AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple no longer banning third-party iOS development tools
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple no longer banning third-party iOS development tools - Page 2

post #41 of 177
9/9/10 at 7:54am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elian Gonzalez View Post

No it's not a terrible thing to say; it's accurate. So many folks always pipe in with "competition is good!" like some kind of a mantra. If I have a product to market, I want to dominate that market, not kindly split it down the middle with my competitors: I want them out of business. You may or may not benefit from that, and any assumption on the part of consumers is just that, an assumption.

With all due respect, dismissing the original poster as a shareholder is a dubious assertion: he/she might be a small business owner who knows better.

Well,

a) Blackintosh is just here to troll, so no point in giving him any reinforcement.

b) I don't mean it's not good for Apple, or for myself, I mean that competition, like natural selection (a form of competition) is an essentially goalless force. Natural selection does not drive the evolution of species toward some perfect, "good" design, it merely results in some individuals, best adapted to their conditions of life, reproducing in greater numbers and dominating the future genome.

Likewise, competition in business does not necessarily result in the "best" companies being successful (unless you define "best" as successful), or in the "best" products succeeding in the marketplace, or even necessarily the "best" outcomes for consumers. It is merely a process wherein some companies succeed at the expense of others, but the effects of that success, in product quality, consumer benefit, or any other measure, are not necessarily good or bad, except perhaps for the successful and unsuccessful companies.
Reply
Reply
post #42 of 177
9/9/10 at 7:54am
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Competition is neither good nor bad. Its results can be constructive, or destructive. It is only the actions of competitors that make the result of competition positive or negative, and there is no guarantee what the result will be.

Finally! An intelligent comment on the subject. Thank you!
Reply
Reply
post #43 of 177
9/9/10 at 7:55am
Should've stuck to your guns Apple.
Reply
Reply
post #44 of 177
9/9/10 at 7:58am
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't, there is no general rule. Sometimes it may even appear to be on the surface, but a deeper examination may reveal the negative. Sometimes it really is good.

What I object to is the thoughtless repetition of the sentiment that, "competition is [always] good," when, in fact, it's contrary to the facts, and a dangerous exercise in self-deception to proclaim, "All will be well, there is competition!"

Of course it is a generally accepted rule that a lack of competition is bad. Are there exceptions? Sure. But, a lack of competition and therefore a lack of choice, will very rarely lead to a positive outcome for consumers. Could there be negative repercussions from competition? Sure. Name anything considered 'good' that can't have consequences that could be considered 'bad'. With your logic, no one should claim free societies, as a general rule are a good thing, since there can and are negative consequences that might occur. Seems like you are picking a fight where none exists, simply to be obtuse.

I think some people are just going to be bitter about this because they wasted so much energy explaining to us all why Apple was right to be so heavy handed, vague, inconsistent, controlling, etc, and now Apple has decided to loosen up and make some corrections and improvements. Those arguments look like so much hot air now.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. Sometimes it's both.

Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. Sometimes it's both.

Reply
post #45 of 177
9/9/10 at 8:02am
""We cannot be at the mercy of a third party deciding if and when they will make our enhancements available to our developers," Jobs wrote."

As a long time Mac user I personally know what it is like to be at the mercy of a third party developer. Cases in point... Office, Quicken, Flash, Photoshop. The list is long and painful. This annoucement just enables third party technology to do exactly what Jobs was worried about. Flash is the poster boy. Imagine what the difference might be between the Android and iPhone versions of Flash. New version of iOS comes out with some innovative UI feature and all we get from Adobe is "we're investigating this feature for a future version of Flash". Meanwhile a new version of Flash is released for Android that sports all sorts of things the iPhone now "can't do." And if you think for one minute that an asshole like Eric Schmidt wouldn't be willing to pump all sorts of money into ensuring the Android version of Flash is always one generation ahead of the iOS version you can kiss my hind end. It continues to happen to this day on the OS X side of the hill. This all but ensures we will eventually see Flash on iOS and it will just as much of a dog as it is on OS X. You can take that to the bank.

This decision may or may not be related to political pressure but it porbably is because Apple has now lost control of iOS and must rely on the likes of Adobe to move the platform forward. This sucks, period.
Reply
Reply
post #46 of 177
9/9/10 at 8:05am
Quote:
Originally Posted by nkhm View Post

Might be complete nonsense, but I wonder if this could have anything to do with the new mystery app in iLife 11 - some form of simple development tool for the average user to create an app which is then ported to iOS ready format - apple could hardly create a tool to let users do this and then stop other tools (such as flash) from doing the same. Just a though, might be rubbish.

Well, that would be cool. I can see a lot of good in something like that.

To those concerned with a spate of junk apps, there have always been and always will be junk apps for any OS. It's the price way pay for having choices. And not everyone is intent on creating apps to get rich and famous. I can see very valuable, small market apps being created that will thrill small groups of folks in their respective fields of interest. Stuff that people who develop for a living will not create because they have no interest or expertise in those particular fields.
Reply
Reply
post #47 of 177
9/9/10 at 8:05am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghostface147 View Post

Should've stuck to your guns Apple.

I would have preferred that they had, but, still, the marketplace is likely to be hostile to the crap Flash apps we are likely to see. This may actually be a case where competitive forces will convince developers that laziness and crappy development tools (i.e., Flash) don't lead to marketplace success. The sheer number of quality apps from Objective-C developers will likely cause this garbage to disappear into the obscurity of the App Store's bottom apps list: apps that are almost never downloaded and have overwhelmingly negative reviews. Based on what's out there on the web, there will be no quality Flash apps, and Flash development will be recognized as the complete waste of time that it is.
Reply
Reply
post #48 of 177
9/9/10 at 8:13am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

Of course it is a generally accepted rule that a lack of competition is bad. Are there exceptions? Sure. But, a lack of competition and therefore a lack of choice, will very rarely lead to a positive outcome for consumers. Could there be negative repercussions from competition? Sure. Name anything considered 'good' that can't have consequences that could be considered 'bad'. With your logic, no one should claim free societies, as a general rule are a good thing, since there can and are negative consequences that might occur. Seems like you are picking a fight where none exists, simply to be obtuse.

I think some people are just going to be bitter about this because they wasted so much energy explaining to us all why Apple was right to be so heavy handed, vague, inconsistent, controlling, etc, and now Apple has decided to loosen up and make some corrections and improvements. Those arguments look like so much hot air now.

My comments on competition are not specific to this announcement. They are, exactly as I have said, in response to the thoughtless repetition of the idea that, "competition is [always] good." Competition may be a necessary condition for positive outcomes (although, it is not strictly so), but it is by no means a sufficient condition. And, no, my "logic" in this instance does not in any way support an argument that free societies are not good things; there is absolutely no commonality in the two concepts that would lead to any sort of analogous argument.
Reply
Reply
post #49 of 177
9/9/10 at 8:15am
Quote:
Originally Posted by desarc View Post

Phillip Shoemaker, director of applications technology at Apple and the man who runs the App Store, has a side business called Gray Noodle. Gray Noodle is responsible for quality iPhone apps like Animal Farts, a urination simulator called iWiz


it doesn't take 3rd party tools to make lousy apps. it doesn't even take 3rd party PEOPLE.

Looks like Apple is finally clamping down on his kind:

Apple's App Store Review Guidelines: 'We don't need anymore Fart apps'
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...fart_apps.html

Or maybe it's just that, now that he's in charge, he wants that whole classy market to himself.
Reply
Reply
post #50 of 177
9/9/10 at 8:17am
I wouldn't worry that much about a bunch of crappy apps suddenly getting approved (there is more than enough lousy apps now). What this change really does is say that Apple doesn't care so much how you made your app, only what it looks like when it is done.

If I'm interpreting this correctly, it gives developers the freedom to use more tools to create their apps, but the apps still need to be in compliance at the end of the process.
Reply
Reply
post #51 of 177
9/9/10 at 8:19am
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post

""We cannot be at the mercy of a third party deciding if and when they will make our enhancements available to our developers," Jobs wrote."

As a long time Mac user I personally know what it is like to be at the mercy of a third party developer. Cases in point... Office, Quicken, Flash, Photoshop. The list is long and painful. This annoucement just enables third party technology to do exactly what Jobs was worried about. Flash is the poster boy. Imagine what the difference might be between the Android and iPhone versions of Flash. New version of iOS comes out with some innovative UI feature and all we get from Adobe is "we're investigating this feature for a future version of Flash". Meanwhile a new version of Flash is released for Android that sports all sorts of things the iPhone now "can't do." And if you think for one minute that an asshole like Eric Schmidt wouldn't be willing to pump all sorts of money into ensuring the Android version of Flash is always one generation ahead of the iOS version you can kiss my hind end. It continues to happen to this day on the OS X side of the hill. This all but ensures we will eventually see Flash on iOS and it will just as much of a dog as it is on OS X. You can take that to the bank.

This decision may or may not be related to political pressure but it porbably is because Apple has now lost control of iOS and must rely on the likes of Adobe to move the platform forward. This sucks, period.

Whoa! You're way over the top. What Schmidt is willing to do and and what he can do are 2 different things. The surest way to circumvent what you fear is for ios to continue to grow market share. Developers are not going to do favors for Schmidt or anyone else when there's money to be made on ios. And btw, I'm a Mac user since the Mac plus so I feel your angst.
Reply
Reply
post #52 of 177
9/9/10 at 8:21am
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

My comments on competition are not specific to this announcement. They are, exactly as I have said, in response to the thoughtless repetition of the idea that, "competition is [always] good." Competition may be a necessary condition for positive outcomes (although, it is not strictly so), but it is by no means a sufficient condition. And, no, my "logic" in this instance does not in any way support an argument that free societies are not good things; there is absolutely no commonality in the two concepts that would lead to any sort of analogous argument.

Of course it analogous.
Quote:
[Freedom] is neither good nor bad. Its results can be constructive, or destructive. It is only the actions of competitors that make the result of competition positive or negative, and there is no guarantee what the result will be.

Quote:
Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't, there is no general rule. Sometimes it may even appear to be on the surface, but a deeper examination may reveal the negative. Sometimes it really is good.

What I object to is the thoughtless repetition of the sentiment that, "[freedom] is [always] good," when, in fact, it's contrary to the facts, and a dangerous exercise in self-deception to proclaim, "All will be well, there is [freedom]!"

It is as true in one case as the other.

Anyway, as you alluded, this tangent is of no value to the discussion of this announcement. Interesting, I suppose.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. Sometimes it's both.

Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. Sometimes it's both.

Reply
post #53 of 177
9/9/10 at 8:23am
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't, there is no general rule. Sometimes it may even appear to be on the surface, but a deeper examination may reveal the negative. Sometimes it really is good.

What I object to is the thoughtless repetition of the sentiment that, "competition is [always] good," when, in fact, it's contrary to the facts, and a dangerous exercise in self-deception to proclaim, "All will be well, there is competition!"

Well, well, well, surprised by the all the negative competition is good replies here.
Of course competition can be good or bad. But in a market where the field has relatively equal playing rules(and ground rules), I would submit it is good. I would also suggest that the competition between Android and Winphone7, iOS etc is a good thing? Is that fair?
I believe that is the general sentiment of the statement in this forum. But no arguement, out in the world, there are plenty of bad 'competition' examples.

But back to the topic. Many developers chimed in at the time, that the restrictive rules didn't quite make sense because there are all kinds of 'code packages' that can be purchased and used (being a non-developer, hope I'm conveying the sentiments correctly).
IMO its actually a good sign of a well run company that they can reverse course(and eat some crow) when they need to. Hmmm, just so it is not too often like- cough Microsoft, cough, Ballsmer, cough . I kid our Microsoft friends.
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster by your side, kid.
Reply
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster by your side, kid.
Reply
post #54 of 177
9/9/10 at 8:27am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

Of course it analogous.



It is as true in one case as the other.

Anyway, as you alluded, this tangent is of no value to the discussion of this announcement. Interesting, I suppose.

Simply replacing one word with another, resulting in a grammatical sentence, does not an analogy, or valid argument, make. Another thing that many, unfortunately, do not seem to understand.
Reply
Reply
post #55 of 177
9/9/10 at 8:30am
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't, there is no general rule. Sometimes it may even appear to be on the surface, but a deeper examination may reveal the negative. Sometimes it really is good.

What I object to is the thoughtless repetition of the sentiment that, "competition is [always] good," when, in fact, it's contrary to the facts, and a dangerous exercise in self-deception to proclaim, "All will be well, there is competition!"

Sorry but there is a general rule and that is competition is always good for the end user or consumer. If it wasn't there wouldn't be a system setup to protect the consumer against a company creating a monopoly.
Reply
Reply
post #56 of 177
9/9/10 at 8:37am
Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater View Post

Sorry but there is a general rule and that is competition is always good for the end user or consumer. If it wasn't there wouldn't be a system setup to protect the consumer against a company creating a monopoly.

I refer you to post #48, which will perhaps bring additional clarity to your thought on this subject.
Reply
Reply
post #57 of 177
9/9/10 at 8:57am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

So, all you are really saying, is that for a business, the owners or the shareholders, a lack of competition is good. That is sort of what he meant when he said "Unless you're a shareholder I guess". Obviously, for a business, or anyone involved in it, a lack of competition is good.

No sir (or ma'am), what I'm saying is that our (the consumer) conception of competition is different from a business owner who makes Product A and wants to steer people away from Product B. The immediate effect is a potential price war: I'm going to undercut Product B with a killer price. *That's* the primary reference point consumers make when purcashing products, so they'll almost always gravitate to the lower price when they see a higher one next to it. In that respect, a consumer says, "Competition is good because I got the lower price." We all (should) know lower prices don't mean better quality (and vice versa).

As a business owner, my motivation is getting you to buy Product A. If I'm successful enough to move inventory, then the competition suffers because more people come to my store, buy my services, and are loyal to me because I offer better prices. If my competitor actually has better quality overall but lower profit, well, too bad for him.

(Please excuse the lecturing tone; that's genuinely not my intention.)
Reply
Reply
post #58 of 177
9/9/10 at 9:02am
Quote:
Originally Posted by GQB View Post

No, competition can result in a race to the bottom, as has happened in the PC industry.

You mean the lack of Microsoft tax? Like the Apple tax?
Reply
Reply
post #59 of 177
9/9/10 at 9:04am
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse;1710670) [B

Blackintosh[/B] is just here to troll, so no point in giving him any reinforcement.

No I'm not. I'm here to tell the truth. And yet again, instead of responding to WHAT I said, you dismissed me as a troll. In much the same way I dismiss you as a fanboi who will suck down what ever Steve Jobs shoves in your face.
Reply
Reply
post #60 of 177
9/9/10 at 9:07am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elian Gonzalez View Post

No it's not a terrible thing to say; it's accurate.

Umm, yes it IS a terrible thing to say. Not eveyone wants to live in a walled garden. Some of us want to do what we wish and what is easily possible with our devices.

I can give examples if you want to discuss it further. Or you can tell me I'm a Google paid troll and tell me to flip off like most of the mature posters here do every day.
Reply
Reply
post #61 of 177
9/9/10 at 9:08am
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

blackintosh is just here to troll, so no point in giving him any reinforcement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by blackintosh View Post

no i'm not. I'm here to tell the truth. And yet again, instead of responding to what i said, you dismissed me as a troll. In much the same way i dismiss you as a fanboi who will suck down what ever steve jobs shoves in your face.

q.e.d.
Reply
Reply
post #62 of 177
9/9/10 at 9:13am
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

I refer you to post #48, which will perhaps bring additional clarity to your thought on this subject.

"They are, exactly as I have said, in response to the thoughtless repetition of the idea that, "competition is [always] good." "

The comments about competition are never thoughtless and there is a reason for the repetition because its a true statement.

Now what everyone needs to start adding to their statement is competition is always good because it always benefits the end user or consumer.

Competition is never good for the company because it requires them to invest more money that they wouldn't have to invest with competition lacking. It always requires them them continue to innovate to keep up with the competition.

So while competition isn't good for everyone its good for the only group the matters which is the consumer.
Reply
Reply
post #63 of 177
9/9/10 at 9:14am
Apples App approval process has never been up to the standards weve come to expect, even given that the whole platform has grown fast in unpredictable ways. BUT at least they have time and again shown flexibility on their biggest missteps.

At one point it looked like Apple would ban game engines! And before today, the language still sounded that way. I wonder if the Epic Citadel demo and Unreal Engine were a factor motivating them to re-think all this? Clearly middleware can help make better games. (Thats not to say Flash necessarily!)

nagromme
Your Mac, PC or PS3 could help cure cancer!

Reply

nagromme
Your Mac, PC or PS3 could help cure cancer!

Reply
post #64 of 177
9/9/10 at 9:17am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackintosh;

Umm, yes it IS a terrible thing to say. Not eveyone wants to live in a walled garden. Some of us want to do what we wish and what is easily possible with our devices.

I can give examples if you want to discuss it further. Or you can tell me I'm a Google paid troll and tell me to flip off like most of the mature posters here do every day.

Not everyone wants to live in a walled garden. That's why Android is there or whatever. But it is best for iOS, I would say. Just look at the new Mac users... Most of them have zero clue how to "install" or remove apps. And giving them access to the file system, for new users, is actually a bad idea. I think iOS simplicity is just nice. The apps take care of the rest.

Typing this on Atomic browser, it's pretty awesome. You all should try it. My preferred mode when hitting up AppleInsider and the forums.
Reply
Reply
post #65 of 177
9/9/10 at 9:19am
Great. It will be easier to compete against all the misguided cross-platform developers that make slow inconsistent apps.
Reply
Reply
post #66 of 177
9/9/10 at 9:21am
By the way, why isn't there an app that will playback FLV files from a particular URL? Flash playing need not be limited to Adobe products, right? Like I said before, there have been Flash decompilers for almost a decade now. Someone could make a web browser that plays back Flash elements.
Reply
Reply
post #67 of 177
9/9/10 at 9:21am
What about HTML or javascript code?
Reply
Reply
post #68 of 177
9/9/10 at 9:24am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpsro View Post

What about HTML or javascript code?

There has always been an exception for that. You can download javascript and execute it. I think all hybrid apps still get a mature rating though.
Reply
Reply
post #69 of 177
9/9/10 at 9:26am
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post

""We cannot be at the mercy of a third party deciding if and when they will make our enhancements available to our developers," Jobs wrote."

As a long time Mac user I personally know what it is like to be at the mercy of a third party developer. Cases in point... Office, Quicken, Flash, Photoshop. The list is long and painful. This annoucement just enables third party technology to do exactly what Jobs was worried about. Flash is the poster boy. Imagine what the difference might be between the Android and iPhone versions of Flash. New version of iOS comes out with some innovative UI feature and all we get from Adobe is "we're investigating this feature for a future version of Flash". Meanwhile a new version of Flash is released for Android that sports all sorts of things the iPhone now "can't do." And if you think for one minute that an asshole like Eric Schmidt wouldn't be willing to pump all sorts of money into ensuring the Android version of Flash is always one generation ahead of the iOS version you can kiss my hind end. It continues to happen to this day on the OS X side of the hill. This all but ensures we will eventually see Flash on iOS and it will just as much of a dog as it is on OS X. You can take that to the bank.

This decision may or may not be related to political pressure but it porbably is because Apple has now lost control of iOS and must rely on the likes of Adobe to move the platform forward. This sucks, period.

this makes the assumption, that developers are going to start primarily using flash to develop apps since it's such a great platform to develop on. It's almost admitting the flash CS5 is so good that developers will begin relying on adobe. Otherwise, what would the worry really be about? I would think it would be the other way round, adobe would need to keep up with apple and other dev tools to stay a relevant dev tool?

If you build a great development platform, then people will use it. All apple (or someone) has to do, is make something better than flash.
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
post #70 of 177
9/9/10 at 9:27am
Quote:
Originally Posted by nagromme View Post

Apple’s App approval process has never been up to the standards we’ve come to expect, even given that the whole platform has grown fast in unpredictable ways. BUT at least they have time and again shown flexibility on their biggest missteps.

At one point it looked like Apple would ban game engines! And before today, the language still sounded that way. I wonder if the Epic Citadel demo and Unreal Engine were a factor motivating them to re-think all this? Clearly middleware can help make better games. (That’s not to say Flash necessarily!)

I think for game engines and so on it made sense to open up the dev rules. Because imagine if you were Epic, how are you going to deliver your game engine to other developers? At some stage in the game engine there's going to be game engine custom code that then is converted at some point, etc. This move probably makes more sense for apps in the long term... Especially if iOS is moving into console-gaming quality in the next few years or less.

I think Apple looked at the game development process whereby you take an engine and just script it without having to touch Xcode, Epic or iD would assist in optimising the game. Apple must have seen some nice games coming out of that and thought, well, in the long run...
Reply
Reply
post #71 of 177
9/9/10 at 9:30am
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

My comments on competition are not specific to this announcement. They are, exactly as I have said, in response to the thoughtless repetition of the idea that, "competition is [always] good." Competition may be a necessary condition for positive outcomes (although, it is not strictly so), but it is by no means a sufficient condition. And, no, my "logic" in this instance does not in any way support an argument that free societies are not good things; there is absolutely no commonality in the two concepts that would lead to any sort of analogous argument.

While in theory, I would agree that competition doesn't necessarily need to exist to have good outcomes happen. Companies can always develop new features and drop prices on their own to keep consumers buying their products.

However, in practice, I personally see competition as a necessary condition to drive this good to happen. If Company X is the only one selling a product everyone wants at $500 and everyone's buying it at $500, what incentive is there for Company X to lower the price to $400? They're the only ones selling the product so why would they want to deliberately earn less money per unit?

If Company Y comes in with a product offering similar features but at only $300, Company X will have no choice but to either lower their price or come up with new features to justify their $500 price or face going out of business. And the cycle repeats.

The iPhone itself is a perfect example. The original was released with no MMS, no copy/paste, no real apps, and no 3G. All this at a price point much higher than its competition was selling products that had those features for. How long do you think the iPhone would have survived had Apple not lowered the price and added features to match and exceed the competition?

Competition may not always be good for the consumer, I'll agree, but I do see it as a necessary condition to bring good to them.
\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 #72 of 177
9/9/10 at 9:32am
Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater View Post

"They are, exactly as I have said, in response to the thoughtless repetition of the idea that, "competition is [always] good." "

The comments about competition are never thoughtless and there is a reason for the repetition because its a true statement.

Now what everyone needs to start adding to their statement is competition is always good because it always benefits the end user or consumer.

Competition is never good for the company because it requires them to invest more money that they wouldn't have to invest with competition lacking. It always requires them them continue to innovate to keep up with the competition.

So while competition isn't good for everyone its good for the only group the matters which is the consumer.

Sorry, I should have been more explicit that you needed to read past the first sentence. Here's the relevant point for you:

Quote:
Competition may be a necessary condition for positive outcomes (although, it is not strictly so), but it is by no means a sufficient condition.

As for your comments above, where to start... Let's just pick a couple:

Quote:
Competition is never good for the company because it requires them to invest more money that they wouldn't have to invest with competition lacking. It always requires them them continue to innovate to keep up with the competition.

This seems patently mistaken. If they are successful in competing, then, they will, by definition, make more money at some point in the future from their investment. If competition simply caused all companies to simply lose money on investments, the outcome would obviously always be negative, for everyone, and all companies with competition would eventually go out of business.

Quote:
So while competition isn't good for everyone its good for the only group the matters which is the consumer.

This is also not true. If competition results in decreased product quality, it may, for example, cost the consumer more in the long run because they have to replace products more often. Also, if competition drives jobs overseas and drives down wages, is that good for the consumer. Almost every consumer is also a worker, after all. Will competition always result in benefit for all consumers, or sometimes only for some? If the latter is the case, and I believe it is, then, competition is at the same time both good and bad.

Yours is exactly the sort of superficial understanding and thought on this topic that is problematic.
Reply
Reply
post #73 of 177
9/9/10 at 9:35am
Yes, "Competition is always good" -- look how the competition to Netscape from Internet Explorer benefited the Industry, the consumer...

Oh... you must mean fair, legal, non-monopolistic competition...

If true, isn't the converse also true: "Unfair, illegal, monopolistic competition is always bad"...

This, "competition", is really a loaded topic. Don't governments sometimes grant monopolies and usurp competition for the good of the consumers and general public?

Consider things like utility companies, police, armies, fire departments, road building, prisons, unions, health care...

Would the consumer be better served, if he had to "shop around" the competition for a service when his home is on fire?

As with most "rules", it must be evaluated/applied with common sense!

.
"So at the end of the presentation, Steve came up to me and said: Is the iPhone worth criticizing? And I said: Make the screen five inches by eight inches, and you’ll rule the world."
– Alan Kay –
Reply
"So at the end of the presentation, Steve came up to me and said: Is the iPhone worth criticizing? And I said: Make the screen five inches by eight inches, and you’ll rule the world."
– Alan Kay –
Reply
post #74 of 177
9/9/10 at 9:38am
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

ikewise, competition in business does not necessarily result in the "best" companies being successful (unless you define "best" as successful),

For example: Microsoft Windows vs. Mac OS X

We all know which is better and which is more successful.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #75 of 177
9/9/10 at 9:38am
I like the change but some of the reasons for blocking 3rd party APIs were valid. If they simply declare on an application which APIs from a shortlist were used, it will help people decide if the software is worth using. For example, if they note that it was ported from an Adobe app, they can simply say this on the iTunes Store and then I make a conscious decision about whether or not to choose an app that can break more easily after an OS update.
Reply
Reply
post #76 of 177
9/9/10 at 9:51am
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

By the way, why isn't there an app that will playback FLV files from a particular URL? Flash playing need not be limited to Adobe products, right? Like I said before, there have been Flash decompilers for almost a decade now. Someone could make a web browser that plays back Flash elements.


An .flv file is a movie file similar to a .mpg, it doesn't contain any Actionscript programming just audio and video. Flash decompilers to my knowledge only disassemble the binary .swf file back to an editable Flash .fla file but do not result in a playable file as in a deliverable application, with the notable exception of Gordon.js. The CS5 converter is a totally different animal. It produces a fully executable iPhone app which may behave like a Flash swf application but has nothing in common from a digital standpoint since it does not depend on a runtime player.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #77 of 177
9/9/10 at 9:54am
Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater View Post

Sorry but there is a general rule and that is competition is always good for the end user or consumer. If it wasn't there wouldn't be a system setup to protect the consumer against a company creating a monopoly.

It is only "always good" because you aren't considering lots of areas where competition is considered bad.

For instance, police and fire departments, food inspection, etc. A non-trivial percentage of the human labor is devoted to sectors in which competition is considered bad. We just sometimes forget.

The same is true about monopolies as well. There are some sectors in which monopolies are beneficial to consumers, such as natural gas infrastructure, road systems, etc.


With that said, I don't think competition is what caused Apple to relax their development tool policy.
Reply
Reply
post #78 of 177
9/9/10 at 9:54am
Quote:
Originally Posted by AsianBob View Post

While in theory, I would agree that competition doesn't necessarily need to exist to have good outcomes happen. Companies can always develop new features and drop prices on their own to keep consumers buying their products.

However, in practice, I personally see competition as a necessary condition to drive this good to happen. If Company X is the only one selling a product everyone wants at $500 and everyone's buying it at $500, what incentive is there for Company X to lower the price to $400? They're the only ones selling the product so why would they want to deliberately earn less money per unit?

If Company Y comes in with a product offering similar features but at only $300, Company X will have no choice but to either lower their price or come up with new features to justify their $500 price or face going out of business. And the cycle repeats.

The iPhone itself is a perfect example. The original was released with no MMS, no copy/paste, no real apps, and no 3G. All this at a price point much higher than its competition was selling products that had those features for. How long do you think the iPhone would have survived had Apple not lowered the price and added features to match and exceed the competition?

Competition may not always be good for the consumer, I'll agree, but I do see it as a necessary condition to bring good to them.

You seem to have missed my point. I agreed that competition was a necessary (although, not in a strict sense, since it's possible to have good come from a situation without competition) condition of a good outcome. However, the important distinction is that it is not a sufficient condition to guarantee a good outcome. Thus, declaring, "There is competition, all is well!" is a mistake since the existence of competition in no way guarantees that all is well.
Reply
Reply
post #79 of 177
9/9/10 at 9:58am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

For example: Microsoft Windows vs. Mac OS X

We all know which is better and which is more successful.

I think that is a little bit of a fanboy statement. I agree OSX is better, but how can it be more successful when most of the world uses PC's and are forced to use Windows?

No, the Bill Gates business strategy was a more successful one. Assuming were talking about sheer bucks in the bank.
Reply
Reply
post #80 of 177
9/9/10 at 9:58am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

An .flv file is a movie file similar to a .mpg, it doesn't contain any Actionscript programming just audio and video. Flash decompilers to my knowledge only disassemble the binary .swf file back to an editable Flash .fla file but do not result in a playable file as in a deliverable application, with the notable exception of Gordon.js. The CS5 converter is a totally different animal. It produces a fully executable iPhone app which may behave like a Flash swf application but has nothing in common from a digital standpoint since it does not depend on a runtime player.

I think that would still require codec support for FLV. While previously not allowed there have been recent video apps that seem to get around that limitation. Perhaps this evolution of the app store will allow for included codecs within apps.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple no longer banning third-party iOS development tools