[cppsnob]

I was sad to see that Gruber couldn't step out of his Apple bubble to tackle this topic (or any topic, ever), so I will:

Everyone who thinks "I should be developing for platform X" is thinking far too small. Take a look around you.. how many of the great companies were formed developing for a particular platform (unless it's their own)? Almost none. In 10 years, do you want to be the old and busted equivalent of the MFC expert whose software was hot in year 2000?

You don't make the Googles, Facebooks, Twitters, of the world by developing just for iOS. Or just for Android. If that's your business plan, tear it up and start over. Because $0.99 a pop doesn't amount to jack-all unless you're Angry Birds. And even they, if they got $1 for each of their 500MM downloads, have still not made as much as Modern Warfare 3 made last week ($738MM in revenue).

Go create a market. Stop being part of Apple's/Google's market for drumming up hardware sales and/or serving ads.

[jakobe]

There are two reasons why the platform matters:

1) You might not want to build the next Facebook. Many developers don't actually plan to start multi-billion-dollar companies. If you are an individual developer, or a small team, you cannot cater to everyone, you must pick the one platform most suitable for you. And then you can go create a niche app and make a decent living from it.

2) Even big and successful companies started on a single platform. A classic example would be Adobe: Photoshop was initially a Macintosh-only application, and has been ported only when it was already hugely successful. But actually Rovio is the best example that the choice of platform is extremely important: They have been hugely successful only when they started selling their iPhone app, and started porting to other platforms only when they were already extremely successful.

Hell, even Facebook, Twitter, Google started on a single platform: the web.

[cppsnob]

How's this:

Whatever you create, even if it's for iPhone first, don't get bogged down on it being on "platform X". Photoshop, as you mentioned, is a great example, it didn't need to be on a Mac to be great. It just was developed there first, and now sells more on Windows (I think).

If you focus too much on the platform, once that market wanes, you end up nowhere. This is what I meant by the MFC guy -- maybe an even better example is the VB 6 guy. We know this guy, right? He's an expert with VB 6. He made a damn good VB6 app 10 years ago, which he's supported since then. But he spent too long focused on VB6, so god help him trying to get a job today doing C#.

Your idea doesn't have to be as big as Facebook. All I'm saying is, don't get so focused on the platform that you become that VB6 guy. Focus now, sure, but developers over time should be broad and flexible. And if you are starting something new, your idea should be too.

[jakobe]

I totally agree with you here. It's important to see when you should switch. But I think that right now it's a great time to be an Apple developer, and as I understood it that's what Gruber said.

I don't think that everyone should develop for the iPhone or for the Mac. There are plenty of possibilities elsewhere. But if you happen to really like your Macbook, you can actually make a living developing Mac or iOS apps today.

[nubela]

This is ridiculous, are you really implying the apple ecosystem is equivalent to the web?

[vaporstun]

I disagree. I think companies ought to develop for every platform, companies ought to create a market, but developers ought to specialize generally.

I don't think most developers are capable of being excellent at iOS development, web development, Android development, desktop development, etc.

Certainly it's not advantageous to specialize only in a particular language (particularly a dying or dead one), but that's quite different from a specializing in a particular platform.

If they have worked with developing in these many areas, they'd likely have some experience in each, but be not experts in any -- there are just too many.

[fauigerzigerk]

If, as a developer or startup founder, you see yourself as someone capable of creating interesting applications, specializing in one particular client side technology isn't going to get you very far. Apart from games, I don't see many interesting applications built on iOS alone.

But the title of this thread is about "career advice", so if taken to mean "what's going to make me employable in the coming years?", Gruber may have a point. There will be a large number of jobs at ad agencies making cookie cutter "branded experiences" on top of iOS (unless it's swept away by HTML5). It may be a good career choice for people who used to specialize in Flash.

Personally, I don't find it particularly appealing to say the least.

[brain5ide]

As long as I'm concerned - UNIX is the only platform worth to build on for the long term. Anything else is just a temporary ripple in the ocean of technology on which everyone cashes up and leaves.

[nadam]

Exactly. And also every developer should be aware that this Joel classic also applies here:

http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/StrategyLetterV.html

Apple's goal (and every other platform maker's goal) is to commoditize app development. There are already hundreds of thousands of apps in the store. I don't say that developers shouldn't develop for iOS, I just say that Gruber's article generates false hopes for the developer masses.

[tjogin]

Why would he step out of the Apple bubble? His crowd were Apple developers, that's the one thing they have in common.

[wahnfrieden]

It's also his moneymaker.

[csomar]

Modern Warfare 3 runs on the Microsoft (Windows/Xbox) and PS3 platforms. Like Angry Birds run on the Android and iPhone.

Modern Warfare 3 didn't create their own platform, and no sane game studio will create their own platform. They'll follow what people buy. People bought xBox, okay, get that game on Xbox. People bought schelabiza to play games, okay, get that game on schelabiza.

Modern Warfare 3 made much more money because it's not Angry bird. Like GTA, Skyrim... these are games that you pay $30-$50 for and not a buck.

What Gruber meant is this: This platform is going to be huge. Really huge. He is betting on iOS. Investing your time learning/developing on iOS is good for your career because you'll be able later to create apps, work on companies, do consulting...

[ido]

    Modern Warfare 3 made much more money because it's 
    not Angry bird. Like GTA, Skyrim... these are games 
    that you pay $30-$50 for and not a buck.

And also cost $50-100m to develop.

Pretty sure angry birds didn't cost that much.

[sovande]

> Everyone who thinks "I should be developing for platform X" is thinking far too small.

I started to develop for the web and the browser "platform" in the late '90 and it is still going strong. Maybe it is _you_ who are thinking too small? Back in the '90 we knew that the next big thing would be mobile, but it never happened. It was first when Apple introduced the iPhone, iOS SDK and the AppStore that we got a breakthrough and everyone could develop and get their app on a mobile device. Before Apple, only a select few, anointed by telecom operators and for a step price could get their app on a mobile set. I say that Apple paved the way for making development for the mobile platform accessible for "everyone" and now finally, mobile might just be the next big thing. What is interesting is that the browser "platform" still is a strong alternative for mobile and native apps.

[praptak]

Valid point but there is an essential difference between the browser and Apple "platforms" as described in this timeless article: http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2003/07/12/WebsThePla...

TLDR: Do not be a sharecropper, it sucks.

[cppsnob]

The web is not a platform in the sense that we're talking about here. It's a set of open, free, non-proprietary specifications that anyone can implement on top of. iOS is not that. Just like Windows is not that.

[arn]

fwiw, I realize it's just an example, but Rovio (Angry Birds) has been surprisingly good about building the brand and so forth. They also have a ton of licensed products (stuffed animals, etc...), and there will be an Angry Birds movie from what I understand.

[wwkeyboard]

Didn't Activision(the publisher of Modern Warfare 3) get its start developing only for the Atari 2600?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activision#History_of_Activisio...

[pacomerh]

I absolutely agree, I think Grubber has gotten very comfortable in the so called apple bubble environment, I don't blame him though. But you gotta take his advice considering where he's at, and to be honest his advice is informative at least.

[ceejayoz]

> And even they, if they got $1 for each of their 500MM downloads, have still not made as much as Modern Warfare 3 made last week ($738MM in revenue).

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess MW3 cost a little more to make.

[dextorious]

"""how many of the great companies were formed developing for a particular platform (unless it's their own)? Almost none."""

Tons. But depends what you mean by great. I hear that that Angry Birds company is doing ok. And I know there are thousands of companies making Windows only products that make quite well.

"""In 10 years, do you want to be the old and busted equivalent of the MFC expert whose software was hot in year 2000?"""

Neither I want to be the old and busted failed startup founder.

"""You don't make the Googles, Facebooks, Twitters, of the world by developing just for iOS."""

More like: you don't make the Google's, Facebooks, Twitters, period. Those kinds of companies are so few, you are almost as likely to win the lottery than create one.

It's just the protestant ethic of "hard work = success" and the retroactive worshiping of their founders that makes it seem not so.

There's nothing wrong about building a smaller business, either a lifestyle mom+pop shop, or a 100 employee company. Not only there's nothing wrong about it, but you are far more likely to succeed.