But those new markets cannot be accessed unless your iPhone development work gets duplicated for all the rest of the platforms.
This is a major barrier to entry. I don't know if it is a violation or not.
Of course you don't know. You're manufacturing barriers. Xcode is free, programming in C/C++/Objective C doesn't cost a cent. The iPhone dev program is just $99 per year.
So I want to know how Apple's putting up a barrier by blocking a meta layer that costs 4x as much money as their annual dev price. Apple doesn't own the C languages so they don't have a vested interest in thwarting Adobe direct profit for their own profit.
This has been coming for a while. Whilst I'm not sure you can say Apple have a large enough market share in any market to actually warrant action, but Apple have been acting in a way that was likely to eventually have regulators sniffing around.
Acting in what way? Trying to ensure the best user experience in the market? When did that become illegal?
You have plenty of phones to choose from - even plenty of smart phones. Heck, Android fans are claiming that Android has overtaken the iPhone -- and the iPhone was never even #1 (something like 15-20% of all smart phones or 2% of all mobile phones, IIRC). So not only was Apple not in a controlling position, but the Android people are claiming that Apple's position is declining.
Please be specific - what would be the grounds for an antitrust suit? What is the market? What anticompetitive action has Apple taken?
Heck, to hear all the whiners here, you'd think that everyone would be HAPPY that Flash isn't on the iPhone since it gives people a reason to buy competitive products - so by the rationale of the whiners, Apple's moves are PRO-competitive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kerryb
If forced to allow these apps into the App Store Apple could label them as such "Apple is not responsible for the performance of your mobile device or any possible security issues that may occur from using such app." When the apps fail to sell developers will freely abandon Flash as a tool and write using Apple sanctioned code. By letting these apps fail Adobe and Flash are shown for what they are, part of past technology and limited to dead market.
Not a chance. Consumers have a very short attention span and don't read the fine print. They skip over the warning and when the phone gets short battery life and crashes, they'd blame Apple. Apple has every right not to play that game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamG
I think that the concern is when the dominant player institutes rules that hinder competing companies.
In this instance, the dominant app seller will not allow apps on its platform if they are manufactured in a manner which allows them to be also sold by competitors.
When did Apple become the dominant player in cell phones?
More importantly, how are they hindering competitors? Adobe isn't a competing company. In fact, to hear all the whining here about how crucial Flash is, Apple's failure to use it actually makes it EASIER for competitive phone manufacturers to compete. So please tell us what Apple did to hinder competition.
Apple has every right to protect its user experience. Please cite any case law or statute which makes it illegal to set quality standards for developers.
Perhaps you're arguing that it's bad for Apple to reject cross-platform apps per se. I suppose Apple could allow cross platform apps and then reject them one at a time as they prove to be lousy, but then all the whiners would complain that Apple's standards are unclear and that Apple is being arbitrary. They just can't win. At least this way, you know what the standards are and what is expected.
I can't believe after all of this there are still people that don't understand the difference between supporting Flash in a web browser and allowing the Adobe Flash IDE to export native iPhone applications.
In any case a quick Google search (grain of salt) tells me Apple control >99% of the application revenue in the mobile market space.
They are essentially using this dominance (does >99% constitute a monopoly??) to tell developers that if they write an application for the iPhone it can't run on another OS.
The analogy is if Microsoft wouldn't allow code written for Windows to run on any other OS, or code written for any other OS to run on Windows (i.e. if they blocked iTunes and Quicktime) with the reasoning that when they introduce new features into Windows they want developers to make use of them.
The main difference being that Apple have way more control of the mobile market then Microsoft have over the desktop market.
I doubt anything will come of this though. The whole mobile market still seems way to immature to start rolling out the antitrust cases.
Two things are nebulous: The relevant market and the reasons for the anticompetitive behavior.
I don't even think Flash is relevant. The ban on cross-compiled apps is relevant.
I agree with your second point there.
Right now, you essentially have 2 major sources of apps. Apple's App Store and Google's Market. Yes others exist like RIM's App World and webOS's app store (can't remember what it's called). But for the most part, they haven't caught on as well.
Apple has clearly said that if you want to develop for the App Store, have a shot at reaching the largest audience and earning money, then you can only use the tools we say you can use. Otherwise, go and develop for (what most of you would probably call an inferior market) the competition.
This limits the developer's reach and could essentially shut down their whole business before it even has a chance of catching on. I believe this is the reason why this inquiry was launched in the first place. If there's a tool out there that saves developers time and compiles apps that run just fine on the iPhone, then why restrict the code now? No one seemed to be complaining of developers using cross-platform compilers until after Adobe and Apple had their falling out.
That is just it. Flash is not working well on Apple products....not any other products.... What is so hard to understand about it works on everything else. How is the product flawed when it works so well for the majority of people. All of a sudden the same product dosnt work well on OSX, and you don't think OSX is the factor. It makes total sense that Flash runs great on everthing but OSX because OSX is the limiting factor. It runs like junk on Mac because OSX is junk.
Even if, arguendo, what you are saying is correct, then there is no further discussion needed as to whether or not banning Flash from the iPhone was prudent for Apple to do. The iPhone is an Apple product, so if flash "is not working well on Apple products," then Apple should keep it off.
You are actually arguing the OPPOSITE point that Adobe is; their claim is that flash WOULD run fine on the iPhone, and don't even acknowledge that there is an issue with Flash on OSX.
I can't believe after all of this there are still people that don't understand the difference between supporting Flash in a web browser and allowing the Adobe Flash IDE to export native iPhone applications.
In any case a quick Google search (grain of salt) tells me Apple control >99% of the application revenue in the mobile market space.
They are essentially using this dominance (does >99% constitute a monopoly??) to tell developers that if they write an application for the iPhone it can't run on another OS.
The analogy is if Microsoft wouldn't allow code written for Windows to run on any other OS, or code written for any other OS to run on Windows (i.e. if they blocked iTunes and Quicktime) with the reasoning that when they introduce new features into Windows they want developers to make use of them.
The main difference being that Apple have way more control of the mobile market then Microsoft have over the desktop market.
I doubt anything will come of this though. The whole mobile market still seems way to immature to start rolling out the antitrust cases.
A monopoly cannot be so narrowly defined and even so monopolies are not illegal unless abuse and anti competitive behavior can be established. I'm not seeing where that would be a slam dunk at all.
Of course you don't know. You're manufacturing barriers. Xcode is free, programming in C/C++/Objective C doesn't cost a cent. The iPhone dev program is just $99 per year.
So I want to know how Apple's putting up a barrier by blocking a meta layer that costs 4x as much money as their annual dev price. Apple doesn't own the C languages so they don't have a vested interest in thwarting Adobe direct profit for their own profit.
The cost is not the tools, it is the time needed to redo the software if you choose to develop for iOS.
Apple is saying "We have the dominant platform. If you want in on it, your work will be worthless elsewhere."
If they are doing it in order to harm the other platform's ability to get good software, with no other reason, then the question comes down to whether Apple has monopoly power in a relevant market.
But as I have said, the definition of the market and any legally cognizable reasons for Apple's actions are not yet clear.
Of course you don't know. You're manufacturing barriers. Xcode is free, programming in C/C++/Objective C doesn't cost a cent. The iPhone dev program is just $99 per year.
Not free if you have to buy a Mac. Apple is happy to sell a Windows user an iPhone but prohibits them from writing applications for it without first purchasing a Mac. Just pointing out that small detail. I couldn't care less about Windows users, but it is a little hypocritical. Maybe Apple should release a Windows version of Xcode.
What market are they supposedly monopolising? Not the smartphone market. The iPhone market?!
If you define the market small enough, anyone is in breach of antitrust.
Yep. Apple doesn't have a dominate power in phones, even smart phones. It is the highest cut by perhaps 2%.
Also, Flash has never been supported on the iphone or said OS and at no point did the SDK actually give permission for such layered coding. So Adobe should have known this outcome would happen.
Honestly I want this inquiry because it will set the record straight legally just like the Psystar case did
But those new markets cannot be accessed unless your iPhone development work gets duplicated for all the rest of the platforms.
This is a major barrier to entry. I don't know if it is a violation or not.
Mmm... I guess, then, the answer is for Apple to expand XCode, Cocoa and the SDK to allow iPhone developers to write apps for Android.
Lets see... these Apple tools only run on Macs... shouldn't Apple be forced to implement the tools on Windows, Linux, etc.?
I'm getting to like this! Look around, big Joe, and see if we can find anyone else who doesn't implement all their tools (and applications) to run on any platform.
I would like to see the Citrix Server offerings and the underlying Windows OSes and all the Windows applications running natively on the Mac!
The cost is not the tools, it is the time needed to redo the software if you choose to develop for iOS.
Apple is saying "We have the dominant platform. If you want in on it, your work will be worthless elsewhere."
If they are doing it in order to harm the other platform's ability to get good software, with no other reason, then the question comes down to whether Apple has monopoly power in a relevant market.
But as I have said, the definition of the market and any legally cognizable reasons for Apple's actions are not yet clear.
That's a hard sell to make in court because Apple utilizes ISO standard C languages which means your code in fact could be used elsewhere so long as the code isn't accessing Apple only API.
In fact Apple does NOT have the dominant platform also factors in. They're are chasing RIM like everyone else and RIM will support Flash.
I'm not saying it's not a raw deal for developers but Apple's rules are akin to what developers programming for the Playstation or the Wii do. In fact Sony said all games must be 3D for the Playstation 3 (if you wish to be approved easily). There goes the market the many 2D sidescrollers and more. But it's their platform and their right to tailor how they see fit seeing as how if consumers don't like it there's the Xbox and Wii.
That is just it. Flash is not working well on Apple products....not any other products.... What is so hard to understand about it works on everything else. How is the product flawed when it works so well for the majority of people. All of a sudden the same product dosnt work well on OSX, and you don't think OSX is the factor. It makes total sense that Flash runs great on everthing but OSX because OSX is the limiting factor. It runs like junk on Mac because OSX is junk.
Your argument has a hole. I can write a great piece of software for the Mac, and then port it to windows, and have issues on that platform. It would not be windows, my code that could be causing the issue.
I don't think this has legs. Anti-trust would be likely if maybe a third or more (some portion of the apps that would be substantial in numbers) and Apple pulled this. I could see how this could be considered but it would still be very shaky.
With less than 100 apps (assumption on my part here) that fall in this category it seems like a non-issue.
If they didn't move on Google Voice getting rejected, I don't believe they will do anything with this.
Acting in what way? Trying to ensure the best user experience in the market? When did that become illegal?
That has never been illegal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
You have plenty of phones to choose from
It is unlikely that the hardware market is the relevant market. I would think that the market for phone apps is more relevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Please be specific - what would be the grounds for an antitrust suit? What is the market? What anticompetitive action has Apple taken?
Without expressing any opinion on the ultimate merits of any specific charges, the relevant market seems to be the telephone app market. The anticompetative action would be the dominant player specifying that any apps it sells cannot be manufactured in a manner which would allow any competing store to sell it for other devices.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
When did Apple become the dominant player in cell phones?
Apple is not the dominant player in cell phones. Apple is not even in the top 5 sellers of cell phones. The only smartphone-centric phone maker in the top 5 is RIM.
But that is not the relevant market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
More importantly, how are they hindering competitors?
By using their dominant position as seller of telephone apps in order to unfairly gain an advantage over other companies in a market in which they have substantial competition.
imo Apple is pushing it too far indeed. Dev should be able to use a tool to port flash app into iphone OS code. Its not Apple business to control how the app was code.
they are afraid dev will not use ALL of the iphone features because some are not supported on the flash versions... So what, its the dev right to code whatever features they want... if they app suck then it wont sell anyway.
Apple should have nothing to worry about on this one. The iAD issue though is likely to be considered monopolistic behavior though, since they are using dominance in one area (mobile devices) to dominate a separate space (mobile advertising). Wonder what their lawyers and PR people have planned to say...
that would require Apple to have a dominance in mobile devices. which has not been established. and for them to require the issue of iAds over all other choices. and I've yet to see notice that they are banning google ads etc. same for their game center and such. Also, mobile devices ads could be seen as linked items the same as hardware and software were in the whole Psystar thing and thus no legal issue (as opposed to Microsoft trying to link an OS and a web browser which were deemed very separate)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbonner
Your argument has a hole. I can write a great piece of software for the Mac, and then port it to windows, and have issues on that platform. It would not be windows, my code that could be causing the issue.
especially when that 'port' is just a helper layer to translate. and knowing Adobe and their insistence on the whole Carbon thing, it was Windows to Carbon, not Cocoa. And even now we might not have full native code on those Mac versions.
imo Apple is pushing it too far indeed. Dev should be able to use a tool to port flash app into iphone OS code. Its not Apple business to control how the app was code.
they are afraid dev will not use ALL of the iphone features because some are not supported on the flash versions... So what, its the dev right to code whatever features they want... if they app suck then it wont sell anyway.
It's precisely Apple's business to make sure their apps are quality which is why all of that smut that came pouring in was stripped from the app store.
The app store isn't a free market. Apple owns it and if developers don't want to leverage the unique parts of the platform they can choose not to make software. Simple as that.
Comments
But those new markets cannot be accessed unless your iPhone development work gets duplicated for all the rest of the platforms.
This is a major barrier to entry. I don't know if it is a violation or not.
Of course you don't know. You're manufacturing barriers. Xcode is free, programming in C/C++/Objective C doesn't cost a cent. The iPhone dev program is just $99 per year.
So I want to know how Apple's putting up a barrier by blocking a meta layer that costs 4x as much money as their annual dev price. Apple doesn't own the C languages so they don't have a vested interest in thwarting Adobe direct profit for their own profit.
No, it couldn't have anything to do with Adobe allocating minimal resources to porting the product to Mac OS X.
.
Does any company spend more than the minimum resources possible porting to OS X?
Which OS X ported products are superior to their original Windows versions?
This has been coming for a while. Whilst I'm not sure you can say Apple have a large enough market share in any market to actually warrant action, but Apple have been acting in a way that was likely to eventually have regulators sniffing around.
Acting in what way? Trying to ensure the best user experience in the market? When did that become illegal?
You have plenty of phones to choose from - even plenty of smart phones. Heck, Android fans are claiming that Android has overtaken the iPhone -- and the iPhone was never even #1 (something like 15-20% of all smart phones or 2% of all mobile phones, IIRC). So not only was Apple not in a controlling position, but the Android people are claiming that Apple's position is declining.
Please be specific - what would be the grounds for an antitrust suit? What is the market? What anticompetitive action has Apple taken?
Heck, to hear all the whiners here, you'd think that everyone would be HAPPY that Flash isn't on the iPhone since it gives people a reason to buy competitive products - so by the rationale of the whiners, Apple's moves are PRO-competitive.
If forced to allow these apps into the App Store Apple could label them as such "Apple is not responsible for the performance of your mobile device or any possible security issues that may occur from using such app." When the apps fail to sell developers will freely abandon Flash as a tool and write using Apple sanctioned code. By letting these apps fail Adobe and Flash are shown for what they are, part of past technology and limited to dead market.
Not a chance. Consumers have a very short attention span and don't read the fine print. They skip over the warning and when the phone gets short battery life and crashes, they'd blame Apple. Apple has every right not to play that game.
I think that the concern is when the dominant player institutes rules that hinder competing companies.
In this instance, the dominant app seller will not allow apps on its platform if they are manufactured in a manner which allows them to be also sold by competitors.
When did Apple become the dominant player in cell phones?
More importantly, how are they hindering competitors? Adobe isn't a competing company. In fact, to hear all the whining here about how crucial Flash is, Apple's failure to use it actually makes it EASIER for competitive phone manufacturers to compete. So please tell us what Apple did to hinder competition.
Apple has every right to protect its user experience. Please cite any case law or statute which makes it illegal to set quality standards for developers.
Perhaps you're arguing that it's bad for Apple to reject cross-platform apps per se. I suppose Apple could allow cross platform apps and then reject them one at a time as they prove to be lousy, but then all the whiners would complain that Apple's standards are unclear and that Apple is being arbitrary. They just can't win. At least this way, you know what the standards are and what is expected.
In any case a quick Google search (grain of salt) tells me Apple control >99% of the application revenue in the mobile market space.
They are essentially using this dominance (does >99% constitute a monopoly??) to tell developers that if they write an application for the iPhone it can't run on another OS.
The analogy is if Microsoft wouldn't allow code written for Windows to run on any other OS, or code written for any other OS to run on Windows (i.e. if they blocked iTunes and Quicktime) with the reasoning that when they introduce new features into Windows they want developers to make use of them.
The main difference being that Apple have way more control of the mobile market then Microsoft have over the desktop market.
I doubt anything will come of this though. The whole mobile market still seems way to immature to start rolling out the antitrust cases.
Two things are nebulous: The relevant market and the reasons for the anticompetitive behavior.
I don't even think Flash is relevant. The ban on cross-compiled apps is relevant.
I agree with your second point there.
Right now, you essentially have 2 major sources of apps. Apple's App Store and Google's Market. Yes others exist like RIM's App World and webOS's app store (can't remember what it's called). But for the most part, they haven't caught on as well.
Apple has clearly said that if you want to develop for the App Store, have a shot at reaching the largest audience and earning money, then you can only use the tools we say you can use. Otherwise, go and develop for (what most of you would probably call an inferior market) the competition.
This limits the developer's reach and could essentially shut down their whole business before it even has a chance of catching on. I believe this is the reason why this inquiry was launched in the first place. If there's a tool out there that saves developers time and compiles apps that run just fine on the iPhone, then why restrict the code now? No one seemed to be complaining of developers using cross-platform compilers until after Adobe and Apple had their falling out.
Will this go anywhere? Maybe, maybe not.
No?
Ok, You americans should convince your legal system to stop wasting your bucks in this corner. You have other things to care for.
Originally Posted by druble
That is just it. Flash is not working well on Apple products....not any other products.... What is so hard to understand about it works on everything else. How is the product flawed when it works so well for the majority of people. All of a sudden the same product dosnt work well on OSX, and you don't think OSX is the factor. It makes total sense that Flash runs great on everthing but OSX because OSX is the limiting factor. It runs like junk on Mac because OSX is junk.
Even if, arguendo, what you are saying is correct, then there is no further discussion needed as to whether or not banning Flash from the iPhone was prudent for Apple to do. The iPhone is an Apple product, so if flash "is not working well on Apple products," then Apple should keep it off.
You are actually arguing the OPPOSITE point that Adobe is; their claim is that flash WOULD run fine on the iPhone, and don't even acknowledge that there is an issue with Flash on OSX.
I can't believe after all of this there are still people that don't understand the difference between supporting Flash in a web browser and allowing the Adobe Flash IDE to export native iPhone applications.
In any case a quick Google search (grain of salt) tells me Apple control >99% of the application revenue in the mobile market space.
They are essentially using this dominance (does >99% constitute a monopoly??) to tell developers that if they write an application for the iPhone it can't run on another OS.
The analogy is if Microsoft wouldn't allow code written for Windows to run on any other OS, or code written for any other OS to run on Windows (i.e. if they blocked iTunes and Quicktime) with the reasoning that when they introduce new features into Windows they want developers to make use of them.
The main difference being that Apple have way more control of the mobile market then Microsoft have over the desktop market.
I doubt anything will come of this though. The whole mobile market still seems way to immature to start rolling out the antitrust cases.
A monopoly cannot be so narrowly defined and even so monopolies are not illegal unless abuse and anti competitive behavior can be established. I'm not seeing where that would be a slam dunk at all.
Of course you don't know. You're manufacturing barriers. Xcode is free, programming in C/C++/Objective C doesn't cost a cent. The iPhone dev program is just $99 per year.
So I want to know how Apple's putting up a barrier by blocking a meta layer that costs 4x as much money as their annual dev price. Apple doesn't own the C languages so they don't have a vested interest in thwarting Adobe direct profit for their own profit.
The cost is not the tools, it is the time needed to redo the software if you choose to develop for iOS.
Apple is saying "We have the dominant platform. If you want in on it, your work will be worthless elsewhere."
If they are doing it in order to harm the other platform's ability to get good software, with no other reason, then the question comes down to whether Apple has monopoly power in a relevant market.
But as I have said, the definition of the market and any legally cognizable reasons for Apple's actions are not yet clear.
Of course you don't know. You're manufacturing barriers. Xcode is free, programming in C/C++/Objective C doesn't cost a cent. The iPhone dev program is just $99 per year.
Not free if you have to buy a Mac. Apple is happy to sell a Windows user an iPhone but prohibits them from writing applications for it without first purchasing a Mac. Just pointing out that small detail. I couldn't care less about Windows users, but it is a little hypocritical. Maybe Apple should release a Windows version of Xcode.
What market are they supposedly monopolising? Not the smartphone market. The iPhone market?!
If you define the market small enough, anyone is in breach of antitrust.
Yep. Apple doesn't have a dominate power in phones, even smart phones. It is the highest cut by perhaps 2%.
Also, Flash has never been supported on the iphone or said OS and at no point did the SDK actually give permission for such layered coding. So Adobe should have known this outcome would happen.
Honestly I want this inquiry because it will set the record straight legally just like the Psystar case did
But those new markets cannot be accessed unless your iPhone development work gets duplicated for all the rest of the platforms.
This is a major barrier to entry. I don't know if it is a violation or not.
Mmm... I guess, then, the answer is for Apple to expand XCode, Cocoa and the SDK to allow iPhone developers to write apps for Android.
Lets see... these Apple tools only run on Macs... shouldn't Apple be forced to implement the tools on Windows, Linux, etc.?
I'm getting to like this! Look around, big Joe, and see if we can find anyone else who doesn't implement all their tools (and applications) to run on any platform.
I would like to see the Citrix Server offerings and the underlying Windows OSes and all the Windows applications running natively on the Mac!
.
The cost is not the tools, it is the time needed to redo the software if you choose to develop for iOS.
Apple is saying "We have the dominant platform. If you want in on it, your work will be worthless elsewhere."
If they are doing it in order to harm the other platform's ability to get good software, with no other reason, then the question comes down to whether Apple has monopoly power in a relevant market.
But as I have said, the definition of the market and any legally cognizable reasons for Apple's actions are not yet clear.
That's a hard sell to make in court because Apple utilizes ISO standard C languages which means your code in fact could be used elsewhere so long as the code isn't accessing Apple only API.
In fact Apple does NOT have the dominant platform also factors in. They're are chasing RIM like everyone else and RIM will support Flash.
I'm not saying it's not a raw deal for developers but Apple's rules are akin to what developers programming for the Playstation or the Wii do. In fact Sony said all games must be 3D for the Playstation 3 (if you wish to be approved easily). There goes the market the many 2D sidescrollers and more. But it's their platform and their right to tailor how they see fit seeing as how if consumers don't like it there's the Xbox and Wii.
That is just it. Flash is not working well on Apple products....not any other products.... What is so hard to understand about it works on everything else. How is the product flawed when it works so well for the majority of people. All of a sudden the same product dosnt work well on OSX, and you don't think OSX is the factor. It makes total sense that Flash runs great on everthing but OSX because OSX is the limiting factor. It runs like junk on Mac because OSX is junk.
Your argument has a hole. I can write a great piece of software for the Mac, and then port it to windows, and have issues on that platform. It would not be windows, my code that could be causing the issue.
With less than 100 apps (assumption on my part here) that fall in this category it seems like a non-issue.
If they didn't move on Google Voice getting rejected, I don't believe they will do anything with this.
Acting in what way? Trying to ensure the best user experience in the market? When did that become illegal?
That has never been illegal.
You have plenty of phones to choose from
It is unlikely that the hardware market is the relevant market. I would think that the market for phone apps is more relevant.
Please be specific - what would be the grounds for an antitrust suit? What is the market? What anticompetitive action has Apple taken?
Without expressing any opinion on the ultimate merits of any specific charges, the relevant market seems to be the telephone app market. The anticompetative action would be the dominant player specifying that any apps it sells cannot be manufactured in a manner which would allow any competing store to sell it for other devices.
When did Apple become the dominant player in cell phones?
Apple is not the dominant player in cell phones. Apple is not even in the top 5 sellers of cell phones. The only smartphone-centric phone maker in the top 5 is RIM.
But that is not the relevant market.
More importantly, how are they hindering competitors?
By using their dominant position as seller of telephone apps in order to unfairly gain an advantage over other companies in a market in which they have substantial competition.
they are afraid dev will not use ALL of the iphone features because some are not supported on the flash versions... So what, its the dev right to code whatever features they want... if they app suck then it wont sell anyway.
Yep. Apple doesn't have a dominate power in phones, even smart phones. It is the highest cut by perhaps 2%.
For what it's worth as of 01/2010 Apple controlled 99.4% of the market in question.
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/20...es-in-2009.ars
EDIT:What WilliamG said...
Apple should have nothing to worry about on this one. The iAD issue though is likely to be considered monopolistic behavior though, since they are using dominance in one area (mobile devices) to dominate a separate space (mobile advertising). Wonder what their lawyers and PR people have planned to say...
that would require Apple to have a dominance in mobile devices. which has not been established. and for them to require the issue of iAds over all other choices. and I've yet to see notice that they are banning google ads etc. same for their game center and such. Also, mobile devices ads could be seen as linked items the same as hardware and software were in the whole Psystar thing and thus no legal issue (as opposed to Microsoft trying to link an OS and a web browser which were deemed very separate)
Your argument has a hole. I can write a great piece of software for the Mac, and then port it to windows, and have issues on that platform. It would not be windows, my code that could be causing the issue.
especially when that 'port' is just a helper layer to translate. and knowing Adobe and their insistence on the whole Carbon thing, it was Windows to Carbon, not Cocoa. And even now we might not have full native code on those Mac versions.
imo Apple is pushing it too far indeed. Dev should be able to use a tool to port flash app into iphone OS code. Its not Apple business to control how the app was code.
they are afraid dev will not use ALL of the iphone features because some are not supported on the flash versions... So what, its the dev right to code whatever features they want... if they app suck then it wont sell anyway.
It's precisely Apple's business to make sure their apps are quality which is why all of that smut that came pouring in was stripped from the app store.
The app store isn't a free market. Apple owns it and if developers don't want to leverage the unique parts of the platform they can choose not to make software. Simple as that.