Click. Connect. Learn.

All posts in Apple

On Closed Ecosystems

Due to the popularity of Apple's App Store, some folks are tempted to go all in with the blanket statement that a closed ecosystem is a better experience for end users.

This statement rests on several misunderstandings.

Lock
  • Apple's App Store is a closed ecosystem, and it works very well in selling Apple-approved products to consumers with Apple hardware and/or software. Other closed ecosystems have been less successful.
  • Success does not equal universal adoration. Not everybody that owns an Apple product loves the product, the company, or the user experience of owning Apple. While the volume and enthusiasm of the small subset of users that are delighted with Apple would have us believe otherwise, we should not lose sight of the fact that Apple is a company that does some things well, and others not so well.
  • Good user experience is both an immediate reaction and a relationship that unfolds over time. Part of user experience is in the immediate usefulness and elegance of the hardware, the user interface, and how they support common uses and needs. But another part of user experience involves how that complex relationship evolves over time. Given that Apple's high rate of device churn appears to be putting people on a path to have to toss functioning hardware in order to stay in the closed system, Apple's incarnation of a closed ecosystem has the potential to get increasingly bitter with age.

The degree to which an ecosystem will succeed or fail has more to do with how it is designed to solve a particular set of needs or problems. In the case of Apple's App Store, the effect of the marketing behind the products should not be overlooked. The advantage of open ecosystems is that when they don't work for a specific segment, the system is more likely to be improved by people who need the improvement. As just one example, how many people within education have ideas on how to improve Apple's Volume Licensing Program?

But in any case, the success or failure of a single ecosystem can teach us a lot about how system design factors into solving complex problems. The innate primacy of one approach over another is a more complex discussion.

Image Credit: "Lock" taken by walknboston, published under an Attribution license.

Mountain Lion, Closed Systems, Privacy, and Device Churn

Some interesting dates from the not-so-distant past:

December, 2009: "Apple has said it rejects 10 percent of submissions for being 'inappropriate,' in some cases because they try to steal personal data".

November, 2011: Apple kicks a security researcher out of its developer program for developing a proof of concept that shows how to exploit a security hole. The best part: the researcher had reported the flaw three weeks earlier.

February, 2012: An approved app, available in the App Store, is caught uploading entire address books (aka, stealing personal data), without user consent or knowledge. This app was never pulled from the App store, and an updated (non-address stealing version) is still available.

Rotten Apple

Apple has done a great job of pairing marketing hype with security through obscurity. Apple has created the appearance of a secure system (trust us! we're the gatekeepers!) but the holes in this system keep reappearing. I'm not saying that other systems are any more or less secure; however, other systems don't attempt to parlay a walled ecosystem into the equivalent of a secure environment. There have been instances of security fixes being delayed as a result of Apple's review process, resulting in users having no alternative to compromised apps, and no knowledge of the compromise.

However, despite these issues, Apple supporters - and especially Apple supporters within education - go to great lengths to describe how satisfied they are with their Apple purchases, and how they are not bothered by the increasingly intertwined way that the Apple ecosystem shuts out alternatives. Concerns about student privacy, and how iTunes accounts are effectively required to use iPads and other Mac products, have died down. People seem to have accepted that school in the 21st century requires paying companies to take over your personal data and usage patterns, and mine them for information.

But really, how many people who have gone deep into Apple could express anything but satisfaction, or even intense excitement? What are the alternatives?

Can you imagine a tech director walking into their boss and saying, "Well, this Apple hardware and software was okay, but with a little hindsight they aren't really necessary for learning, and there are other options that look promising, and might even be cheaper. I'd like to explore some other avenues. Oh, and one last thing: sorry about the several hundred thousand/millions we've spent on that hardware and software, and sorry that a good percentage of our faculty and student creative output is locked into apps that don't work on anything else but Apple stuff."

Of course people that have gone all in with Apple will be delighted with the results. The alternative is admitting that resources were squandered on something that was untested, and proved to be not as awesome as the sales teams/fanboys promised. People who have gone heavily into Apple need for Apple to be the best thing ever, as that reinforces their "vision."

So, when I read about the release of Mountain Lion, and how this is a move to annual release cycles of OS upgrades, and how people will now get the chance to upgrade every year (as opposed to having to upgrade every year), it's a move that makes sense for the direction Apple is heading: toward a fully closed ecosystem where people are pushed into frequent upgrade paths leading to increased device churn.

And learning? No problem. There's got to be an app for that.

But the one thing that doesn't surprise me is the name: Mountain Lion. Mountain lions love sheep.

Image Credit: "Rotten Apple" taken by Vince Wingate, published under an Attribution Share-Alike license.

Introducing the FunnyMonkey Educator of Distinction Program, Our Foray Into Corporate Teacher Professional AdverDevelopising

This is a big day here at FunnyMonkey (TM) World Headquarters. We are pround to announce the FunnyMonkey Educator of Distinction program, or the FM.Ed.

Not just anyone can qualify for the FM.Ed. To earn a FM.Ed, one must complete our comprehensive training program, which we are currently in the process of designing. In the meantime, we will be issuing interim badges to all educators (interested or not) who:

We don't need no steenkin badges
  • Are currently teaching; or
  • Have ever taught; or
  • Can spell "education;" or
  • Have walked past a school; or
  • Like coffee.

To indicate that you have earned your FM.Ed, just embed either of these badges below on your blog. Also, feel free to add the certificate to your twitter handle, and include it as part of your email signature.

Select the badge that fits best in the space you have available.

16x16:
I can haz clazrüm

100X100:
I got thinking up in my mindz

And the best part: once you use these badges, you'll start seeing them everywhere!

I must have been asleep for part of the summer because I missed some great conversations about corporate education/professional development programs for teachers.

Tom Woodward summarizes the crux of the conflict:

That “award” certifying you as a really super X-brand teacher, that free conference registration- these are not things they do for you out of kindness. This is for them. Every single bit of it, bought and paid for. Their return on investment is pre-calculated. If it didn’t make them money, they would not do it.

Reading this makes me think back to 2006 when Discovery Educators Network fired 84 staffers in their education division. According to Discovery, "the positions were unnecessary". Also, according to Discovery:

According to an internal memo sent to employees Wednesday, the division's revenue has grown 350 percent since 2004.

The comment thread on Discovery Education's blog is a pretty good indication of how people felt at the time. The entire thread is worth reading to see how people react when the business logic that drives corporate outreach into education is laid bare.

From Michelle Rivera:

I recently helped sell your UnitedStreaming service to several schools in North Carolina, and I regret that decision.

From Donna Criswell:

I recruited 14 plus teachers in my district to be STAR members.. and some outside my very own district.. all because I believed in the DEN “family”

And really, there is nothing wrong with anything Discovery did. They are a business, and their goal is to increase profit. With revenue up 350% over two years, a simple way to increase profit is to reduce expenses, and people are expensive. But, as indicated in the comment thread, DEN teachers also provided free product evangelizing.

But educators should learn from that lesson. Or from the lesson of Google killing Lively. Or from the lesson of how Apple always releases upgrades mid-summer, while schools need to purchase about 4-6 weeks earlier for budgeting and deployment reasons: then, if these schools want to upgrade and charges these same schools full price for the upgrade. Large for-profit corporations care about education to the extent that caring for education remains convenient, with a reasonably good potential for bringing in profit.

And when we think about how priorities can be inferred from how resources are spent, it's worth looking at how much money Microsoft, Apple, and Google spend on patent litigation alone, relative to what they spend on education. I suspect that the legal teams within these companies are not rewarded with .png badges and meaningless credentials, but with real, actual money.

These companies reach out to teachers because it provides a convenient way to market to kids while maintaining the appearance of social responsibility. They also care about teaching, and the people running these programs are good, intelligent, people, but they are working within a context that is not driven by human concerns. Any good marketer knows that brand loyalty forms at a young age (hey, why else would Joe Camel cartoons be displayed under the counter, where only a five year old would see it?), and tethering the credibility of a teacher to a specific brand just increases the credibility of the brand. Having children use cloud-based products also gives these companies an opportunity to study the interests and use patterns of kids, and that data is marketing gold. And you can actually have teachers apply for this, and the programs are considered a social good? That's what I call thinking different.

And yes, I get that teachers are constantly being called on to do more with less. I also know and like many teachers who have completed these programs. I've even seen some of them teach, and they are people I would be proud to call colleagues. But these programs are a devil's bargain, and deserve to be looked at in the larger context of how we value and fund meaningful professional development.

The main argument I hear in favor of the programs - and these come largely from participants - is that the quality of the program is determined more by the people within it, and less by the brand. And again, that's an argument I understand, but if the value is in the people, you can meet many awesome people at an EdCamp. No corporate branding needed.

Image Credit: "We Don't Need No Steenkin Badges" taken by Thunderchild7, published under an Attribution license.

Syndicate content