Seybold's Take: A return to the (walled) garden

Not too many years ago, a lot of smartphone customers were incensed because they were not able to get onto the Internet or even buy applications for their devices without being directed first to their network operator's own Internet or applications server. This practice, put into place by network operators to protect their network and to be able to collect a portion of the revenue generated by selling applications and services, was called the "walled garden." Those most aggravated about this practice were from the younger generation that was accustomed to full access to a wide variety of applications and services on the wired Internet.

Over time and with pressure from lots of customers and Internet companies such as Google, the walled gardens were torn down one by one and replaced with a more open architecture that provided direct access to the Internet and to applications and services on the Internet.

I find it interesting that many of the same people who complained about walled gardens have gone on to become iPod, iPod touch, iPhone and iPad customers, and do not seem to be concerned about how Apple has grafted its own walled garden for applications. Yes, you can access the Internet using iPhones and iPads, but if you want to purchase an application you must go through iTunes and then you can only purchase an Apple-approved application on which Apple makes money. Want to run an application that uses Adobe's Flash? Forget it. Want to access iTunes from a different device, maybe a Palm Pre? Forget it.

Apple has a stranglehold on the applications for its wireless devices and not only does it have to approve every application that goes on iTunes, it has been heavy handed by not allowing certain types of applications on the site--or worse yet, kicking others it had already blessed off the site. You have to wonder how Apple can get away with this when the network operators were taken to task on the same kinds of activities. After a full-scale revolt was launched, operators had to open their networks to any device and any content regardless of where it resides.

I think Apple's iTunes and the way in which it enables customers to configure their wireless devices and purchase applications is one of the reasons the iPhone and now the iPad are successful. On the other hand, I have to wonder if it is going too far in its zeal to make the customer experience as good as it is. There is a trade-off here in that the only available content is content Apple says will be available. This is the same trade-off customers who were forced to use a network's walled garden had to face.

Over time, some smart software types have provided programs for the iPod that have circumvented iTunes to some extent, but most of these still require the device to attach to iTunes to load the application. So far, every attempt to expand the set of offerings for Apple's wireless devices has been thwarted by Apple. Remember when Palm first launched the Pre? It had an application that would enable you to attach your Pre to iTunes and then Apple changed just enough code so it would not work anymore. Palm found a workaround and that too was blocked.

You cannot download an application that makes use of Adobe's Flash, either. I have used a variety of smartphones for several years that permit applications that run Flash to be downloaded and I have not experienced a single problem with it.

Apple has a short memory. Adobe was a valuable partner to Apple and Aldus when desktop publishing was invented and it was Adobe that standardized the fonts that made everything work together to provide the WYSIWYG (What You See is What You Get) capabilities so that what you saw on the screen was identical to what popped out of your laser printer. Adobe was a trusted and valuable partner then, but now Apple views Adobe as a threat because it does not approve of any other application developers' offerings being used to build iPhone and iPad applications.

Why is it OK for Apple to have a walled garden that keeps some potential developers and applications out and limits what iPhone customers can access? Apple will argue that it needs to control the entire end-to-end environment and customers' experience, and I can understand that logic. What I cannot understand is why it needs to be so heavy handed about it.

Fortunately, many of the developers who have written some of the better applications for the iPhone are now writing them to work across other platforms, and that is a good thing. Perhaps Apple will realize, at some point, that if it opened iTunes up to other devices and applications it might end up with a larger slice of the money pie than it does now by restricting the site to only its own devices. I am sure that the network operators (or most of them) are glad that iTunes is only available for Apple products. This means they can work with these developers and offer the same applications to other customers using other devices. And if developers want to recraft their applications using Adobe's Flash, they can.

The walled garden was buried a few years ago from a network operator's point of view, but it is alive and thriving at Apple. Why? The same customers who would not stand for limitations from the network operators are embracing it completely because it is Apple, and Apple is Apple.

Andrew M. Seybold is an authority on technology and trends shaping the world of wireless mobility. A respected analyst, consultant, commentator, author and active participant in industry trade organizations, his views have influenced strategies and shaped initiatives for telecom, mobile computing and wireless industry leaders worldwide. www.andrewseybold.com.