or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › European Union joins FTC investigation into Apple's opposition of Flash
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

European Union joins FTC investigation into Apple's opposition of Flash - Page 3

post #81 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by silverpraxis View Post

... the investigation is ONLY about Apple banning software such as Flash from converting code to iPhone language-friendly apps. Even I see a problem with that. This doesn't hurt just Adobe. It hurts anyone out there that might have been trying to create a business around app portability between various app storefronts. And that in turn hurts app developers with limited resources attempting to port their apps to broader markets. This is where I see the harm. If the app code is written in Apple's accepted languages, it should be allowed regardless of being ported from another language. If the app is buggy or harmful, reject it as any other natively written app.

I believe this is the only plausible judgment the FTC or EU could enforce. The iPhone AppStore is the leading storefront with the most apps available and the most apps sold, making it a market leader. Therefore opening up the AppStore to portable apps invigorates competition between storefronts and, through that, devices themselves.

The thing wrong with your analysis though, is that Apple actually does already allow any app into the store written in their accepted languages regardless of origin. The Flash product being argued over doesn't actually produce Objective C code at the end of the day, at least not for the whole app. If it did, then the developers of such apps could just open the code in XCode and upload it and no one would be the wiser.

Also, even if what you say is true, it's a dangerous precedent for any government body to be telling a private company or individual what they can and cannot allow with their own products. This is the same thing as the government mandating that you use a certain kind of gas in your car, or forcing you to allow someone who doesn't like the colour of your house to paint the side facing them another colour.

Yes, Apple's decisions in this regard put a total damper on developers wanting to engage in cross-platform solutions, but no, there isn't anything wrong or illegal about that. It's just the way it is.
post #82 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post

While I agree that these investigations are absurd, it's probably not about monopolies - it's probably more about "restraint of trade" or "unfair competition." I think these investigations are happening because both the FTC and the EU don't really understand the technologies. They probably think Flash is like a browser that Apple is keeping off their machines. In any case, by the time either the FTC or the EU came to any decisions, the technology will have long since changed and the point will be moot. I mean, how can you argue with, "we'll permit it when it works." Besides, Apple is certainly not obligated to support every technology out there.

No, these investigations occur because someone files a complaint alleging anticompetitive activities. A complaint normally results in an investigation. An investigation may result in no action or a negotiated settlement. In very rare cases, it results in a lawsuit. Apple may try to drag this out to the point where the results are moot, but that's a dangerous strategy. Believe it or not, the government lawyers are not stupid. They know foot-dragging when they see it, and do not react kindly to it.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #83 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

True, but slowing is still slowing.

But it isn't slowing, you're interpreting a percentage change instead of the numbers. If Q1 Android sold 2 million phones and Q2 they sold 3 million, they have sold even more, but the growth percentage will show as smaller. It is greater growth, but a smaller percentage change. Android recently posted an 886% increase year over year. Of course, they were increasing from practically zero. That kind of growth is only ever seen when rising from a zero point and is unsustainable. In any product
post #84 of 238
I have said this before and I say it again in response to those who think Flash improves portability:


If Adobe believes that Flash is such a good piece of software, why don't they try making it into a standalone OS that runs a mobile phone! Surely that would solve this problem



Good luck!
post #85 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

The thing wrong with your analysis though, is that Apple actually does already allow any app into the store written in their accepted languages regardless of origin. The Flash product being argued over doesn't actually produce Objective C code at the end of the day, at least not for the whole app. If it did, then the developers of such apps could just open the code in XCode and upload it and no one would be the wiser.

Also, even if what you say is true, it's a dangerous precedent for any government body to be telling a private company or individual what they can and cannot allow with their own products. This is the same thing as the government mandating that you use a certain kind of gas in your car, or forcing you to allow someone who doesn't like the colour of your house to paint the side facing them another colour.

Yes, Apple's decisions in this regard put a total damper on developers wanting to engage in cross-platform solutions, but no, there isn't anything wrong or illegal about that. It's just the way it is.

How can you prejudge the situation so completely? It's not a "dangerous precedent" for governments to become involved in competition issues, unless you are referring to 19th century precedents, since this is how long it's been going on.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #86 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Well, yes, clearly you aren't interested in the quality of your work, but you are exactly the sort of developer consumers should be protected from. And, no, everyone does not have to update their app every time Apple updates iOS. But, if they do, they are responsible, and they can't fall back on lazy ass excuses like, "Yeah, I know the app you bought doesn't work but I can't do anything about it because the Crapware cross-compiler hasn't been updated yet and they are busy working on something else right now, so you are just shit out of luck."

There are very few businesses that would disagree with my methods. If Apple cared that much they'd have their electronics built in their own factories, but instead they outsource to other companies to build there products. What if those other companies have an accident, close a factory, or whatnot. They tell Apple, sorry you're shit out of luck and will only get 3 million iPhones this month instead of 5 million. Or if the beef industry cared about absolute quality, there'd be 1 cow's meat in a patty instead of 100s of cows in 1 patty. To meet demand, increase profit, and grow beyond your limited capacity, you have to outsource and rely on others to an extent. If you haven't reached your full potential going alone, you are being lazy. When you reach your own limit, that's where teamwork comes in. You throw in a lot of "what if" scenarios that can be applied the opposite way. We are at a stalemate.
When a company stops chasing profit and start chasing the betterment of their products, services, workforce, and customers, that will be the most valuable company in the world.
Reply
When a company stops chasing profit and start chasing the betterment of their products, services, workforce, and customers, that will be the most valuable company in the world.
Reply
post #87 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSquirrel View Post

But it isn't slowing, you're interpreting a percentage change instead of the numbers. If Q1 Android sold 2 million phones and Q2 they sold 3 million, they have sold even more, but the growth percentage will show as smaller. It is greater growth, but a smaller percentage change. Android recently posted an 886% increase year over year. Of course, they were increasing from practically zero. That kind of growth is only ever seen when rising from a zero point and is unsustainable. In any product

So, you are arguing that it was a false momentum, that it only appeared to be fantastic growth because it was growing from nothing? I can agree with that.
post #88 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by silverpraxis View Post

There are very few businesses that would disagree with my methods. If Apple cared that much they'd have their electronics built in their own factories, but instead they outsource to other companies to build there products. What if those other companies have an accident, close a factory, or whatnot. They tell Apple, sorry you're shit out of luck and will only get 3 million iPhones this month instead of 5 million. Or if the beef industry cared about absolute quality, there'd be 1 cow's meat in a patty instead of 100s of cows in 1 patty. To meet demand, increase profit, and grow beyond your limited capacity, you have to outsource and rely on others to an extent. If you haven't reached your full potential going alone, you are being lazy. When you reach your own limit, that's where teamwork comes in. You throw in a lot of "what if" scenarios that can be applied the opposite way. We are at a stalemate.

No, there's no stalemate. In the scenarios you present, one just takes one's business elsewhere. If developing for iOS is too difficult for you, there are plenty of other platforms you can take your business to, and iOS will be no worse off without you, nor will consumers who use it.
post #89 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by SendMe View Post

I think that you may be overestimating things a bit. There are hardly any Android phones, and of those, hardly any of those run 2.2. You can't even upgrade on the vast majority of Android phones, which are crippled with version 1.5 or 1.6, never able to be updated.

They still sell these! BOGO and all! People think they are buying a good phone, but then, too late, they discover their marvelous DROID is completely obsolete.

So when they claim that Android is selling like hotcakes in July, what they mean is that obsolete garbage is being given away for free to unsuspecting victims. Google should be ashamed of itself.

Looks like someone's a bit behind on information!

The "vast majority" of Android phones are actually running 2.1 right now and of those, many can be upgraded to 2.2. The "majority" of 1.5 and 1.6 phones are being phased out and or are considered "feature phones" which were never meant to be upgraded to 2.2.

Essentially, what you're seeing with the 1.5, 1.6 feature phones is the evolution of the feature phone. At the core, they're still marketed as text/MMS/simple web phones for cheap for teenagers who don't need all the features of a smartphone. Android 1.5 and 1.6 cover those areas very well, so there's no incentive to make those phones go any higher than that. Not to mention that they might not have the hardware to begin with.

See, the thing with your "obsolete" argument is that Android is on multiple OEMs, unlike Apple's single OEM. You can't expect all of them to fall in line and release phones only once a year. It's just the way of competition and technological progress. Many OEMs will produce progress faster than a single OEM.

Personally speaking, I have no come across a single person I know that expressed the regret, as you claim, about being "obsolete". If anything, a lot of them regret they didn't get their Android device sooner.
\Apple has always had competition. It's just been in its blind spot.
Reply
\Apple has always had competition. It's just been in its blind spot.
Reply
post #90 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

In an ideal world, nobody uses that word to describe anything. Might force people to think in terms of substance rather than responding with gut reactions that may make them feel superior, but really don't have any other meaning. Frankly I'm hearing a lot of the latter in this debate.

Well, in an ideal world, there would be no need to use it. What you are hearing in this debate are a bunch of developers, and Adobe astroturfers from time to time, who just want to "cash in" by churning out junk, and don't give a damn about iOS or its users, and, against them, people who value quality, and don't think Apple should have to compromise it's platform for a bunch of half-assed "ports" that will break whenever they try to make it better and leave people pissed off at Apple rather than Adobe and others who would truly be the responsible parties, but won't have to shoulder the blame.
post #91 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbonner View Post

Correct me if I am wrong, Apple didn't block flash, they blocked non native apps. I have never seen, or heard of, a version of flash that would actually run on the iPhone/iPad.



http://blog.makezine.com/archive/201...ur_iphone.html
post #92 of 238
.

Say Apple (or anyone) gets forced to carry Flash apps (or Flash generated, cross-compiled derivatives) in their app store. Wouldn't the same apply to other interpreted languages like Java, Perl, Basic, etc.

If so, wouldn't it be within the purview of the FTC, EU (FDA? DMV? ASCAP? DAR? SPBSQA?) to require proper labels and warnings on the apps, e.g.

GOVERNMENT WARNING: (1) According to the Surgeon general, women should not drink alcoholic beverages use Flash apps during pregnancy because of the risk of birth defects. (2) Consumption of alcoholic beverages Flash apps impairs your ability to drive a car or operate machinery, operate a computer or cell phone, and may cause health problems and deplete your battery.


Further, wouldn't these watchdogs need to come up with recommended daily requirements of acceptable app contents-- so much Flash-Fat, Java-Fat, etc?

Then, wouldn't the providers of the apps be forced to list the origin and contents of each app:

Made from cross-compiled code containing one or more of the following: Flash-Fat, Java-Fat, APL-Fat, Grep-Fat, CoBOL-Fat, filler, regexps....


(Be careful, Adobe-- You may get more publicity than you bargained for!)


Lord, protect us from the bureaucrats and politicians who strive to protect us from ourselves!

If you tolerate it, you'll get more of it!
"...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 #93 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

No, there's no stalemate. In the scenarios you present, one just takes one's business elsewhere. If developing for iOS is too difficult for you, there are plenty of other platforms you can take your business to, and iOS will be no worse off without you, nor will consumers who use it.

You seem to misunderstand the basic premise of competition laws. Apple can well be prohibited from arbitrarily making it more difficult to develop for their platform. This can be called an artificial barrier to competition. This is why I say that Apple may be compelled to demonstrate a logic behind their developer policies that articulates a rationale for them beyond "these apps are crap." If they can't do that, then they'd better have Plan B ready and waiting, or they could find themselves mired in a long, unproductive or even potentially damaging debate with the regulators. For Exhibit A, see Microsoft.

Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Well, in an ideal world, there would be no need to use it. What you are hearing in this debate are a bunch of developers, and Adobe astroturfers from time to time, who just want to "cash in" by churning out junk, and don't give a damn about iOS or its users, and, against them, people who value quality, and don't think Apple should have to compromise it's platform for a bunch of half-assed "ports" that will break whenever they try to make it better and leave people pissed off at Apple rather than Adobe and others who would truly be the responsible parties, but won't have to shoulder the blame.

See above.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #94 of 238
I don't see what the problem is here. If you don't like Apple, then don't buy it. There are other alternatives.
post #95 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoolook View Post

I am confused... I mean, I'd actually like Flash on my iPad, but suggesting not having it there 'harms competition' is insane.

Maybe they should investigate Flash's 99% market presense on computers, and see how much THAT is harming competition.

The industry needs watchdogs and regulation, but they're so dim-witted, it's painful!

Completely agree on this point.

How would Adobe feel if Microsoft took Apple, Mozilla, and Opera to court to either force them to also distribute competing proprietary run-times with their browsers or force them to stop distributing Flash.

This gives Adobe a huge unfair advantage that no one will ever be able to compete with.
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
post #96 of 238
Apple has to test every App before they put it into THEIR store, that is probably an expensive task.They provide the servers for the Apps to be downloaded from, the interface (iTunes store) to make it easy to search for the App you like. All of that is overhead that costs them money before they make any money on a sale.

Apple has determined from experience that cross-compiled code has issues, especially when they make changes to the OS and they don't want to spend their time and money promoting Apps made this way, it COSTS them to do so. Why must they be forced to babysit a situation that they know from experience will fall just so someone else can make money? I don't know of any stores here in my town that do that. If they know a product is more trouble than will be profitable, they simply don't put it into their store.

Now that jailbreaking is deemed to be legal this should even be less of an issue. There is another store where people can buy apps made with cross-compiled code, no one is stopping anyone from creating apps for that store or from downloading them. All Apple is saying is that if you jailbreak and put stuff on your iDevice that we think is a bad idea due to X, Y, Z reasons we are not going to fix it.

At the end of the day everyone gets what they want, so I really don't see any issue.
post #97 of 238
Well you went that far, why don't you get something to change the user agent ID in Safari, so it isn't identified as an iPhone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidcarswell View Post

I am currently running flash on my iphone-it is jailbroke and i installed 'frash'-a install through a custom repo in Cydia's app store on jailbroken phones. It runs ok. Farmville doesn't work because it can detect it is an iphone and refers me to download the FV app in Apple's App Store and the same for go.abc.com for tv shows

-I can disable it with one click using the SBspringboard toggle i doubt i will ever use it-i ran a few videos and a casino site. worked ok... a couple hiccups but the iphone gets rather warm like a space heater-i hear the android version is the same. HOT. And the battery went down about 40% in just about 7 minutes.

The hack utilizes an android flash version 10.1.

My take is it has a long way to go.

FTC and EU shouldn't waste their time especially considering Adobe doesn't have an acceptable mobile version anyway. Although really they shouldn't bother at all. Apple can choose what they want. Adobe could make it available regardless now that jailbreaking was declared legal in the eyes of the law. Adobe could solve this all by themselves going that route.

just my 2 cents,

-david

!!! oh and it does come up with something similar to click2flash but just says flash. you have to tap it to load it - even for apps.
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #98 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

No, there's no stalemate. In the scenarios you present, one just takes one's business elsewhere. If developing for iOS is too difficult for you, there are plenty of other platforms you can take your business to, and iOS will be no worse off without you, nor will consumers who use it.

So you're saying if the cross platform compiler company lags behind the least iOS updates too much I could take my app to a company whose compiler is updated responsibly. Thanks for the idea.

However, I understand your point about if it's never there, no one will miss it. But if everyone else has it, it could be missed.
When a company stops chasing profit and start chasing the betterment of their products, services, workforce, and customers, that will be the most valuable company in the world.
Reply
When a company stops chasing profit and start chasing the betterment of their products, services, workforce, and customers, that will be the most valuable company in the world.
Reply
post #99 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

You seem to misunderstand the basic premise of competition laws. Apple can well be prohibited from arbitrarily making it more difficult to develop for their platform. This can be called an artificial barrier to competition. This is why I say that Apple may be compelled to demonstrate a logic behind their developer policies that articulates a rationale for them beyond "these apps are crap." If they can't do that, then they'd better have Plan B ready and waiting, or they could find themselves mired in a long, unproductive or even potentially damaging debate with the regulators. For Exhibit A, see Microsoft.

Well, your argument might carry weight if a) there were an artificial barrier to competition, or b) if there were actually valid analogies with Microsoft's browser gambit to be made. But, since the "barriers" are entirely reasonable, and based on valid technological considerations, protecting consumers and developers, as well as iOS, and since the situation has nothing in common with the IE stuffing that MS engaged in, then Apple should have no trouble convincing regulators that Adobe's whining is just that.
post #100 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

the European Commission recently joined the probe "into whether Apple's business practices harm competition."

Yeah, let's see how they figure out that a single company with proprietary products controlling a vast majority of important online media (in excess of 75% of all online video) is somehow being victimized by Apple because they favor open standards that are accessible to everyone.

What next, will they force Mac and Linux users to use Internet Explorer in case Microsoft feels like their browser marketshare will erode?

Blocking the Flash translation is entirely Apple's choice. They have laid out some rules and they have enough justification to be valid.

If any complaint to the FTC needs to be made it's about Adobe for being allowed to have such control over the internet. No single company has that level of control. Internet Explorer has a 50% share now but Flash is nearing 97%. Given that you can build an entire site in Flash, Adobe has huge anti-competitive potential because no software other than Adobe's own software can reliably author Flash content and few others can similarly decode it reliably. That pretty much defines a monopoly and anti-competitive behavior.

Forcing Apple to adopt Flash in some form would do exactly the opposite of what the EU and FTC intend because it means that a majority of smartphones will support a proprietary technology, which will further increase its usage and propagate the vendor lock-in. I guess they have to follow through whatever complaints are made but I can't see this having any weight behind it.

No possible outcome can force Apple to use either a Flash to native translator or a Flash decoder for online content because Apple can just say that they don't meet performance, security and stability standards.
post #101 of 238
all I can say is ... LOL
post #102 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by silverpraxis View Post

So you're saying if the cross platform compiler company lags behind the least iOS updates too much I could take my app to a company whose compiler is updated responsibly. Thanks for the idea.

However, I understand your point about if it's never there, no one will miss it. But if everyone else has it, it could be missed.

No, I'm saying that if you insist on using a cross compiler, there are plenty of places to market your product where they don't care about the quality of the user experience or the apps on their platform, like Android, for example. They have contests where people win thousands of dollars for producing junk apps. Sounds like the platform for you.
post #103 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by SendMe View Post

If you want to run some sort of home-brew, there are plenty of platforms which will run any old thing.

You are free to buy any one of them. But your User Experience will suffer.

That is the difference with Apple. They will not allow you to have a bad time, and the haters say that is wrong.

I was satirising Adobe's position with my post, I don't actually have my own plugin called 'U R A N0B'.
post #104 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

How can you prejudge the situation so completely? It's not a "dangerous precedent" for governments to become involved in competition issues, unless you are referring to 19th century precedents, since this is how long it's been going on.

It's true that it's not a dangerous precedent to simple "get involved in competition issues" but that isn't really the case here. Apple's competition seems to be arguing that Apple can't tell them how to develop apps for their platform.

It seems to me that something you create, like an OS or a mobile device is a private thing. Why should the government tell a business owner what kind of products they can stock on their shelves (virtual or otherwise), and why should a government tell the maker of a product that they have to include this, that, or the other thing?

There is no monopoly, there is no anti-competitive issue at all.

If all mobile OS vendors got together and banned a certain tool then they might have an anti-competitive issue, but that isn't the case.
post #105 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

This is a very intelligent analysis. I suspect you are right about the general outlines of the complaints and how they will be resolved. Apple I believe is going to have to respond with some sort of performance standard, rather than the current simplistic "no cross-compiled apps" policy. With the EU now involved I'd guess this is more likely than it was with just the FTC investigating the complaint. I don't see it as being any kind of a big deal, but I hope Apple is thinking of how they can settle this quickly and move on.

If Android is the big hit the press is saying it is, then there is plenty of choice in the mobile app space and Apple won't have to do a damned thing.

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A

Reply

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A

Reply
post #106 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

Apple can well be prohibited from arbitrarily making it more difficult to develop for their platform.

Simple question.

Why?

If Apple is shooting itself in the foot by banning all these great cross-compiled apps, then surely that is providing the competition with an advantage.
post #107 of 238
It is time that we, the people, vote for a massive reduction of government in our lives.

Since when do bureaucrat regulators in any country have the right to investigate anything that does not concern the physical health and economic freedom of AMericans?
SkyKing
Reply
SkyKing
Reply
post #108 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B View Post

Wait, what mobile devices run the full version of Flash? Because I don't remember seeing any...

Yes, it runs pretty well on my Nexus One. Your iPhone doesn't have the CPU to run it? That sucks... I'm here playing some sweet, free, flash games.
post #109 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Well, your argument might carry weight if a) there were an artificial barrier to competition, or b) if there were actually valid analogies with Microsoft's browser gambit to be made. But, since the "barriers" are entirely reasonable, and based on valid technological considerations, protecting consumers and developers, as well as iOS, and since the situation has nothing in common with the IE stuffing that MS engaged in, then Apple should have no trouble convincing regulators that Adobe's whining is just that.

You can only come to this conclusion by completely prejudging the situation and based entirely on your opinions, rather than the law as it is viewed by those who are responsible for enforcing it. You might end up being right, but only by random chance.

My analogy to Microsoft had nothing to do with the technical situation, let alone with browsers. It was a reference only to the potential downsides of engaging in a game of chicken with regulators. At the start, Microsoft made the strategic decision to argue that they could not possibly be doing anything wrong, that they were going to beat the government at all costs. Bad idea. They came off to regulators and to the judge in the case as being exceptionally stubborn and arrogant. Not to mention, evasive and dishonest.

I know every time I mention the recent settlement between Intel and the FTC the response is the sound of crickets in the night, but I still think this could be model for how a company can deal with these sorts of investigations. Intel agreed to stop using a pricing policy they never admitted to employing in the first place. Everyone declared themselves pleased with the outcome, and the story was over. If this investigation continues (and we hardly know yet that it will), Apple would be wise to fashion a similar response. I've already made a suggestion as to what that might be.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #110 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

No, I'm saying that if you insist on using a cross compiler, there are plenty of places to market your product where they don't care about the quality of the user experience or the apps on their platform, like Android, for example. They have contests where people win thousands of dollars for producing junk apps. Sounds like the platform for you.

I agree with Dr Millmoss. Apple has to demonstrate cross compiler apps in general are not to it's level of quality, and Apple mist set a standard for said quality. Otherwise it is abritrary and gives them an unfair power in the form of app prejudice.

Apple has to test every app submitted as it stands now. If a cross compiled app doesn't work reject it, even with advice to use native language. But if the app works as advertised, it would cause harm to the dev and costumers to reject it for an artificial cause.

I've seen apps with descriptions apple vetted as saying don't update to version x.xx because it doesn't work with iOS version x.x.x, wait for next update in coming days. How is this better than cross compiler apps that may break if you update the OS?
When a company stops chasing profit and start chasing the betterment of their products, services, workforce, and customers, that will be the most valuable company in the world.
Reply
When a company stops chasing profit and start chasing the betterment of their products, services, workforce, and customers, that will be the most valuable company in the world.
Reply
post #111 of 238
Haha, that'a funny!
Want to save America?

Vote Ron Paul for President in 2012
Reply
Want to save America?

Vote Ron Paul for President in 2012
Reply
post #112 of 238
It's all sleight of hand. Look over here at this non-issue while google and verizon kill net neutrality over thereand we do nothing about it. The bastards have won but at least we have cool iDevices to keep up preoccupied. :-(
post #113 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

It's true that it's not a dangerous precedent to simple "get involved in competition issues" but that isn't really the case here. Apple's competition seems to be arguing that Apple can't tell them how to develop apps for their platform.

It seems to me that something you create, like an OS or a mobile device is a private thing. Why should the government tell a business owner what kind of products they can stock on their shelves (virtual or otherwise), and why should a government tell the maker of a product that they have to include this, that, or the other thing?

There is no monopoly, there is no anti-competitive issue at all.

If all mobile OS vendors got together and banned a certain tool then they might have an anti-competitive issue, but that isn't the case.

From what I've heard, Adobe's complaint seems weak -- but then, we haven't actually seen Adobe's complaint, have we? Evidently the FTC and the EU both think it has sufficient merit to warrant at least an investigation. That's all we really know. So your conclusive statements about both the facts and the law seem very premature.

All of these competition issues are "private things." No "monopoly" is required for the laws to come into play. This is a common misperception.

Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B View Post

If Android is the big hit the press is saying it is, then there is plenty of choice in the mobile app space and Apple won't have to do a damned thing.

Maybe. I'm sure Apple will make a similar argument in their defense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by piot View Post

Simple question.

Why?

If Apple is shooting itself in the foot by banning all these great cross-compiled apps, then surely that is providing the competition with an advantage.

Again, maybe. Not to repeat everything I've said before, but Apple may be put into the position of having to justify their restrictions on a technical basis. I sure don't claim to know that it will get that far, but it might.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #114 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post


Also, even if what you say is true, it's a dangerous precedent for any government body to be telling a private company or individual what they can and cannot allow with their own products. This is the same thing as the government mandating that you use a certain kind of gas in your car, or forcing you to allow someone who doesn't like the colour of your house to paint the side facing them another colour.

That argument fits better when talking about Pystar trying to install Apple's OS on their hardware. At the time, people tried to argue that once you purchased the OS, you should be able to do with it whatever you want. But those folks failed to realize that you are licensing the OS, so modifying it can be restricted by Apple because you don't "own" it.

It gets a little muddy with the iPhone. You own the hardware, but are still licensing the OS. So while you would argue "who does the government think they are to tell a private company...what they can and cannot allow with their own product." But once you buy your iPhone, the hardware is no longer Apple's. It's yours. You own it. So I could argue, "who does Apple think they are to tell me what I can and cannot do with MY property." As long as I don't modify the OS, why can't I run whatever I want to on it, just like I can with my Mac?

What if Ford told you that you could only buy gas from them? What if they put speed limiters in their vehicles because they don't want their users to suffer from a bad user experience of crashing? Or they want to preserve the image of their vehicles as safe to drive, and you crashing would give them a bad reputation. Apple wants you to get all your apps from them, but every state has laws that prevents car manufacturers from forcing you to their own dealerships for regular service (oil changes, etc) by threatening to void your warranties if you don't.

Apple was fine as long as they appeared benevolent. But the last update to the developers agreement was not so. It not only banned Flash derived apps from the iPhone, it made it less appealing for developers to develop using Flash for ANY platform, because they wouldn't be able to reuse their work for an iPhone app. Many would argue that Flash is "crap", and I'd agree. But that's just Apple's and our opinions. There are thousands of developers (and Adobe) who would argue that the benefits outweigh the downsides. It's all subjective.

You say it's within Apple's rights to dictate how the iPhone is used. What if they next did the same thing for Mac computers? All in the interest of give you a better user experience and protecting you from "crap." You could only buy the apps Apple approves and you have to get them from Apple. I'm pretty sure you and everyone else here would go ape-sh*t if they tried that.

[And just wait until a subpeona uncovers the embarassing internal Apple emails about how to best re-write the developer agreement in order to kill Adobe's method of converting Flash to native iOS code. You know that discussion took place at Apple. And then Apple will be no better than MS in the eyes of the regulators.]
post #115 of 238
Flash, like tobacco and carbon, is a hooker. You crave for it and it's killing you. You fill up, inhale, shoot video, one foot down memory lane, the other up Nature's ass.

Big time Bogeymen, small change moneymen make cravings for a living. And regulators make sure the money flows down stream, with a brief and discreet stopover at 'nurture' Island...

Apple throws a tantrum into the still of the night; well, this is no time for 'after hours' they reckon, you break curfew ...we make a fool, break the good out of you!*
post #116 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by ggbrigette View Post

Apple has to test every App before they put it into THEIR store, that is probably an expensive task.They provide the servers for the Apps to be downloaded from, the interface (iTunes store) to make it easy to search for the App you like. All of that is overhead that costs them money before they make any money on a sale.

Apple has determined from experience that cross-compiled code has issues, especially when they make changes to the OS and they don't want to spend their time and money promoting Apps made this way, it COSTS them to do so. Why must they be forced to babysit a situation that they know from experience will fall just so someone else can make money? I don't know of any stores here in my town that do that. If they know a product is more trouble than will be profitable, they simply don't put it into their store.

Now that jailbreaking is deemed to be legal this should even be less of an issue. There is another store where people can buy apps made with cross-compiled code, no one is stopping anyone from creating apps for that store or from downloading them. All Apple is saying is that if you jailbreak and put stuff on your iDevice that we think is a bad idea due to X, Y, Z reasons we are not going to fix it.

At the end of the day everyone gets what they want, so I really don't see any issue.

Good points. It would be ironic if the efforts of the EFF in getting the Library of Congress to legitimize jailbreaking, which were undertaken to reduce the amount of control Apple was exerting over its own App Store, now resulted in Apple being able to argue that its complete control over its App Store was no danger to competition.
post #117 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Well you went that far, why don't you get something to change the user agent ID in

Safari, so it isn't identified as an iPhone.

I haven't been able to find one. You wouldn't have an idea would you?
post #118 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by silverpraxis View Post

And if the commentor I quoted had attached his blanket statement to the discussion at hand, I might have responded with a more pointed response. But it was a blanket statement baselessly accusing the EU of wasting others' money, when they are in the business of limiting power and protecting those with less resources.

Nobody in America can reasonably believe this statement. EU regulators are extremely biased against American companies as has been demonstrated again and again. In effect the EU operates in such a way as to protect their native companies from real competition. Yes competition that would wipe many of them out.
post #119 of 238
This is stupid. What's next, Microsoft asking the FTC to investigate Apple because they won't allow DOS run on the iPhone?

If Adobe hadn't made Flash such a memory and resource hog, then perhaps this could all have been avoided. Instead they just want to stomp their feet and throw a tantrum.
post #120 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

You can only come to this conclusion by completely prejudging the situation and based entirely on your opinions, rather than the law as it is viewed by those who are responsible for enforcing it. You might end up being right, but only by random chance.

Well, they bring their own prejudices, as you bring yours, but there's nothing in what I've said, or in what Apple has said, that amounts to Apple saying, "We're doing it because we can and no one can tell us differently." Clearly their are technical reasons, which everyone is conveniently ignoring, which have no analogy to Microsoft or Intel, or their respective situations. The biggest reason is that allowing apps written to meta-platforms puts Apple in the position of being controlled by others, of having to either make platform development choices based on not breaking meta platforms, not advancing in the direction they think is best, or indefinitely breaking existing apps that use these meta-platforms. clearly, the responsible action, for everyone concerned is to just say no meta-platforms. It's better for consumers, better for developers, and better for Apple. The only ones left out in the cold are meta-platform developers, and lazy app developers, none of whom are interested in whether they cause harm to consumers or Apple, or not. They're just a bunch of leeches who want to have their way whatever the cost to everyone else.

I'm the last person in the world to say there is no place for government regulation, but this sort of thing gives regulation a bad name. As others have said, this is nothing but companies using their influence over regulators to attach themselves parasitically to successful companies -- in effect, the regulators are being played. A situation utterly different from what Microsoft did with IE, and what Intel has been doing with chips, and in both of those cases, whether there is mention of it or not, the overriding issue is that those are monopolists, even if Intel has not been convicted like Microsoft has been.

EDIT:

And I'm really tired seeing crap be successful. I mean crap like Android and everything else Google does. I mean crap like Flash. And I mean crap like Windows, which even on its best day wasn't half as good as Mac OS on its worst. Crap like IE that destroyed Netscape. And the idea of a company, which is not a monopoly, which has never based it's business on "crushing competitors" but simply on making the best products they can, being forced to allow crap to get in the way of trying to make that product the best product in its class just makes my blood boil. Apple isn't being anti-competitive. They are just trying to be actually competitive, while at the same time making the best effing smartphone the world has ever seen or likely ever will over the next 10 years or more.

There's just way too much crap in the world already, and way too many people trying to make it all we can have.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › European Union joins FTC investigation into Apple's opposition of Flash