or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Wired's iPad edition arrives, converted from Flash by Adobe
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Wired's iPad edition arrives, converted from Flash by Adobe - Page 4

post #121 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

Everything you say is true of competitive markets. The concern is that the app market may be dominated by a player who is using that domination to eliminate competition. Without competition, there are no "welcoming arms".

That is a danger when one or a few companies dominate a market.

That is the basis of the investigation.

This is why I am sublimely happy to routinely ignore your posts herein. Domination of a market is not bad in and of itself - particularly when there are no viable alternatives immediately present to challenge that dominance. As you have stated in other threads (countless times I imagine - I have only checked a few of your offerings) Android is meant to be one of those viable alternatives, and presumably so is Windows Phone 7, Maemo/Ovi, RIM's marketplace and so on. Apple doesn't have a lock on the market nor do they prevent anyone from embracing the abject freedom represented by Android and Google's Marketplace (with over 50,000 apps!), or any of the other offerings. There is a lot of competition - just not very effective competition. The problem with your viewpoint and subsequent opinions is that you consistently (for example) conflate POPULARITY with MONOPOLY. As a result, you bring forward arguments that while seeming rational and commonsense to your viewpoint - are meaningless to the actual situation. It is a rather blatant logic fail which one hand can be (and is) interpreted by some as pointed trolling, while others try to twist their heads about to see if they can see things from your perspective.

There are cycles to all environments, especially in business. Apple is approaching their zenith because they have correctly identified what drives consumer up-take of product and are making products that address that successfully. They in no way act as a monopoly (in any regular commonly accepted business sense of the term), nor can they be considered a monopoly, period. They are leveraging the popularity of their devices to advance their particular vision of what consumer devices should be like. You can argue until the cows come home about whether they meet some arbitrary standard of what these devices should be, but it is a lesson in futility. Apple has successfully captured with their devices a rising acceptance of the average consumer - a class by the way that doesn't recognize your viewpoint as being particularly valid.

Apple is in no danger of eliminating competition. They can harm their efforts by thoughtlessly driving away developers (a notoriously fickle lot anyway) more than eliminating competition. There is plenty of competition to be had - it's just not (yet?) of a caliber to be on the same level as Apple in terms of consumer acceptance.*

There now. I knew peeking at one of your hidden posts would stir me to address your misapprehensions. Apologies to the rest for taking up your reading moments with this. That will teach me to peek.
post #122 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

Exactly. If the buyer could decide, then the developers would choose whatever tools they think best, and the cream would rise to the top.

But in this situation, the buyers are not being given the ability to decide. That's fine. Apple can carry or reject anything it wants.

But to justify the move as a way to preserve the quality of apps? That seems unlikely, given existing reality.

So, you're saying that:

1) The app store is full of crap apps

2) The way to improve this is to approve apps generated by a tool/process that is known to regurgitate crap apps that dumb-down the UEX

You seem to resent that Apple can choose what it wants to sell in its store. What's wrong with that? Even a flea market has limits on what can be sold under the aegis of the host.

.
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #123 of 180
527Mb?? uh, no.... how about a little code optimization guys??

$4.99 an issue? $60 a year? I can get it for less in print.

I might consider buying one issue just to "experience" it, but I'm not going to hog up my limited (and relatively costly) iPad memory with one magazine... If I bought in, it would be a regular exercise of "read & delete". And can you imagine trying to download it via AT&T's 3G service? It would take forever...

Much as I love Wired, I'll pass on this one until those conditions improve...
post #124 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

The big difference between saying, "Objective-C apps only," vs. "Only high quality apps," is that the first is an objective (no pun intended) standard, whereas, the second is highly subjective. Who exactly would make the determination on quality, and how?

There was an app that displayed a picture of a duck and played a quacking noise. It was, if I recall correctly, pulled by Apple for "limited functionality". One of the people commenting somewhere about this pointed out that their infant child was utterly fascinated by this app and that it was great for distracting the child when they began to do those annoying things that children sometimes do. (I'm not sure if I have all the details correct, but the gist of it, I think is.)

So, here's an app that at first glance appears to be utterly useless. But, in fact, under certain circumstances, it has high utility. Unless the issue is that the app simply doesn't run, it's almost impossible to make a universal determination of quality.

I think I basically agree with you here. Subjectivity is a gigantic problem in making these kinds of determinations.

That's why the rest of my post was more specific about the kind of (reasonably objective) measures that could be taken that would cut down on the "junk apps" in the app store. I think objective or semi-objective criteria could be used to determine when an app is actually a book or an advertisement or not, or whether it should be a web-app, etc. and that applying those criteria would eliminate a lot of the bad apps without getting subjective. That was the point I was trying to make anyway.

I agree 100% about the duck app you mention, (it's probably something I would buy myself and I don't have children). Notice also that it would still survive as an app if the criteria I'm suggesting were applied. It's not a book or an advertisement, it's not anything that would be better off as a web-app etc.

All the problems I have personally with the app store and it's criteria are problems with the subjectivity they employ in their decisions. As long as there is a rating system for instance, there is simply no justification for eliminating apps based on subjective criteria of what's "appropriate." It's not an abstract situation either. I have a couple of apps on my phone right now (and I buy an amazingly small amount of apps overall), that have been banned from the app store for one reason or another.

There are real, business, technical and other reasons for most of the restrictions on the app store and personally I don't think the flash apps guys have any real argument that makes sense. On the other hand, subjective decisions made by Apple's censors anger me immensely. I'm old-fashioned in many respects, so to me right is right, and wrong is wrong and most people know the difference from age six onwards.

Censorship is *always* wrong, unless you can point to some real, material damage that the lack of said censorship causes. Being "offended," applying a religious standard, not liking something, or not thinking it's up to your aesthetic standards is simply not enough reason to ban things IMO.
post #125 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

-- they do not harm the device (crash, slow performance, drain battery, etc)


.

I agree with all of that post you make except above. Bad programming techniques in objective c or c an cause memory leaks, crashes and bad performance using apples tools. In your favor, Apple reviews all apps, which i personally love, and catches most of the bad programming, but some bad apps leaks through the system.
post #126 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevetim View Post

They lost me at Five Bucks.

the lost me at five... HUNDRED MEGS.

is that per issue or are subsequent updates.. "content only"
post #127 of 180
The point that is missed is that Apple does not "need" Flash at all. There is no reason for them to compromise or meet in the middle on that issue. Jobs' way of compromising with Adobe is by promoting Creative Suite when it updated its HTML5 tools.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chronster View Post

That's stubborn businesses my friend. If either side gave a little, they would meet in the middle. Instead, both feel they are 100% correct and will not budge on their point of view.
post #128 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

Everything you say is true of competitive markets. The concern is that the app market may be dominated by a player who is using that domination to eliminate competition. Without competition, there are no "welcoming arms".

That is a danger when one or a few companies dominate a market.

That is the basis of the investigation.

What the hell is "the app market"?

Apple has a store (several stores, actually): including the Apple app store.

If you don't like the product that the Apple store carries, or how it treats its suppliers-- then store go to the Android store; the Pre store; the Rim store; the Nokia store... And tell them how they should run their businesses!

.
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #129 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

We've already covered why that isn't possible.




Yes. And no reasons were given why such actions are impossible for Apple, but SOP for every other retailer on earth.

Your position seems to be that Apple has no ability, or no practical capability, to discern the quality of the wares it wishes to sell. That strikes me as incorrect.
post #130 of 180
To clarify the rule does not state that third party development tools cannot be used at all. They just cannot be used to interact directly with iPhone API's. Apple has previously had nightmare problems with third party development tools, that is the reason this rule is in place.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

If the tool is inadequate, the developer will not use it.
post #131 of 180
Dominating a market is not illegal. Who exactly in our discussion is eliminating competition?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

Everything you say is true of competitive markets. The concern is that the app market may be dominated by a player who is using that domination to eliminate competition. Without competition, there are no "welcoming arms".

That is a danger when one or a few companies dominate a market.

That is the basis of the investigation.
post #132 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by masternav View Post

This is why I am sublimely happy to routinely ignore your posts herein. Domination of a market is not bad in and of itself



I never made any claim that domination of a market is bad in and of itself.

Please keep yourself sublimely happy. You sadden both of us when you read my posts but don't understand them.

Bye.
post #133 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by tribalogical View Post

527Mb?? uh, no.... how about a little code optimization guys??

$4.99 an issue? $60 a year? I can get it for less in print.

I might consider buying one issue just to "experience" it, but I'm not going to hog up my limited (and relatively costly) iPad memory with one magazine... If I bought in, it would be a regular exercise of "read & delete". And can you imagine trying to download it via AT&T's 3G service? It would take forever...

Much as I love Wired, I'll pass on this one until those conditions improve...

Save your money unless you seek to experience a good idea done badly!

.
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #134 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

The point that is missed is that Apple does not "need" Flash at all. There is no reason for them to compromise or meet in the middle on that issue. Jobs' way of compromising with Adobe is by promoting Creative Suite when it updated its HTML5 tools.

There's a very obvious reason actually: Websites use flash, and people will browse websites with the ipad lol

Didn't Apple say they were creating an alternative to flash? It should run great seeing as how they'll have access to the innards that Adobe needs access to in order to get flash to run smoothly. Then of course Apple will talk about it like they're the only ones who did it correctly. I'm curious to see how it holds up on other platforms.

Oh well. Beating a dead horse here.
post #135 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

Exactly. If the buyer could decide, then the developers would choose whatever tools they think best, and the cream would rise to the top.

But in this situation, the buyers are not being given the ability to decide. That's fine. Apple can carry or reject anything it wants.

But to justify the move as a way to preserve the quality of apps? That seems unlikely, given existing reality.

Sorry for going way back, but I'm dying to hear an answer to this! As a buyer myself, what is it that I cannot decide? I browse the App Store pretty frequently. Sometimes, I see apps that interest me at which point I may decide to check out screen shots and reviews. If I decide I would like to try the app, I'll purchase it. If there's a free version, I'll decide to try it before making a financial commitment. When I get some spare time, I'll make the decision to actually try the app first hand. As I use it, I'll be deciding whether I want to keep it or not. If it's very bad, I'll decide to delete it and move on.

A friend of mine has an iPod touch that was given to him as a gift (after he had decided to purchase the Nexus One.) So, he gets to compare iPhone apps and Android apps first hand and by extension make an informed decision about which ones he prefers. We don't agree on everything of course, but we have both decided sperately that Blackberry and Windows Mobile are both not worth having.

There are thousands of apps in the App Store. I haven't the time or even the disk space (on my MacBook Pro) for all of them, so if I'm going to have some of them, I'll have to decide which ones. Which brings me back to my original question: As a buyer, what is it that I'm not deciding?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

I don't take any real hard and fast stand on the merits of the contention.

Fair enough

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

It is also entirely possible that I misunderstand the contention, and that my understanding is incorrect

So here's my understanding of the contention:

Apple has developed a quality platform for application development. They are the owners of this platform and as such they have the authority and the responsibility to distribute the platform as they see fit. As owners of their platform, they have the authority to determine how apps get developed and distributed to the platform. They have produced a development environment which they provide at no extra cost to developers who purchase a Mac.

Adobe has a platform too. But, Adobe's platform is designed to run on many different devices. This design is inherently flawed precisely because all those devices are different. One size does not fit all. Apple recognizes this and has rightly chosen to opt out of supporting Adobe's platform on their devices. Adobe, having an over developed sense of entitlement (and a lazy, communistic attitude toward product development) has decided to accuse Apple of being "unfair".

To put it simply, Apple does not recognize Adobe's assumed rights to Apple's platform; and Adobe does not recognize Apple's actual rights to Apple's platform. If that's not the cause of the contention, I don't know what is.
13" MacBook Pro 2.26GHz; iPhone 4 32GB
Reply
13" MacBook Pro 2.26GHz; iPhone 4 32GB
Reply
post #136 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

So, you're saying that:

1) The app store is full of crap apps

2) The way to improve this is to approve apps generated by a tool/process that is known to regurgitate crap apps that dumb-down the UEX

You seem to resent that Apple can choose what it wants to sell in its store. What's wrong with that? Even a flea market has limits on what can be sold under the aegis of the host.

.

I wouldn't say that it is full of crap apps. Instead, I would say that so many are available that the excuse that "we won't sell crap apps" is not believable.

I am not saying what the proper path is to remedy this. I am saying that the change to the developer agreement is unlikely to be motivated by a desire to remedy this.

I think that those who do not exert monopoly power should be free to sell or not sell anything they want.

Is that clear now?
post #137 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

What the hell is "the app market"?

Apple has a store (several stores, actually): including the Apple app store.

If you don't like the product that the Apple store carries, or how it treats its suppliers-- then store go to the Android store; the Pre store; the Rim store; the Nokia store... And tell them how they should run their businesses!

.


By that phrase I meant "the market for Applications to be installed on mobile devices".

And the current antitrust inquiries, IIUC, are intended to determine whether or not actions need to be taken to maintain and expand the choices you cite.
post #138 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevetim View Post

I agree with all of that post you make except above. Bad programming techniques in objective c or c an cause memory leaks, crashes and bad performance using apples tools. In your favor, Apple reviews all apps, which i personally love, and catches most of the bad programming, but some bad apps leaks through the system.

I said that Apple was screenning for apps that didn't...

Their screening process doesn't catch everything... but, as a user, I am thankful that they try.

Programming in ObjC (with manual memory management) does not guarantee a good program, but it is easier for Apple to catch the bad ones during evaluation/approval.

However, programming in Flash has been shown to result in inferior apps on the desktop (with abundant resources), and therefore will, most likely, yield inferior apps on the mobile platform (with finite resources).

So, it is understandable that Apple ban the predominate tool for creating inferior apps, and spend its limited resources evaluating apps created with tools that usually produce [technically] good apps. (Whether these apps are of limited or broad appeal, is another question).

.
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #139 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Dominating a market is not illegal. Who exactly in our discussion is eliminating competition?

I said "Everything you say is true of competitive markets. The concern is that the app market may be dominated by a player who is using that domination to eliminate competition. Without competition, there are no "welcoming arms".

That is a danger when one or a few companies dominate a market.

That is the basis of the investigation."

I never claimed that dominating a market was illegal.

I said that there is concern when a dominant player uses its market power in a certain manner. Do you disagree?
post #140 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

I call bullshit.

The vast majority of the software in the App Store is mediocre. Way too much of it is just plain crap. If Apple were dedicated to offering only good software in the App store, it would not have decided to carry every piece of crap that is submitted - so long as it is suitable for a 12 year old virgin. Instead, they would have offered only worthwhile titles.

I call bullshit.

You must have meant mediocre to you , unless you are arrogant enough to set standards for all of us folk ..... hmmmm?
See, in the record business, you can show someone your song, and they don’t copy it. In the tech business, you show somebody your idea, and they steal it. (Jimmy Iovine)
Reply
See, in the record business, you can show someone your song, and they don’t copy it. In the tech business, you show somebody your idea, and they steal it. (Jimmy Iovine)
Reply
post #141 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWatchfulOne View Post

Sorry for going way back, but I'm dying to hear an answer to this! As a buyer myself, what is it that I cannot decide?

As a buyer, you cannot decide on the quality of those apps that Apple does not sell.

With exceptions of course.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWatchfulOne View Post


So here's my understanding of the contention:

Apple has developed a quality platform for application development. They are the owners of this platform and as such they have the authority and the responsibility to distribute the platform as they see fit. As owners of their platform, they have the authority to determine how apps get developed and distributed to the platform. They have produced a development environment which they provide at no extra cost to developers who purchase a Mac.

Well, yeah. Of course. And so long as their actions have little or no affect on mobile app/mobile hardware development in general, nobody gives a damn.

But if/when a company develops monopoly power, and therefore their actions affect the viability of the relevant market as a whole, people perk up.

And if such companies are determined to have taken such actions intending to stifle/prevent competition, or to erect barriers to entry, then it rises to a level somewhat higher than mere concern.
post #142 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

Censorship is *always* wrong, unless you can point to some real, material damage that the lack of said censorship causes. Being "offended," applying a religious standard, not liking something, or not thinking it's up to your aesthetic standards is simply not enough reason to ban things IMO.

The only problem with your logic is that no one is censoring anything.

Apple has chosen quality standards and any app developer who meets their quality standards can get listed. Deciding not to carry apps that don't meet their standards is not censorship.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

Yes. And no reasons were given why such actions are impossible for Apple, but SOP for every other retailer on earth.

Your position seems to be that Apple has no ability, or no practical capability, to discern the quality of the wares it wishes to sell. That strikes me as incorrect.

It is clear that you've got an irrational need to criticize anything Apple does. If they don't restrict apps, you criticize them. If the restrict apps, you criticize them.

Apple has standards - just like every other retailer out there. Whether their standards agree with yours (or with Walmart's) is irrelevant. Developers can choose to work within Apple's standards or sell their apps only to jailbroken phones or write their apps for a different platform. Their choice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chronster View Post

There's a very obvious reason actually: Websites use flash, and people will browse websites with the ipad lol

Except that I almost never run into a web site using Flash that I need to see on my iPad. But when I do, I just fire up Logmein and I can see the Flash web page. No problem at all.

But at least this way, I don't have to worry about my web experience being destroyed by Flash crapware.

Quote:
Originally Posted by success View Post

Why would they do this? Why didn't they at least make a QT version of the video? It's a video ad showing off the iPad version of Wired but you can't watch the promo on the iPad. Uhhh ok.

Because Adobe is lazy.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #143 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

Well, yeah. Of course. And so long as their actions have little or no affect on mobile app/mobile hardware development in general, nobody gives a damn.

But if/when a company develops monopoly power, and therefore their actions affect the viability of the relevant market as a whole, people perk up.

And if such companies are determined to have taken such actions intending to stifle/prevent competition, or to erect barriers to entry, then it rises to a level somewhat higher than mere concern.

This is, of course, silly.

On the one hand, you're bragging about how Android phone sales have surpassed the iPhone and how other phone vendors are catching up.

On the other hand, you're complaining that Apple has monopoly power and is stifling development.

If developers or customers don't like the Apple app store, they're free to buy Android phones. Or Symbian phones. Or Blackberry phones. or Windows Mobile phones.

Your argument is no different than demanding that Nintendo allow xBox games to be played on the Wii. It just doesn't make sense - either legally or logically.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #144 of 180
This issue has an article about Trent Reznor's new band How to Destroy Angels, walks thru the process of creating the track and also includes the exlusive audio for the song. Can only hear it on the iPad edition so far, at least until someone rips it and posts it on the web heh.

Here's the online version of the article, sans song: http://bit.ly/cgkFYG
post #145 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

I said that Apple was screenning for apps that didn't...

Their screening process doesn't catch everything... but, as a user, I am thankful that they try.

Programming in ObjC (with manual memory management) does not guarantee a good program, but it is easier for Apple to catch the bad ones during evaluation/approval.

However, programming in Flash has been shown to result in inferior apps on the desktop (with abundant resources), and therefore will, most likely, yield inferior apps on the mobile platform (with finite resources).

So, it is understandable that Apple ban the predominate tool for creating inferior apps, and spend its limited resources evaluating apps created with tools that usually produce [technically] good apps. (Whether these apps are of limited or broad appeal, is another question).

.

Totally agree!
post #146 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

As a buyer, you cannot decide on the quality of those apps that Apple does not sell.

Good! Because I really have no desire to do that. Unless of course Apple wants to pay me a salary in exchange for me providing that service for them. Man, when I asked what it is that I don't get to decide I was hoping for a real answer...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

With exceptions of course.

Ooh! Tell me about the exceptions, Stevie, tell me about the exceptions!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

Well, yeah. Of course. And so long as their actions have little or no affect on mobile app/mobile hardware development in general, nobody gives a damn.

Well... since Apple is the only developer of hardware that ("legally")runs their software and since they are the only developer of software that will run ("legally") on their hardware, how will Apple's actions adversely affect other companies' hardware and software development?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

But if/when a company develops monopoly power, and therefore their actions affect the viability of the relevant market as a whole, people perk up.

Is somebody developing monopoly power? If so, then who is it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

And if such companies are determined to have taken such actions intending to stifle/prevent competition, or to erect barriers to entry, then it rises to a level somewhat higher than mere concern.

Apple promotes competition in the App Store by providing quality development tools at no extra cost to those who purchase a Mac. Where is competition being stifled or prevented?
13" MacBook Pro 2.26GHz; iPhone 4 32GB
Reply
13" MacBook Pro 2.26GHz; iPhone 4 32GB
Reply
post #147 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

This is, of course, silly.

On the one hand, you're bragging about how Android phone sales have surpassed the iPhone and how other phone vendors are catching up.

On the other hand, you're complaining that Apple has monopoly power and is stifling development.

If developers or customers don't like the Apple app store, they're free to buy Android phones. Or Symbian phones. Or Blackberry phones. or Windows Mobile phones.

Your argument is no different than demanding that Nintendo allow xBox games to be played on the Wii. It just doesn't make sense - either legally or logically.


You misunderstand my position if you think your example encapsulates it.

And you overestimate the range of issues upon which I have taken any position at all.
post #148 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

By that phrase I meant "the market for Applications to be installed on mobile devices".

And the current antitrust inquiries, IIUC, are intended to determine whether or not actions need to be taken to maintain and expand the choices you cite.

Well...

Now, you're talking about something, with which, I have some personal experience:

I worked for IBM 1964-1980 in the Data Processing Division-- Mainframe computer marketing and support.

IBM had 97% of the mainframe market. A monopoly suit was brought by Justice:

Quote:
However, IBM's dominant market share in the mid-1960s led to antitrust inquiries by the U.S. Department of Justice, which filed a complaint for the case U.S. v. IBM in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on January 17, 1969. The suit alleged that IBM violated the Section 2 of the Sherman Act by monopolizing or attempting to monopolize the general purpose electronic digital computer system market, specifically computers designed primarily for business. The case dragged out for 13 years, turning into a resource-sapping war of attrition. In 1982, the Justice Department finally concluded that the case was without merit and dropped it, But having to operate under the pall of antitrust litigation significantly impacted IBM's business decisions and operations during all of the 1970s and a good portion of the 1980s.

Long story, short: It was decided, and publicly stated, that IBM had attained its 97% market share through the excellence of its products, market and support-- which are not unfair, monopolistic or in restraint of trade.

So, cry havoc and [let] loose the dogs of justice-- Apple has a pretty good track record and some legal precedence on its side.

Excellence is not illegal!

.
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #149 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Long story, short: It was decided, and publicly stated, that IBM had attained its 97% market share through the excellence of its products, market and support-- which are not unfair, monopolistic or in restraint of trade.

Great post. Interesting about IBM.

But this was back when washington bureaucrats had at least partial brains. What are these morons in power going to do now.
post #150 of 180
[QUOTE=TheWatchfulOne;1639565]Good! Because I really have no desire to do that. Unless of course Apple wants to pay me a salary in exchange for me providing that service for them. Man, when I asked what it is that I don't get to decide I was hoping for a real answer...



Whether or not you have that desire ain't really got nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWatchfulOne View Post

Ooh! Tell me about the exceptions, Stevie, tell me about the exceptions!

Well, as long as your acting like you're my little b*tch (what the heck is that all about, anyhow?) I'll cite one exception. Users can void their warranty and check out some of the rejected apps at the Cydia store.


Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWatchfulOne View Post

Well... since Apple is the only developer of hardware that ("legally")runs their software and since they are the only developer of software that will run ("legally") on their hardware, how will Apple's actions adversely affect other companies' hardware and software development?

The contention, if I understand it correctly, is that Apple will reject any app that is developed using tools which would allow the app to run on platforms other than Apple's.
post #151 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

Everything you say is true of competitive markets. The concern is that the app market may be dominated by a player who is using that domination to eliminate competition. Without competition, there are no "welcoming arms".

That is a danger when one or a few companies dominate a market.

That is the basis of the investigation.

What is left unstated in your position is that Apple is this dominant force in the Apps market and that it will then use its domination to impose its will in other mobile computing ecosystems?

First, let us consider the nature of the phone industry.
  1. By its very nature, especially in the US, no phone manufacturer can simply sell its phone product. It requires the approval of or at least compatibility wih the technology of the telecom carrier. The carrier therefore exercise more power than any phone manufacturer. A case in point, Nokia has been the most dominant phone manufacturer but it could not only not gain any headway in the North American market, but actually losing marketshare. Similarly, if past reports were true, Verizon rejected Apple's iPhone because Steve Jobs would not accept Verizon's conditions when Apple approached Verizon ca 2005/2006 or thereabouts. For this reason, Apple had no recourse but to accept the exclusive deal with Cingular (later on AT&T, after the merger), in order to for Apple to have free will in developing what was to become the iPhone.
  2. The long term goals of the telecom carriers are not likely to be in "lock-step" with those of the phone manufacturers. Thus, it is unlikely that any telecom carrier would allow any phone manufacturer to become its sole or dominant phone supplier. This will happen because of the powers of any telecom carrier, as noted in the aforementioned point.

If you will state that this lack of competition is due to the nature of the telecom industry, you will get my vote.

Now, let us consider the history of Apple's entry to mobile computing.
  1. As noted above, the Apple iPhone might never have been, had no US telecom carrier agreed to carry the iPhone.
  2. Do not forget the mockery of Steve Ballmer: Windows Mobile? Millions! The iPhone? Zero! Even six month after the iPhone was announced, the computer industry was skeptical that the iPhone would make it. The phone manufacturers were similarly skeptical. Today, we assumed it was a success. However, let us not forget that some Apple's products, e.g., the Cube, and Apple TV, did not make it. The iPhone could have suffered the same fate.
  3. Apple entered market where there are already predominant phone manufacturers -- Nokia (the uncontested dominant phone maker at the time), RIM, Motorola, and all the phone manufacturers in the Asian tiger countries -- China, Taiwan, South Korea, Japan (I am surprised no such stronghold in Singapore). Then, you have the might of the true monopoly: Microsoft with its Windows Mobile.

It is not as if. the iPhone was a big secret before 2007. Any or all of the aforementioned parties could have done something to thwart the yet untested competition from Apple. But, everyone was caught flat-footed because of the ingrained belief that Apple iPhone would just attract Apple "fanbois",

The reality was that they should have learned their lesson with how Apple entered the digital music market. Let me point out here however that in the digital music industry, Apple dominated eventually because it created an ecosystem -- the ease of use of the iPod, the iTunes, the payment system, the Apple aura of chic and perhaps even technology, which many Zune apostles would very vehemently dispute. The other key factor in the eventual domination of the iPod was that it did not have a gatekeeper, as the iPhone is subjected to, in the form of the telecom carriers.

Now, the history of the Apps.
  1. It seened as if it had been ages ago, but the Apps store is barely two years old. Let us not forget too that Apple did not, in fact was initially a reluctant player in what was to evolve the Apps Store, in the Apple iPhone OS ecosystem.
  2. It was individual developers, who saw the potential of the iPhone OS, that clamored for Apple to allow them to participate. And, it succeeded even beyond Apple's expectations.
  3. What was good about Apple was that it was able to recognize early the significance of the Apps Store in the success of its mobile computing strategy. Thus, it focused on improving the ecosystem further. And improved it more systematically -- unlike Microsoft's efforts with its own mobile computing and digital music efforts.
  4. Further, rather than being greedy, Apple provided a very generous sharing (70-30) with its developers. Contrast this with prior terms of Microsoft and Amazon, and even the subsequent efforts of other companies. As important, it continued to support the SDK and provide other innovations to help each developer derive income from the Apps they create.

Which came first, the hen or the egg?


If ever Apple was generous with its developers, Apple was not being altruistic, it realizes that it could sell more iPhone OS mobile devices, if there are more Apps created for it.

In a sense, the developers "can break Apple", if there is enough of them to object to Apple's policies and flee to more welcoming ecosystems. But, let's be brutally frank, as confessed by Spiers(?), one of the developers who grandstanded in his proclamation to not develop for Apple Apps Store again. Not a year later, he was just as pompous to announce why he had to swallow his own words. They would only do this for as long as the iPhone OS ecosystem remains a viable strategy.

To my knowledge, I have not heard any policy that Apple would ban any developer that will develop.

Similarly, Apple, in spite of its own strick policies, did indeed make changes to avoid mass exodus among developers.

Equally important, the Apps would be a selling factor only if the users of iPhone OS mobile devices accept them. They have the final say.

This triumvirate within the Apple ecosystem -- Apple, developers and consumers -- offer some checks and balances within. And, this works only because the developers and consumers do have choices.

Let's not forget that there are indeed very viable and formidable competitions. Among these is the Google Android ecosystem. I already posted elsewhere why the Android ecosystem may overtake the phone competition of the Apple iPhone mobile devices, in terms of marketshare. It remains to be seen though whether any or the combined Androids will overtake Apple's profitability.

We should be reminded also that no one has thought of the Android as a formidable competition, just a year or so ago.

By the same token, there is nothing to prevent any company from simply coming out of the blue, to challenge the kings of the day.

What is certain, for as long as Steve Jobs is at the helm of Apple, the company would simply rollover.

Steve Jobs/Apple remain a vital force, not from unfair practices but because they do create products that are game-changers and able to persuade consumers to buy them. As such, many other companies cannot help but try to emulate them.

Certainly, Google, considering all the insights that Schmidt gained as a member of Apple Board, has the technical power and resources, to learn from how Apple developed its iPhone OS ecosystem. But, so far, has not taken the steps to create a better ecosystem. This can be said of other companies.

This, I think, is what made the difference. Instead of meeting the challenge, they simply keep on crying: "Foul" Or, at least their acolytes do.

CGC
post #152 of 180
No, not all websites use Flash. Because of the predominance of webkit browsers people can browse a Flashless web with little problem.

We are three years into this and mostly all of the top used web sites have mobile versions that do not use any Flash. All of the major media sites deliver media in H.264. In reality rarely do you see broken Flash links on the iPhone because you are automatically directed to the mobile site that has no Flash.


Quote:
Originally Posted by chronster View Post

There's a very obvious reason actually: Websites use flash, and people will browse websites with the ipad lol
post #153 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

You misunderstand my position if you think your example encapsulates it.

And you overestimate the range of issues upon which I have taken any position at all.

I've read hundreds of your posts since you joined this forum, last month!

You rarely take a specific position on anything-- rather offer generalized insuinualtons.

The leitmotif is definitely anti any/all things Apple.

You attempt to appear objective, and above the fray... but periodically post something to stir the pot, muddy the water, or just take the other "side" of your prior posts. All the while, claiming that others don't understand you or are misquoting you.

It would be more productive to try to conduct an intelligent conversation with Jello!

See how easy that is to do with out misquoting/misunderstanding you!

.
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #154 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevetim View Post

Great post. Interesting about IBM.

But this was back when washington bureaucrats had at least partial brains. What are these morons in power going to do now.

Unfortunately, it. likely ,depends on who spends the most on campaign donations or lobbying!

Sigh!

.
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #155 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

Whether or not you have that desire ain't really got nothing to do with the topic at hand.

You brought it up that the "buyer can't decide" and I just wanted to know what it was that you thought I "couldn't" decide. If it doesn't have anything to do with the topic at hand then why did you bring it up?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

Well, as long as your acting like you're my little b*tch (what the heck is that all about, anyhow?) I'll cite one exception. Users can void their warranty and check out some of the rejected apps at the Cydia store.

A misplaced reference to John Steinback, no offence intended. But thanks for a true answer. I'm not really interested in Cydia myself but I wouldn't deny it's "right" to exist. Neither would I deny Apple's right to not support Cydia apps. Apple should not be forced to support or promote any product it was not involved in. I've never heard of Apple trying to have Cydia shut down either so I'm not sure what the problem is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

The contention, if I understand it correctly, is that Apple will reject any app that is developed using tools which would allow the app to run on platforms other than Apple's.

Why such contention over Apple's rightful enforcement of rules and good development practices for a platform that it owns?
13" MacBook Pro 2.26GHz; iPhone 4 32GB
Reply
13" MacBook Pro 2.26GHz; iPhone 4 32GB
Reply
post #156 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

But at least this way, I don't have to worry about my web experience being destroyed by Flash crapware.

.

there's a reason why windows users and osx users have such a different view of flash

In other words, it's not crapware for the Windows users.
post #157 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

No, not all websites use Flash. Because of the predominance of webkit browsers people can browse a Flashless web with little problem.

We are three years into this and mostly all of the top used web sites have mobile versions that do not use any Flash. All of the major media sites deliver media in H.264. In reality rarely do you see broken Flash links on the iPhone because you are automatically directed to the mobile site that has no Flash.

lol I didn't mean all websites use flash. Guess I should watch what I say!

A lot of websites I visit still use it. It's just not phased out yet. That's a reason to support it. Jobs says he doesn't want to ruin the user experience, but last I checked, flash was something that could be turned off.

again, beating a dead horse here.
post #158 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by cgc0202 View Post

What is left unstated in your position is that Apple is this dominant force in the Apps market and that it will then use its domination to impose its will in other mobile computing ecosystems?

First, let us consider the nature of the phone industry.
  1. By its very nature, especially in the US, no phone manufacturer can simply sell its phone product. It requires the approval of or at least compatibility wih the technology of the telecom carrier. The carrier therefore exercise more power than any phone manufacturer. A case in point, Nokia has been the most dominant phone manufacturer but it could not only not gain any headway in the North American market, but actually losing marketshare. Similarly, if past reports were true, Verizon rejected Apple's iPhone because Steve Jobs would not accept Verizon's conditions when Apple approached Verizon ca 2005/2006 or thereabouts. For this reason, Apple had no recourse but to accept the exclusive deal with Cingular (later on AT&T, after the merger), in order to for Apple to have free will in developing what was to become the iPhone.
  2. The long term goals of the telecom carriers are not likely to be in "lock-step" with those of the phone manufacturers. Thus, it is unlikely that any telecom carrier would allow any phone manufacturer to become its sole or dominant phone supplier. This will happen because of the powers of any telecom carrier, as noted in the aforementioned point.

If you will state that this lack of competition is due to the nature of the telecom industry, you will get my vote.

Now, let us consider the history of Apple's entry to mobile computing.
  1. As noted above, the Apple iPhone might never have been, had no US telecom carrier agreed to carry the iPhone.
  2. Do not forget the mockery of Steve Ballmer: Windows Mobile? Millions! The iPhone? Zero! Even six month after the iPhone was announced, the computer industry was skeptical that the iPhone would make it. The phone manufacturers were similarly skeptical. Today, we assumed it was a success. However, let us not forget that some Apple's products, e.g., the Cube, and Apple TV, did not make it. The iPhone could have suffered the same fate.
  3. Apple entered market where there are already predominant phone manufacturers -- Nokia (the uncontested dominant phone maker at the time), RIM, Motorola, and all the phone manufacturers in the Asian tiger countries -- China, Taiwan, South Korea, Japan (I am surprised no such stronghold in Singapore). Then, you have the might of the true monopoly: Microsoft with its Windows Mobile.

It is not as if. the iPhone was a big secret before 2007. Any or all of the aforementioned parties could have done something to thwart the yet untested competition from Apple. But, everyone was caught flat-footed because of the ingrained belief that Apple iPhone would just attract Apple "fanbois",

The reality was that they should have learned their lesson with how Apple entered the digital music market. Let me point out here however that in the digital music industry, Apple dominated eventually because it created an ecosystem -- the ease of use of the iPod, the iTunes, the payment system, the Apple aura of chic and perhaps even technology, which many Zune apostles would very vehemently dispute. The other key factor in the eventual domination of the iPod was that it did not have a gatekeeper, as the iPhone is subjected to, in the form of the telecom carriers.

Now, the history of the Apps.
  1. It seened as if it had been ages ago, but the Apps store is barely two years old. Let us not forget too that Apple did not, in fact was initially a reluctant player in what was to evolve the Apps Store, in the Apple iPhone OS ecosystem.
  2. It was individual developers, who saw the potential of the iPhone OS, that clamored for Apple to allow them to participate. And, it succeeded even beyond Apple's expectations.
  3. What was good about Apple was that it was able to recognize early the significance of the Apps Store in the success of its mobile computing strategy. Thus, it focused on improving the ecosystem further. And improved it more systematically -- unlike Microsoft's efforts with its own mobile computing and digital music efforts.
  4. Further, rather than being greedy, Apple provided a very generous sharing (70-30) with its developers. Contrast this with prior terms of Microsoft and Amazon, and even the subsequent efforts of other companies. As important, it continued to support the SDK and provide other innovations to help each developer derive income from the Apps they create.

Which came first, the hen or the egg?


If ever Apple was generous with its developers, Apple was not being altruistic, it realizes that it could sell more iPhone OS mobile devices, if there are more Apps created for it.

In a sense, the developers "can break Apple", if there is enough of them to object to Apple's policies and flee to more welcoming ecosystems. But, let's be brutally frank, as confessed by Spiers(?), one of the developers who grandstanded in his proclamation to not develop for Apple Apps Store again. Not a year later, he was just as pompous to announce why he had to swallow his own words. They would only do this for as long as the iPhone OS ecosystem remains a viable strategy.

To my knowledge, I have not heard any policy that Apple would ban any developer that will develop.

Similarly, Apple, in spite of its own strick policies, did indeed make changes to avoid mass exodus among developers.

Equally important, the Apps would be a selling factor only if the users of iPhone OS mobile devices accept them. They have the final say.

This triumvirate within the Apple ecosystem -- Apple, developers and consumers -- offer some checks and balances within. And, this works only because the developers and consumers do have choices.

Let's not forget that there are indeed very viable and formidable competitions. Among these is the Google Android ecosystem. I already posted elsewhere why the Android ecosystem may overtake the phone competition of the Apple iPhone mobile devices, in terms of marketshare. It remains to be seen though whether any or the combined Androids will overtake Apple's profitability.

We should be reminded also that no one has thought of the Android as a formidable competition, just a year or so ago.

By the same token, there is nothing to prevent any company from simply coming out of the blue, to challenge the kings of the day.

What is certain, for as long as Steve Jobs is at the helm of Apple, the company would simply rollover.

Steve Jobs/Apple remain a vital force, not from unfair practices but because they do create products that are game-changers and able to persuade consumers to buy them. As such, many other companies cannot help but try to emulate them.

Certainly, Google, considering all the insights that Schmidt gained as a member of Apple Board, has the technical power and resources, to learn from how Apple developed its iPhone OS ecosystem. But, so far, has not taken the steps to create a better ecosystem. This can be said of other companies.

This, I think, is what made the difference. Instead of meeting the challenge, they simply keep on crying: "Foul" Or, at least their acolytes do.

CGC

Very reasoned, and well stated!

Of course, he will respond that you misunderstand or misquote him.

.
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #159 of 180
AAPL was down $1.11 today

but in market cap:

AAPL $ 221,356,820,655

MSFT $ 219,349,229,610

Apple is the second largest company in the US by market cap...

First time, ever!

.
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #160 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronster View Post

lol I didn't mean all websites use flash. Guess I should watch what I say!

It doesn't matter. The number that REQUIRE Flash is declining every day. A year ago, you couldn't use car web sites or Disney with an iPhone and now you can. Youtube works. Almost every week, another major player is announcing an iPad compatible version of their web site.

And for the tiny number that absolutely require Flash and which you can't avoid, I can STILL access Flash sites on my iPad by using Logmein to reach my home computer. There are other options, as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chronster View Post

A lot of websites I visit still use it. It's just not phased out yet. That's a reason to support it. Jobs says he doesn't want to ruin the user experience, but last I checked, flash was something that could be turned off..

And that would be the WORST possible scenario. Apple would be forced to support crappy software, yet developers would never create Flash-free web sites since they could simply tell iDevice users to turn Flash on. No one would benefit - except lazy developers.

Not to mention, of course, that it's not even an OPTION until Adobe releases a version of Flash that would run on the iPhone. Today, nearly 3 years after the iPhone release, there is STILL no version of Flash which runs on 400-600 MHz mobile devices like the iPhone. (Even 10.1 which conceivably might be able to run on the iPad-but not the iphone- is slow and buggy by all reports.)
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Wired's iPad edition arrives, converted from Flash by Adobe