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.
So your point is that you have contradictory views and want respect because of it?
"Apple has done nothing wrong, but they should be investigated, anyway." What kind of position is that?
So your point is that you have contradictory views and want respect because of it?
"Apple has done nothing wrong, but they should be investigated, anyway." What kind of position is that?
You seem to be quoting what you want me to have said as opposed to what I said. I don't think Apple should be investigated at all, but I can understand why the regulators are looking, based on what they have looked at before (i.e. Microsoft). It's called doublethink. I'd expect someone who likes Apple would be familiar with 1984.
Believe me, I don't want respect from people like you.
And to be quite pointed about it: the market in question is the apps developed for the iPhone, which is a mobile device, smartphone subcategory. The apps developed for the iPhone are not portable to other platforms as there is no other platform in the mobile device, smartphone subcategory that runs iPhone apps
That's an absurd definition of relevant market. Defining the relevant to be equivalent to a single competitive product will ipso facto generate the conclusion that the owner of that product has monopoly control. That's nonsensical. That's akin to saying that in determining whether Toyota has monopoly power in the new SUV market, the relevant market isn't all makes and models of SUVs but only new Toyota SUVs. Well, surprise, Toyota has a monopoly on new Toyota SUVs! The fallacy is obvious.
Pushing the web toward more standardized content formats is a good thing, and flash has certainly not shown itself to be well enough designed to justify the pain it would cause apple if they were to acquiesce to adobe's requests.
But, that doesn't mean apple should really disallow any third party from providing any form of alternate development environment or emulation layer or cross platform toolset. This seems like a draconian and decidedly anticompetitive response to Adobe's own poor behavior and engineering. Indeed, as written, it doesn't even make any sense.
It is also anticompetitive to excessively control what goes into the app store, and keeping out political content on the grounds that it will upset at least half of apple's customers is also a bizarre excess over a policy that should probably just ensure that apps are not excessively buggy, and avoid blatantly obscene content.
Since there are currently reasonable alternatives to all of Apple's products, this isn't yet to the level where antitrust really plays, but Apple may not be far off from that point, particularly if Android fails and RIM stays stuck in the 90's.
If the result is a demand to trim back some of Apple's excesses, then fine. If the result is to artificially push lame competitors into Apple's markets, or split up apple so they can no longer integrate cleanly across their product line, then I as a consumer will probably be off.
It is also anticompetitive to excessively control what goes into the app store, and keeping out political content on the grounds that it will upset at least half of apple's customers is also a bizarre excess over a policy that should probably just ensure that apps are not excessively buggy, and avoid blatantly obscene content.
No it's not. Walmart refuses to sell NC-17 or unrated DVDs or music CDs with uncensored obscene lyrics. Blockbuster also refuses to sell or rent unrated and NC-17 movies. Many theaters won't book unrated, NC-17 or X-rated movies and lots of bookstores won't sell porn or are otherwise selective in what they sell based on their political content. A bookstore geared toward conservative tastes may choose not to sell Bill Clinton's autobiography and a gay and lesbian bookstore may refuse to carry a book that advocates "curing" gays. None of these store policies and practices, most of which have been in place for years, even decades, raise any "anticompetitive" concerns.
Your problem with Apple's policies is that you personally disagree with them (they're "excessive" and "bizarre" and Apple should only screen out hardcore porn). Well, those decisions aren't yours to make, not unless your Apple's CEO or its controlling shareholder. Anti-competition laws are not a tool for disgruntled consumers to try to force companies to change otherwise legal policies.
The WSJ is backing up this story and has said they have been making a few calls about this though not to the extent of Google/ AdMob. They've appaprently been also asking about iAds as well.
From the dev perspective I could see why they'd be angered. But as a consumer I think that this is to my advantage. I find it quite odd that Apple would get this kind of treatment considering they're the 3rd largest in smartphone sales. It seems to be based on perception rather than reality. This strikes me as no different than DirectX on Windows. Applications simply work better when coded in native tools.
Through all of this, I have to say at the very least I question Apple's motives in all of this. I'm sure the consumer is a factor but I don't think selfishness should be ruled out either.
... None of these store policies and practices, most of which have been in place for years, even decades, raise any "anticompetitive" concerns.
Not a fair comparison. Since Apple is forcing everyone using an iPad or iPod to use the App Store, then the App Store not allowing NC-17 etc. is restricting your freedom of choice. With regular books you can walk to another bookstore and buy them from there. With iPod and iPhone and iPad you cannot.
Sure you can buy another reader, but if/when the iPod/Phone/Pad become prolific enough to be a defacto standard due to for example ebook volume being so low on other devices that very few buys other ebook readers, then it would be an issue. Sure it's an "if", but that would be closer to the point than walmart not selling porn.
Not a fair comparison. Since Apple is forcing everyone using an iPad or iPod to use the App Store, then the App Store not allowing NC-17 etc. is restricting your freedom of choice. With regular books you can walk to another bookstore and buy them from there. With iPod and iPhone and iPad you cannot.
Sure you can buy another reader, but if/when the iPod/Phone/Pad become prolific enough to be a defacto standard due to for example ebook volume being so low on other devices that very few buys other ebook readers, then it would be an issue. Sure it's an "if", but that would be closer to the point than walmart not selling porn.
Regs, Jarkko
Eventually Apple is going to undergo the same treatment that MS got from the EU and/or others for iTunes, App Store policies, or the closed environment. While Apple can get away with it as a small company, this is very quickly no longer becoming the case.
Every company's goal is to become a monopoly. Sooner or later it gets to the point where they need to be regulated. I don't know if Apple has reached that point yet but it's clear that the iPhone OS, or whatever it's called in the future, will more than likely become the dominant OS for mobile computing at the very least.
The big issue here is that Apple has gone from a somewhat closed system to a ridiculously closed system, without any sort of "heads up" to a lot of companies.
The iPhone/iPad as a product and platform is gaining a dominant market share, and by springing the new development agreement with no warning, Apple screwed a lot of companies who invested a ton of money since 2007 on developing products around the iPhone. Adobe is just one of them.
This would be akin to some sort of revolutionary electric car which could be charged from a wide range of power sources rapidly gaining 15% market share, and then thousands of charging stations springing up around the country, only for the the car company to decide after 3 years to make the car only chargeable at proprietary stations, thus killing a lot of investors' projects, and costing millions of dollars.
Toss in the fact that Adobe and Apple are competitors on several software platforms, and the whole situation reeks of underhanded business tactics by Apple.
Also, does anyone else think it's lame that Apple is more than willing to make iPhones and iPods sync up with and make use of PCs / earn money off PC users, but in turn is denying PC users the ability to develop for iPhones and iPads? If they used the argument that the iPhone and iPad are exclusively part of the Apple ecosystem, it would be alright to require Apple products for programming, but the fact that they make their products worth with PCs (necessary to earn a decent profit over the past 10 years), makes that requirement somewhat absurd in my opinion....
And as an aside, if Apple was as forthcoming with Adobe as Microsoft has been in terms of access to important code within the operating system, maybe Flash would work better on Apple products as on Windows PCs. Making software work with an OS is a 2-way street, and everybody placing the blame solely on Adobe is pretty deluded.
Anyways, it's an apple fansite, so I guess this is all to be expected here.
I find it quite odd that Apple would get this kind of treatment considering they're the 3rd largest in smartphone sales.
The way I see it they are looking at mobile app sales, not handset sales.
Quote:
Originally Posted by str1f3
It seems to be based on perception rather than reality. This strikes me as no different than DirectX on Windows.
Your analogy would be more accurate if Microsoft released SP1 for Windows 7 and blocked any OpenGL applications, and then only allowed DirectX applications written in Visual Studio to run.
hmm, how is this related to antitrust anyway? Just because BMW enforces a stricter new rule for the parts suppliers for the popular 5 series,that makes them an unfair monopoly? it's not like the suppliers cant move on to supply parts for Mercedes, Audi and other car manufacturers.
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!
Yup. I have been here over a decade and am a huge Apple fan. But, being a long time Apple user, means I realize that they are not perfect and are not above reproach. Make any criticism, sometime just a perceived criticism and they will just all over you...usually quite irrationally. I think they are post-iPod fans and feel the need to prove their loyalty. Seems that way anyway. jragosta is a good example, as you have found.
The iPhone/iPad as a product and platform is gaining a dominant market share, and by springing the new development agreement with no warning, Apple screwed a lot of companies who invested a ton of money since 2007 on developing products around the iPhone. Adobe is just one of them.
Based on what we are hearing from ex-Adobe staff, Adobe wasn't one of them. And if you could, I would like to see your list of a lot of companies that did.
Perhaps, you don't appreciate not having to worry that your computers are impregnable to viruses. I am. And if I can extrapolate the effect to the millions of other Mac'rs, we have an unmeasurable savings in time and cost from not having to do so.
My wife has a vacuum cleaner that uses as specific filter from the original manufacturer; she can't use any other. My son has XBox; he is forced to use a Microsoft product. I have a car that runs on gas; I can't use diesel. My daughter goes to a French-Immersion school; they won't let her speak English. My cousin moved to Boston; he can't root for his Yankees. My younger brother moved back home; he isn't allowed to swear in the house. Our family gets together every Sunday for a family dinner; we can't sit at the table until we wash our hands…my 3-year old niece finger-picks her food until 'gramma' told her, without warning, to stop; "You are old enough to know better."
Obviously we could use a different vacuum cleaner or stopped having our family dinners. The choice is ours. Like being an 'Apple' developer, we are well aware of the rules going into the game. And like at home, they can change at a drop of a hat; something that we were warned, smart enough to know better and that it could.
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.
Sure they are under no obligation to make life easier for the developers. Like it or not, if you read my post all the way through, it does in a way, end in Apple forcing smaller developers to develop for the App Store over its competitors by squeezing their resources.
I'm not the first person to make this point it seems. Lots of the articles that are popping up point to this as reasoning for the possible antitrust probe.
And from what I've been reading, it's not as straight-forward as you make it seem to port an iPhone app to Android or any other OS. I may be wrong, but it seems like there's still a bit of rewritting to be done. While it's true Apple isn't stopping it, they are making it more difficult for a vendor to bring their wares to the competition's markets. Which goes back to my point in that it costs the developer additional time and money to create two versions of the same app.
Each platform has a specific set of developer kit setups. Where is the outrage? They control every aspect of their Dev platform
- They're all closed source environments that have strict toolkits you have to adhere to for several reasons.
mdriftmeyer, thanks for the research... I tried but google wasn't being to helpful when searching out 3rd party development environments... and I guess that should have answered my question but didn't want to make such a statement based only on the lack of evidence.
So it seems this move by Apple really shouldn't be an issues given how these other 'handheld' and 'console' developer programs have been doing similar things for years now. Perhaps the way it was done might be called into question... Since Apple didn't introduce iPhone development as an 'Apple only development environment' and now 2 years in are adding this provision.
I'm no lawyer and don't even pretend to be one so... anything is possible I am quite confidant that a skilled lawyer would have NO problem getting a court to agree that there is enough ambiguity to argue that 1 + 1 might NOT equal 2.
/rant-zone
And I'm not kidding either... the legal system in the US is just one of many in DIRE need of some kind of reform. The legal, medical, patent, taxes, education and a host of others could all benefit from a very careful reexamination... The trillion dollar question is: Who on Gods green earth could we possibly entrust such an important task to... Our elected officials?!?!!
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?
For the same reason that Apple can but hasn't: it isn't trivial.
My wife has a vacuum cleaner that uses as specific filter from the original manufacturer; she can't use any other. My son has XBox; he is forced to use a Microsoft product. I have a car that runs on gas; I can't use diesel. My daughter goes to a French-Immersion school; they won't let her speak English. My cousin moved to Boston; he can't root for his Yankees. My younger brother moved back home; he isn't allowed to swear in the house. Our family gets together every Sunday for a family dinner; we can't sit at the table until we wash our hands?my 3-year old niece finger-picks her food until 'gramma' told her, without warning, to stop; "You are old enough to know better."
Obviously we could use a different vacuum cleaner or stopped having our family dinners. The choice is ours. Like being an 'Apple' developer, we are well aware of the rules going into the game. And like at home, they can change at a drop of a hat; something that we were warned, smart enough to know better and that it could.
Your vacuum cleaner manufacturer probably doesn't prohibit 3rd party bags, Microsoft allows PC and Playstation games to be ported to the XBox, your car is not prohibited from consuming Exxon-supplied oil products, your daughter can speak english to anyone she wants (within reason) to without getting kicked out of school, plenty of people living in Boston root for the Yankees, etc etc.
Now imagine for a minute that Microsoft, Adobe and Avid stopped allowing their products to work on future versions of OSX, and Google stopped allowing access to it's online products via Safari, just before a major OSX + Hardware release by Apple and without warning...
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?
Very funny.
Apple had a huge head start to switch to Cocoa, since they are the ones who decided to go that route, and their secrecy rules kept everyone else in the dark until they sprung it on everyone... And yet they're still way behind Adobe in switching...
Final Cut is 32-bit Carbon, while Premiere is now 64-bit Cocoa.
iTunes is also still 32-bit.
Finder has only been 64-bit since Snow Leopard, less than a year, and the core of OSX...
WhereTF did Stevie's credibility go when he wrote his moan-letter about how Adobe isn't keeping up?
Comments
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.
So your point is that you have contradictory views and want respect because of it?
"Apple has done nothing wrong, but they should be investigated, anyway." What kind of position is that?
So your point is that you have contradictory views and want respect because of it?
"Apple has done nothing wrong, but they should be investigated, anyway." What kind of position is that?
You seem to be quoting what you want me to have said as opposed to what I said. I don't think Apple should be investigated at all, but I can understand why the regulators are looking, based on what they have looked at before (i.e. Microsoft). It's called doublethink. I'd expect someone who likes Apple would be familiar with 1984.
Believe me, I don't want respect from people like you.
And to be quite pointed about it: the market in question is the apps developed for the iPhone, which is a mobile device, smartphone subcategory. The apps developed for the iPhone are not portable to other platforms as there is no other platform in the mobile device, smartphone subcategory that runs iPhone apps
That's an absurd definition of relevant market. Defining the relevant to be equivalent to a single competitive product will ipso facto generate the conclusion that the owner of that product has monopoly control. That's nonsensical. That's akin to saying that in determining whether Toyota has monopoly power in the new SUV market, the relevant market isn't all makes and models of SUVs but only new Toyota SUVs. Well, surprise, Toyota has a monopoly on new Toyota SUVs! The fallacy is obvious.
But, that doesn't mean apple should really disallow any third party from providing any form of alternate development environment or emulation layer or cross platform toolset. This seems like a draconian and decidedly anticompetitive response to Adobe's own poor behavior and engineering. Indeed, as written, it doesn't even make any sense.
It is also anticompetitive to excessively control what goes into the app store, and keeping out political content on the grounds that it will upset at least half of apple's customers is also a bizarre excess over a policy that should probably just ensure that apps are not excessively buggy, and avoid blatantly obscene content.
Since there are currently reasonable alternatives to all of Apple's products, this isn't yet to the level where antitrust really plays, but Apple may not be far off from that point, particularly if Android fails and RIM stays stuck in the 90's.
If the result is a demand to trim back some of Apple's excesses, then fine. If the result is to artificially push lame competitors into Apple's markets, or split up apple so they can no longer integrate cleanly across their product line, then I as a consumer will probably be off.
It is also anticompetitive to excessively control what goes into the app store, and keeping out political content on the grounds that it will upset at least half of apple's customers is also a bizarre excess over a policy that should probably just ensure that apps are not excessively buggy, and avoid blatantly obscene content.
No it's not. Walmart refuses to sell NC-17 or unrated DVDs or music CDs with uncensored obscene lyrics. Blockbuster also refuses to sell or rent unrated and NC-17 movies. Many theaters won't book unrated, NC-17 or X-rated movies and lots of bookstores won't sell porn or are otherwise selective in what they sell based on their political content. A bookstore geared toward conservative tastes may choose not to sell Bill Clinton's autobiography and a gay and lesbian bookstore may refuse to carry a book that advocates "curing" gays. None of these store policies and practices, most of which have been in place for years, even decades, raise any "anticompetitive" concerns.
Your problem with Apple's policies is that you personally disagree with them (they're "excessive" and "bizarre" and Apple should only screen out hardcore porn). Well, those decisions aren't yours to make, not unless your Apple's CEO or its controlling shareholder. Anti-competition laws are not a tool for disgruntled consumers to try to force companies to change otherwise legal policies.
From the dev perspective I could see why they'd be angered. But as a consumer I think that this is to my advantage. I find it quite odd that Apple would get this kind of treatment considering they're the 3rd largest in smartphone sales. It seems to be based on perception rather than reality. This strikes me as no different than DirectX on Windows. Applications simply work better when coded in native tools.
Through all of this, I have to say at the very least I question Apple's motives in all of this. I'm sure the consumer is a factor but I don't think selfishness should be ruled out either.
... None of these store policies and practices, most of which have been in place for years, even decades, raise any "anticompetitive" concerns.
Not a fair comparison. Since Apple is forcing everyone using an iPad or iPod to use the App Store, then the App Store not allowing NC-17 etc. is restricting your freedom of choice. With regular books you can walk to another bookstore and buy them from there. With iPod and iPhone and iPad you cannot.
Sure you can buy another reader, but if/when the iPod/Phone/Pad become prolific enough to be a defacto standard due to for example ebook volume being so low on other devices that very few buys other ebook readers, then it would be an issue. Sure it's an "if", but that would be closer to the point than walmart not selling porn.
Regs, Jarkko
Not a fair comparison. Since Apple is forcing everyone using an iPad or iPod to use the App Store, then the App Store not allowing NC-17 etc. is restricting your freedom of choice. With regular books you can walk to another bookstore and buy them from there. With iPod and iPhone and iPad you cannot.
Sure you can buy another reader, but if/when the iPod/Phone/Pad become prolific enough to be a defacto standard due to for example ebook volume being so low on other devices that very few buys other ebook readers, then it would be an issue. Sure it's an "if", but that would be closer to the point than walmart not selling porn.
Regs, Jarkko
Eventually Apple is going to undergo the same treatment that MS got from the EU and/or others for iTunes, App Store policies, or the closed environment. While Apple can get away with it as a small company, this is very quickly no longer becoming the case.
Every company's goal is to become a monopoly. Sooner or later it gets to the point where they need to be regulated. I don't know if Apple has reached that point yet but it's clear that the iPhone OS, or whatever it's called in the future, will more than likely become the dominant OS for mobile computing at the very least.
The iPhone/iPad as a product and platform is gaining a dominant market share, and by springing the new development agreement with no warning, Apple screwed a lot of companies who invested a ton of money since 2007 on developing products around the iPhone. Adobe is just one of them.
This would be akin to some sort of revolutionary electric car which could be charged from a wide range of power sources rapidly gaining 15% market share, and then thousands of charging stations springing up around the country, only for the the car company to decide after 3 years to make the car only chargeable at proprietary stations, thus killing a lot of investors' projects, and costing millions of dollars.
Toss in the fact that Adobe and Apple are competitors on several software platforms, and the whole situation reeks of underhanded business tactics by Apple.
Also, does anyone else think it's lame that Apple is more than willing to make iPhones and iPods sync up with and make use of PCs / earn money off PC users, but in turn is denying PC users the ability to develop for iPhones and iPads? If they used the argument that the iPhone and iPad are exclusively part of the Apple ecosystem, it would be alright to require Apple products for programming, but the fact that they make their products worth with PCs (necessary to earn a decent profit over the past 10 years), makes that requirement somewhat absurd in my opinion....
And as an aside, if Apple was as forthcoming with Adobe as Microsoft has been in terms of access to important code within the operating system, maybe Flash would work better on Apple products as on Windows PCs. Making software work with an OS is a 2-way street, and everybody placing the blame solely on Adobe is pretty deluded.
Anyways, it's an apple fansite, so I guess this is all to be expected here.
I find it quite odd that Apple would get this kind of treatment considering they're the 3rd largest in smartphone sales.
The way I see it they are looking at mobile app sales, not handset sales.
It seems to be based on perception rather than reality. This strikes me as no different than DirectX on Windows.
Your analogy would be more accurate if Microsoft released SP1 for Windows 7 and blocked any OpenGL applications, and then only allowed DirectX applications written in Visual Studio to run.
The way I see it they are looking at mobile app sales, not handset sales.
You, and many others on this thread, need to stop conflating app sales with app customers.
iPhone currently has 25% of the US smart phone market.
That means that 75% of smart phone buyers are NOT buying iPhones.
That means that 75% of smart phone buyers are NOT buying apps from Apple.
Do you see the difference?
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!
Yup. I have been here over a decade and am a huge Apple fan. But, being a long time Apple user, means I realize that they are not perfect and are not above reproach. Make any criticism, sometime just a perceived criticism and they will just all over you...usually quite irrationally. I think they are post-iPod fans and feel the need to prove their loyalty. Seems that way anyway. jragosta is a good example, as you have found.
The iPhone/iPad as a product and platform is gaining a dominant market share, and by springing the new development agreement with no warning, Apple screwed a lot of companies who invested a ton of money since 2007 on developing products around the iPhone. Adobe is just one of them.
Based on what we are hearing from ex-Adobe staff, Adobe wasn't one of them. And if you could, I would like to see your list of a lot of companies that did.
Perhaps, you don't appreciate not having to worry that your computers are impregnable to viruses. I am. And if I can extrapolate the effect to the millions of other Mac'rs, we have an unmeasurable savings in time and cost from not having to do so.
My wife has a vacuum cleaner that uses as specific filter from the original manufacturer; she can't use any other. My son has XBox; he is forced to use a Microsoft product. I have a car that runs on gas; I can't use diesel. My daughter goes to a French-Immersion school; they won't let her speak English. My cousin moved to Boston; he can't root for his Yankees. My younger brother moved back home; he isn't allowed to swear in the house. Our family gets together every Sunday for a family dinner; we can't sit at the table until we wash our hands…my 3-year old niece finger-picks her food until 'gramma' told her, without warning, to stop; "You are old enough to know better."
Obviously we could use a different vacuum cleaner or stopped having our family dinners. The choice is ours. Like being an 'Apple' developer, we are well aware of the rules going into the game. And like at home, they can change at a drop of a hat; something that we were warned, smart enough to know better and that it could.
You, and many others on this thread, need to stop conflating app sales with app customers.
iPhone currently has 25% of the US smart phone market.
That means that 75% of smart phone buyers are NOT buying iPhones.
That means that 75% of smart phone buyers are NOT buying apps from Apple.
Do you see the difference?
Um... yes.
Smartphone sales are irrelevant since they aren't in the scope of the inquiry, the mobile app market is.
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.
Sure they are under no obligation to make life easier for the developers. Like it or not, if you read my post all the way through, it does in a way, end in Apple forcing smaller developers to develop for the App Store over its competitors by squeezing their resources.
I'm not the first person to make this point it seems. Lots of the articles that are popping up point to this as reasoning for the possible antitrust probe.
And from what I've been reading, it's not as straight-forward as you make it seem to port an iPhone app to Android or any other OS. I may be wrong, but it seems like there's still a bit of rewritting to be done. While it's true Apple isn't stopping it, they are making it more difficult for a vendor to bring their wares to the competition's markets. Which goes back to my point in that it costs the developer additional time and money to create two versions of the same app.
Each platform has a specific set of developer kit setups. Where is the outrage? They control every aspect of their Dev platform
- They're all closed source environments that have strict toolkits you have to adhere to for several reasons.
mdriftmeyer, thanks for the research... I tried but google wasn't being to helpful when searching out 3rd party development environments... and I guess that should have answered my question but didn't want to make such a statement based only on the lack of evidence.
So it seems this move by Apple really shouldn't be an issues given how these other 'handheld' and 'console' developer programs have been doing similar things for years now. Perhaps the way it was done might be called into question... Since Apple didn't introduce iPhone development as an 'Apple only development environment' and now 2 years in are adding this provision.
I'm no lawyer and don't even pretend to be one so... anything is possible I am quite confidant that a skilled lawyer would have NO problem getting a court to agree that there is enough ambiguity to argue that 1 + 1 might NOT equal 2.
/rant-zone
And I'm not kidding either... the legal system in the US is just one of many in DIRE need of some kind of reform. The legal, medical, patent, taxes, education and a host of others could all benefit from a very careful reexamination... The trillion dollar question is: Who on Gods green earth could we possibly entrust such an important task to... Our elected officials?!?!!
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?
For the same reason that Apple can but hasn't: it isn't trivial.
My wife has a vacuum cleaner that uses as specific filter from the original manufacturer; she can't use any other. My son has XBox; he is forced to use a Microsoft product. I have a car that runs on gas; I can't use diesel. My daughter goes to a French-Immersion school; they won't let her speak English. My cousin moved to Boston; he can't root for his Yankees. My younger brother moved back home; he isn't allowed to swear in the house. Our family gets together every Sunday for a family dinner; we can't sit at the table until we wash our hands?my 3-year old niece finger-picks her food until 'gramma' told her, without warning, to stop; "You are old enough to know better."
Obviously we could use a different vacuum cleaner or stopped having our family dinners. The choice is ours. Like being an 'Apple' developer, we are well aware of the rules going into the game. And like at home, they can change at a drop of a hat; something that we were warned, smart enough to know better and that it could.
Your vacuum cleaner manufacturer probably doesn't prohibit 3rd party bags, Microsoft allows PC and Playstation games to be ported to the XBox, your car is not prohibited from consuming Exxon-supplied oil products, your daughter can speak english to anyone she wants (within reason) to without getting kicked out of school, plenty of people living in Boston root for the Yankees, etc etc.
Now imagine for a minute that Microsoft, Adobe and Avid stopped allowing their products to work on future versions of OSX, and Google stopped allowing access to it's online products via Safari, just before a major OSX + Hardware release by Apple and without warning...
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?
Very funny.
Apple had a huge head start to switch to Cocoa, since they are the ones who decided to go that route, and their secrecy rules kept everyone else in the dark until they sprung it on everyone... And yet they're still way behind Adobe in switching...
Final Cut is 32-bit Carbon, while Premiere is now 64-bit Cocoa.
iTunes is also still 32-bit.
Finder has only been 64-bit since Snow Leopard, less than a year, and the core of OSX...
WhereTF did Stevie's credibility go when he wrote his moan-letter about how Adobe isn't keeping up?