Censorship is *always* wrong, unless you can point to some real, material damage that the lack of said censorship causes. Being "offended," applying a religious standard, not liking something, or not thinking it's up to your aesthetic standards is simply not enough reason to ban things IMO.
The only problem with your logic is that no one is censoring anything.
Apple has chosen quality standards and any app developer who meets their quality standards can get listed. Deciding not to carry apps that don't meet their standards is not censorship.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie
Yes. And no reasons were given why such actions are impossible for Apple, but SOP for every other retailer on earth.
Your position seems to be that Apple has no ability, or no practical capability, to discern the quality of the wares it wishes to sell. That strikes me as incorrect.
It is clear that you've got an irrational need to criticize anything Apple does. If they don't restrict apps, you criticize them. If the restrict apps, you criticize them.
Apple has standards - just like every other retailer out there. Whether their standards agree with yours (or with Walmart's) is irrelevant. Developers can choose to work within Apple's standards or sell their apps only to jailbroken phones or write their apps for a different platform. Their choice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronster
There's a very obvious reason actually: Websites use flash, and people will browse websites with the ipad lol
Except that I almost never run into a web site using Flash that I need to see on my iPad. But when I do, I just fire up Logmein and I can see the Flash web page. No problem at all.
But at least this way, I don't have to worry about my web experience being destroyed by Flash crapware.
Quote:
Originally Posted by success
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.
Well, yeah. Of course. And so long as their actions have little or no affect on mobile app/mobile hardware development in general, nobody gives a damn.
But if/when a company develops monopoly power, and therefore their actions affect the viability of the relevant market as a whole, people perk up.
And if such companies are determined to have taken such actions intending to stifle/prevent competition, or to erect barriers to entry, then it rises to a level somewhat higher than mere concern.
This is, of course, silly.
On the one hand, you're bragging about how Android phone sales have surpassed the iPhone and how other phone vendors are catching up.
On the other hand, you're complaining that Apple has monopoly power and is stifling development.
If developers or customers don't like the Apple app store, they're free to buy Android phones. Or Symbian phones. Or Blackberry phones. or Windows Mobile phones.
Your argument is no different than demanding that Nintendo allow xBox games to be played on the Wii. It just doesn't make sense - either legally or logically.
This issue has an article about Trent Reznor's new band How to Destroy Angels, walks thru the process of creating the track and also includes the exlusive audio for the song. Can only hear it on the iPad edition so far, at least until someone rips it and posts it on the web heh.
I said that Apple was screenning for apps that didn't...
Their screening process doesn't catch everything... but, as a user, I am thankful that they try.
Programming in ObjC (with manual memory management) does not guarantee a good program, but it is easier for Apple to catch the bad ones during evaluation/approval.
However, programming in Flash has been shown to result in inferior apps on the desktop (with abundant resources), and therefore will, most likely, yield inferior apps on the mobile platform (with finite resources).
So, it is understandable that Apple ban the predominate tool for creating inferior apps, and spend its limited resources evaluating apps created with tools that usually produce [technically] good apps. (Whether these apps are of limited or broad appeal, is another question).
As a buyer, you cannot decide on the quality of those apps that Apple does not sell.
Good! Because I really have no desire to do that. Unless of course Apple wants to pay me a salary in exchange for me providing that service for them. Man, when I asked what it is that I don't get to decide I was hoping for a real answer...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie
With exceptions of course.
Ooh! Tell me about the exceptions, Stevie, tell me about the exceptions!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie
Well, yeah. Of course. And so long as their actions have little or no affect on mobile app/mobile hardware development in general, nobody gives a damn.
Well... since Apple is the only developer of hardware that ("legally")runs their software and since they are the only developer of software that will run ("legally") on their hardware, how will Apple's actions adversely affect other companies' hardware and software development?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie
But if/when a company develops monopoly power, and therefore their actions affect the viability of the relevant market as a whole, people perk up.
Is somebody developing monopoly power? If so, then who is it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie
And if such companies are determined to have taken such actions intending to stifle/prevent competition, or to erect barriers to entry, then it rises to a level somewhat higher than mere concern.
Apple promotes competition in the App Store by providing quality development tools at no extra cost to those who purchase a Mac. Where is competition being stifled or prevented?
On the one hand, you're bragging about how Android phone sales have surpassed the iPhone and how other phone vendors are catching up.
On the other hand, you're complaining that Apple has monopoly power and is stifling development.
If developers or customers don't like the Apple app store, they're free to buy Android phones. Or Symbian phones. Or Blackberry phones. or Windows Mobile phones.
Your argument is no different than demanding that Nintendo allow xBox games to be played on the Wii. It just doesn't make sense - either legally or logically.
You misunderstand my position if you think your example encapsulates it.
And you overestimate the range of issues upon which I have taken any position at all.
By that phrase I meant "the market for Applications to be installed on mobile devices".
And the current antitrust inquiries, IIUC, are intended to determine whether or not actions need to be taken to maintain and expand the choices you cite.
Well...
Now, you're talking about something, with which, I have some personal experience:
I worked for IBM 1964-1980 in the Data Processing Division-- Mainframe computer marketing and support.
IBM had 97% of the mainframe market. A monopoly suit was brought by Justice:
Quote:
However, IBM's dominant market share in the mid-1960s led to antitrust inquiries by the U.S. Department of Justice, which filed a complaint for the case U.S. v. IBM in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on January 17, 1969. The suit alleged that IBM violated the Section 2 of the Sherman Act by monopolizing or attempting to monopolize the general purpose electronic digital computer system market, specifically computers designed primarily for business. The case dragged out for 13 years, turning into a resource-sapping war of attrition. In 1982, the Justice Department finally concluded that the case was ?without merit? and dropped it, But having to operate under the pall of antitrust litigation significantly impacted IBM's business decisions and operations during all of the 1970s and a good portion of the 1980s.
Long story, short: It was decided, and publicly stated, that IBM had attained its 97% market share through the excellence of its products, market and support-- which are not unfair, monopolistic or in restraint of trade.
So, cry havoc and [let] loose the dogs of justice-- Apple has a pretty good track record and some legal precedence on its side.
Long story, short: It was decided, and publicly stated, that IBM had attained its 97% market share through the excellence of its products, market and support-- which are not unfair, monopolistic or in restraint of trade.
Great post. Interesting about IBM.
But this was back when washington bureaucrats had at least partial brains. What are these morons in power going to do now.
[QUOTE=TheWatchfulOne;1639565]Good! Because I really have no desire to do that. Unless of course Apple wants to pay me a salary in exchange for me providing that service for them. Man, when I asked what it is that I don't get to decide I was hoping for a real answer...
Whether or not you have that desire ain't really got nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWatchfulOne
Ooh! Tell me about the exceptions, Stevie, tell me about the exceptions!
Well, as long as your acting like you're my little b*tch (what the heck is that all about, anyhow?) I'll cite one exception. Users can void their warranty and check out some of the rejected apps at the Cydia store.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWatchfulOne
Well... since Apple is the only developer of hardware that ("legally")runs their software and since they are the only developer of software that will run ("legally") on their hardware, how will Apple's actions adversely affect other companies' hardware and software development?
The contention, if I understand it correctly, is that Apple will reject any app that is developed using tools which would allow the app to run on platforms other than Apple's.
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.
What is left unstated in your position is that Apple is this dominant force in the Apps market and that it will then use its domination to impose its will in other mobile computing ecosystems?
First, let us consider the nature of the phone industry.
By its very nature, especially in the US, no phone manufacturer can simply sell its phone product. It requires the approval of or at least compatibility wih the technology of the telecom carrier. The carrier therefore exercise more power than any phone manufacturer. A case in point, Nokia has been the most dominant phone manufacturer but it could not only not gain any headway in the North American market, but actually losing marketshare. Similarly, if past reports were true, Verizon rejected Apple's iPhone because Steve Jobs would not accept Verizon's conditions when Apple approached Verizon ca 2005/2006 or thereabouts. For this reason, Apple had no recourse but to accept the exclusive deal with Cingular (later on AT&T, after the merger), in order to for Apple to have free will in developing what was to become the iPhone.
The long term goals of the telecom carriers are not likely to be in "lock-step" with those of the phone manufacturers. Thus, it is unlikely that any telecom carrier would allow any phone manufacturer to become its sole or dominant phone supplier. This will happen because of the powers of any telecom carrier, as noted in the aforementioned point.
If you will state that this lack of competition is due to the nature of the telecom industry, you will get my vote.
Now, let us consider the history of Apple's entry to mobile computing.
As noted above, the Apple iPhone might never have been, had no US telecom carrier agreed to carry the iPhone.
Do not forget the mockery of Steve Ballmer: Windows Mobile? Millions! The iPhone? Zero! Even six month after the iPhone was announced, the computer industry was skeptical that the iPhone would make it. The phone manufacturers were similarly skeptical. Today, we assumed it was a success. However, let us not forget that some Apple's products, e.g., the Cube, and Apple TV, did not make it. The iPhone could have suffered the same fate.
Apple entered market where there are already predominant phone manufacturers -- Nokia (the uncontested dominant phone maker at the time), RIM, Motorola, and all the phone manufacturers in the Asian tiger countries -- China, Taiwan, South Korea, Japan (I am surprised no such stronghold in Singapore). Then, you have the might of the true monopoly: Microsoft with its Windows Mobile.
It is not as if. the iPhone was a big secret before 2007. Any or all of the aforementioned parties could have done something to thwart the yet untested competition from Apple. But, everyone was caught flat-footed because of the ingrained belief that Apple iPhone would just attract Apple "fanbois",
The reality was that they should have learned their lesson with how Apple entered the digital music market. Let me point out here however that in the digital music industry, Apple dominated eventually because it created an ecosystem -- the ease of use of the iPod, the iTunes, the payment system, the Apple aura of chic and perhaps even technology, which many Zune apostles would very vehemently dispute. The other key factor in the eventual domination of the iPod was that it did not have a gatekeeper, as the iPhone is subjected to, in the form of the telecom carriers.
Now, the history of the Apps.
It seened as if it had been ages ago, but the Apps store is barely two years old. Let us not forget too that Apple did not, in fact was initially a reluctant player in what was to evolve the Apps Store, in the Apple iPhone OS ecosystem.
It was individual developers, who saw the potential of the iPhone OS, that clamored for Apple to allow them to participate. And, it succeeded even beyond Apple's expectations.
What was good about Apple was that it was able to recognize early the significance of the Apps Store in the success of its mobile computing strategy. Thus, it focused on improving the ecosystem further. And improved it more systematically -- unlike Microsoft's efforts with its own mobile computing and digital music efforts.
Further, rather than being greedy, Apple provided a very generous sharing (70-30) with its developers. Contrast this with prior terms of Microsoft and Amazon, and even the subsequent efforts of other companies. As important, it continued to support the SDK and provide other innovations to help each developer derive income from the Apps they create.
Which came first, the hen or the egg?
If ever Apple was generous with its developers, Apple was not being altruistic, it realizes that it could sell more iPhone OS mobile devices, if there are more Apps created for it.
In a sense, the developers "can break Apple", if there is enough of them to object to Apple's policies and flee to more welcoming ecosystems. But, let's be brutally frank, as confessed by Spiers(?), one of the developers who grandstanded in his proclamation to not develop for Apple Apps Store again. Not a year later, he was just as pompous to announce why he had to swallow his own words. They would only do this for as long as the iPhone OS ecosystem remains a viable strategy.
To my knowledge, I have not heard any policy that Apple would ban any developer that will develop.
Similarly, Apple, in spite of its own strick policies, did indeed make changes to avoid mass exodus among developers.
Equally important, the Apps would be a selling factor only if the users of iPhone OS mobile devices accept them. They have the final say.
This triumvirate within the Apple ecosystem -- Apple, developers and consumers -- offer some checks and balances within. And, this works only because the developers and consumers do have choices.
Let's not forget that there are indeed very viable and formidable competitions. Among these is the Google Android ecosystem. I already posted elsewhere why the Android ecosystem may overtake the phone competition of the Apple iPhone mobile devices, in terms of marketshare. It remains to be seen though whether any or the combined Androids will overtake Apple's profitability.
We should be reminded also that no one has thought of the Android as a formidable competition, just a year or so ago.
By the same token, there is nothing to prevent any company from simply coming out of the blue, to challenge the kings of the day.
What is certain, for as long as Steve Jobs is at the helm of Apple, the company would simply rollover.
Steve Jobs/Apple remain a vital force, not from unfair practices but because they do create products that are game-changers and able to persuade consumers to buy them. As such, many other companies cannot help but try to emulate them.
Certainly, Google, considering all the insights that Schmidt gained as a member of Apple Board, has the technical power and resources, to learn from how Apple developed its iPhone OS ecosystem. But, so far, has not taken the steps to create a better ecosystem. This can be said of other companies.
This, I think, is what made the difference. Instead of meeting the challenge, they simply keep on crying: "Foul" Or, at least their acolytes do.
No, not all websites use Flash. Because of the predominance of webkit browsers people can browse a Flashless web with little problem.
We are three years into this and mostly all of the top used web sites have mobile versions that do not use any Flash. All of the major media sites deliver media in H.264. In reality rarely do you see broken Flash links on the iPhone because you are automatically directed to the mobile site that has no Flash.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronster
There's a very obvious reason actually: Websites use flash, and people will browse websites with the ipad lol
You misunderstand my position if you think your example encapsulates it.
And you overestimate the range of issues upon which I have taken any position at all.
I've read hundreds of your posts since you joined this forum, last month!
You rarely take a specific position on anything-- rather offer generalized insuinualtons.
The leitmotif is definitely anti any/all things Apple.
You attempt to appear objective, and above the fray... but periodically post something to stir the pot, muddy the water, or just take the other "side" of your prior posts. All the while, claiming that others don't understand you or are misquoting you.
It would be more productive to try to conduct an intelligent conversation with Jello!
See how easy that is to do with out misquoting/misunderstanding you!
Whether or not you have that desire ain't really got nothing to do with the topic at hand.
You brought it up that the "buyer can't decide" and I just wanted to know what it was that you thought I "couldn't" decide. If it doesn't have anything to do with the topic at hand then why did you bring it up?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie
Well, as long as your acting like you're my little b*tch (what the heck is that all about, anyhow?) I'll cite one exception. Users can void their warranty and check out some of the rejected apps at the Cydia store.
A misplaced reference to John Steinback, no offence intended. But thanks for a true answer. I'm not really interested in Cydia myself but I wouldn't deny it's "right" to exist. Neither would I deny Apple's right to not support Cydia apps. Apple should not be forced to support or promote any product it was not involved in. I've never heard of Apple trying to have Cydia shut down either so I'm not sure what the problem is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie
The contention, if I understand it correctly, is that Apple will reject any app that is developed using tools which would allow the app to run on platforms other than Apple's.
Why such contention over Apple's rightful enforcement of rules and good development practices for a platform that it owns?
No, not all websites use Flash. Because of the predominance of webkit browsers people can browse a Flashless web with little problem.
We are three years into this and mostly all of the top used web sites have mobile versions that do not use any Flash. All of the major media sites deliver media in H.264. In reality rarely do you see broken Flash links on the iPhone because you are automatically directed to the mobile site that has no Flash.
lol I didn't mean all websites use flash. Guess I should watch what I say!
A lot of websites I visit still use it. It's just not phased out yet. That's a reason to support it. Jobs says he doesn't want to ruin the user experience, but last I checked, flash was something that could be turned off.
What is left unstated in your position is that Apple is this dominant force in the Apps market and that it will then use its domination to impose its will in other mobile computing ecosystems?
First, let us consider the nature of the phone industry.
By its very nature, especially in the US, no phone manufacturer can simply sell its phone product. It requires the approval of or at least compatibility wih the technology of the telecom carrier. The carrier therefore exercise more power than any phone manufacturer. A case in point, Nokia has been the most dominant phone manufacturer but it could not only not gain any headway in the North American market, but actually losing marketshare. Similarly, if past reports were true, Verizon rejected Apple's iPhone because Steve Jobs would not accept Verizon's conditions when Apple approached Verizon ca 2005/2006 or thereabouts. For this reason, Apple had no recourse but to accept the exclusive deal with Cingular (later on AT&T, after the merger), in order to for Apple to have free will in developing what was to become the iPhone.
The long term goals of the telecom carriers are not likely to be in "lock-step" with those of the phone manufacturers. Thus, it is unlikely that any telecom carrier would allow any phone manufacturer to become its sole or dominant phone supplier. This will happen because of the powers of any telecom carrier, as noted in the aforementioned point.
If you will state that this lack of competition is due to the nature of the telecom industry, you will get my vote.
Now, let us consider the history of Apple's entry to mobile computing.
As noted above, the Apple iPhone might never have been, had no US telecom carrier agreed to carry the iPhone.
Do not forget the mockery of Steve Ballmer: Windows Mobile? Millions! The iPhone? Zero! Even six month after the iPhone was announced, the computer industry was skeptical that the iPhone would make it. The phone manufacturers were similarly skeptical. Today, we assumed it was a success. However, let us not forget that some Apple's products, e.g., the Cube, and Apple TV, did not make it. The iPhone could have suffered the same fate.
Apple entered market where there are already predominant phone manufacturers -- Nokia (the uncontested dominant phone maker at the time), RIM, Motorola, and all the phone manufacturers in the Asian tiger countries -- China, Taiwan, South Korea, Japan (I am surprised no such stronghold in Singapore). Then, you have the might of the true monopoly: Microsoft with its Windows Mobile.
It is not as if. the iPhone was a big secret before 2007. Any or all of the aforementioned parties could have done something to thwart the yet untested competition from Apple. But, everyone was caught flat-footed because of the ingrained belief that Apple iPhone would just attract Apple "fanbois",
The reality was that they should have learned their lesson with how Apple entered the digital music market. Let me point out here however that in the digital music industry, Apple dominated eventually because it created an ecosystem -- the ease of use of the iPod, the iTunes, the payment system, the Apple aura of chic and perhaps even technology, which many Zune apostles would very vehemently dispute. The other key factor in the eventual domination of the iPod was that it did not have a gatekeeper, as the iPhone is subjected to, in the form of the telecom carriers.
Now, the history of the Apps.
It seened as if it had been ages ago, but the Apps store is barely two years old. Let us not forget too that Apple did not, in fact was initially a reluctant player in what was to evolve the Apps Store, in the Apple iPhone OS ecosystem.
It was individual developers, who saw the potential of the iPhone OS, that clamored for Apple to allow them to participate. And, it succeeded even beyond Apple's expectations.
What was good about Apple was that it was able to recognize early the significance of the Apps Store in the success of its mobile computing strategy. Thus, it focused on improving the ecosystem further. And improved it more systematically -- unlike Microsoft's efforts with its own mobile computing and digital music efforts.
Further, rather than being greedy, Apple provided a very generous sharing (70-30) with its developers. Contrast this with prior terms of Microsoft and Amazon, and even the subsequent efforts of other companies. As important, it continued to support the SDK and provide other innovations to help each developer derive income from the Apps they create.
Which came first, the hen or the egg?
If ever Apple was generous with its developers, Apple was not being altruistic, it realizes that it could sell more iPhone OS mobile devices, if there are more Apps created for it.
In a sense, the developers "can break Apple", if there is enough of them to object to Apple's policies and flee to more welcoming ecosystems. But, let's be brutally frank, as confessed by Spiers(?), one of the developers who grandstanded in his proclamation to not develop for Apple Apps Store again. Not a year later, he was just as pompous to announce why he had to swallow his own words. They would only do this for as long as the iPhone OS ecosystem remains a viable strategy.
To my knowledge, I have not heard any policy that Apple would ban any developer that will develop.
Similarly, Apple, in spite of its own strick policies, did indeed make changes to avoid mass exodus among developers.
Equally important, the Apps would be a selling factor only if the users of iPhone OS mobile devices accept them. They have the final say.
This triumvirate within the Apple ecosystem -- Apple, developers and consumers -- offer some checks and balances within. And, this works only because the developers and consumers do have choices.
Let's not forget that there are indeed very viable and formidable competitions. Among these is the Google Android ecosystem. I already posted elsewhere why the Android ecosystem may overtake the phone competition of the Apple iPhone mobile devices, in terms of marketshare. It remains to be seen though whether any or the combined Androids will overtake Apple's profitability.
We should be reminded also that no one has thought of the Android as a formidable competition, just a year or so ago.
By the same token, there is nothing to prevent any company from simply coming out of the blue, to challenge the kings of the day.
What is certain, for as long as Steve Jobs is at the helm of Apple, the company would simply rollover.
Steve Jobs/Apple remain a vital force, not from unfair practices but because they do create products that are game-changers and able to persuade consumers to buy them. As such, many other companies cannot help but try to emulate them.
Certainly, Google, considering all the insights that Schmidt gained as a member of Apple Board, has the technical power and resources, to learn from how Apple developed its iPhone OS ecosystem. But, so far, has not taken the steps to create a better ecosystem. This can be said of other companies.
This, I think, is what made the difference. Instead of meeting the challenge, they simply keep on crying: "Foul" Or, at least their acolytes do.
CGC
Very reasoned, and well stated!
Of course, he will respond that you misunderstand or misquote him.
lol I didn't mean all websites use flash. Guess I should watch what I say!
It doesn't matter. The number that REQUIRE Flash is declining every day. A year ago, you couldn't use car web sites or Disney with an iPhone and now you can. Youtube works. Almost every week, another major player is announcing an iPad compatible version of their web site.
And for the tiny number that absolutely require Flash and which you can't avoid, I can STILL access Flash sites on my iPad by using Logmein to reach my home computer. There are other options, as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronster
A lot of websites I visit still use it. It's just not phased out yet. That's a reason to support it. Jobs says he doesn't want to ruin the user experience, but last I checked, flash was something that could be turned off..
And that would be the WORST possible scenario. Apple would be forced to support crappy software, yet developers would never create Flash-free web sites since they could simply tell iDevice users to turn Flash on. No one would benefit - except lazy developers.
Not to mention, of course, that it's not even an OPTION until Adobe releases a version of Flash that would run on the iPhone. Today, nearly 3 years after the iPhone release, there is STILL no version of Flash which runs on 400-600 MHz mobile devices like the iPhone. (Even 10.1 which conceivably might be able to run on the iPad-but not the iphone- is slow and buggy by all reports.)
I agree. Starting at 16GB is a bit ridiculous. If the iPad is a media device (and it is), it needs much more than the 16 GB. And an upgrade of 48GB shouldn't cost $200 nowadays.
My iPad needs nearly no media storage whatsoever. It is connected to the internet. And no, that's not speculation. I own an iPad and only need enough room for app binaries.
In other words, media is increasingly delivered via a network connection. Locally stored media is on its way out.
You might be able to make that case for gaming though... for the time being. That too is likely to be increasingly network delivered.
Comments
Censorship is *always* wrong, unless you can point to some real, material damage that the lack of said censorship causes. Being "offended," applying a religious standard, not liking something, or not thinking it's up to your aesthetic standards is simply not enough reason to ban things IMO.
The only problem with your logic is that no one is censoring anything.
Apple has chosen quality standards and any app developer who meets their quality standards can get listed. Deciding not to carry apps that don't meet their standards is not censorship.
Yes. And no reasons were given why such actions are impossible for Apple, but SOP for every other retailer on earth.
Your position seems to be that Apple has no ability, or no practical capability, to discern the quality of the wares it wishes to sell. That strikes me as incorrect.
It is clear that you've got an irrational need to criticize anything Apple does. If they don't restrict apps, you criticize them. If the restrict apps, you criticize them.
Apple has standards - just like every other retailer out there. Whether their standards agree with yours (or with Walmart's) is irrelevant. Developers can choose to work within Apple's standards or sell their apps only to jailbroken phones or write their apps for a different platform. Their choice.
There's a very obvious reason actually: Websites use flash, and people will browse websites with the ipad lol
Except that I almost never run into a web site using Flash that I need to see on my iPad. But when I do, I just fire up Logmein and I can see the Flash web page. No problem at all.
But at least this way, I don't have to worry about my web experience being destroyed by Flash crapware.
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.
Because Adobe is lazy.
Well, yeah. Of course. And so long as their actions have little or no affect on mobile app/mobile hardware development in general, nobody gives a damn.
But if/when a company develops monopoly power, and therefore their actions affect the viability of the relevant market as a whole, people perk up.
And if such companies are determined to have taken such actions intending to stifle/prevent competition, or to erect barriers to entry, then it rises to a level somewhat higher than mere concern.
This is, of course, silly.
On the one hand, you're bragging about how Android phone sales have surpassed the iPhone and how other phone vendors are catching up.
On the other hand, you're complaining that Apple has monopoly power and is stifling development.
If developers or customers don't like the Apple app store, they're free to buy Android phones. Or Symbian phones. Or Blackberry phones. or Windows Mobile phones.
Your argument is no different than demanding that Nintendo allow xBox games to be played on the Wii. It just doesn't make sense - either legally or logically.
Here's the online version of the article, sans song: http://bit.ly/cgkFYG
I said that Apple was screenning for apps that didn't...
Their screening process doesn't catch everything... but, as a user, I am thankful that they try.
Programming in ObjC (with manual memory management) does not guarantee a good program, but it is easier for Apple to catch the bad ones during evaluation/approval.
However, programming in Flash has been shown to result in inferior apps on the desktop (with abundant resources), and therefore will, most likely, yield inferior apps on the mobile platform (with finite resources).
So, it is understandable that Apple ban the predominate tool for creating inferior apps, and spend its limited resources evaluating apps created with tools that usually produce [technically] good apps. (Whether these apps are of limited or broad appeal, is another question).
.
Totally agree!
As a buyer, you cannot decide on the quality of those apps that Apple does not sell.
Good! Because I really have no desire to do that. Unless of course Apple wants to pay me a salary in exchange for me providing that service for them. Man, when I asked what it is that I don't get to decide I was hoping for a real answer...
With exceptions of course.
Ooh! Tell me about the exceptions, Stevie, tell me about the exceptions!
Well, yeah. Of course. And so long as their actions have little or no affect on mobile app/mobile hardware development in general, nobody gives a damn.
Well... since Apple is the only developer of hardware that ("legally")runs their software and since they are the only developer of software that will run ("legally") on their hardware, how will Apple's actions adversely affect other companies' hardware and software development?
But if/when a company develops monopoly power, and therefore their actions affect the viability of the relevant market as a whole, people perk up.
Is somebody developing monopoly power? If so, then who is it?
And if such companies are determined to have taken such actions intending to stifle/prevent competition, or to erect barriers to entry, then it rises to a level somewhat higher than mere concern.
Apple promotes competition in the App Store by providing quality development tools at no extra cost to those who purchase a Mac. Where is competition being stifled or prevented?
This is, of course, silly.
On the one hand, you're bragging about how Android phone sales have surpassed the iPhone and how other phone vendors are catching up.
On the other hand, you're complaining that Apple has monopoly power and is stifling development.
If developers or customers don't like the Apple app store, they're free to buy Android phones. Or Symbian phones. Or Blackberry phones. or Windows Mobile phones.
Your argument is no different than demanding that Nintendo allow xBox games to be played on the Wii. It just doesn't make sense - either legally or logically.
You misunderstand my position if you think your example encapsulates it.
And you overestimate the range of issues upon which I have taken any position at all.
By that phrase I meant "the market for Applications to be installed on mobile devices".
And the current antitrust inquiries, IIUC, are intended to determine whether or not actions need to be taken to maintain and expand the choices you cite.
Well...
Now, you're talking about something, with which, I have some personal experience:
I worked for IBM 1964-1980 in the Data Processing Division-- Mainframe computer marketing and support.
IBM had 97% of the mainframe market. A monopoly suit was brought by Justice:
However, IBM's dominant market share in the mid-1960s led to antitrust inquiries by the U.S. Department of Justice, which filed a complaint for the case U.S. v. IBM in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on January 17, 1969. The suit alleged that IBM violated the Section 2 of the Sherman Act by monopolizing or attempting to monopolize the general purpose electronic digital computer system market, specifically computers designed primarily for business. The case dragged out for 13 years, turning into a resource-sapping war of attrition. In 1982, the Justice Department finally concluded that the case was ?without merit? and dropped it, But having to operate under the pall of antitrust litigation significantly impacted IBM's business decisions and operations during all of the 1970s and a good portion of the 1980s.
Long story, short: It was decided, and publicly stated, that IBM had attained its 97% market share through the excellence of its products, market and support-- which are not unfair, monopolistic or in restraint of trade.
So, cry havoc and [let] loose the dogs of justice-- Apple has a pretty good track record and some legal precedence on its side.
Excellence is not illegal!
.
Long story, short: It was decided, and publicly stated, that IBM had attained its 97% market share through the excellence of its products, market and support-- which are not unfair, monopolistic or in restraint of trade.
Great post. Interesting about IBM.
But this was back when washington bureaucrats had at least partial brains. What are these morons in power going to do now.
Whether or not you have that desire ain't really got nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Ooh! Tell me about the exceptions, Stevie, tell me about the exceptions!
Well, as long as your acting like you're my little b*tch (what the heck is that all about, anyhow?) I'll cite one exception. Users can void their warranty and check out some of the rejected apps at the Cydia store.
Well... since Apple is the only developer of hardware that ("legally")runs their software and since they are the only developer of software that will run ("legally") on their hardware, how will Apple's actions adversely affect other companies' hardware and software development?
The contention, if I understand it correctly, is that Apple will reject any app that is developed using tools which would allow the app to run on platforms other than Apple's.
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.
What is left unstated in your position is that Apple is this dominant force in the Apps market and that it will then use its domination to impose its will in other mobile computing ecosystems?
First, let us consider the nature of the phone industry.
- By its very nature, especially in the US, no phone manufacturer can simply sell its phone product. It requires the approval of or at least compatibility wih the technology of the telecom carrier. The carrier therefore exercise more power than any phone manufacturer. A case in point, Nokia has been the most dominant phone manufacturer but it could not only not gain any headway in the North American market, but actually losing marketshare. Similarly, if past reports were true, Verizon rejected Apple's iPhone because Steve Jobs would not accept Verizon's conditions when Apple approached Verizon ca 2005/2006 or thereabouts. For this reason, Apple had no recourse but to accept the exclusive deal with Cingular (later on AT&T, after the merger), in order to for Apple to have free will in developing what was to become the iPhone.
- The long term goals of the telecom carriers are not likely to be in "lock-step" with those of the phone manufacturers. Thus, it is unlikely that any telecom carrier would allow any phone manufacturer to become its sole or dominant phone supplier. This will happen because of the powers of any telecom carrier, as noted in the aforementioned point.
If you will state that this lack of competition is due to the nature of the telecom industry, you will get my vote.Now, let us consider the history of Apple's entry to mobile computing.
- As noted above, the Apple iPhone might never have been, had no US telecom carrier agreed to carry the iPhone.
- Do not forget the mockery of Steve Ballmer: Windows Mobile? Millions! The iPhone? Zero! Even six month after the iPhone was announced, the computer industry was skeptical that the iPhone would make it. The phone manufacturers were similarly skeptical. Today, we assumed it was a success. However, let us not forget that some Apple's products, e.g., the Cube, and Apple TV, did not make it. The iPhone could have suffered the same fate.
- Apple entered market where there are already predominant phone manufacturers -- Nokia (the uncontested dominant phone maker at the time), RIM, Motorola, and all the phone manufacturers in the Asian tiger countries -- China, Taiwan, South Korea, Japan (I am surprised no such stronghold in Singapore). Then, you have the might of the true monopoly: Microsoft with its Windows Mobile.
It is not as if. the iPhone was a big secret before 2007. Any or all of the aforementioned parties could have done something to thwart the yet untested competition from Apple. But, everyone was caught flat-footed because of the ingrained belief that Apple iPhone would just attract Apple "fanbois",The reality was that they should have learned their lesson with how Apple entered the digital music market. Let me point out here however that in the digital music industry, Apple dominated eventually because it created an ecosystem -- the ease of use of the iPod, the iTunes, the payment system, the Apple aura of chic and perhaps even technology, which many Zune apostles would very vehemently dispute. The other key factor in the eventual domination of the iPod was that it did not have a gatekeeper, as the iPhone is subjected to, in the form of the telecom carriers.
Now, the history of the Apps.
Which came first, the hen or the egg?
If ever Apple was generous with its developers, Apple was not being altruistic, it realizes that it could sell more iPhone OS mobile devices, if there are more Apps created for it.
In a sense, the developers "can break Apple", if there is enough of them to object to Apple's policies and flee to more welcoming ecosystems. But, let's be brutally frank, as confessed by Spiers(?), one of the developers who grandstanded in his proclamation to not develop for Apple Apps Store again. Not a year later, he was just as pompous to announce why he had to swallow his own words. They would only do this for as long as the iPhone OS ecosystem remains a viable strategy.
To my knowledge, I have not heard any policy that Apple would ban any developer that will develop.
Similarly, Apple, in spite of its own strick policies, did indeed make changes to avoid mass exodus among developers.
Equally important, the Apps would be a selling factor only if the users of iPhone OS mobile devices accept them. They have the final say.
This triumvirate within the Apple ecosystem -- Apple, developers and consumers -- offer some checks and balances within. And, this works only because the developers and consumers do have choices.
Let's not forget that there are indeed very viable and formidable competitions. Among these is the Google Android ecosystem. I already posted elsewhere why the Android ecosystem may overtake the phone competition of the Apple iPhone mobile devices, in terms of marketshare. It remains to be seen though whether any or the combined Androids will overtake Apple's profitability.
We should be reminded also that no one has thought of the Android as a formidable competition, just a year or so ago.
By the same token, there is nothing to prevent any company from simply coming out of the blue, to challenge the kings of the day.
What is certain, for as long as Steve Jobs is at the helm of Apple, the company would simply rollover.
Steve Jobs/Apple remain a vital force, not from unfair practices but because they do create products that are game-changers and able to persuade consumers to buy them. As such, many other companies cannot help but try to emulate them.
Certainly, Google, considering all the insights that Schmidt gained as a member of Apple Board, has the technical power and resources, to learn from how Apple developed its iPhone OS ecosystem. But, so far, has not taken the steps to create a better ecosystem. This can be said of other companies.
This, I think, is what made the difference. Instead of meeting the challenge, they simply keep on crying: "Foul" Or, at least their acolytes do.
CGC
We are three years into this and mostly all of the top used web sites have mobile versions that do not use any Flash. All of the major media sites deliver media in H.264. In reality rarely do you see broken Flash links on the iPhone because you are automatically directed to the mobile site that has no Flash.
There's a very obvious reason actually: Websites use flash, and people will browse websites with the ipad lol
You misunderstand my position if you think your example encapsulates it.
And you overestimate the range of issues upon which I have taken any position at all.
I've read hundreds of your posts since you joined this forum, last month!
You rarely take a specific position on anything-- rather offer generalized insuinualtons.
The leitmotif is definitely anti any/all things Apple.
You attempt to appear objective, and above the fray... but periodically post something to stir the pot, muddy the water, or just take the other "side" of your prior posts. All the while, claiming that others don't understand you or are misquoting you.
It would be more productive to try to conduct an intelligent conversation with Jello!
See how easy that is to do with out misquoting/misunderstanding you!
.
Great post. Interesting about IBM.
But this was back when washington bureaucrats had at least partial brains. What are these morons in power going to do now.
Unfortunately, it. likely ,depends on who spends the most on campaign donations or lobbying!
Sigh!
.
Whether or not you have that desire ain't really got nothing to do with the topic at hand.
You brought it up that the "buyer can't decide" and I just wanted to know what it was that you thought I "couldn't" decide. If it doesn't have anything to do with the topic at hand then why did you bring it up?
Well, as long as your acting like you're my little b*tch (what the heck is that all about, anyhow?) I'll cite one exception. Users can void their warranty and check out some of the rejected apps at the Cydia store.
A misplaced reference to John Steinback, no offence intended. But thanks for a true answer. I'm not really interested in Cydia myself but I wouldn't deny it's "right" to exist. Neither would I deny Apple's right to not support Cydia apps. Apple should not be forced to support or promote any product it was not involved in. I've never heard of Apple trying to have Cydia shut down either so I'm not sure what the problem is.
The contention, if I understand it correctly, is that Apple will reject any app that is developed using tools which would allow the app to run on platforms other than Apple's.
Why such contention over Apple's rightful enforcement of rules and good development practices for a platform that it owns?
But at least this way, I don't have to worry about my web experience being destroyed by Flash crapware.
.
there's a reason why windows users and osx users have such a different view of flash
In other words, it's not crapware for the Windows users.
No, not all websites use Flash. Because of the predominance of webkit browsers people can browse a Flashless web with little problem.
We are three years into this and mostly all of the top used web sites have mobile versions that do not use any Flash. All of the major media sites deliver media in H.264. In reality rarely do you see broken Flash links on the iPhone because you are automatically directed to the mobile site that has no Flash.
lol I didn't mean all websites use flash. Guess I should watch what I say!
A lot of websites I visit still use it. It's just not phased out yet. That's a reason to support it. Jobs says he doesn't want to ruin the user experience, but last I checked, flash was something that could be turned off.
again, beating a dead horse here.
What is left unstated in your position is that Apple is this dominant force in the Apps market and that it will then use its domination to impose its will in other mobile computing ecosystems?
First, let us consider the nature of the phone industry.
- By its very nature, especially in the US, no phone manufacturer can simply sell its phone product. It requires the approval of or at least compatibility wih the technology of the telecom carrier. The carrier therefore exercise more power than any phone manufacturer. A case in point, Nokia has been the most dominant phone manufacturer but it could not only not gain any headway in the North American market, but actually losing marketshare. Similarly, if past reports were true, Verizon rejected Apple's iPhone because Steve Jobs would not accept Verizon's conditions when Apple approached Verizon ca 2005/2006 or thereabouts. For this reason, Apple had no recourse but to accept the exclusive deal with Cingular (later on AT&T, after the merger), in order to for Apple to have free will in developing what was to become the iPhone.
- The long term goals of the telecom carriers are not likely to be in "lock-step" with those of the phone manufacturers. Thus, it is unlikely that any telecom carrier would allow any phone manufacturer to become its sole or dominant phone supplier. This will happen because of the powers of any telecom carrier, as noted in the aforementioned point.
If you will state that this lack of competition is due to the nature of the telecom industry, you will get my vote.Now, let us consider the history of Apple's entry to mobile computing.
- As noted above, the Apple iPhone might never have been, had no US telecom carrier agreed to carry the iPhone.
- Do not forget the mockery of Steve Ballmer: Windows Mobile? Millions! The iPhone? Zero! Even six month after the iPhone was announced, the computer industry was skeptical that the iPhone would make it. The phone manufacturers were similarly skeptical. Today, we assumed it was a success. However, let us not forget that some Apple's products, e.g., the Cube, and Apple TV, did not make it. The iPhone could have suffered the same fate.
- Apple entered market where there are already predominant phone manufacturers -- Nokia (the uncontested dominant phone maker at the time), RIM, Motorola, and all the phone manufacturers in the Asian tiger countries -- China, Taiwan, South Korea, Japan (I am surprised no such stronghold in Singapore). Then, you have the might of the true monopoly: Microsoft with its Windows Mobile.
It is not as if. the iPhone was a big secret before 2007. Any or all of the aforementioned parties could have done something to thwart the yet untested competition from Apple. But, everyone was caught flat-footed because of the ingrained belief that Apple iPhone would just attract Apple "fanbois",The reality was that they should have learned their lesson with how Apple entered the digital music market. Let me point out here however that in the digital music industry, Apple dominated eventually because it created an ecosystem -- the ease of use of the iPod, the iTunes, the payment system, the Apple aura of chic and perhaps even technology, which many Zune apostles would very vehemently dispute. The other key factor in the eventual domination of the iPod was that it did not have a gatekeeper, as the iPhone is subjected to, in the form of the telecom carriers.
Now, the history of the Apps.
Which came first, the hen or the egg?
If ever Apple was generous with its developers, Apple was not being altruistic, it realizes that it could sell more iPhone OS mobile devices, if there are more Apps created for it.
In a sense, the developers "can break Apple", if there is enough of them to object to Apple's policies and flee to more welcoming ecosystems. But, let's be brutally frank, as confessed by Spiers(?), one of the developers who grandstanded in his proclamation to not develop for Apple Apps Store again. Not a year later, he was just as pompous to announce why he had to swallow his own words. They would only do this for as long as the iPhone OS ecosystem remains a viable strategy.
To my knowledge, I have not heard any policy that Apple would ban any developer that will develop.
Similarly, Apple, in spite of its own strick policies, did indeed make changes to avoid mass exodus among developers.
Equally important, the Apps would be a selling factor only if the users of iPhone OS mobile devices accept them. They have the final say.
This triumvirate within the Apple ecosystem -- Apple, developers and consumers -- offer some checks and balances within. And, this works only because the developers and consumers do have choices.
Let's not forget that there are indeed very viable and formidable competitions. Among these is the Google Android ecosystem. I already posted elsewhere why the Android ecosystem may overtake the phone competition of the Apple iPhone mobile devices, in terms of marketshare. It remains to be seen though whether any or the combined Androids will overtake Apple's profitability.
We should be reminded also that no one has thought of the Android as a formidable competition, just a year or so ago.
By the same token, there is nothing to prevent any company from simply coming out of the blue, to challenge the kings of the day.
What is certain, for as long as Steve Jobs is at the helm of Apple, the company would simply rollover.
Steve Jobs/Apple remain a vital force, not from unfair practices but because they do create products that are game-changers and able to persuade consumers to buy them. As such, many other companies cannot help but try to emulate them.
Certainly, Google, considering all the insights that Schmidt gained as a member of Apple Board, has the technical power and resources, to learn from how Apple developed its iPhone OS ecosystem. But, so far, has not taken the steps to create a better ecosystem. This can be said of other companies.
This, I think, is what made the difference. Instead of meeting the challenge, they simply keep on crying: "Foul" Or, at least their acolytes do.
CGC
Very reasoned, and well stated!
Of course, he will respond that you misunderstand or misquote him.
.
but in market cap:
AAPL $ 221,356,820,655
MSFT $ 219,349,229,610
Apple is the second largest company in the US by market cap...
First time, ever!
.
lol I didn't mean all websites use flash. Guess I should watch what I say!
It doesn't matter. The number that REQUIRE Flash is declining every day. A year ago, you couldn't use car web sites or Disney with an iPhone and now you can. Youtube works. Almost every week, another major player is announcing an iPad compatible version of their web site.
And for the tiny number that absolutely require Flash and which you can't avoid, I can STILL access Flash sites on my iPad by using Logmein to reach my home computer. There are other options, as well.
A lot of websites I visit still use it. It's just not phased out yet. That's a reason to support it. Jobs says he doesn't want to ruin the user experience, but last I checked, flash was something that could be turned off..
And that would be the WORST possible scenario. Apple would be forced to support crappy software, yet developers would never create Flash-free web sites since they could simply tell iDevice users to turn Flash on. No one would benefit - except lazy developers.
Not to mention, of course, that it's not even an OPTION until Adobe releases a version of Flash that would run on the iPhone. Today, nearly 3 years after the iPhone release, there is STILL no version of Flash which runs on 400-600 MHz mobile devices like the iPhone. (Even 10.1 which conceivably might be able to run on the iPad-but not the iphone- is slow and buggy by all reports.)
I agree. Starting at 16GB is a bit ridiculous. If the iPad is a media device (and it is), it needs much more than the 16 GB. And an upgrade of 48GB shouldn't cost $200 nowadays.
My iPad needs nearly no media storage whatsoever. It is connected to the internet. And no, that's not speculation. I own an iPad and only need enough room for app binaries.
In other words, media is increasingly delivered via a network connection. Locally stored media is on its way out.
You might be able to make that case for gaming though... for the time being. That too is likely to be increasingly network delivered.