Who killed Sony SNAP?

Sony’s SNAP (Sony Networked Application Platform) developer program, unveiled last week, showed a lot of promise. Using the open source GnuStep framework as its starting point, the SNAP project aimed to build a next-generation applications platform for modern consumer electronics devices, including advanced support for touchscreen displays and 3D graphics. Best of all, Sony said it would develop SNAP with the full involvement of the independent developer community, using developer feedback to hone and improve the framework into “something unique and powerful.”

Developers welcomed Sony’s news with keen interest. After all, Sony is hardly a company known for its openness. In the past, it clung to proprietary Sony technologies such as Betamax, MiniDisc, and Memory Stick long after the rest of the market had standardized on more open equivalents. The decision to base a new developer initiative on well-known open source technologies might have signaled a change in direction for one of the world’s largest computer and electronics makers.

[ Keep up on key application development insights with the Fatal Exception blog and Developer World newsletter. | Follow the latest in Apple technology with our Technology: Apple newsletter. ]

No such luck, as it turns out. No sooner had Sony announced the SNAP program, the company withdrew it again. Just days after the initial announcement, Sony updated the program’s Web page to read, “SNAP development is currently on hold. Please stay tuned for more details.” So far, no further details have emerged and Sony has made no statement regarding its apparent change of heart.

Why did Sony put the brakes on SNAP? It has all the makings of a real developer whodunit.

All because of one bad Apple? Apple could be one culprit. The goal of the GnuStep Project, upon which SNAP is based, is to create an open source clone of Apple’s Cocoa APIs and tools. As a result, SNAP developers would program in Objective-C, Apple’s pet language, and code written for Sony’s platform would likely look very similar to code written for the iPhone, iPad, and other Apple iOS devices. Porting apps between the two platforms would be easier than between any other competing platforms — and that can’t make Apple very happy.

Apple dropped the word “computer” from its name in 2007, and it’s easy to see why: The Apple of today is very much a consumer electronics company. According to its most recent 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, in 2010 Apple earned more than twice as much from sales of iPods, iPhones, iPads, and music-related products and services than it earned from Mac desktops and portables combined. That puts Apple in head-to-head competition with Sony, and on many fronts Apple is winning. (Remember when the word for a portable music player was “Walkman”?)

Apple is also very protective of its developer ecosystem. Although it has somewhat loosened its rules recently, Apple is notorious for shutting out alternative developer platforms from its iOS devices, including Java and Flash. If you want to build software for Apple devices, you play by Apple’s rules and develop with Apple’s tools. Now Sony seems to want to go the other way — it wants to borrow Apple’s tools and use them on its own platform. But if Apple doesn’t want Adobe appropriating its iOS developer base, why should Sony get away with it?

GnuStep is fundamentally based on Apple intellectual property. Although the framework and applications that run on it have existed for years without any kind of interference from Apple, there’s no saying Apple won’t take a keener interest in the future, particularly if a major competitor like Sony gets involved. And even if the GnuStep framework itself is free of any intellectual property entanglements, Apple and Sony may have patent cross-licensing or other legal agreements in place that complicate Sony’s use of GnuStep technologies. Such agreements are commonplace in an industry as complex as digital multimedia.

Or maybe it was one of the usual suspects Then again, Apple could be blameless. Plenty of other players in this market could have just as much interest in Sony’s developer plans for its next-generation devices.

Take Adobe, for one. Although Apple has nixed Flash from its iOS devices, Sony has shown some interest in the platform. Apps for Sony’s Dash personal Internet viewer are developed entirely using Flash and ActionScript, for example. For its part, Adobe has shown interest in bringing Flash and AIR applications to TVs and other consumer electronics devices. Perhaps Adobe suggested to Sony that a partnership was a better way to go, rather than building an entirely new multimedia framework that duplicates many of the existing capabilities of Flash.

And what about Google? Sony has already invested in Google’s Android OS as a platform for consumer electronic devices, including televisions. Details are scant so far — Sony promises “exciting news” in the near future. But given Google’s newfound interest in TV technology, it’s entirely possible that the search giant could have offered to help Sony’s new efforts get off the ground faster, provided it moved away from its GnuStep-based plans to focus more on Android.

Then again, Oracle’s lawsuit against Google might be enough to scare a large corporation like Sony away from any new Android-based initiatives. Oracle launched the suit largely to keep Google from eating into its Java ME revenue stream, and there’s little doubt that Sony could end up being a prize customer for either company. Might Oracle be in the process of convincing Sony that a platform based on Java and JavaFX would be a better choice than a home-brewed solution built with Objective-C?

Can Sony change its ways? There’s one other possibility: that some conflict has arisen from within Sony itself. With so many irons in the fire, Sony’s senior management could have decided it was time to streamline the company’s developer efforts and concentrate on fewer technologies.

Worse, it could be that someone within Sony decided an open platform wasn’t the way to go at all. Sony could be turning back toward its old ways, revising its licensing, shoring up its intellectual property, and preparing to offer developers yet another new platform, one it can control more tightly.

That would be a shame, because if the SNAP episode demonstrates anything, it’s how important the developer tool and platform vendors have become to the consumer electronics sector. Sony got to where it is because of its prowess with glass, plastic, and circuits. But in today’s world of digital multimedia, software will play as important a role as hardware — and unlike Apple, software has never really been Sony’s forte. The world of consumer electronics is changing dramatically; if Sony wants to maintain its edge, it can no longer afford to go it alone.

This article, “Who killed Sony SNAP?,” originally appeared at InfoWorld.com. Read more of Neil McAllister’s Fatal Exception blog and follow the latest news in programming at InfoWorld.com.