Pedro Salinas, poeta. Autenticidad, belleza e ingenio.
Officials In Hot Water Deny Blame In $60M ArriveCan App Scandal
Cameron MacDonald and Antonio Utano, two suspended civil servants, have voiced their concerns over being unjustly targeted in the wake of the $60 million ArriveCan app controversy, saying they are scapegoats.
MacDonald was an assistant deputy minister at Health Canada and Utano was a director general at Canada Revenue Agency. They both refuted claims made in a preliminary report by the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), labeling it as filled with "exaggerations and falsehoods."
During a parliamentary committee session on Thursday, MacDonald criticized the report to MPs, stating, "The reality is this document is nothing more than a collection of baseless accusations, unsupported by any other evidence; accusations of wrongdoing, supported by cherry-picking emails and calendar entries. It should be called the preliminary statement of falsehoods," reports the National Post.
Both men have been suspended without pay following the internal investigation into their conduct related to the ArriveCan app's development and launch.
"CBSA is punishing us because we told the truth, because we told this committee they have been misled by senior officials from CBSA," claimed Utano. He highlighted their transparency, including the full disclosure of a knapsack with the ArriveCan logo and participation in a virtual whiskey tasting, as evidence of their integrity.
The duo has expressed willingness to engage in the CBSA's ongoing internal investigation, seeking a "fair shot" at presenting their side. MacDonald emphasized their repeated offers to participate, contingent upon receiving adequate information.
ArriveCan launched in 2020 to help COVID-19 vaccination verification and customs declarations for Canadians abroad. The mobile app has faced scrutiny over its insane development costs and lack of transparency. The auditor general said the app's estimated cost is at $60 million, with a final tally unknown due to a missing paper trail.
MacDonald implicated Minh Doan, the government's current chief technology officer, and other senior officials in misleading practices regarding the app's development and the selection of GC Strategies as the main contractor, who has received $20 million from ArriveCan app development alone, just for finding outsourced workers to do the work.
The controversy has prompted calls for an external investigation by the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner, a move supported across political lines. MacDonald and Utano have also sought judicial review to halt the CBSA investigation, seeking an independent review.
Despite criticisms, MacDonald defended the app's high costs and said it would not have been possible to do for $80,000. He said the total app costs were between $12 million and $14 million, which included hosting and cloud services, and disputed it could have been built in a weekend, as previously shown by developers to prove the ridiculous cost of the app (well maybe not on a "government" weekend). He claimed that for every use of the app it saved Canadians $3 as it replaced paper declarations.
Vision Pro Revives One-and-Done App Purchases
Remember when you could pay for a full-featured app download and use it forever? Those were the days before you had to make in-app purchases to get any real value from the app or lease it through a subscription. There seems to be a revival of the good old days at Apple's App Store for its augmented reality/virtual reality Vision Pro goggles.
According to data released by Appfigures, more than half the developers making Vision Pro-only applications (54%) are good, old-fashioned paid downloads. In Apple's Apple App Store, barely 5% of apps require payment, the research website added.
"It's a byproduct of being a new ecosystem and storefront," said Eric Abbruzzese, a research director at ABI Research, a global technology intelligence firm.
"The App Store around the iPhone's launch and growth was almost entirely free versus paid," he told TechNewsWorld. "Subscriptions were pushed in recent years as a way for both developers and Apple to grow service revenues."
"Also," he added, "fewer customers will be willing to subscribe to an app on an entirely new platform. As an understanding of Vision Pro and its capabilities solidifies and users develop usage habits, longer-term monetization options are more viable. Few will be willing to subscribe to an app before they have developed habits and preferences with Vision Pro."
Clear Path to ProfitabilityWith new products, it typically takes three versions before they're considered mature and relatively low risk, explained Rob Enderle, president and principal analyst of the Enderle Group, an advisory services firm in Bend, Ore.
"Developers want their money upfront because there is a great deal of risk with any new platform that it might not be successful," he told TechNewsWorld.
The straightforward revenue generation aspect of the paid download model is attractive to some developers because their apps often cater to niche markets that require specialized functionality, added Mark N. Vena, president and principal analyst of SmartTech Research in San Jose, Calif.
"Charging for downloads helps recoup development costs and ensures a committed user base," he told TechNewsWorld.
"Moreover," he continued, "it maintains a level of exclusivity, attracting users serious about leveraging Vision Pro features. The model provides a clear path to profitability and supports ongoing app development efforts."
App DiscrepancyAppfigures also found that while paid downloads were popular with developers making Vision Pro-only apps, that wasn't the case for iOS software makers optimizing their iPhone and iPad apps for the AR/VR device. Only 17% of optimized apps were paid downloads, it reported, while 25% were not monetizing in the App Store, and 58% were monetizing with subscriptions.
Vision Pro-only developers have a small audience of less than 200,000 users, explained Tim Bajarin, president of Creative Strategies, a technology advisory firm in San Jose, Calif.
"Developers of iPhone apps have a billion potential users with payback potential," he told TechNewsWorld. "Vision Pro users will always go towards subscriptions when they have the ability to do that."
"The iPhone isn't going any place, and that model was already in place for the apps when Vision Pro was announced, so those developers are already getting paid and will continue to get paid, regardless of whether Vision Pro is successful," Enderle added.
Vena pointed out that the audience differs for Vision Pro-only and iPhone developers. "Vision Pro apps typically target a niche audience with specific needs, leading developers to adopt different monetization strategies, such as paid downloads," he said.
"In contrast," he continued, "iPhone developers often cater to a broader market with diverse app categories, allowing for varied monetization approaches, like freemium models or in-app purchases. Additionally, the development requirements and user expectations for these two types of apps differ significantly."
Modest Pricing on Vision Pro AppsAccording to Appfigures data cited by TechCrunch, Vision Pro apps are relatively inexpensive. An analysis of all the apps made for the device shows an average price of US$5.67, with most apps being $9.99 or less. An outlier was an interactive periodic table of elements for $98.
Appfigures calculates that purchasing all the apps available for the Vision Pro would cost $1,089.07. The Vision Pro sells for $3,499.
Discovery of Vision Pro apps can be a problem, though, since Apple removed all software for the device from the "top charts" in its App Store.
"Apple's removal of categories and top charts could potentially harm developers by diminishing app discoverability and hindering competitive analysis," Vena said.
"Without these features, developers may struggle to reach their target audience and gauge market trends, impacting user acquisition and revenue generation," he continued.
"Overall, the removal of these features may create challenges for developers in maintaining visibility and competitiveness in the Vision Pro market," he added.
New Monetization ModelsHowever, Enderle discounted the potential harm caused by the absence of categories and top lists at this point in Vision Pro's development. "There aren't many apps yet, so ranking initially might just cause confusion or point people to questionable early apps," he said.
"Expect these categories to show up once there are enough apps to justify them," he added. "The platform just isn't there yet."
He predicted another change as the platform matures. "Eventually, Vision Pro-only developers will move to other monetization models," he said. " I expect they'll pivot to the subscription model when the second or third versions of the product are released, as those releases should validate Vision Pro's success."
Vena noted that Vision Pro-only developers may eventually transition to alternative monetization models to adapt to evolving market trends and user preferences.
"Subscription-based or freemium models offer recurring revenue streams and increased user engagement potential, appealing to developers seeking sustainable income and wider user reach," he explained.
"As competition grows in the Vision Pro market, developers may explore different models to stay competitive and meet changing user expectations," he continued. "Ultimately, the choice will depend on the developer's goals and the perceived value of their app's features."
Abbruzzese added that, ultimately, the Vision Pro app store and development ecosystem will more closely resemble iOS. "Apple's intense focus on service revenue means that Apple likely wants that to happen sooner than later," he said.
Apple Is About To Change IPhone Web Browsing Forever
Andy Boxall / Digital Trends Apple has today announced a major change that could revolutionize the web-browsing experience for iPhone users. Alas, this browsing boon will be limited to users in the EU bloc. This news was announced alongside Apple's plans to add sideloading and third-party app stores to the iPhone.
To comply with the EU's landmark Digital Markets Act (DMA), Apple says it will allow developers to use other browser engines for their web browsers. That means Apple will no longer force them to use its own WebKit rendering engine, which is the underlying tech behind what any web browser can do on your phone. That's a massive rule change.
Deliberately spoiling the browsing experienceBrowser vendors such as Chrome developer Google and Edge maker Microsoft have been restricted to creating mere shells around a highly specific, unmodified version of Safari's WebView, a component whose functionalities are tightly dictated by Apple. Instead of shipping their meticulously developed browsers, the likes of Google and Mozilla are forced to build a separate browser that essentially acts as a thin wrapper for Apple's WebKit engine.
To put it simply, browser apps like Chrome, Firefox, Brave, DuckDuckGo, and others can be installed on an iPhone, but they merely serve as superficial overlays on Apple's WebKit engine. This policy also means that Apple has the final say on which features are supported on Safari. And that feature gap is huge.
Just take a look at this feature comparison compiled by Open Web Advocacy to get a grasp of the problem:
Third-party browser vendors have no other option but to use a highly specific version of WebKit, with no flexibility to modify the engine's features, including the activation or deactivation of existing features in the source code. This limitation chokes the ability of iOS browsers to stand out through soft forks.
On the other hand, in a market with genuine browser choices, third parties could develop their own browsers from scratch. Just take a look at what the folks behind the Arc browser have managed to accomplish in totally reimagining how a browser looks and works in the desktop ecosystem.
It's also telling that a team with such bright minds has only released a companion Arc app on iOS and not a full-fledged revolutionary mobile browser — because they know full well that they won't get the same kind of flexibility with iOS (due to WebKit) as they do on macOS for building a fantastic desktop browser.
This is evident in the Chromium browser ecosystem ,as well. Unlike in iOS, where Apple solely controls feature inclusion, browser vendors have the liberty to choose features when using Chromium on Android. Ultimately, for an average iPhone user, the key aspect is the software that operates on actual devices.
It's all about preferential treatmentBut it's not just the lack of features that is concerning. It's also about giving Safari an unfair edge because Apple controls the entire implementation of any browser that runs on the iPhone. Apple, of course, gives preferential treatment to Safari when it comes to accessing the native system on iPhones.
Safari has been granted the ability to display videos in full screen, while other browsers are prohibited from doing so, except on iPad. Oher browsers have also been historically kept from installing Web Apps, using the all-too-important extensions, or integrating Apple Pay to the same extent as Safari.
Next, let's explore the competition perspective, which is what ultimately forced the EU to look into the WebKit situation. This WebKit-only approach forces companies to create multiple distinct applications for each platform, significantly increasing the costs and complexities of development and maintenance. These costs are in addition to the App Store's 15% to 30% tax, which Apple has so fiercely protected to date.
The exorbitant costs of developing an interoperable application that functions identically to what Apple has to offer make it feasible only for well-funded companies. After all, why would anyone want to serve up a browser that functions virtually the same a Safari, while also being at technical disadvantage at the same time? Naturally, many useful or potentially profitable applications never see the light of day.
Oops. Did I say Safari stutters?Safari and Apple's WebView often encounter critical bugs that can break applications, and these issues also affect competing iOS browsers since they are unable to use their own engines, which may not have these bugs. Take a look at this failure graph called the Web Platforms Test Dashboard and marvel at Safari's failures:
HTTP Toolkit has a massive catalog of how Apple's approach is not only allowing browser bugs to persist on the web and weakening crucial security measures, but how it is also muddying the overall web for everyone with an iPhone in their hand. That's particularly damning for a company that always argues against change by citing privacy and security.
If you really want to understand just how terribly Apple has created a browser monopoly on the iPhone, one where it has choked feature innovation and allowed nagging problems to persist, read this comprehensive 108-page document called "Bringing Competition to the Walled Gardens – Third Party Browsers & Web Apps."
But now that the EU has forced Apple's hand and the company will finally allow alternative engines like Gecko and Blink, we will finally see a new experience fleshed out in Chrome, Edge, and Firefox running on the iPhone. And that could happen soon.
A bright future is right around the cornerEarlier this year, Google announced (via GitHub, of all places) that it was working on an experimental iOS version of Chrome with the Blink engine at its core instead of WebKit. Of course, Apple's policies won't ever allow such a liberating monstrosity on the App Store, but it's as if Google got a whiff that the EU could force Apple to reverse course. The folks over at 9to5Google even got a rudimentary version working on an iPhone.
Mozilla has also been testing a version of Firefox for iOS built atop its Gecko rendering engine. "We abide by Apple's iOS app store policies, and are simply doing some exploratory work to understand the technical challenges for Gecko-based browsers on iOS if those policies were to change," Mozilla told The Register earlier this year.
It looks like Google and Mozilla's experiments with mobile web browsers free from the Apple WebKit shackles will finally bear fruit. But only for EU denizens. I dearly hope, for the sake of its valued customers, Apple does the same for users across the globe. It's unprecedented, but at the end of the day, it's also magical for an average iPhone user tired of the bland Safari experience.
I also dearly hope that regulators in other countries can also pull off what the EU has managed to accomplish. I am hopelessly addicted to the cause of "iPad as a computer," but my worst enemy has been the constrained feature set on web browsers. I pray for a day when I can use Chrome on the iPad Pro to at least half of the capabilities it has on desktop browsers.
The ball's in your court now, Apple!
Editors' Recommendations
Comments
Post a Comment