You're living in a fantasy world if you think Flash apps will have any significant success in the App Store.
Given that 81% of the apps in the App Store are free and only the top few hundred developers are earning more than minimum wage, that's a low bar to set.
Just the same, are you willing to bet that no Flash-based app ever makes it into the top 500?
Good for Apple. Though I'm not a fan of excluding Flash on iOS (just because it is so widely used today), I can at least understand why Apple did it. Banning cross-compilation tools for developers was always a dick move though and smacked of vindictiveness, rather than any real concern for the user experience.
Good to see them change course. And I don't think this has everything to do with the move on gaming. If that was the case why lift the other restrictions (opening the door to AdMob for example)? I think the combination of the competitive threat drawing away developers, looming legal troubles with the anti-trust authorities and maybe some genuine desire to help game developers prompted this change of heart. Whatever it was, this is good for consumers.
No, competition is not a necessity for good outcomes - rather cooperation is the key. Competition is just a dubious motivation technique.
Cooperation is ethical. Raw competition is unethical and must be bound by rules. Cooperation is constructive, competition destructive. Cooperation means all are winners, competition means there must be losers. Cain and Abel were the archetypes of the first competition and the result there was hardly enviable.
If humanity can learn and apply this lesson, then we will evolve to the next level beyond the apes. It would be nice to learn this, but I think we will in the end be forced to cooperation. Global warming is already moving us towards a forced cooperation where we have to put our competitions behind us.
Competition is based on ego, cooperation on respect.
At the most competition is an accidental, not an essential:
Good for Apple. Though I'm not a fan of excluding Flash on iOS (just because it is so widely used today), I can at least understand why Apple did it. Banning cross-compilation tools for developers was always a dick move though and smacked of vindictiveness, rather than any real concern for the user experience.
Good to see them change course. And I don't think this has everything to do with the move on gaming. If that was the case why lift the other restrictions (opening the door to AdMob for example)? I think the combination of the competitive threat drawing away developers, looming legal troubles with the anti-trust authorities and maybe some genuine desire to help game developers prompted this change of heart. Whatever it was, this is good for consumers.
This has nothing to do with competition. It has everything to do with inappropriate actions of the FTC.
Not at all. The whole point is that competition is not a force that drives change in any direction, positive or negative. It's merely descriptive of the state that normally exists. Is natural selection good or bad? It's neither. It's just what happens. It has no goal. Likewise, competition has no goal (although, competitors may, unlike species) and has nothing to do with the good or bad outcome, which is determined solely through the actions and goals of the competitors. Competition isn't a thing, it has no power in and of itself, and worshiping it is worshiping a false god.
Did you miss Biology class in High School?
Natural selection most certainly has a goal. Maximum propagation of the species in question. Now we can debate whether that goal is worthwhile or not, but that the goal is there is not in question.
Marketplace competition works the same way. Propagation of your product line is based on thrashing the competitor. Sometimes that maybe through a better product (iPod). Sometimes that maybe through a better sales paradigm (Windows). Either way the end result is the propagation of your product line.
And don't think for a second that Apple does not care about marketshare. I don't buy that BS at all. Maybe they didn't care when it came to desktops, because they were still raking in the profits. But when it comes to mobile devices, Jobs doesn't crow about Apple being the largest mobile devices vendor for nothing. And they don't put up graphs showing how much market share has grown at every keynote for nothing (when was the last time anybody saw a market share graphic from Apple about desktop OS?).
The entire walled garden paradigm is based on market share. Growing market share for Apple is based on attracting and retaining more customers to present developers with a compelling market for their wares, which in turn attracts more customers. Rinse and repeat. Competition which saps customers is a severe threat to this entire paradigm.
And to respond to this threat, Apple has to improve (product or its treatment of clients (including developers)). Jobs understand this. Hence, he is opening up. You may not agree. But in this case, competition is good for consumers. Developers may well bring them apps that they might not have before (because of cross-compilation). And if the apps suck, well it won't matter, since nobody will download them (or they won't get approved). So in the end, I fail to see how this is anything but a win for consumers.
This has nothing to do with competition. It has everything to do with inappropriate actions of the FTC.
And you know this because you have internal documents from Apple showing their motivations on the matter?
Your speculation is as good as mine. And I say, it's motivated by more than one factor. I'm sure developers criticizing Apple's policies or starting to take an interest in alternative platforms had nothing to do with it at all.
And you know this because you have internal documents from Apple showing their motivations on the matter?
Your speculation is as good as mine.
No, my speculation is much better, no internal documents required. Taken in total, there's only one possible conclusion to be drawn from the series of changes to App Store policies.
Oh, I don't know... those old examples (utilities, police, fire departments, etc.) prove the point. Lack of competition and complete reliance on union controlled services have stifled innovation.
If you do a quick search on countries with the higher standards of living you will find there is a strong union presence in the majority of them. Unions help create a "balance of power" and as we all know: Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely!
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
What may have been developed if there were no monopolies on "public services"? I'm confident if these protected "industries and services" were opened to the marketplace, businesses would have answered each and every one of these with better, cheaper solutions from top to bottom, no question.
You mean like in the privately controlled health industry where they have, until recently, resisted and fought all change to protect the public .... where millions of Americans had no health coverage at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
If there were no fire departments, oh, I don't know, perhaps the use of superior fire retardant materials would be more widespread, perhaps buildkings without effective fire fighting facilities would not be insurable and wouldn't be allowed to be built by the communities they try to build in.
How many times have we seen buildings fail because they weren't built to code .... if you cannot trust private industry 100% ... then there are certain areas of concern for the public that have to be under government control, imho.
This has nothing to do with competition. It has everything to do with inappropriate actions of the FTC.
But now that Apple had made their decision, isn't it the Mac user's duty to support and defend that decision and pretend that the past never happened?
"I try to be a good Christian. I follow all the teachings of the Bible. I even follow the teachings that contradict the other teachings." - Ned Flanders
Well, the ultimate goal of competition is to kill the competition right. So there is no competition. So the pro-competition people just vanished in a puff of their own logic!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orlando
But that ultimate goal forces you to adapt and improve. If one party does succeed in killing their opponent we simply need new competitors to keep the struggle going. As soon as competition stops so does progress.
"But if that ultimate goal forces you to adapt and improve.
Emphasis mine. Competition can be beneficial-- but not necessarily so!
Instead of improving, competition can cause a competitor to:
-- reduce quality of his products to compete on costs
----- Palm Pre, Kin
-- denigrate the competition
----- Antennagate, Mobile Flash
----- Biased reporting, blogging, trolling with vested innterest
-- seek advantage elsewhere
---- legal, political harassment
--------- IP suits and countersuits
--------- Internet Neutrality
--------- Adobe FCC complaint
---- monopolization of resources
-------- longterm buys of components
-------- reservation of production facilities
For example, I give you this scenario:
In recent years Apple has paid in advance for large quantities of components (RAM, etc.) to guarantee a supply, a scheduled availability, a fixed price. Often this causes component shortages and/or component price increases.
This can be good for Apple, its product availability, its profits and its shareholders.
This can prevent competitors from releasing products of like quality, or even entering a market segment.
The questions:
Has Apple's [successful] competition for resources improved Apple's products?
Has it reduced costs to the customer?
Has it improved consumer choice?
Has it resulted in delivering a superior product to the consumer?
I don't have time to read the entire thread, so I apologize in advance if this nugget has already been posted.
Here's another possible reason why Apple has relaxed it's restrictions: they have done their job and are no longer needed.
Fearing that developers would take the easiest and cheapest (and least satisfactory) route to creating apps for the store, Apple forced them to use dedicated tools that yield the best user experience. That strategy has been wildly successful: more apps than anyone can possibly use, and developers trained and accustomed to doing it the "right" way. At this point, substandard ported apps are either redundant and unnecessary, or will fail against higher quality competition.
Apple avoided an App Store in which ported flash apps would have been the standard. So dropping the rule now costs them nothing and saves them possible legal and PR hassles. Score one more for Steve.
Cooperation is ethical. Raw competition is unethical and must be bound by rules. Cooperation is constructive, competition destructive. Cooperation means all are winners, competition means there must be losers.
ALGOL... the first and best systems programming language. Beats C hands down, and is still used for Burroughs systems programming on Unisys equipment (the machines which don't need assembler or structured assemblers such as C). C is now old and outdated and should be taken out and shot.
Ha! You must be as old as I am!
I worked for the Consolidated Electrodynamics Corporation in Pasadena, CA, 1957-1961. They invented the DataTron computer that was sold to Burroughs and became the Burroughs 205. Our offices overlooked the Burroughs shipping dock, so we could when the shipped one-- rarely!
We were considering computers (we had a Tab installation with 3 IBM 407's, etc), so we (data-processing analysts) would attend various computer classes (IBM, Burroughs, etc.).
AIR, my first Burroughs class was on the B205 with an introduction to the new B2000 -- I remember it had random access magnetic tape drives. These were 20 (or) strips of magnetic tape, placed over 20 (or so) read/write heads arranged side-by-side, in a long box, about the size of a coffin on display at a funeral... alas, it was about as sought-after as a coffin!
Later, I went to a class on the upcoming B5000. Among other things we were taught Algol.
AIR, it was a high-level math-like language that was dynamically interpreted by the system (hardware + primitive OS).
Someone (Burroughs, Datamation, etc.) supplied an Algol Construction Kit. It had a (monopoly-like) board representing the various logic components of the computer and cards that represented the various Algol instructions in a "program". You would pass the cards through the components (like chutes and ladders) and you could see how the program was interpreted/executed.
Might be complete nonsense, but I wonder if this could have anything to do with the new mystery app in iLife 11 - some form of simple development tool for the average user...
Hmm, great speculation. I'm a non-programmer that would like to have a non-developers environment to create a project I've got in mind for the iPhone/iPad.
Not necessarily. The competition in commodity computing is intense and drives margins down. By offering a more boutique approach to computing, Apple has carved out the more lucrative high-end of the market for itself, providing its shareholders highest-in-the-industry margins.
Sure, every CEO feels what they're doing is some sort of mission, whether it's providing what they feel is some sort of "best" experience or focusing on lower-priced goods to deliver the benefits of computing to the average person.
But none of those missions would be able to sustain themselves if not driven by profit.
That was still a high-risk path. High risk can either pay handsomely as it has done for Apple, or end in disaster. There was no guarantee that Apple's path would work, but they diligently stuck to it and made few mistakes.
In this their goals are many. While maximizing profits is one, it is simplistic and wrong to say it is their only goal. That is a side effect of chasing other things, better technology, etc, not vice versa. Great technology rarely or never comes out of putting profits first.
Natural selection most certainly has a goal. Maximum propagation of the species in question.
Chapter III of On the Origin of Species is entitled "Struggle for Existence". Darwin says 'I should premise that I use the term Struggle for Existence in a large and metaphorical sense, including the dependence of one being on another, and including (which is more important), not only the life of the individual, but the success in leaving progeny. Two canine animals in a time of dearth, may be truly said to struggle with each other which shall get food and live. But a plant on the edge of a desert is said to struggle for life against the drought, but more properly it should be said that it is dependent on the moisture.'
The goal of the individual is to have progeny, but that does not translate to maximum propagation of the species. Note that struggle is competition, but competition with what? I think Anonymouse is correct in that it is a description of the condition, but it has no goal of its own. It is not an intelligent force. But we should all be careful in reading too much into Darwin's work. Hitler did and wrote "Mein Kampf" (My Struggle).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetz
And don't think for a second that Apple does not care about marketshare. I don't buy that BS at all.
Well, now you are bordering on strawman argument, that is putting words in the mouth of your opponent and arguing against that. Of course Apple wants to see its products succeed wrt marketshare. You don't create great products just to keep them locked away in a room. You must survive to create the next round.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetz
And to respond to this threat, Apple has to improve (product or its treatment of clients (including developers)). Jobs understand this. Hence, he is opening up. You may not agree. But in this case, competition is good for consumers. Developers may well bring them apps that they might not have before (because of cross-compilation). And if the apps suck, well it won't matter, since nobody will download them (or they won't get approved). So in the end, I fail to see how this is anything but a win for consumers.
Well, customers "select" products for a whole range of reasons. Quality is there, but maybe down on others like availability, "all my friends have it", etc. In that selection, there is a conscious choice, but natural selection implies no conscious choice.
Comments
You're living in a fantasy world if you think Flash apps will have any significant success in the App Store.
Given that 81% of the apps in the App Store are free and only the top few hundred developers are earning more than minimum wage, that's a low bar to set.
Just the same, are you willing to bet that no Flash-based app ever makes it into the top 500?
If so, count me in.
http://www.tuaw.com/2010/04/21/estim...ng-372k-a-day/
http://www.cultofmac.com/developers-...e-number/15250
http://www.newsweek.com/2009/10/05/s...-for-that.html
http://appular.com/2010/04/the-ipad-...re-its-a-mess/
Good for Apple. Though I'm not a fan of excluding Flash on iOS (just because it is so widely used today), I can at least understand why Apple did it. Banning cross-compilation tools for developers was always a dick move though and smacked of vindictiveness, rather than any real concern for the user experience.
Good to see them change course. And I don't think this has everything to do with the move on gaming. If that was the case why lift the other restrictions (opening the door to AdMob for example)? I think the combination of the competitive threat drawing away developers, looming legal troubles with the anti-trust authorities and maybe some genuine desire to help game developers prompted this change of heart. Whatever it was, this is good for consumers.
oh it's coming. And there will be a great wailing and gnashing of teeth when it happens.
Doubt it. I don't think Jobs can eat that much humble pie.
No, competition is not a necessity for good outcomes - rather cooperation is the key. Competition is just a dubious motivation technique.
Cooperation is ethical. Raw competition is unethical and must be bound by rules. Cooperation is constructive, competition destructive. Cooperation means all are winners, competition means there must be losers. Cain and Abel were the archetypes of the first competition and the result there was hardly enviable.
If humanity can learn and apply this lesson, then we will evolve to the next level beyond the apes. It would be nice to learn this, but I think we will in the end be forced to cooperation. Global warming is already moving us towards a forced cooperation where we have to put our competitions behind us.
Competition is based on ego, cooperation on respect.
At the most competition is an accidental, not an essential:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/essential-accidental/
Competition is petty, cooperation is noble.
Those who think we can survive on competition for much longer are living in a fool's paradise.
Yes. And we all know how well Communism works in practice.
What a little competition can do....
Good for Apple. Though I'm not a fan of excluding Flash on iOS (just because it is so widely used today), I can at least understand why Apple did it. Banning cross-compilation tools for developers was always a dick move though and smacked of vindictiveness, rather than any real concern for the user experience.
Good to see them change course. And I don't think this has everything to do with the move on gaming. If that was the case why lift the other restrictions (opening the door to AdMob for example)? I think the combination of the competitive threat drawing away developers, looming legal troubles with the anti-trust authorities and maybe some genuine desire to help game developers prompted this change of heart. Whatever it was, this is good for consumers.
This has nothing to do with competition. It has everything to do with inappropriate actions of the FTC.
Not at all. The whole point is that competition is not a force that drives change in any direction, positive or negative. It's merely descriptive of the state that normally exists. Is natural selection good or bad? It's neither. It's just what happens. It has no goal. Likewise, competition has no goal (although, competitors may, unlike species) and has nothing to do with the good or bad outcome, which is determined solely through the actions and goals of the competitors. Competition isn't a thing, it has no power in and of itself, and worshiping it is worshiping a false god.
Did you miss Biology class in High School?
Natural selection most certainly has a goal. Maximum propagation of the species in question. Now we can debate whether that goal is worthwhile or not, but that the goal is there is not in question.
Marketplace competition works the same way. Propagation of your product line is based on thrashing the competitor. Sometimes that maybe through a better product (iPod). Sometimes that maybe through a better sales paradigm (Windows). Either way the end result is the propagation of your product line.
And don't think for a second that Apple does not care about marketshare. I don't buy that BS at all. Maybe they didn't care when it came to desktops, because they were still raking in the profits. But when it comes to mobile devices, Jobs doesn't crow about Apple being the largest mobile devices vendor for nothing. And they don't put up graphs showing how much market share has grown at every keynote for nothing (when was the last time anybody saw a market share graphic from Apple about desktop OS?).
The entire walled garden paradigm is based on market share. Growing market share for Apple is based on attracting and retaining more customers to present developers with a compelling market for their wares, which in turn attracts more customers. Rinse and repeat. Competition which saps customers is a severe threat to this entire paradigm.
And to respond to this threat, Apple has to improve (product or its treatment of clients (including developers)). Jobs understand this. Hence, he is opening up. You may not agree. But in this case, competition is good for consumers. Developers may well bring them apps that they might not have before (because of cross-compilation). And if the apps suck, well it won't matter, since nobody will download them (or they won't get approved). So in the end, I fail to see how this is anything but a win for consumers.
This has nothing to do with competition. It has everything to do with inappropriate actions of the FTC.
And you know this because you have internal documents from Apple showing their motivations on the matter?
Your speculation is as good as mine. And I say, it's motivated by more than one factor. I'm sure developers criticizing Apple's policies or starting to take an interest in alternative platforms had nothing to do with it at all.
Did you miss Biology class in High School?
Natural selection most certainly has a goal. Maximum propagation of the species in question. ...
No, I didn't miss Biology class, but apparently you did.
And you know this because you have internal documents from Apple showing their motivations on the matter?
Your speculation is as good as mine.
No, my speculation is much better, no internal documents required. Taken in total, there's only one possible conclusion to be drawn from the series of changes to App Store policies.
Oh, I don't know... those old examples (utilities, police, fire departments, etc.) prove the point. Lack of competition and complete reliance on union controlled services have stifled innovation.
If you do a quick search on countries with the higher standards of living you will find there is a strong union presence in the majority of them. Unions help create a "balance of power" and as we all know: Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely!
What may have been developed if there were no monopolies on "public services"? I'm confident if these protected "industries and services" were opened to the marketplace, businesses would have answered each and every one of these with better, cheaper solutions from top to bottom, no question.
You mean like in the privately controlled health industry where they have, until recently, resisted and fought all change to protect the public .... where millions of Americans had no health coverage at all.
If there were no fire departments, oh, I don't know, perhaps the use of superior fire retardant materials would be more widespread, perhaps buildkings without effective fire fighting facilities would not be insurable and wouldn't be allowed to be built by the communities they try to build in.
How many times have we seen buildings fail because they weren't built to code .... if you cannot trust private industry 100% ... then there are certain areas of concern for the public that have to be under government control, imho.
This has nothing to do with competition. It has everything to do with inappropriate actions of the FTC.
But now that Apple had made their decision, isn't it the Mac user's duty to support and defend that decision and pretend that the past never happened?
"I try to be a good Christian. I follow all the teachings of the Bible. I even follow the teachings that contradict the other teachings." - Ned Flanders
Well, the ultimate goal of competition is to kill the competition right. So there is no competition. So the pro-competition people just vanished in a puff of their own logic!
But that ultimate goal forces you to adapt and improve. If one party does succeed in killing their opponent we simply need new competitors to keep the struggle going. As soon as competition stops so does progress.
"But if that ultimate goal forces you to adapt and improve.
Emphasis mine. Competition can be beneficial-- but not necessarily so!
Instead of improving, competition can cause a competitor to:
-- reduce quality of his products to compete on costs
----- Palm Pre, Kin
-- denigrate the competition
----- Antennagate, Mobile Flash
----- Biased reporting, blogging, trolling with vested innterest
-- seek advantage elsewhere
---- legal, political harassment
--------- IP suits and countersuits
--------- Internet Neutrality
--------- Adobe FCC complaint
---- monopolization of resources
-------- longterm buys of components
-------- reservation of production facilities
For example, I give you this scenario:
In recent years Apple has paid in advance for large quantities of components (RAM, etc.) to guarantee a supply, a scheduled availability, a fixed price. Often this causes component shortages and/or component price increases.
This can be good for Apple, its product availability, its profits and its shareholders.
This can prevent competitors from releasing products of like quality, or even entering a market segment.
The questions:
Has Apple's [successful] competition for resources improved Apple's products?
Has it reduced costs to the customer?
Has it improved consumer choice?
Has it resulted in delivering a superior product to the consumer?
What effect has it had on competitor's products?
... Interesting questions...
... really interesting answers...
.
But now that Apple had made their decision, isn't it the Mac user's duty to support and defend that decision and pretend that the past never happened?
You do realize that whenever you say things like this you are self-identifying yourself as a troll, don't you?
Here's another possible reason why Apple has relaxed it's restrictions: they have done their job and are no longer needed.
Fearing that developers would take the easiest and cheapest (and least satisfactory) route to creating apps for the store, Apple forced them to use dedicated tools that yield the best user experience. That strategy has been wildly successful: more apps than anyone can possibly use, and developers trained and accustomed to doing it the "right" way. At this point, substandard ported apps are either redundant and unnecessary, or will fail against higher quality competition.
Apple avoided an App Store in which ported flash apps would have been the standard. So dropping the rule now costs them nothing and saves them possible legal and PR hassles. Score one more for Steve.
Cooperation is ethical. Raw competition is unethical and must be bound by rules. Cooperation is constructive, competition destructive. Cooperation means all are winners, competition means there must be losers.
Everybody gets a trophy!!!!11!!11!!1!
ALGOL... the first and best systems programming language. Beats C hands down, and is still used for Burroughs systems programming on Unisys equipment (the machines which don't need assembler or structured assemblers such as C). C is now old and outdated and should be taken out and shot.
Ha! You must be as old as I am!
I worked for the Consolidated Electrodynamics Corporation in Pasadena, CA, 1957-1961. They invented the DataTron computer that was sold to Burroughs and became the Burroughs 205. Our offices overlooked the Burroughs shipping dock, so we could when the shipped one-- rarely!
We were considering computers (we had a Tab installation with 3 IBM 407's, etc), so we (data-processing analysts) would attend various computer classes (IBM, Burroughs, etc.).
AIR, my first Burroughs class was on the B205 with an introduction to the new B2000 -- I remember it had random access magnetic tape drives. These were 20 (or) strips of magnetic tape, placed over 20 (or so) read/write heads arranged side-by-side, in a long box, about the size of a coffin on display at a funeral... alas, it was about as sought-after as a coffin!
Later, I went to a class on the upcoming B5000. Among other things we were taught Algol.
AIR, it was a high-level math-like language that was dynamically interpreted by the system (hardware + primitive OS).
Someone (Burroughs, Datamation, etc.) supplied an Algol Construction Kit. It had a (monopoly-like) board representing the various logic components of the computer and cards that represented the various Algol instructions in a "program". You would pass the cards through the components (like chutes and ladders) and you could see how the program was interpreted/executed.
... Ha!
.
Might be complete nonsense, but I wonder if this could have anything to do with the new mystery app in iLife 11 - some form of simple development tool for the average user...
Hmm, great speculation. I'm a non-programmer that would like to have a non-developers environment to create a project I've got in mind for the iPhone/iPad.
Not necessarily. The competition in commodity computing is intense and drives margins down. By offering a more boutique approach to computing, Apple has carved out the more lucrative high-end of the market for itself, providing its shareholders highest-in-the-industry margins.
Sure, every CEO feels what they're doing is some sort of mission, whether it's providing what they feel is some sort of "best" experience or focusing on lower-priced goods to deliver the benefits of computing to the average person.
But none of those missions would be able to sustain themselves if not driven by profit.
That was still a high-risk path. High risk can either pay handsomely as it has done for Apple, or end in disaster. There was no guarantee that Apple's path would work, but they diligently stuck to it and made few mistakes.
In this their goals are many. While maximizing profits is one, it is simplistic and wrong to say it is their only goal. That is a side effect of chasing other things, better technology, etc, not vice versa. Great technology rarely or never comes out of putting profits first.
Yes. And we all know how well Communism works in practice.
Because it degenerates to competition for power with again winner takes all. It's not truly cooperative.
All systems have their problems.
Did you miss Biology class in High School?
Natural selection most certainly has a goal. Maximum propagation of the species in question.
Chapter III of On the Origin of Species is entitled "Struggle for Existence". Darwin says 'I should premise that I use the term Struggle for Existence in a large and metaphorical sense, including the dependence of one being on another, and including (which is more important), not only the life of the individual, but the success in leaving progeny. Two canine animals in a time of dearth, may be truly said to struggle with each other which shall get food and live. But a plant on the edge of a desert is said to struggle for life against the drought, but more properly it should be said that it is dependent on the moisture.'
The goal of the individual is to have progeny, but that does not translate to maximum propagation of the species. Note that struggle is competition, but competition with what? I think Anonymouse is correct in that it is a description of the condition, but it has no goal of its own. It is not an intelligent force. But we should all be careful in reading too much into Darwin's work. Hitler did and wrote "Mein Kampf" (My Struggle).
And don't think for a second that Apple does not care about marketshare. I don't buy that BS at all.
Well, now you are bordering on strawman argument, that is putting words in the mouth of your opponent and arguing against that. Of course Apple wants to see its products succeed wrt marketshare. You don't create great products just to keep them locked away in a room. You must survive to create the next round.
And to respond to this threat, Apple has to improve (product or its treatment of clients (including developers)). Jobs understand this. Hence, he is opening up. You may not agree. But in this case, competition is good for consumers. Developers may well bring them apps that they might not have before (because of cross-compilation). And if the apps suck, well it won't matter, since nobody will download them (or they won't get approved). So in the end, I fail to see how this is anything but a win for consumers.
Well, customers "select" products for a whole range of reasons. Quality is there, but maybe down on others like availability, "all my friends have it", etc. In that selection, there is a conscious choice, but natural selection implies no conscious choice.