet-point content that you could train a machine to read and interpret it. It's such a waste.

It takes you two seconds to click on a link and look at it, ten seconds tops to decide if you're going to gain something by reading it. If you're clicking on so many links per day that twelve seconds here and there is putting a dent in your productivity/well-being, then there is a worse problem here than ambiguously-titled essays, and ironically, it's a problem that you'll start to solve by seeking more challenging pieces of writing to tackle to distract yourself from the constant useless information mill that the Internet so readily provides.

foobarbazqux4• 13 years ago

To be honest, I only clicked on Fertile Ground out of a yearning for self-punishment. I knew exactly what kind of article to expect from a title like that, it's just that I like to complain when it happens that I get what I want and I also don't like what I want. The sense of superiority makes me feel a bit better, kind of like those cranky old guys that think most everyone else is an idiot. The main difference with PG seems to be that I have to read 5000 words before arriving at that all-too-familiar sinking feeling. Well, I hope I've contributed to the overall cynicism levels around here, and I wish you an absolutely rotten day.

tolmasky• 13 years ago

Yay change for change's sake.

This is exactly the wrong attitude in my opinion. How does it help users to all of a sudden have most apps feel ancient? Is it really something to be proud of? That for the next year we'll be working on replacing existing utilities so that they feel "right" and "fresh" instead of doing what we should be doing: thinking of actual new software that is worthwhile to write.

I've been saying this for a while but I think what is happening, and what many developers haven't noticed yet, is that we have exhausted the utility of software for software's sake. The interesting stuff happening in mobile now has nothing to do with "design" in the traditional sense any more. Its not enough to just have a coder and a designer on the team. The really cool stuff is all about what your phone actually allows you to do in the real world. Look at apps like uber, postmates, spotify, and twitch.tv. Most of these have terrible UI's, but that's not the point. The point is that they allow you to do things. I can have a car on my doorstep! I can listen to almost any song I want. They're not just another calculator app or news reader, so who cares if its not the prettiest or easiest thing to use in the world. They are an interface to actually useful services. Software was interesting on its own a decade ago, but the industry has grown up, its time to do things now. That doesn't mean that "UI and UX" don't matter, it just means their definition changes and grows beyond just how you tap things on glass and what pixels you choose to animate.

The reason that iOS 7 seems comforting in the way its described in this article is because it gives developers who haven't realized this something to do again. Marco is absolutely right, for a long time it has felt like all the major categories have been covered on the app store. That's a good thing! It means we've solved lots of problems. We shouldn't daydream of a day when those problems get artificially unsolved so we can have another shot at them. We should move on.

mchanson• 13 years ago

Cause, like, I still use Visicalc and it works great.

ben336• 13 years ago

I think Marco is saying this is good from an independent ios developers perspective, not necessarily from a users perspective. As somebody who makes his living as an independent app developer, I'm sure he's thrilled about this. Its undeniably an opportunity for independent developers who don't have to maintain an existing app. Whether its good for users or the ecosystem in general is a totally different discussion.

fpgeek4• 13 years ago

Indeed. One of the things Marco is glossing over is how the iOS 7 overhaul makes iOS development riskier:

  - Will I (and the apps I'm planning) be able to adapt to the UI changes smoothly or not?
  - How are these changes going to play out on the iPad?
  - Does Apple have any other foundation-shifting changes planned before iOS 7 comes out?
  - Will these changes impact user behavior?
  - And so on.

From the perspective of an independent developer starting out, none of this matters. Their risk is already off-the-charts (and the downside limited by time and effort, for the most part), so all they care about is the increased reward potential. They don't even really care if that increased reward potential is coming from changes in absolute rewards and/or relative rewards vs other developers.

For everyone else, the risk vs reward calculation might look quite different.

rustydoorknobs• 13 years ago

I agree with you, but I think that an occasional design shakeup hits people on a different level, subconsciously. A new look affects the feel of an application, which can actually affect how people view the substantial portions of an app.

LowKarmaAccount2• 13 years ago

I've been saying this for a while but I think what is happening, and what many developers haven't noticed yet, is that we have exhausted the utility of software for software's sake...
Software was interesting on its own a decade ago, but the industry has grown up, its time to do things now.

Smartphones are important because they allow people to use computers in a manner that wasn't feasible in the past because of the size of computing devices.

However, smartphones have not produced any important innovations from a software point of view. They are not innovative because they don't need to be; they are simply the logical consequent of the advances in the miniaturization of hardware.

The market saturation you describe is not the result of a glut of innovation, but rather is just a consequence of developers porting existing desktop functionality onto a smartphone. You can take pictures and use voice recognition software to ask where nearby restaurants if you carry around a desktop or a laptop; you just probably wouldn't want to.

Actually, smartphones are a good example of how non-innovative and illogical the computing world can be. Underneath the touch-based interfaces, they run on a kernel written in a memory-unsafe, non-garbage collected, insecure, and inexpressive language that was designed to target the PDP-11. Because the operating system is so flawed and incompetent that it can't be trusted to prevent rogue processes from stepping on others, you end up with a lack of a useable file system and awful communication between apps. Of course, the joke is that these restrictions are almost worthless because you can almost always bypass the system security and jailbreak the device; then maybe you can do something useful with your phone without.

Its part of a larger trend in the computing world to ignore history and reinvent wheels, and call it innovation. Case in point: web apps, which, unless you are replacing a legacy application, are a terrible idea. Not only will they always face latency issues, but they also use awful languages designed to serve and manipulate text and are at least twice as slow as native code. Software on smartphones is interesting in the same way that a "Hello world!" program is interesting to C programmer; the programmer is so surprised that he has fought an unfriendly, unintuitive system full of kludges and managed to output text to the screen without the program crashing and dumping core that he doesn't notice how trivial the output is.

Of course, what we have today is better than nothing. In a way, the massive and unnecessarily resource intensive process that we have now is uplifting because it shows the determination of the human spirit; just imagine what we could accomplish if we invested in the right things.

ghshephard18• 13 years ago

This is similar to suggesting that a Desktop computer isn't innovative because it's just a few peripherals connected to a very fast turing machine.

Some examples of Smartphone innovation (in my opinion):

At 2:00 AM in bed, when I'm exhausted, and realize I have to wake up at 7:00 AM, but I'm tired enough that I might not be able to reach my alarm clock, and I can just flex my thumb and say, "Wake me up at 6:00 AM" before drifting off to sleep - I call that innovation. I don't know if you recall, there was a time that the big "thing" at Hotels was having them give you a wakeup call, so you wouldn't have to figure out how the alarm clock in the room worked (if they had one). I haven't done that in 5+ years. Used to do it every night when I was in a hotel.

I'm out walking at night in Redwood City, and Dark Sky pops up and tells me it's going to start raining in my neighborhood in about 15 minutes - so I turn around and grab an umbrella.

I'm out at a customer luncheon in Singapore, and they ask me about a presentation I did awhile ago, on my laptop, and I know backblaze has backed it up, so I'm able to grab it while standing there from my iPhone and mail it to them - that real time delivery makes a positive impression. (Replace Backblaze with Dropbox/iCloud/SkyDrive/favorite cloud mechanism that you can connect to from your mobile device)

Listening to a great german song in a Taxi in Aschaffenburg, and I pull up Shazam - and 90 seconds later I have it on my iPhone (and it's now been synced with iTunes match and is on my iPad and Laptop)

Late at night in PaloAlto, and I need a ride home - and Uber tells me there will be a driver at the restaurant in 4 minutes, and shows them driving towards me, and makes sure they show up - As somebody who had spent hours waiting for cabs in the middle of the night - I call that innovation.

Walking down the Stairs at Southwark in London, and getting the real-time update from TubeMap, that the London Bridge station is closed due to a station fire - turning right around and grabbing a cab to an important symposium.

I could obviously go on - but I find it so hard to believe you don't recognize all of this as, "innovation"

Skywing• 13 years ago

That's a valid point, but isn't this a forum of mostly developers and tech-savvy people? While your point stands, I have a feeling that a lot of readers of HN will be looking at this from the OP's point of view.

huhtenberg• 13 years ago

"Why be you, when you can be new."

lloeki• 13 years ago

How does it help users to all of a sudden have most apps feel ancient?

It helps users in that the "new design" is an improvement over the "old design".

A case study, the Windows file picker dialog:

Win3.1 dialogs felt foreign to 95, while XP-style apps feel foreign to Vista-style apps. There is no debate that from win3 to win7 the file picker dialog got improved each time. Easier item selection, easier reading, easier tree traversal, quicker arrival to favorites...

What is true for this dialog is true for the whole system. rundll32 tabbed preference panes survive in Win8 to this day. They felt like they came from the future back then on win95, while today they're old and crufty, alien and inscrutable.

This is not change for the sake of change. Design is how it works. Good design is thorough and holistic. If you only improve part of the system, you end up with a hodgepodge of UI versions with no conventions across the board and only results in an overall bad usability and maintainability.

bcl• 13 years ago

This is wrong. The vast majority don't want their OS (whether it is phone, desktop, laptop, etc.) to suddenly change. They want stability. They have invested the time and effort to learn the UI and integrate it into their lives, change disrupts this and wastes their time.

If you force them into learning a new way to do things you have just reduced the friction of them switching to some other platform. And that's how you lose customers.

bennyg4• 13 years ago

It's honestly not that different. Messaging is just as easy as before. Using Calendar is just as easy as before. All of the apps that aren't Apple's are the exact same and will be for the beginning of the official release. You underestimate people and their ability to adapt to change.

cheald9• 13 years ago

So when Android is fragmented, it is awful and is the reason the platform sucks. When iOS is fragmented, it's innovative and fresh, masterfully executed to bring new opportunities to developers. Got it.

ghshephard18• 13 years ago

Android Fragmentation is a problem because what version do you write your application for? 2.3? 4.0? Ideally 4.1/4.2, but that will miss 70% of your market who CAN'T upgrade because their Telco is not offering 4.1/4.2. Not because their hardware can't support it.

Anybody on an iPhone 4, 4S, or 5 who wants an iOS 7 app, can have it within a day of the iOS 7 release.

The downside of offering only one major phone a year, is that you don't occupy much shelf space in a best buy/AT&T - and someone casually looking for a phone, instead of a particular phone, is 90% unlikely to chose you.

The upside, is that when you offer a new OS - everyone gets to upgrade.

That's the Android fragmentation issue.

cheald9• 13 years ago

No, you write for the minimum API level your app requires. In a lot of cases, this is 2.3.3! If you want to target a wide audience and still use some 3.0/4.0 features, there are nifty polyfills available, too. Google is further improving this by extracting many of the super useful APIs out into a version-agnostic package that is updated independent of carrier say-so. Your API level 10 apps will run quite happily on Gingerbread, Honeycomb, and JB devices. Furthermore, Google supports multiple APK deployments, so you can actually build your application with different features for different API levels, and publish them under the same entry in the Play store; each device is routed to the proper APK.

However, despite all of this, you are talking about the exact same thing that Marco is. He says you "ideally" want to target iOS7, but you can't afford to do so if it means cutting out your iOS6 users. His conjecture is that since the established players are stuck on iOS6 (Gingerbread), the up-and-comers will have a shot to disrupt the market among the iOS7 (Jelly Bean) users. The assertion, flat out, is that "the big players being unable to upgrade their iOS6 software to meet iOS7 standards due to legacy support requirements is good for the app ecosystem", which is a pure RDF spin on the whole fragmentation issue that the Apple ecosystem loves talking about so much.

shinratdr5• 13 years ago

How do you even draw such a connection in your head? Nobody once, ever, has said that the new UI that came with ICS was a bad thing. The problem is that even now, years later, the most in-use Android version is three years old.

Android fragmentation is about VERSIONS. APIs, bug fixes, security updates, and available features to a lesser extent. It has NOTHING to do with look and feel. At all. This tactic from Android fans is sad. Just expand the definition of fragmentation until it no longer means anything.

Ridiculous. When 90% of devices are using the latest OS within a year of release, trying to call that fragmentation is complete bullshit. No platform in history has been able to tout those kinds of upgrade numbers, and it's a distinct advantage for both users and developers.

cheald9• 13 years ago

Did you read the post?

Fragmentation is about your userbase being split across incompatible platforms and the paralyzing effect that has on development, which is precisely what Marco was lauding as a good thing in this post.

alayne4• 13 years ago

It's not even comparable. Android has many more levels of fragmentation than iOS ever will and Google knows that they screwed up. You have display resolution * display density * OS version * carrier OS modifications * device hardware (hard keyboard/buttons/trackpad/...).

cheald9• 13 years ago

And the OS is specifically built to handle that. Layouts are't done in visual pixels, but in density-independent units. The layout engine itself is designed to accommodate different display sizes and aspect ratios. The entire OS is built around a capabilities system that is designed to make it run on devices that may or may not have a camera or trackpad or whatnot.

Android fragmentation is about the availability of API levels, not the variance in hardware.

kevincrane• 13 years ago

I've seen this in several places, but when people say Apple "changed everything about how use it" in this version of iOS, what did they actually change? The only big things I've seen with regards to the OS seem to be the flat iconography and the pull-up menu from the bottom that has the setting changes. Everything else looked approximately identical functionally (at first glance anyway).

hrabago3• 13 years ago

There are changes, for instance, about how multitasking works, that an application can take advantage of. If one app doesn't take advantage of it, and another does, I may use one over the other more often. For instance, there was an app that used Push Notification and the Icon Badge to show the current temperature, and for a time I used that over The Weather Channel's app. Small things like this creates opportunities, this is what Marco was saying.

drpancake• 13 years ago

I disagree with the significance being given to these UI changes. Many App Store niches are dominated by incredibly ugly apps that are functional and get the job done. Take a look at WhatsApp for a prime example.

kenjackson• 13 years ago

Fertile ground is Google Glass, the new Kinect sensor, 3d printing, etc...

There are so many more interesting targets, I hope we don't focus our best on new skins for flashlight apps.

hi2usir• 13 years ago

Don't forget the iAds with your flashlight app.

Samuel_Michon6• 13 years ago

Flashlight is built into the iOS 7 control panel. Innovation FTW ;)

coderguy123• 13 years ago

How can this be sustainable? all this fragmentation/versions - iOS new >=7 and <7, all different versions of android, windows 8 metro etc etc. how many different platform specific versions are these service providers like say pandora suppose to create?

I feel like unless the app is taking advantage of some inherent hardware capability of the phone/tablet everything should eventually be HTML5.

hrabago3• 13 years ago

Your example illustrates what Marco is saying. A big player that needs to support all those different versions of different platforms may take more time updating their iOS app to adapt the latest standards. An indie developer, who has more agility and can choose to only support iOS 7, now has a possible advantage, if s/he chooses to take advantage of it.

ianstallings• 13 years ago

I've faced it in other platforms and it's easily overcome with software patterns that you should already be using. If you have a good separations of concerns and the UI is truly decoupled from your logic and models you should not be having any issues. If you don't already have that use this time to refactor and move forward. Some things won't be possible across both platforms. Find those now and address them first.

jusben13692• 13 years ago

Aren't the well/better funded dev shops and apps going to more easily make the transition? Won't the smaller ones feel the pain of backward/multi version support more acutely? Didn't we just empower the status quo? True there'll be net new revs with no legacy issues but not sure how game changing that is.

jared314• 13 years ago

You have to be fast to pick up nickels in front of a steamroller.

There is some money in porting something between the old and the new playing field, but the incumbents will eventually update.

hrabago3• 13 years ago

That's where the opportunity is. If "eventually" is six months, then you have six months to make your mark. By then, if you play your cards right and/or you get lucky, you can get in a good position and try to hold it, which you may not have had the chance before.

jeffpersonified• 13 years ago

I've been a rails developer for a while now, and contemplating whether or not to focus my energies on a js frontend framework or learning iOS. I think this post was all I needed to make a decision. Thanks Marco.

mwfunk• 13 years ago

I'm not sure how a new OS update that changes more things than usual is fragmentation, especially when that OS has a very small number of devices that it runs on and a user base that by and large quickly updates to the new releases. It might be more of a disruptive update than usual, it might be good or bad for users in the short term, it might be good or bad for developers in the short term, but it's not fragmentation.

shinratdr5• 13 years ago

In case you've ever wondered why Marco frequently dismisses the Hacker News community, the comments on this article are a fantastic example. Never has "give it five minute" been more apt.

Samuel_Michon6• 13 years ago

I noticed something curious on page 10 of Apple’s iOS 7 Transition Guide[1], in the section “Things Every App Should Do”:

”Examine your app for hard-coded UI values – such as sizes and positions – and replace them with those you derive dynamically from system-provided values. Use Auto Layout to help your app respond when layout changes are required.”

Now, I may be reading too much into this, but the use of the word ‘when’ sounds to me like Apple is preparing products with other resolutions than are on the current iOS devices. I think there would be a market for a budget iPhone with a smaller screen, and a high-end iPad with a larger screen.

Also, the icon size for apps is different in iOS 7. It’s going up from 114x114 to 120x120.

[1] http://es.slideshare.net/evgenybelyaev16/transition-guide

smackfu5• 13 years ago

This could also be related to iOS 7 having a system-level font size setting.

ojbyrne• 13 years ago

Or, in the six months before the new shiny iOS appears, every single dominant or near-dominant application on the app store decides that it makes more sense for them to build a version that targets the other ecosystem.

mangoman• 13 years ago

As a developer who hasn't published an app in the iOS App store, I love the point that Marco's making. One of my biggest biggest hesitations in developing an iOS application has been, how the hell can I differentiate myself? By being one of the first iOS 7 apps! I don't have to have some crazy sense of design, or think too hard about what gradients I use, since my app will stand out from the start. I think that's one of the main points in the argument.

As a developer who has friends who have developed "non-trivial" iOS apps, damn. This is pretty spot on exactly what happened (happening still even) on Android with pre/post 3.0 applications. Making sure that the UI works on both categories of devices is just awful. There are a few projects out there to help (ActionBarSherlock, HoloEverywhere), but it takes a lot of diligence, ESPECIALLY if you're trying to do combination tablet and phone apps.

A lot of the posts I've read on this thread are missing the point of the post. It's not just about change, its not about fragmentation, its about the excitement for newcomers to join an ecosystem that has felt super saturated for years. It may not actually shake the foundation of the app store, but it at least allows for new talent to enter on the same playing field as those who have been developing iOS applications for years. That's just exciting.

chj• 13 years ago

Every disaster is opportunity. In the case of iOS 7, the opportunity belongs to Android and windows.

gaving• 13 years ago

Can't help but think the Vesper guys wished they had waited until next year.

csomar• 13 years ago

1. Given Apple history of screwing developers, I doubt they are doing it for developers.

2. It's my opinion. I think the hybrid new design is much worse than the old one. I like the old design. It's different and not old.

3. How is starting from scratch is good for users? Remember, we are here for users and not developers. Also, there are lots of apps not affected by this change: games and apps with their own UI just come to my mind.

buro9• 13 years ago

Good design is long-lasting - #7 of Dieter Rams ten principles of good design.

I wonder how many app designers will realise that the apps they produced were subject to the fashion of the design of the operating system, and now that the fashion and trend has moved, whether the app designers will be confident enough to apply their own timeless design.

The iOS7 colour palette and style is fresh and new (to iOS users), but it is just the next fashion, and as fresh and new as it feels today, it will feel equally old and stale (like iOS6) at some point in the future.

Good design is long-lasting. App designers should concentrate on getting their design right for their application, and not just follow the trend and wear the attire of the operating system.

Marco is right that when the fashion changes, those who cannot keep up with fashion leave a large opportunity for those who can. I also agree that there is also a lot of money to be made by being one of those who can follow fashion closely.

But from a design perspective... those who follow others (the operating system) rather than having the courage to lead (the right design for the app), will always be subject to vulnerability when the fashion changes.

modernerd• 13 years ago

Thousands of developers will be perfectly happy to drop iOS 5 and 6 support and remodel their apps for iOS 7 – myself included – because:

a. The new APIs and Xcode look lovely to work with.

b. Dropping support for iPhone 3G and 3GS devices four years after they were released doesn't feel unreasonable.

c. Apple has a long history of featuring apps that use their latest APIs. Having your app featured is still the only reasonable hope to make money in the App Store, unless your business model revolves around selling Smurfberries.

d. Many developers will have been holding back from making major app changes because they were waiting to see how iOS 7 would change the design language. Now that they know, they can spend the Summer redesigning.

e. Apple are openly inviting developers to "reimagine your apps on iOS 7" - that's the language they've used in their developer emails.

f. A successful developer with a widely read blog has just come out and said that everyone who drops support for older iOS versions to build afresh on top of iOS 7 stands to gain a lot.

So there will probably be a huge host of "new, nimble" apps with new takes on tired old setups come Autumn.

But I bet a lot of torch app developers are feeling very hard done by.

nadam• 13 years ago

"Most can’t afford to write two separate interfaces. (It’s a terrible idea anyway.)"

Why? If the newcomers can afford to write an interface for iOS7, the established players also can. If there is money in it for newcomers, there is money in it for established players too. This article assumes that established players are dumb. They will estimate how users adopt iOS7 over time, and act accordingly.

smackfu5• 13 years ago

I think it assumes that established players are conservative, not dumb. They will do the least effort necessary to make their app look good in iOS 7, at least at first.

mbq• 13 years ago

This is precisely why I think modern approach to software UX and design is crazy. Like 15 years ago, in the Windows hegemony every sane designer was heavily relying on widgets, metaphors and flow defined by the system and MS could almost flawlessly upgrade the look of the entire ecosystem with XP's Luna. And without breaking the user experience.

Now everybody is looking for some virtual perfection in a different place and the user gets an awful, inconsistent, non-customizable and anti-interoperable clutter. WHY?

programminggeek• 13 years ago

Apple is one of the companies that can really get away with an en-masse OS transition simply because they are basically guaranteed to get 80% on board in less than 6 months simply because they control the distribution mechanism and the device hardware itself. They can plan for these transitions.

Google and to a lesser extent Microsoft screwed up and are struggling to be able to keep their users on the latest and greatest. This is such a huge advantage for Apple that it can't be overstated.

On Android at least 36% of devices are still running Gingerbread (which is 2.5 years old). Android 4.x is finally up over 50% after being out for just over a year and a half.

So, whenever Google gets around to Android 5.0, it will probably be a whole year later (or more) before that is the mainstream targetable version of Android.

As a developer, you could argue this gives you more time to get around to building against the new api's, but at the same time that's remarkably slow user uptake compared to iOS.

Fertile Ground

Related Stories