Yes, and this is definitely one of those times when it's wise for Apple to stand.
I agree!
-- from someone who dealt with Adobe pricing and non-existent updates for the Mac.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie
Exactly. If the buyer could decide, then the developers would choose whatever tools they think best, and the cream would rise to the top.
But in this situation, the buyers are not being given the ability to decide. That's fine. Apple can carry or reject anything it wants.
But to justify the move as a way to preserve the quality of apps? That seems unlikely, given existing reality.
What seems to be a basic premise here is that Apple must run its business, as if it has to be a democracy. And yet, even societies that claim to be guided by democratic principles do not fully conform to the essence of democracy.
Consumsers do have choices. It is not a necessity of life to own any Apple products. No one has mandated that one must buy an Apple product.
Similarly, developers have choices. If there are polices that Apple impose that violates the basic principles of any developer, that developer would more than likely be opened with welcoming arms by other companies to develop for their competing ecosystems.
There is a right to criticize but not the right to impose our own views to another.
The are alternatives. In fact, if we are to believe Apple detractors and haters, any time soon, Even if I prefer Apple products, I would not be too surprised if indeed, other competing products, like those of the Android systems may indeed surpass Apple's iPhone in the future. That in itself may not be too bad. It forces Apple to compete and to continue to innovate.
Apple may become a niche player again. But, that era is past. What other companies cannot seem to accept is that Apple for the past decade has been calling the shots, the game changer in many products and venues, it decided to enter.
It says something if a company with a 3% of world marketshare of the phone market become the most feared among the competition.
The big difference between saying, "Objective-C apps only," vs. "Only high quality apps," is that the first is an objective (no pun intended) standard, whereas, the second is highly subjective. Who exactly would make the determination on quality, and how?
In every other situation on the face of the earth, the retailer decides which products it wishes to carry, using any standard it wishes. It is a system which seems to work OK.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
So, here's an app that at first glance appears to be utterly useless. But, in fact, under certain circumstances, it has high utility. Unless the issue is that the app simply doesn't run, it's almost impossible to make a universal determination of quality.
You argue against yourself. Had the app been developed using certain tools, it would not have had the opportunity to prove its worth.
I like it a lot. I guess I never really saw the potential of the ipad magazines until now. It really looks like something you'd see in a futuristic movie from the 80's. "People in the future will have electronic interactive magazines."
yes, and in the 60's they said we were going to have jetpacks.
So you've managed to show that you simply don't understand the concept of the ecosystem Apple has created.
If customers are free to put crappy apps on their phones by bypassing Apple's mechanisms, they will do so - and suffer the consequences. In the end, Apple would suffer, as well as the customers who choose to play by the rules. The iPhone ecosystem would, as a whole, be vastly inferior to what is out there now. Customers could not count on quality apps. Apple would spend inordinate amounts of times fielding calls from customers who are having problems with 'unapproved' apps. And Apple would get endless bad press from people who choose to install crap software - but forget that it was their choice when telling their friends or magazine readers about their experience.
Is that the ecosystem which has grown up around the Mac?
If not, why not, given that Apple does not in any way use the same "concept of an ecosystem"?
ISTM that the Mac way of doing things is not bad and wrong. Seemingly, however, you think that it leads (inevitably?) to bad results. I have objective reality on my side, while you support your position with conjectures that fly in the face of reality.
In every other situation on the face of the earth, the retailer decides which products it wishes to carry, using any standard it wishes. It is a system which seems to work OK.
Simply not true.
Quote:
You argue against yourself. Had the app been developed using certain tools, it would not have had the opportunity to prove its worth.
No, I simply argue against those who maintain that Apple should start evaluating apps on a subjective basis. It doesn't say anything about the validity of having objective standards.
This we know to be utterly false. Inadequate tools are chosen for development all the time.
I should have expressed myself better. I should have added at the start of the second sentence "And even if the developer uses inadequate tools, Apple..."
IOW, Apple is the failsafe. They need not sell any crappy apps.
But they have developed a huge business doing exactly that. To use the excuse that Apple wants to preserve quality is specious. Apple sells plenty of crappy apps, has done well with the business, and by all current evidence, will continue to do exactly that.
Consumsers do have choices. It is not a necessity of life to own any Apple products. No one has mandated that one must buy an Apple product.
Similarly, developers have choices. If there are polices that Apple impose that violates the basic principles of any developer, that developer would more than likely be opened with welcoming arms by other companies to develop for their competing ecosystems.
Everything you say is true of competitive markets. The concern is that the app market may be dominated by a player who is using that domination to eliminate competition. Without competition, there are no "welcoming arms".
That is a danger when one or a few companies dominate a market.
That is the basis of the investigation.
There is a right to criticize but not the right to impose our own views to another.
The are alternatives. In fact, if we are to believe Apple detractors and haters, any time soon, Even if I prefer Apple products, I would not be too surprised if indeed, other competing products, like those of the Android systems may indeed surpass Apple's iPhone in the future. That in itself may not be too bad. It forces Apple to compete and to continue to innovate.
Apple may become a niche player again. But, that era is past. What other companies cannot seem to accept is that Apple for the past decade has been calling the shots, the game changer in many products and venues, it decided to enter.
It says something if a company with a 3% of world marketshare of the phone market become the most feared among the competition.
Exactly. If the buyer could decide, then the developers would choose whatever tools they think best, and the cream would rise to the top.
But in this situation, the buyers are not being given the ability to decide. That's fine. Apple can carry or reject anything it wants.
But to justify the move as a way to preserve the quality of apps? That seems unlikely, given existing reality.
Which reality? The delusions in your head or Apple's many years of running a successful computer company?
The point you're completely missing is that consumers DO have the ability to decide. They can choose a different phone. They can choose to jailbreak their phones. This ability of the computer to switch is exactly what drives Apple to want the best apps possible and the best user experience on their system. If the iPhone has the same crapware apps as everyone else, why buy an iPhone? Apple only does well if they provide the user with an experience better than the alternatives.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie
Is that the ecosystem which has grown up around the Mac?
If not, why not, given that Apple does not in any way use the same "concept of an ecosystem"?
ISTM that the Mac way of doing things is not bad and wrong. Seemingly, however, you think that it leads (inevitably?) to bad results. I have objective reality on my side, while you support your position with conjectures that fly in the face of reality.
That, of course, assumes that an iPhone is like a Mac. Hint: they're not.
The Mac competes with personal computers - which have a long history of freely available apps and a large portfolio of existing apps. The iPhone was created from scratch.
More importantly, even today's low end Mac has a multicore multiGHz, multiGB systems with plenty of resources to waste a few on Flash. Iphones and iPads don't have that luxury. Resources are very, very tight in those systems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie
I am unaware of any statement I have made that relies upon that premise {that he knows better than Apple what should be done}. If you have example, spit them out.
How about almost all of your posts? Or, just look at the one above. Apple has been doing this for a long time and knows what they're doing. Why should anyone believe that you know better than Apple how to run the business?
Consumsers do have choices. It is not a necessity of life to own any Apple products. No one has mandated that one must buy an Apple product.
Similarly, developers have choices. If there are polices that Apple impose that violates the basic principles of any developer, that developer would more than likely be opened with welcoming arms by other companies to develop for their competing ecosystems.
Everything you say is true of competitive markets. The concern is that the app market may be dominated by a player who is using that domination to eliminate competition. Without competition, there are no "welcoming arms".
That is a danger when one or a few companies dominate a market.
The contention, as I understand it, is that Apple has market power in the mobile app market, and might be using that power to disadvantage competitors in the mobile hardware market.
And here I though Android devices were starting to outsell iPhones! Kinda makes me wonder what "power" Apple has in the mobile app market other than the fact they have produced a product that whose quality nobody is able (or willing?) to match. Did I miss something? Or do you maybe not understand the contention correctly? Just curious!
And here I though Android devices were starting to outsell iPhones! Kinda makes me wonder what "power" Apple has in the mobile app market other than the fact they have produced a product that whose quality nobody is able (or willing?) to match. Did I miss something? Or do you maybe not understand the contention correctly? Just curious!
I don't take any real hard and fast stand on the merits of the contention.
It is also entirely possible that I misunderstand the contention, and that my understanding is incorrect.
But keep in mind that these markets are all very new and very dynamic. Another factor is that the DOJ tries to look ahead, and determine what problems might develop down the road, even if they are not now apparent.
There are many different possibilities.
The market position of Android-powered hardware is relevant. Whether it is determinative, I don't know.
Wired also released a video (encoded in Adobe Flash, and unplayable on the iPad) showing off some of the features of the new digital magazine:
Why would they do this? Why didn't they at least make a QT version of the video? It's a video ad showing off the iPad version of Wired but you can't watch the promo on the iPad. Uhhh ok.
I agree that as an argument for why Flash compiled apps should be allowed, that the quality of the other apps in the store is somewhat irrelevant, but the original poster has a point in that there is a lot of garbage in the app store, and it would be relatively easy for Apple to remove it. The reasons they don't do this, are more likely related to having a large number of apps to quote, than they are anything to do with customer satisfaction, fairness, or logic.
For instance:
- iBooks aside, there is no reason at all to accept apps that are actually books. A huge number of "apps" are actually crappy one-off books, guides, how-to's etc. Books are books and these just shouldn't be there. Especially now Apple and other publishers are selling books. Remove those and you are removing absolutely huge numbers of "apps" from the store.
- Many so-called "apps" are just pointers to websites or online concerns. There are wallpaper apps that just send you to a website to pick wallpapers. There are apps for websites that have no functionality but simply act as portals or advertisements for said websites. You could remove many thousands of apps if you disallowed such things, and itw would be entirely reasonable to do so.
- Many, many apps are apps that would be much better if they were web-apps. The functionality is that of a web app, the basic design is that of a web app and the fact that it's "native" adds nothing at all in terms of speed, design, utility etc. At the same time web-apps are hard to find. If Apple instead took each one of these submissions and sent a note back saying "make it a web app" we would all be better off. this again would remove thousands and thousands of apps in the store.
I'm not sure what the current number of apps is because I don't care, but if it was 100,000 it seems likely to me that about 60,000 "crap apps" could be removed in this way. The app store would be better off, the customers would be better off, the developers would be better off in the long run and you'd actually be able to find something for a change.
The only reason Apple doesn't do this IMO is they want that big big number on the stage.
Edit: the other reason is that everyone would call them "Nazis" if they started telling the developers that their apps are not good enough. So it's the developers themselves and the stupid tech blogs crying about "freedom" that are half the reason why the app store is filled with junk.
Yes, I agree!
But we are seeing the evolution of a store-- the app store;
Similar to the way a supermarket chain opens a new store, they include lots of products and varieties they do not carry in existing stores (in addition to wide aisles and extra staff).
They do this to promote the store and change shopping habits. Over time, the products/varieties are winnowed down to a "normal" mix (and the aisles and staff are downsized).
I think we are somewhere in mid-evolution of the iPhone/iPod Touch store (within a store). The iPad store is in the Grand Opening phase, tempered with a little wisdom gained from prior openings:
-- you don't need to stock a lot of Kosher food in a store in a Oriental neighborhood
-- fewer, better products may be more attractive than a large variety of lesser quality
-- some allowance needs to be made for the "next great [breakthrough] product"
Everything you say is true of competitive markets. The concern is that the app market may be dominated by a player who is using that domination to eliminate competition. Without competition, there are no "welcoming arms".
That is a danger when one or a few companies dominate a market.
That is the basis of the investigation.
This is why I am sublimely happy to routinely ignore your posts herein. Domination of a market is not bad in and of itself - particularly when there are no viable alternatives immediately present to challenge that dominance. As you have stated in other threads (countless times I imagine - I have only checked a few of your offerings) Android is meant to be one of those viable alternatives, and presumably so is Windows Phone 7, Maemo/Ovi, RIM's marketplace and so on. Apple doesn't have a lock on the market nor do they prevent anyone from embracing the abject freedom represented by Android and Google's Marketplace (with over 50,000 apps!), or any of the other offerings. There is a lot of competition - just not very effective competition. The problem with your viewpoint and subsequent opinions is that you consistently (for example) conflate POPULARITY with MONOPOLY. As a result, you bring forward arguments that while seeming rational and commonsense to your viewpoint - are meaningless to the actual situation. It is a rather blatant logic fail which one hand can be (and is) interpreted by some as pointed trolling, while others try to twist their heads about to see if they can see things from your perspective.
There are cycles to all environments, especially in business. Apple is approaching their zenith because they have correctly identified what drives consumer up-take of product and are making products that address that successfully. They in no way act as a monopoly (in any regular commonly accepted business sense of the term), nor can they be considered a monopoly, period. They are leveraging the popularity of their devices to advance their particular vision of what consumer devices should be like. You can argue until the cows come home about whether they meet some arbitrary standard of what these devices should be, but it is a lesson in futility. Apple has successfully captured with their devices a rising acceptance of the average consumer - a class by the way that doesn't recognize your viewpoint as being particularly valid.
Apple is in no danger of eliminating competition. They can harm their efforts by thoughtlessly driving away developers (a notoriously fickle lot anyway) more than eliminating competition. There is plenty of competition to be had - it's just not (yet?) of a caliber to be on the same level as Apple in terms of consumer acceptance.*
There now. I knew peeking at one of your hidden posts would stir me to address your misapprehensions. Apologies to the rest for taking up your reading moments with this. That will teach me to peek.
Comments
Yes, and this is definitely one of those times when it's wise for Apple to stand.
I agree!
-- from someone who dealt with Adobe pricing and non-existent updates for the Mac.
Exactly. If the buyer could decide, then the developers would choose whatever tools they think best, and the cream would rise to the top.
But in this situation, the buyers are not being given the ability to decide. That's fine. Apple can carry or reject anything it wants.
But to justify the move as a way to preserve the quality of apps? That seems unlikely, given existing reality.
What seems to be a basic premise here is that Apple must run its business, as if it has to be a democracy. And yet, even societies that claim to be guided by democratic principles do not fully conform to the essence of democracy.
Consumsers do have choices. It is not a necessity of life to own any Apple products. No one has mandated that one must buy an Apple product.
Similarly, developers have choices. If there are polices that Apple impose that violates the basic principles of any developer, that developer would more than likely be opened with welcoming arms by other companies to develop for their competing ecosystems.
There is a right to criticize but not the right to impose our own views to another.
The are alternatives. In fact, if we are to believe Apple detractors and haters, any time soon, Even if I prefer Apple products, I would not be too surprised if indeed, other competing products, like those of the Android systems may indeed surpass Apple's iPhone in the future. That in itself may not be too bad. It forces Apple to compete and to continue to innovate.
Apple may become a niche player again. But, that era is past. What other companies cannot seem to accept is that Apple for the past decade has been calling the shots, the game changer in many products and venues, it decided to enter.
It says something if a company with a 3% of world marketshare of the phone market become the most feared among the competition.
CGC
You seem to want to call bullshit all the time.
I calls 'em as I sees 'em.
But your entire premise is that you know what's good for the platform better than Apple does.
I am unaware of any statement I have made that relies upon that premise. If you have example, spit them out.
The big difference between saying, "Objective-C apps only," vs. "Only high quality apps," is that the first is an objective (no pun intended) standard, whereas, the second is highly subjective. Who exactly would make the determination on quality, and how?
In every other situation on the face of the earth, the retailer decides which products it wishes to carry, using any standard it wishes. It is a system which seems to work OK.
So, here's an app that at first glance appears to be utterly useless. But, in fact, under certain circumstances, it has high utility. Unless the issue is that the app simply doesn't run, it's almost impossible to make a universal determination of quality.
You argue against yourself. Had the app been developed using certain tools, it would not have had the opportunity to prove its worth.
I like it a lot. I guess I never really saw the potential of the ipad magazines until now. It really looks like something you'd see in a futuristic movie from the 80's. "People in the future will have electronic interactive magazines."
yes, and in the 60's they said we were going to have jetpacks.
i'm still waiting for mine!
So you've managed to show that you simply don't understand the concept of the ecosystem Apple has created.
If customers are free to put crappy apps on their phones by bypassing Apple's mechanisms, they will do so - and suffer the consequences. In the end, Apple would suffer, as well as the customers who choose to play by the rules. The iPhone ecosystem would, as a whole, be vastly inferior to what is out there now. Customers could not count on quality apps. Apple would spend inordinate amounts of times fielding calls from customers who are having problems with 'unapproved' apps. And Apple would get endless bad press from people who choose to install crap software - but forget that it was their choice when telling their friends or magazine readers about their experience.
Is that the ecosystem which has grown up around the Mac?
If not, why not, given that Apple does not in any way use the same "concept of an ecosystem"?
ISTM that the Mac way of doing things is not bad and wrong. Seemingly, however, you think that it leads (inevitably?) to bad results. I have objective reality on my side, while you support your position with conjectures that fly in the face of reality.
They lost me at Five Bucks.
A whole 5$ Hell's teeth! It's a fiver for a print magazine you could pick your teeth with in the UK.
In every other situation on the face of the earth, the retailer decides which products it wishes to carry, using any standard it wishes. It is a system which seems to work OK.
Simply not true.
You argue against yourself. Had the app been developed using certain tools, it would not have had the opportunity to prove its worth.
No, I simply argue against those who maintain that Apple should start evaluating apps on a subjective basis. It doesn't say anything about the validity of having objective standards.
This we know to be utterly false. Inadequate tools are chosen for development all the time.
I should have expressed myself better. I should have added at the start of the second sentence "And even if the developer uses inadequate tools, Apple..."
IOW, Apple is the failsafe. They need not sell any crappy apps.
But they have developed a huge business doing exactly that. To use the excuse that Apple wants to preserve quality is specious. Apple sells plenty of crappy apps, has done well with the business, and by all current evidence, will continue to do exactly that.
Consumsers do have choices. It is not a necessity of life to own any Apple products. No one has mandated that one must buy an Apple product.
Similarly, developers have choices. If there are polices that Apple impose that violates the basic principles of any developer, that developer would more than likely be opened with welcoming arms by other companies to develop for their competing ecosystems.
Everything you say is true of competitive markets. The concern is that the app market may be dominated by a player who is using that domination to eliminate competition. Without competition, there are no "welcoming arms".
That is a danger when one or a few companies dominate a market.
That is the basis of the investigation.
There is a right to criticize but not the right to impose our own views to another.
The are alternatives. In fact, if we are to believe Apple detractors and haters, any time soon, Even if I prefer Apple products, I would not be too surprised if indeed, other competing products, like those of the Android systems may indeed surpass Apple's iPhone in the future. That in itself may not be too bad. It forces Apple to compete and to continue to innovate.
Apple may become a niche player again. But, that era is past. What other companies cannot seem to accept is that Apple for the past decade has been calling the shots, the game changer in many products and venues, it decided to enter.
It says something if a company with a 3% of world marketshare of the phone market become the most feared among the competition.
CGC[/QUOTE]
They lost me at Five Bucks.
this.
Exactly. If the buyer could decide, then the developers would choose whatever tools they think best, and the cream would rise to the top.
But in this situation, the buyers are not being given the ability to decide. That's fine. Apple can carry or reject anything it wants.
But to justify the move as a way to preserve the quality of apps? That seems unlikely, given existing reality.
Which reality? The delusions in your head or Apple's many years of running a successful computer company?
The point you're completely missing is that consumers DO have the ability to decide. They can choose a different phone. They can choose to jailbreak their phones. This ability of the computer to switch is exactly what drives Apple to want the best apps possible and the best user experience on their system. If the iPhone has the same crapware apps as everyone else, why buy an iPhone? Apple only does well if they provide the user with an experience better than the alternatives.
Is that the ecosystem which has grown up around the Mac?
If not, why not, given that Apple does not in any way use the same "concept of an ecosystem"?
ISTM that the Mac way of doing things is not bad and wrong. Seemingly, however, you think that it leads (inevitably?) to bad results. I have objective reality on my side, while you support your position with conjectures that fly in the face of reality.
That, of course, assumes that an iPhone is like a Mac. Hint: they're not.
The Mac competes with personal computers - which have a long history of freely available apps and a large portfolio of existing apps. The iPhone was created from scratch.
More importantly, even today's low end Mac has a multicore multiGHz, multiGB systems with plenty of resources to waste a few on Flash. Iphones and iPads don't have that luxury. Resources are very, very tight in those systems.
I am unaware of any statement I have made that relies upon that premise {that he knows better than Apple what should be done}. If you have example, spit them out.
How about almost all of your posts? Or, just look at the one above. Apple has been doing this for a long time and knows what they're doing. Why should anyone believe that you know better than Apple how to run the business?
Consumsers do have choices. It is not a necessity of life to own any Apple products. No one has mandated that one must buy an Apple product.
Similarly, developers have choices. If there are polices that Apple impose that violates the basic principles of any developer, that developer would more than likely be opened with welcoming arms by other companies to develop for their competing ecosystems.
Everything you say is true of competitive markets. The concern is that the app market may be dominated by a player who is using that domination to eliminate competition. Without competition, there are no "welcoming arms".
That is a danger when one or a few companies dominate a market.
That is the basis of the investigation.
No, I simply argue against those who maintain that Apple should start evaluating apps on a subjective basis.
Nobody can seriously argue that Apple "should start" doing that. Apple has been doing that since day one.
So what/who do you argue against?
The contention, as I understand it, is that Apple has market power in the mobile app market, and might be using that power to disadvantage competitors in the mobile hardware market.
And here I though Android devices were starting to outsell iPhones! Kinda makes me wonder what "power" Apple has in the mobile app market other than the fact they have produced a product that whose quality nobody is able (or willing?) to match. Did I miss something? Or do you maybe not understand the contention correctly? Just curious!
And here I though Android devices were starting to outsell iPhones! Kinda makes me wonder what "power" Apple has in the mobile app market other than the fact they have produced a product that whose quality nobody is able (or willing?) to match. Did I miss something? Or do you maybe not understand the contention correctly? Just curious!
I don't take any real hard and fast stand on the merits of the contention.
It is also entirely possible that I misunderstand the contention, and that my understanding is incorrect.
But keep in mind that these markets are all very new and very dynamic. Another factor is that the DOJ tries to look ahead, and determine what problems might develop down the road, even if they are not now apparent.
There are many different possibilities.
The market position of Android-powered hardware is relevant. Whether it is determinative, I don't know.
Wired also released a video (encoded in Adobe Flash, and unplayable on the iPad) showing off some of the features of the new digital magazine:
Why would they do this? Why didn't they at least make a QT version of the video? It's a video ad showing off the iPad version of Wired but you can't watch the promo on the iPad. Uhhh ok.
I agree that as an argument for why Flash compiled apps should be allowed, that the quality of the other apps in the store is somewhat irrelevant, but the original poster has a point in that there is a lot of garbage in the app store, and it would be relatively easy for Apple to remove it. The reasons they don't do this, are more likely related to having a large number of apps to quote, than they are anything to do with customer satisfaction, fairness, or logic.
For instance:
- iBooks aside, there is no reason at all to accept apps that are actually books. A huge number of "apps" are actually crappy one-off books, guides, how-to's etc. Books are books and these just shouldn't be there. Especially now Apple and other publishers are selling books. Remove those and you are removing absolutely huge numbers of "apps" from the store.
- Many so-called "apps" are just pointers to websites or online concerns. There are wallpaper apps that just send you to a website to pick wallpapers. There are apps for websites that have no functionality but simply act as portals or advertisements for said websites. You could remove many thousands of apps if you disallowed such things, and itw would be entirely reasonable to do so.
- Many, many apps are apps that would be much better if they were web-apps. The functionality is that of a web app, the basic design is that of a web app and the fact that it's "native" adds nothing at all in terms of speed, design, utility etc. At the same time web-apps are hard to find. If Apple instead took each one of these submissions and sent a note back saying "make it a web app" we would all be better off. this again would remove thousands and thousands of apps in the store.
I'm not sure what the current number of apps is because I don't care, but if it was 100,000 it seems likely to me that about 60,000 "crap apps" could be removed in this way. The app store would be better off, the customers would be better off, the developers would be better off in the long run and you'd actually be able to find something for a change.
The only reason Apple doesn't do this IMO is they want that big big number on the stage.
Edit: the other reason is that everyone would call them "Nazis" if they started telling the developers that their apps are not good enough. So it's the developers themselves and the stupid tech blogs crying about "freedom" that are half the reason why the app store is filled with junk.
Yes, I agree!
But we are seeing the evolution of a store-- the app store;
Similar to the way a supermarket chain opens a new store, they include lots of products and varieties they do not carry in existing stores (in addition to wide aisles and extra staff).
They do this to promote the store and change shopping habits. Over time, the products/varieties are winnowed down to a "normal" mix (and the aisles and staff are downsized).
I think we are somewhere in mid-evolution of the iPhone/iPod Touch store (within a store). The iPad store is in the Grand Opening phase, tempered with a little wisdom gained from prior openings:
-- you don't need to stock a lot of Kosher food in a store in a Oriental neighborhood
-- fewer, better products may be more attractive than a large variety of lesser quality
-- some allowance needs to be made for the "next great [breakthrough] product"
.
... Apple is the failsafe. They need not sell any crappy apps. ...
We've already covered why that isn't possible.
Nobody can seriously argue that Apple "should start" [subjectively evaluating apps on the basis of quality]. ... So what/who do you argue against?
I guess you.
Everything you say is true of competitive markets. The concern is that the app market may be dominated by a player who is using that domination to eliminate competition. Without competition, there are no "welcoming arms".
That is a danger when one or a few companies dominate a market.
That is the basis of the investigation.
This is why I am sublimely happy to routinely ignore your posts herein. Domination of a market is not bad in and of itself - particularly when there are no viable alternatives immediately present to challenge that dominance. As you have stated in other threads (countless times I imagine - I have only checked a few of your offerings) Android is meant to be one of those viable alternatives, and presumably so is Windows Phone 7, Maemo/Ovi, RIM's marketplace and so on. Apple doesn't have a lock on the market nor do they prevent anyone from embracing the abject freedom represented by Android and Google's Marketplace (with over 50,000 apps!), or any of the other offerings. There is a lot of competition - just not very effective competition. The problem with your viewpoint and subsequent opinions is that you consistently (for example) conflate POPULARITY with MONOPOLY. As a result, you bring forward arguments that while seeming rational and commonsense to your viewpoint - are meaningless to the actual situation. It is a rather blatant logic fail which one hand can be (and is) interpreted by some as pointed trolling, while others try to twist their heads about to see if they can see things from your perspective.
There are cycles to all environments, especially in business. Apple is approaching their zenith because they have correctly identified what drives consumer up-take of product and are making products that address that successfully. They in no way act as a monopoly (in any regular commonly accepted business sense of the term), nor can they be considered a monopoly, period. They are leveraging the popularity of their devices to advance their particular vision of what consumer devices should be like. You can argue until the cows come home about whether they meet some arbitrary standard of what these devices should be, but it is a lesson in futility. Apple has successfully captured with their devices a rising acceptance of the average consumer - a class by the way that doesn't recognize your viewpoint as being particularly valid.
Apple is in no danger of eliminating competition. They can harm their efforts by thoughtlessly driving away developers (a notoriously fickle lot anyway) more than eliminating competition. There is plenty of competition to be had - it's just not (yet?) of a caliber to be on the same level as Apple in terms of consumer acceptance.*
There now. I knew peeking at one of your hidden posts would stir me to address your misapprehensions. Apologies to the rest for taking up your reading moments with this. That will teach me to peek.