Changes to Apple's developer agreement could spur antitrust inquiry

15791011

Comments

  • Reply 121 of 208
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AsianBob View Post


    A developer has a finite amount of resources, this we can all agree on. Before Apple's code ban, all he would need to do is buy a cross-platform compiler, code his app, then compile it for whatever platform he wants. Very general, I know, but that should be the jist of it.



    Sorry, that's not even close to proving wrong-doing. Apple has no obligation to make life easy for its developers.



    Besides, if the developer codes in C, they can port it to other platforms, so Apple isn't stopping it, anyway.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Firefly7475 View Post


    Hypothetical - You build a home automation system and want to create a mobile interface. You have resources to create one application. You could have written it once and ported to all mobile platforms, but Apple has blocked that.



    Apple did no such thing. They said that if you're going to write a cross-platform app, you need to do it on a language that is natively supported, C, Obj-C, etc. They are not allowing emulated languages for very good reasons. So if you write your home automation system in C, you don't have a problem.



    The issue is that Flash script-kiddies think of themselves as developers and are screwing up every platform they touch. Apple depends too much on people having a good UI with the iPhone to allow that to happen, so they require appropriate tools.



    You're free to write code for any platform you wish. You're also free to write code for jail-broken iPhones - except that Adobe has never released Flash for iPhones (jail-broken or otherwise). So why aren't you blaming Adobe?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by PaulMJohnson View Post


    Acting in a way which restricts people being able to promote their business on a device that has become increasingly dominant in the market.



    I asked you for a specific law that Apple has violated and court cases to back that up - and THAT is the best you can come up with? How about not making comments that you can't support?



    Apple has absolutely no obligation to make it easier for developers to make cross-platform apps. NONE. Apple has rules on their platform that the developers are free to follow or not.



    If the developer chooses not to follow the rules, there are already 40,000 apps on Android they can join. And Android is comparable in installed base to iPhone, so the developer won't be giving anything up - EXCEPT the value Apple brings to the table.
  • Reply 122 of 208
    doctor daviddoctor david Posts: 820member
    Even a FTC or doj lawsuit loss for apple wouldn't help those poor poor flash devs. and adobe. By the time it resolved the response to any headlines would be " oh ya, flash I remember that. It got a lot of use for simple games and banner ads(oops, rich web content is what they like to call it) years ago."
  • Reply 123 of 208
    masternavmasternav Posts: 442member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by maciekskontakt View Post


    It is about time. I understand Mr. Jobs' point on technology, but legal rules are not to disable 3rd party competitive attempts. He has to realize that Apple is not setting legal market rules PERIOD.



    It is just business and Mr. Jobs has to learn how to cope with this in competitive market even though some might be using what is percieved as obsolete or having no future.





    Enough is enough.



    You just failed two critical checkpoints in you argument. They are not in any way preventing developers from developing for other platforms - which encapsulates both your logic and your market knowledge fail.

  • Reply 124 of 208
    masternavmasternav Posts: 442member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by maciekskontakt View Post


    That's easy. Doesn't it in smartphones? Too bad for them they were declared stronger than Motorola (and strongest in the USA) just last days.



    Psystar was thwartet not because this was not the case, but because Apple uses power and money to kill "obstacles". Sometimes US system law looks like big bazaar that you can buy merchandise and traders are called lawyers. Try this in EU and perhaps results will be different (already proven with Apple and Microsoft).



    In any case Apple more and more deserves reminding slap. I am saying this as Apple user and actual lover of most of products from this company... but I will never be developer to Apple in any form because of such hostile and binding approach. I'd rather develope for smaller platforms with friendly potential. (In the meantime i devlope for larger platforms and firms than Apple - not mobile though).



    (An arrogant Euro living in the USA).



    So stop with the whole "I own and love Apple products but..." argument. It holds absolutely no water when you main premise is already leaking like a sieve. They are still world-wide trailing RIM in handsets - but we're not talking handsets here are we? AT what point did Apple use power and money to kill obstacles? And cite your cases. Total and utter bullshit. Not because they didn't, but because in fact, under law they were correct and within their rights. Just because they have money doesn't make them bad, or abusive when they challenge someone who doesn't understands the basic principles of the market enough to not do what Psystar did.



    And don't even get me started on the rule of law in the UK - that body of work is such a mess that people get arrested for criticizing others. Nope don't even go there boyo. And its OK for you to not be a developer for Apple there are plenty of other markets from which to choose - go forth and prosper!

  • Reply 125 of 208
    dr millmossdr millmoss Posts: 5,403member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by maciekskontakt View Post


    That's easy. Doesn't it in smartphones? Too bad for them they were declared stronger than Motorola (and strongest in the USA) just last days.



    Psystar was thwartet not because this was not the case, but because Apple uses power and money to kill "obstacles". Sometimes US system law looks like big bazaar that you can buy merchandise and traders are called lawyers. Try this in EU and perhaps results will be different (already proven with Apple and Microsoft).



    Not necessarily so. First, what's a "smart phone?" This is not a well-defined market, and even within the market (no matter how you define it), Apple doesn't arguably have the market power to disadvantage competitors, which is what's required for them to have problems under antitrust laws. At least I have not heard of how they've done so. "Strong" doesn't mean anything. They need market power, and they also need to have demonstrably abused their market power.



    Psystar lost because they had neither the facts nor the law on their side. This was blindingly obvious from the very start.



    Finally, it might be true that EU antitrust laws are different and more broadly interpreted, but it is not the case that this is proved by the Microsoft case, which was taken up by the US DoJ many years before it was in the EU.
  • Reply 126 of 208
    dick applebaumdick applebaum Posts: 12,527member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by RationalTroll


    Almost as long as Apple themselves:



    Final Cut Pro is still written in Carbon, and is still 32bit. In other words, it's okay for Apple to neglect Cocoa for Final Cut Pro, but it's not okay for Adobe to take their time.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by the cool gut View Post


    It's not as easy as that for Final Cut. Apple first had to write Quicktime as 64bit cocoa, which they just did - and that was a major overhaul. Presumably, Apple can now write Final Cut in 64 bit as well. What's Adobe's excuse?



    If you look back to the origins of Final Cut, you will discover that Adobe/Macromedia developed Final Cut and it was sold to Apple in 1998....



    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Cut_Pro



    Quote:

    History



    Randy Ubillos created the first three versions of Adobe Premiere, the first popular digital video editing application.[4] Before version 5 was released, Ubillos' group was hired by Macromedia to create KeyGrip, built from the ground up as a more professional video-editing program based on Apple QuickTime. Macromedia could not release the product without causing its partner Truevision some issues with Microsoft, as KeyGrip was, in part, based on technology from Microsoft licensed to Truevision and then in turn to Macromedia. The terms of the IP licensing deal stated that it was not to be used in conjunction with QuickTime. Thus, Macromedia was forced to keep the product off the market until a solution could be found. At the same time, the company decided to focus more on applications that would support the web, so they sought to find a buyer for their non-web applications, including KeyGrip; which, by 1998, was renamed Final Cut.

    Final Cut was shown in private room demonstrations as a 0.9 alpha at the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) exposition in 1998 after Macromedia pulled out of the main show floor. At the demonstration, both Mac and Windows versions were shown. The Mac version was working with a Truevision RTX dual stream real time card with limited real time effects. When no purchaser could be found, Apple purchased the team as a defensive move. When Apple could not find a buyer in turn, it continued development work, focusing on adding FireWire/DV support and at NAB 1999 Apple introduced Final Cut Pro. ProMax was the first vendor to demonstrate Final Cut Pro on the show floor. A third party training CD from DVcreators.net called "Final Cut Pro PowerStart" was also released at NAB 1999, the first FCP training product available.

    After the introduction of Final Cut Pro, Adobe Premiere's market share remained strong on Windows but began to decline on the Mac as its older codebase was more difficult to maintain. In 2003, Apple announced a program for Premiere users to trade in their discs for a free copy of Final Cut Express or a $500 discount on Final Cut Pro.[5]

    Final Cut Pro benefited from the relative maturity of QuickTime and its and native support for then-new DV cameras connected with FireWire (IEEE1394), such as Sony's initial DCR-VX1000 camera and later cameras by Sony, Panasonic and Canon. ProMax (Brad Pillow) made and sold PCI cards that added FireWire to a Mac, but Apple soon had FireWire ports on every Mac.




  • Reply 127 of 208
    davegeedavegee Posts: 2,765member
    Question to developers....



    How is development handled on the following?



    - Xbox 360

    - Sony PSP

    - Sony Playstation

    - Nintendo Wii

    - Palm (back in the day)



    etc etc...



    Do Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, etc, allow for games to be developed in/with tools other than those furnished to said developers? I'm just curious...
  • Reply 128 of 208
    paulmjohnsonpaulmjohnson Posts: 1,380member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    I asked you for a specific law that Apple has violated and court cases to back that up - and THAT is the best you can come up with? How about not making comments that you can't support?



    Apple has absolutely no obligation to make it easier for developers to make cross-platform apps. NONE. Apple has rules on their platform that the developers are free to follow or not.



    If the developer chooses not to follow the rules, there are already 40,000 apps on Android they can join. And Android is comparable in installed base to iPhone, so the developer won't be giving anything up - EXCEPT the value Apple brings to the table.



    Just try reading the whole of what I actually wrote and try reading it with the assumption that I'm not some sort of idiot and you are superior to everyone. I specifically say that I think Apple will be found to have done nothing wrong (hence have not broken the law), but that at the same time I can understand why the regulators are starting to sniff around, given what I've seen them sniff around in the past.



    And once you've done that, try replying to me in a more civilized way. Just because people don't have exactly the same opinion as you does not make them wrong.
  • Reply 129 of 208
    tulkastulkas Posts: 3,757member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by PaulMJohnson View Post




    And once you've done that, try replying to me in a more civilized way. Just because people don't have exactly the same opinion as you does not make them wrong.



    What, are you new?
  • Reply 130 of 208
    paulmjohnsonpaulmjohnson Posts: 1,380member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post


    What, are you new?



    Touche!



    You know the thing I find strange with people on this board is that I'm pretty much as pro-Apple as anyone here. I buy pretty much everything they make (I actually genuinely believe my Apple TV is the best thing I have of theirs!), yet if you say something that even suggests Apple might be doing something not 100% positive, you are assumed to be a numpty!
  • Reply 131 of 208
    dacloodacloo Posts: 890member
    It's about time they started an inquiry.

    I hope Apple will get their asses whooped because of his.
  • Reply 132 of 208
    hirohiro Posts: 2,663member
    Are they going to investigate the Android team too?



    I can only program in Java for Android, so if I want to use Haskell with a C++ Qt front end because I'm good at that I can't. They totally have nearly 100% control over the Verizon smartphone market. I want my equality!!!
  • Reply 133 of 208
    paulmjohnsonpaulmjohnson Posts: 1,380member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hiro View Post


    Are they going to investigate the Android team too?



    I can only program in Java for Android, so if I want to use Haskell with a C++ Qt front end because I'm good at that I can't. They totally have nearly 100% control over the Verizon smartphone market. I want my equality!!!



    It does seem to be a spectacularly gray area.



    I want to be able to program for the Palm Pre in FORTRAN.
  • Reply 134 of 208
    quadra 610quadra 610 Posts: 6,757member
    http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/05/...who-would-win/



    U.S. vs. Apple: Who would win?

    Posted by Philip Elmer-DeWitt

    May 3, 2010 2:10 PM



    Shades of the United States vs. Microsoft, an antitrust case that the government lost.



    A report in Monday's New York Post that two government agencies ? the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice ? are each considering launching an antitrust investigation against Apple (AAPL) puts me in mind of the case the DOJ and 20 states brought against Microsoft (MSFT) nearly a dozen years ago.



    To many observers ? including the judge who heard the case ? U.S. vs. Microsoft seemed open and shut. In Nov. 1999, Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson found that Microsoft's dominance of the PC operating systems market constituted a monopoly and that the company had illegally used that power to try to crush Apple, Java, Netscape, Lotus Notes, Real Networks, Linux, and others. His remedy, offered the next spring, was to break Microsoft into two units, one that made operating systems and another that made applications.



    Microsoft immediately appealed, and while it couldn't overturn the findings of fact, it successfully fought the remedy. Based on embargoed interviews Judge Jackson had given the press during the trial, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals found he had displayed anti-Microsoft bias and conducted himself unethically. It handed the case to another judge with instructions to craft a more modest remedy.



    The case was settled in Nov. 2001. Microsoft remains intact and its software still runs nearly 9 out of 10 of the world's PCs, although to many in the industry, the company doesn't seem to have the kind of swagger it exhibited before and during the trial.



    Given that history, what chances does the government have against Apple?





    The issue here, according to the Post's report, is a clause ? Section 3.3.1 ? added to the latest iteration of the iPhone software developers agreement that prohibits programmers from writing apps for the iPhone, iPad or iPod touch using "an intermediary translation or compatibility layer."



    As the Post sees it, the new policy "kills competition by forcing programmers to choose between developing apps that can run only on Apple gizmos or come up with apps that are platform neutral, and can be used on a variety of operating systems, such as those from rivals Google, Microsoft and Research In Motion."



    To win a Sherman Antitrust case against Apple, the government would have to prove both that Apple's market share constitutes a monopoly ? itself not illegal ? and that it has abused that monopoly power in ways that damage its competition.



    While it is true that Apple controls what apps can run on its mobile devices and even what tools developers can use to write those apps, it's going to be harder to show that it has a monopoly of the smartphone market or that its competitors have been harmed the way Microsoft's were.



    The case against Microsoft was launched after Bill Gates bundled a free Web browser (Explorer) into Windows ? which had a market share at the time in the mid 90's ? cutting off Netscape's air supply (to use the language of Microsoft's internal memos) and driving it out of business.



    Apple's doesn't enjoy that kind of market share. Its slice of the U.S. smartphone market is smaller than Research in Motion's (RIMM) and Google's (GOOG) Android share is rapidly catching up. And while there are companies that can legitimately claim they have been harmed by the success of the iPhone ? Palm (PALM) comes first to mind ? Palm can hardly blame Section 3.3.1 of the SDK for its troubles.



    Adobe (ADBE) might ? and probably has ? filed a complaint against Apple based on the damage Apple has done to its efforts to promote Flash as a cross-platform development tool. And if the DOJ takes the case, it could use the line of attack it used against Microsoft, arguing that the "network effects" of the iPhone OS and the App Store tend to lock customers into Apple's ecosystem, and that to create a level playing field, the two businesses should be forcibly separated.



    It didn't work 12 year ago, and it's hard to see how it's going to work today.
  • Reply 135 of 208
    paulmjohnsonpaulmjohnson Posts: 1,380member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post


    http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/05/...who-would-win/



    U.S. vs. Apple: Who would win?

    Posted by Philip Elmer-DeWitt

    May 3, 2010 2:10 PM



    Shades of the United States vs. Microsoft, an antitrust case that the government lost.



    A report in Monday's New York Post that two government agencies ? the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice ? are each considering launching an antitrust investigation against Apple (AAPL) puts me in mind of the case the DOJ and 20 states brought against Microsoft (MSFT) nearly a dozen years ago.



    To many observers ? including the judge who heard the case ? U.S. vs. Microsoft seemed open and shut. In Nov. 1999, Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson found that Microsoft's dominance of the PC operating systems market constituted a monopoly and that the company had illegally used that power to try to crush Apple, Java, Netscape, Lotus Notes, Real Networks, Linux, and others. His remedy, offered the next spring, was to break Microsoft into two units, one that made operating systems and another that made applications.



    Microsoft immediately appealed, and while it couldn't overturn the findings of fact, it successfully fought the remedy. Based on embargoed interviews Judge Jackson had given the press during the trial, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals found he had displayed anti-Microsoft bias and conducted himself unethically. It handed the case to another judge with instructions to craft a more modest remedy.



    The case was settled in Nov. 2001. Microsoft remains intact and its software still runs nearly 9 out of 10 of the world's PCs, although to many in the industry, the company doesn't seem to have the kind of swagger it exhibited before and during the trial.



    Given that history, what chances does the government have against Apple?





    The issue here, according to the Post's report, is a clause ? Section 3.3.1 ? added to the latest iteration of the iPhone software developers agreement that prohibits programmers from writing apps for the iPhone, iPad or iPod touch using "an intermediary translation or compatibility layer."



    As the Post sees it, the new policy "kills competition by forcing programmers to choose between developing apps that can run only on Apple gizmos or come up with apps that are platform neutral, and can be used on a variety of operating systems, such as those from rivals Google, Microsoft and Research In Motion."



    To win a Sherman Antitrust case against Apple, the government would have to prove both that Apple's market share constitutes a monopoly ? itself not illegal ? and that it has abused that monopoly power in ways that damage its competition.



    While it is true that Apple controls what apps can run on its mobile devices and even what tools developers can use to write those apps, it's going to be harder to show that it has a monopoly of the smartphone market or that its competitors have been harmed the way Microsoft's were.



    The case against Microsoft was launched after Bill Gates bundled a free Web browser (Explorer) into Windows ? which had a market share at the time in the mid 90's ? cutting off Netscape's air supply (to use the language of Microsoft's internal memos) and driving it out of business.



    Apple's doesn't enjoy that kind of market share. Its slice of the U.S. smartphone market is smaller than Research in Motion's (RIMM) and Google's (GOOG) Android share is rapidly catching up. And while there are companies that can legitimately claim they have been harmed by the success of the iPhone ? Palm (PALM) comes first to mind ? Palm can hardly blame Section 3.3.1 of the SDK for its troubles.



    Adobe (ADBE) might ? and probably has ? filed a complaint against Apple based on the damage Apple has done to its efforts to promote Flash as a cross-platform development tool. And if the DOJ takes the case, it could use the line of attack it used against Microsoft, arguing that the "network effects" of the iPhone OS and the App Store tend to lock customers into Apple's ecosystem, and that to create a level playing field, the two businesses should be forcibly separated.



    It didn't work 12 year ago, and it's hard to see how it's going to work today.




    Great link, thanks. That pretty much seems to get to the nub of it.
  • Reply 136 of 208
    injectedinjected Posts: 10member
    I have a hard time this would lead to anything...

    There are probably no languages that are more cross-platform than C and C++, both supported by Apple. For gaming apps, OpenGL ensures portable code too.



    So you can in fact write large chunks of code and port it between platforms. Perhaps not by a simple switch, but certainly if your code is well-structured.



    It should be Apple's decision how to best create a consistent user experience on the platform, but also battery performance, accessibility (for visually impaired or those with poor hearing), localization (translation of apps to other languages), and so on. Apple has that technology, it's called Cocoa Touch.



    Personally, I'd like to see some allowance for other languages in the "model" or "business logic" programming. I think it would be good for the platform, since it could make it easier to solve some problems that C-based languages weren't created for. (I'm thinking of logic, some types of mathematics, etc.) But that should be Apple's decision.
  • Reply 137 of 208
    cgc0202cgc0202 Posts: 624member
    I welcome this inquiry by the US FTC and DOJ because it is likely to clarify many of the perspectives presented in the issue. Personally, I think many people do not even understand the essence of the law.



    Monopoly itself is not illegal. But, even when using this criteria, Apple is not even close to a monopoly, even in the smart phone industry let alone in the mobile computing market.



    Aren't the same detractors so confident and predict that the "open source" products will ultimately prevail and will trounce the vertical integration approach preferred by Apple?



    Were they not so jubilent to cite that the entire Android products now surpass the iPhone share of the smartphone market? Also, that RIMM phones consistentently had higher market share than the Apple iPhone?



    So which product then is more likely to become a monopoly? Surely not Apple based on the aforementioned facts presented.



    And, if not espousing the superiority of the Android OS because it is "open source", aren't many of these detractors proclaiming the superiority of other proprietary systems like the Windows Mobile (Microsoft) and the WebOS of Palm? Have they not been predicted to be the iPhone killers?



    If these Apple detractors believe in their convictions, why then turn around and cry wolf that such pathetic iPhone OS is dictating the terms for the entire industry?



    In fact, one should ask, considering the market shares: Is there even a monopoly in the smartphone market?



    What is certain is that Apple through its iPhone has shaken the phone industry and mobile computing, in general. Everyone else has been attempting to copy or attempt to improve upon Apple's game-changing products.



    As a result, the mobile computing industry is at a crossroad. There are several competing business plans offered: The Android (nurtured by Google) and Nokia's Symbian as example of "open source" vs. iPhone OS (Apple), WebOS (HP-Palm), Windows Mobile (Microsoft) as proprietary technologies.



    Among these choices, Apple is most advanced in presenting a more tight vertically integrated ecosystem. A central part of this vertical integration includes a stringent control of the software use?



    Make no mistake about this, all the other companies are attempting to copy the business plan of Apple (e.g., the attempt to create their own Apps store, or create their own equivalent of the Apple Store). One difference is that there is no concerted effort to create a more disciplined business plan to create an ecosystem that approaches what Apple has achieved with its iTunes, Apple Apps, iBooks, and more than likely some other initiatives that are likely to even improve and enhance the Apple vertically integrated ecosystem.



    As to developers, more than likely, many if not most are motivated by the economic incentives. Apple does not and cannot compel developers to create Apps for the vertically integrated ecosystem of Apple. And yet, in the case of the iPad, in barely a month, the iPad has attracted more developers to create more Apps than the Palm OS and would likely catch up eventually with the total Apps of the entire Android market.



    There is no policy that those who develop for Apple will be prohibited from porting their Apps to other systems. And yet, why do some prefer to develop exclusively for the Apple ecosystem? The answer is very simple -- these developers believe that they are more likely to recoup their investment in the Apple ecosystem.



    CGC
  • Reply 138 of 208
    dr millmossdr millmoss Posts: 5,403member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by PaulMJohnson View Post


    Great link, thanks. That pretty much seems to get to the nub of it.



    Somewhat. He uses "monopoly" when presumably he means "market power," which are not identical concepts, and implies that it's all about market share, which it is not. The bottom line is, it would be extremely difficult to demonstrate that Apple has the power to harm competitors in any unfair way (other than, you know, competing with them). To make matters worse for Adobe (assuming they have filed a complaint), Apple and Adobe aren't really competitors. Apple is not obligated to be accommodating to Adobe's wishes and desires.
  • Reply 139 of 208
    dick applebaumdick applebaum Posts: 12,527member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by PaulMJohnson View Post


    Touche!



    You know the thing I find strange with people on this board is that I'm pretty much as pro-Apple as anyone here. I buy pretty much everything they make (I actually genuinely believe my Apple TV is the best thing I have of theirs!), yet if you say something that even suggests Apple might be doing something not 100% positive, you as assumed to be a numpty!



    Nah, not so much. I think you will find that most people on these AI forums are reasonable and have similar opinions (as yours) of Apple and its products.



    This naturally attracts troolls (pl troll + tool + drool). Most of the time we ignore them, but occasionally...



    Also, there are certain AI writers (of some of these articles) that bring to their work some blatant preconceptions and prejudices (political, technical and company preferences).



    Just like anything else, an individual needs to challenge assertions that are important and let pass those that are not.



    There is a lot of excellent, factual, info discussed here-- both pro and anti Apple...



    Ya' just gotta choose what to believe, what to refute, and what to ignore....



    ...but occasionally...



    .
  • Reply 140 of 208
    dick applebaumdick applebaum Posts: 12,527member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by PaulMJohnson View Post


    It does seem to be a spectacularly gray area.



    I want to be able to program for the Palm Pre in FORTRAN.



    And, well you should



    I am torn among CoBOL, Octal-Absolute, Neat, AlGoL and APL...



    ...I can write that entire app in one line of RPN code.



    Compilers? Compilers? We don't need no stinkin' compilers!





    Actually, I suspect that we will [eventually] see Apple release some sort of Compiled HyperCard that installs user-developed apps through iTunes.



    .
Sign In or Register to comment.