This isn't about forcing Apple to run Flash on the iPhone. The iPhone isn't a monopoly, and only, what, 3 or 4 phone models can even run Flash out of the hundreds or thousands out there. No one could enforce a ruling like that. I believe the investigation is ONLY about Apple banning software such as Flash from converting code to iPhone language-friendly apps. Even I see a problem with that. This doesn't hurt just Adobe. It hurts anyone out there that might have been trying to create a business around app portability between various app storefronts. And that in turn hurts app developers with limited resources attempting to port their apps to broader markets. This is where I see the harm. If the app code is written in Apple's accepted languages, it should be allowed regardless of being ported from another language. If the app is buggy or harmful, reject it as any other natively written app.
I believe this is the only plausible judgment the FTC or EU could enforce. The iPhone AppStore is the leading storefront with the most apps available and the most apps sold, making it a market leader. Therefore opening up the AppStore to portable apps invigorates competition between storefronts and, through that, devices themselves.
It may make life difficult for lazy developers, but it helps the consumer by improving the user experience. Apple is entirely free to make that tradeoff.
Android is designed for lazy developers who don't care about consumer experience, so that market is covered.
This isn't about forcing Apple to run Flash on the iPhone. The iPhone isn't a monopoly, and only, what, 3 or 4 phone models can even run Flash out of the hundreds or thousands out there. No one could enforce a ruling like that. I believe the investigation is ONLY about Apple banning software such as Flash from converting code to iPhone language-friendly apps. Even I see a problem with that. This doesn't hurt just Adobe. It hurts anyone out there that might have been trying to create a business around app portability between various app storefronts. And that in turn hurts app developers with limited resources attempting to port their apps to broader markets. This is where I see the harm. If the app code is written in Apple's accepted languages, it should be allowed regardless of being ported from another language. If the app is buggy or harmful, reject it as any other natively written app.
I believe this is the only plausible judgment the FTC or EU could enforce. The iPhone AppStore is the leading storefront with the most apps available and the most apps sold, making it a market leader. Therefore opening up the AppStore to portable apps invigorates competition between storefronts and, through that, devices themselves.
This is a very intelligent analysis. I suspect you are right about the general outlines of the complaints and how they will be resolved. Apple I believe is going to have to respond with some sort of performance standard, rather than the current simplistic "no cross-compiled apps" policy. With the EU now involved I'd guess this is more likely than it was with just the FTC investigating the complaint. I don't see it as being any kind of a big deal, but I hope Apple is thinking of how they can settle this quickly and move on.
Are these investigations for blocking the Flash video player in the browser or for dictating how developers write apps? I don't think the government can/should force Apple to allow Flash player on its browser, but I am not sure about the developers issue. Apple should be able to control its own platform to some extent, of course. The question the government has to be asking is: Was this done to make apps better or hurt Adobe and stop apps from being easily ported to Android?
This idea that Apple banned non-Objective-C apps to hurt someone or to prevent porting is just so much pernicious nonsense. While in the suspicious minds of people to whom it may look that way because that's what they would do, because that's how they do business, Apple has never been a company that tries to succeed by crippling others. Companies like Google and Microsoft may often try to get ahead by cutting off other companies' oxygen, but I have never seen any action by Apple that was intended to profit them by destroying someone else. This is a fundamental difference between Apple and companies who thrive by the misfortune of others.
It's pretty clear that the reasons SJ gave for banning non-Objective-C apps are entirely reasonable and sensible. They have been there before, and it's not that they don't want apps ported from the iPhone, it's that they don't want them ported to the iPhone. And the very simple reason is that these apps, in overwhelming majority, are crap. Flash is particularly problematic because a) it's a resource hog and b) because Flash promotes sloppy, crappy development to begin with. (Just look at all the crap websites in the lists of top Flash websites, if you need evidence.) Not only are these apps not wanted, they aren't needed and don't bring anything of value. Worse yet, they limit the advancement of the platform, unless Apple is willing to regularly break them all by just ignoring backwards compatibility for the crap that would result, a path that I would advise them to take, frequently, if they were forced to allow this junk.
Android 2.2 devices - which probably constitute about 0.1% of the smartphone market.
Which will only increase in numbers, as there's nothing to indicate that Android's momentum is slowing any time soon.
Phones are now starting to ship with 2.2 be default. All future iteration of Android will include the ability to run Flash, so as time goes on and Android starts taking a larger share of the total market, Flash will be there with it.
The EU are vile leftist scum who will eventually fine companies for not having enough muslims.
And your cretinous post proves that Cretin's law is not absolute and can come into effect at any given moment in a world where there is not forum idiot filter at the point of joining.
Your smiley face gives me hope that your post was in fact a sarcastic reply to some other moronic post, though I am not so sure...
It may make life difficult for lazy developers, but it helps the consumer by improving the user experience. Apple is entirely free to make that tradeoff.
Android is designed for lazy developers who don't care about consumer experience, so that market is covered.
Time is money. If all I had to do to port an app was run it through a language converter, then test, and submit it, that saves time and money for any developer business. Rewriting an entire app to appease a large corporation is essentially strangling little guys out of the market.
I love Apple. I just wish they didn't make that decision to change their dev agreement. It even hurts them with less potential apps going to the AppStore, or even amazing Android apps, if there are any, being ported as well. Could you imagine apps running and talking to each other through multiple device models? There could be amazing potential there. I know Apple is already trying to do this with FaceTime.
This idea that Apple banned non-Objective-C apps to hurt someone or to prevent porting is just so much pernicious nonsense. While in the suspicious minds of people to whom it may look that way because that's what they would do, because that's how they do business, Apple has never been a company that tries to succeed by crippling others. Companies like Google and Microsoft may often try to get ahead by cutting off other companies' oxygen, but I have never seen any action by Apple that was intended to profit them by destroying someone else. This is a fundamental difference between Apple and companies who thrive by the misfortune of others.
It's pretty clear that the reasons SJ gave for banning non-Objective-C apps are entirely reasonable and sensible. They have been there before, and it's not that they don't want apps ported from the iPhone, it's that they don't want them ported to the iPhone. And the very simple reason is that these apps, in overwhelming majority, are crap. Flash is particularly problematic because a) it's a resource hog and b) because Flash promotes sloppy, crappy development to begin with. (Just look at all the crap websites in the lists of top Flash websites, if you need evidence.) Not only are these apps not wanted, they aren't needed and don't bring anything of value. Worse yet, they limit the advancement of the platform, unless Apple is willing to regularly break them all by just ignoring backwards compatibility for the crap that would result, a path that I would advise them to take, frequently, if they were forced to allow this junk.
Apple's response to the FTC and EU can't rely as heavily on the word "crap" as your argument. So what then is their argument?
Which will only increase in numbers, as there's nothing to indicate that Android's momentum is slowing any time soon.
Phones are now starting to ship with 2.2 be default. All future iteration of Android will include the ability to run Flash, so as time goes on and Android starts taking a larger share of the total market, Flash will be there with it.
Better buy a battery pack-and a fridge to tote it around in-
They run HOT and might as well forget the battery life-
You can count the battery life down in real time-
Not quite something the end users are going to enjoy on a mobile os that is rumored to lack in the battery dept.
Adobe's misuse of the regulatory system to try to punish Apple for not supporting a non-existent technology.
What a bunch of BS. Adobe is not 'misusing' the FTC. They filed some papers. Adobe is not trying harm Apple. Adobe wants to work with Apple devices. And the technology that is in question, the export of Flash to iOS apps, was working perfectly in CS5 beta, and several apps were approved by Apple. Hardly non-existent. You are such a BSer!
Speaking of Blackberry, there is still no Flash for BB OS and I wouldn?t expect it anytime in 2010. All we have is Flash for devices that can use Android newest OS, Froyo, and that number is small.
This is a pretty ridiculous and irrational to expect a device makers to be required to support your product, and that?s before we get into the lack of a monopoly or the fact that Adobe barely has Flash out the door for one mobile OS in August 2010? it?s August 2010!
Adobe?s best move is to actually make Flash on mobiles good, which I think is impossible, but if they cold hypothetically make it good and make it good for all mobile OSes then Apple would have to much user pressure to not add it.
This must be a pre-emptive investigation. It is clearly fuelled by Adobe who is presenting their side of the story and the EU is responding. I am not sure how far this will go as the case at this point clearly has little merit. I guess the investigation will look at whether Apple is using its market strength to unreasonably prevent Flash's ability to compete. It should be very easy for Apple to prove that there is no case to answer here.
Which will only increase in numbers, as there's nothing to indicate that Android's momentum is slowing any time soon. ...
Actually, if you look at charts of Androids growth, they already show its momentum slowing, with it's growth curve significantly less steep in recent months.
Time is money. If all I had to do to port an app was run it through a language converter, then test, and submit it, that saves time and money for any developer business. Rewriting an entire app to appease a large corporation is essentially strangling little guys out of the market. ...
You see, this is exactly the sort of crappy port mentality that Apple doesn't want screwing up it's platform, with apps that break every time there's a system update until the producers of the porting tool get around to updating it and lazy developers getting around to updating their app. Meanwhile, Apple is faced with the dilemma of holding back platform development, or pissing off customers because they sold them crapware to begin with.
The EU are EXPERTS in the field - of wasting other people's money.
Blanket statements, great! Just what we need, another politician saying anything to make the uninformed feel informed and scare them to your side of the argument. I suppose you support the poor getting poorer while the rich get richer, the dumb getting dumber while the smart get smarter (about controlling the dumb).
We need regulation to curb unlimited power and protect those with the least power.
Apple's response to the FTC and EU can't rely as heavily on the word "crap" as your argument. So what then is their argument?
In an ideal world it could, but, in this case, they will have to make it clear that banning crapware ports (they'll come up with a PC phrase) is good for consumers and for iOS developers, while at the same time it allows them to improve their platform at a more rapid pace, again benefitting both of these groups. It's good for consumers because it filters out substandard apps that will very likely not work properly after future system updates, and it's good for developers because it creates a level playing field for them to compete on, and everyone benefits from the advancement of the platform with new technologies: Apple, consumers, developers, and copy-cats.
Actually, if you look at charts of Androids growth, they already show its momentum slowing, with it's growth curve significantly less steep in recent months.
If you want to limit it to just the recent months, then sure, Android has slowed a bit. But that would be in error to say that just because it had a less steep curve for a few months that it's overall momentum is slowing.
I'm talking long-term here, so overall is what I'm looking at and it doesn't seem to be decreasing.
This idea that Apple banned non-Objective-C apps to hurt someone or to prevent porting is just so much pernicious nonsense. While in the suspicious minds of people to whom it may look that way because that's what they would do, because that's how they do business, Apple has never been a company that tries to succeed by crippling others. Companies like Google and Microsoft may often try to get ahead by cutting off other companies' oxygen, but I have never seen any action by Apple that was intended to profit them by destroying someone else. This is a fundamental difference between Apple and companies who thrive by the misfortune of others.
Actually, that's exactly what Apple did. There really can be no argument otherwise. They did it to prevent porting of apps (vs rewriting them in xcode). Period. End of discussion.
The question at hand is whether that was anti-competitive in the eyes of the regulators. And the argument that Apple has never behaved anti-competively in the past has no relevence to the current issue. (And in case you haven't noticed, Apple isn't the sweet, lovable beleagured company we grew up with.)
Comments
The EU is now in on it? Good luck Apple. They don't tend to be nice to big, market leading companies.
Like Adobe?
Apple has a 3% share of mobile phones and less than 20% of smart phones. How does that make them a market leading company?
I am confused... I mean, I'd actually like Flash on my iPad, but suggesting not having it there 'harms competition' is insane.
Maybe they should investigate Flash's 99% market presense on computers, and see how much THAT is harming competition.
Or Adobe's misuse of the regulatory system to try to punish Apple for not supporting a non-existent technology.
Wait, what mobile devices run the full version of Flash? Because I don't remember seeing any...
Android 2.2 devices - which probably constitute about 0.1% of the smartphone market.
This isn't about forcing Apple to run Flash on the iPhone. The iPhone isn't a monopoly, and only, what, 3 or 4 phone models can even run Flash out of the hundreds or thousands out there. No one could enforce a ruling like that. I believe the investigation is ONLY about Apple banning software such as Flash from converting code to iPhone language-friendly apps. Even I see a problem with that. This doesn't hurt just Adobe. It hurts anyone out there that might have been trying to create a business around app portability between various app storefronts. And that in turn hurts app developers with limited resources attempting to port their apps to broader markets. This is where I see the harm. If the app code is written in Apple's accepted languages, it should be allowed regardless of being ported from another language. If the app is buggy or harmful, reject it as any other natively written app.
I believe this is the only plausible judgment the FTC or EU could enforce. The iPhone AppStore is the leading storefront with the most apps available and the most apps sold, making it a market leader. Therefore opening up the AppStore to portable apps invigorates competition between storefronts and, through that, devices themselves.
It may make life difficult for lazy developers, but it helps the consumer by improving the user experience. Apple is entirely free to make that tradeoff.
Android is designed for lazy developers who don't care about consumer experience, so that market is covered.
Adobe due to the poor performance of flash on my Mac. I have lost too many hours per year having to restart a crashed browser due to their product.
do it.
Flash is Gash
This isn't about forcing Apple to run Flash on the iPhone. The iPhone isn't a monopoly, and only, what, 3 or 4 phone models can even run Flash out of the hundreds or thousands out there. No one could enforce a ruling like that. I believe the investigation is ONLY about Apple banning software such as Flash from converting code to iPhone language-friendly apps. Even I see a problem with that. This doesn't hurt just Adobe. It hurts anyone out there that might have been trying to create a business around app portability between various app storefronts. And that in turn hurts app developers with limited resources attempting to port their apps to broader markets. This is where I see the harm. If the app code is written in Apple's accepted languages, it should be allowed regardless of being ported from another language. If the app is buggy or harmful, reject it as any other natively written app.
I believe this is the only plausible judgment the FTC or EU could enforce. The iPhone AppStore is the leading storefront with the most apps available and the most apps sold, making it a market leader. Therefore opening up the AppStore to portable apps invigorates competition between storefronts and, through that, devices themselves.
This is a very intelligent analysis. I suspect you are right about the general outlines of the complaints and how they will be resolved. Apple I believe is going to have to respond with some sort of performance standard, rather than the current simplistic "no cross-compiled apps" policy. With the EU now involved I'd guess this is more likely than it was with just the FTC investigating the complaint. I don't see it as being any kind of a big deal, but I hope Apple is thinking of how they can settle this quickly and move on.
Are these investigations for blocking the Flash video player in the browser or for dictating how developers write apps? I don't think the government can/should force Apple to allow Flash player on its browser, but I am not sure about the developers issue. Apple should be able to control its own platform to some extent, of course. The question the government has to be asking is: Was this done to make apps better or hurt Adobe and stop apps from being easily ported to Android?
This idea that Apple banned non-Objective-C apps to hurt someone or to prevent porting is just so much pernicious nonsense. While in the suspicious minds of people to whom it may look that way because that's what they would do, because that's how they do business, Apple has never been a company that tries to succeed by crippling others. Companies like Google and Microsoft may often try to get ahead by cutting off other companies' oxygen, but I have never seen any action by Apple that was intended to profit them by destroying someone else. This is a fundamental difference between Apple and companies who thrive by the misfortune of others.
It's pretty clear that the reasons SJ gave for banning non-Objective-C apps are entirely reasonable and sensible. They have been there before, and it's not that they don't want apps ported from the iPhone, it's that they don't want them ported to the iPhone. And the very simple reason is that these apps, in overwhelming majority, are crap. Flash is particularly problematic because a) it's a resource hog and b) because Flash promotes sloppy, crappy development to begin with. (Just look at all the crap websites in the lists of top Flash websites, if you need evidence.) Not only are these apps not wanted, they aren't needed and don't bring anything of value. Worse yet, they limit the advancement of the platform, unless Apple is willing to regularly break them all by just ignoring backwards compatibility for the crap that would result, a path that I would advise them to take, frequently, if they were forced to allow this junk.
Android 2.2 devices - which probably constitute about 0.1% of the smartphone market.
Which will only increase in numbers, as there's nothing to indicate that Android's momentum is slowing any time soon.
Phones are now starting to ship with 2.2 be default. All future iteration of Android will include the ability to run Flash, so as time goes on and Android starts taking a larger share of the total market, Flash will be there with it.
The EU are vile leftist scum who will eventually fine companies for not having enough muslims.
And your cretinous post proves that Cretin's law is not absolute and can come into effect at any given moment in a world where there is not forum idiot filter at the point of joining.
Your smiley face gives me hope that your post was in fact a sarcastic reply to some other moronic post, though I am not so sure...
It may make life difficult for lazy developers, but it helps the consumer by improving the user experience. Apple is entirely free to make that tradeoff.
Android is designed for lazy developers who don't care about consumer experience, so that market is covered.
Time is money. If all I had to do to port an app was run it through a language converter, then test, and submit it, that saves time and money for any developer business. Rewriting an entire app to appease a large corporation is essentially strangling little guys out of the market.
I love Apple. I just wish they didn't make that decision to change their dev agreement. It even hurts them with less potential apps going to the AppStore, or even amazing Android apps, if there are any, being ported as well. Could you imagine apps running and talking to each other through multiple device models? There could be amazing potential there. I know Apple is already trying to do this with FaceTime.
This idea that Apple banned non-Objective-C apps to hurt someone or to prevent porting is just so much pernicious nonsense. While in the suspicious minds of people to whom it may look that way because that's what they would do, because that's how they do business, Apple has never been a company that tries to succeed by crippling others. Companies like Google and Microsoft may often try to get ahead by cutting off other companies' oxygen, but I have never seen any action by Apple that was intended to profit them by destroying someone else. This is a fundamental difference between Apple and companies who thrive by the misfortune of others.
It's pretty clear that the reasons SJ gave for banning non-Objective-C apps are entirely reasonable and sensible. They have been there before, and it's not that they don't want apps ported from the iPhone, it's that they don't want them ported to the iPhone. And the very simple reason is that these apps, in overwhelming majority, are crap. Flash is particularly problematic because a) it's a resource hog and b) because Flash promotes sloppy, crappy development to begin with. (Just look at all the crap websites in the lists of top Flash websites, if you need evidence.) Not only are these apps not wanted, they aren't needed and don't bring anything of value. Worse yet, they limit the advancement of the platform, unless Apple is willing to regularly break them all by just ignoring backwards compatibility for the crap that would result, a path that I would advise them to take, frequently, if they were forced to allow this junk.
Apple's response to the FTC and EU can't rely as heavily on the word "crap" as your argument. So what then is their argument?
Which will only increase in numbers, as there's nothing to indicate that Android's momentum is slowing any time soon.
Phones are now starting to ship with 2.2 be default. All future iteration of Android will include the ability to run Flash, so as time goes on and Android starts taking a larger share of the total market, Flash will be there with it.
Better buy a battery pack-and a fridge to tote it around in-
They run HOT and might as well forget the battery life-
You can count the battery life down in real time-
Not quite something the end users are going to enjoy on a mobile os that is rumored to lack in the battery dept.
Adobe's misuse of the regulatory system to try to punish Apple for not supporting a non-existent technology.
What a bunch of BS. Adobe is not 'misusing' the FTC. They filed some papers. Adobe is not trying harm Apple. Adobe wants to work with Apple devices. And the technology that is in question, the export of Flash to iOS apps, was working perfectly in CS5 beta, and several apps were approved by Apple. Hardly non-existent. You are such a BSer!
Speaking of Blackberry, there is still no Flash for BB OS and I wouldn?t expect it anytime in 2010. All we have is Flash for devices that can use Android newest OS, Froyo, and that number is small.
This is a pretty ridiculous and irrational to expect a device makers to be required to support your product, and that?s before we get into the lack of a monopoly or the fact that Adobe barely has Flash out the door for one mobile OS in August 2010? it?s August 2010!
Adobe?s best move is to actually make Flash on mobiles good, which I think is impossible, but if they cold hypothetically make it good and make it good for all mobile OSes then Apple would have to much user pressure to not add it.
This must be a pre-emptive investigation. It is clearly fuelled by Adobe who is presenting their side of the story and the EU is responding. I am not sure how far this will go as the case at this point clearly has little merit. I guess the investigation will look at whether Apple is using its market strength to unreasonably prevent Flash's ability to compete. It should be very easy for Apple to prove that there is no case to answer here.
... Therefore opening up the AppStore to portable apps invigorates competition between storefronts and, through that, devices themselves. ...
By lowering the overall quality of App Store apps, and bringing them down to the level of other app stores?
Which will only increase in numbers, as there's nothing to indicate that Android's momentum is slowing any time soon. ...
Actually, if you look at charts of Androids growth, they already show its momentum slowing, with it's growth curve significantly less steep in recent months.
Time is money. If all I had to do to port an app was run it through a language converter, then test, and submit it, that saves time and money for any developer business. Rewriting an entire app to appease a large corporation is essentially strangling little guys out of the market. ...
You see, this is exactly the sort of crappy port mentality that Apple doesn't want screwing up it's platform, with apps that break every time there's a system update until the producers of the porting tool get around to updating it and lazy developers getting around to updating their app. Meanwhile, Apple is faced with the dilemma of holding back platform development, or pissing off customers because they sold them crapware to begin with.
The EU are EXPERTS in the field - of wasting other people's money.
Blanket statements, great! Just what we need, another politician saying anything to make the uninformed feel informed and scare them to your side of the argument. I suppose you support the poor getting poorer while the rich get richer, the dumb getting dumber while the smart get smarter (about controlling the dumb).
We need regulation to curb unlimited power and protect those with the least power.
Apple's response to the FTC and EU can't rely as heavily on the word "crap" as your argument. So what then is their argument?
In an ideal world it could, but, in this case, they will have to make it clear that banning crapware ports (they'll come up with a PC phrase) is good for consumers and for iOS developers, while at the same time it allows them to improve their platform at a more rapid pace, again benefitting both of these groups. It's good for consumers because it filters out substandard apps that will very likely not work properly after future system updates, and it's good for developers because it creates a level playing field for them to compete on, and everyone benefits from the advancement of the platform with new technologies: Apple, consumers, developers, and copy-cats.
Actually, if you look at charts of Androids growth, they already show its momentum slowing, with it's growth curve significantly less steep in recent months.
If you want to limit it to just the recent months, then sure, Android has slowed a bit. But that would be in error to say that just because it had a less steep curve for a few months that it's overall momentum is slowing.
I'm talking long-term here, so overall is what I'm looking at and it doesn't seem to be decreasing.
This idea that Apple banned non-Objective-C apps to hurt someone or to prevent porting is just so much pernicious nonsense. While in the suspicious minds of people to whom it may look that way because that's what they would do, because that's how they do business, Apple has never been a company that tries to succeed by crippling others. Companies like Google and Microsoft may often try to get ahead by cutting off other companies' oxygen, but I have never seen any action by Apple that was intended to profit them by destroying someone else. This is a fundamental difference between Apple and companies who thrive by the misfortune of others.
Actually, that's exactly what Apple did. There really can be no argument otherwise. They did it to prevent porting of apps (vs rewriting them in xcode). Period. End of discussion.
The question at hand is whether that was anti-competitive in the eyes of the regulators. And the argument that Apple has never behaved anti-competively in the past has no relevence to the current issue. (And in case you haven't noticed, Apple isn't the sweet, lovable beleagured company we grew up with.)