So you're saying if the cross platform compiler company lags behind the least iOS updates too much I could take my app to a company whose compiler is updated responsibly. Thanks for the idea.
However, I understand your point about if it's never there, no one will miss it. But if everyone else has it, it could be missed.
No, I'm saying that if you insist on using a cross compiler, there are plenty of places to market your product where they don't care about the quality of the user experience or the apps on their platform, like Android, for example. They have contests where people win thousands of dollars for producing junk apps. Sounds like the platform for you.
How can you prejudge the situation so completely? It's not a "dangerous precedent" for governments to become involved in competition issues, unless you are referring to 19th century precedents, since this is how long it's been going on.
It's true that it's not a dangerous precedent to simple "get involved in competition issues" but that isn't really the case here. Apple's competition seems to be arguing that Apple can't tell them how to develop apps for their platform.
It seems to me that something you create, like an OS or a mobile device is a private thing. Why should the government tell a business owner what kind of products they can stock on their shelves (virtual or otherwise), and why should a government tell the maker of a product that they have to include this, that, or the other thing?
There is no monopoly, there is no anti-competitive issue at all.
If all mobile OS vendors got together and banned a certain tool then they might have an anti-competitive issue, but that isn't the case.
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.
If Android is the big hit the press is saying it is, then there is plenty of choice in the mobile app space and Apple won't have to do a damned thing.
Apple can well be prohibited from arbitrarily making it more difficult to develop for their platform.
Simple question.
Why?
If Apple is shooting itself in the foot by banning all these great cross-compiled apps, then surely that is providing the competition with an advantage.
It is time that we, the people, vote for a massive reduction of government in our lives.
Since when do bureaucrat regulators in any country have the right to investigate anything that does not concern the physical health and economic freedom of AMericans?
Well, your argument might carry weight if a) there were an artificial barrier to competition, or b) if there were actually valid analogies with Microsoft's browser gambit to be made. But, since the "barriers" are entirely reasonable, and based on valid technological considerations, protecting consumers and developers, as well as iOS, and since the situation has nothing in common with the IE stuffing that MS engaged in, then Apple should have no trouble convincing regulators that Adobe's whining is just that.
You can only come to this conclusion by completely prejudging the situation and based entirely on your opinions, rather than the law as it is viewed by those who are responsible for enforcing it. You might end up being right, but only by random chance.
My analogy to Microsoft had nothing to do with the technical situation, let alone with browsers. It was a reference only to the potential downsides of engaging in a game of chicken with regulators. At the start, Microsoft made the strategic decision to argue that they could not possibly be doing anything wrong, that they were going to beat the government at all costs. Bad idea. They came off to regulators and to the judge in the case as being exceptionally stubborn and arrogant. Not to mention, evasive and dishonest.
I know every time I mention the recent settlement between Intel and the FTC the response is the sound of crickets in the night, but I still think this could be model for how a company can deal with these sorts of investigations. Intel agreed to stop using a pricing policy they never admitted to employing in the first place. Everyone declared themselves pleased with the outcome, and the story was over. If this investigation continues (and we hardly know yet that it will), Apple would be wise to fashion a similar response. I've already made a suggestion as to what that might be.
No, I'm saying that if you insist on using a cross compiler, there are plenty of places to market your product where they don't care about the quality of the user experience or the apps on their platform, like Android, for example. They have contests where people win thousands of dollars for producing junk apps. Sounds like the platform for you.
I agree with Dr Millmoss. Apple has to demonstrate cross compiler apps in general are not to it's level of quality, and Apple mist set a standard for said quality. Otherwise it is abritrary and gives them an unfair power in the form of app prejudice.
Apple has to test every app submitted as it stands now. If a cross compiled app doesn't work reject it, even with advice to use native language. But if the app works as advertised, it would cause harm to the dev and costumers to reject it for an artificial cause.
I've seen apps with descriptions apple vetted as saying don't update to version x.xx because it doesn't work with iOS version x.x.x, wait for next update in coming days. How is this better than cross compiler apps that may break if you update the OS?
It's all sleight of hand. Look over here at this non-issue while google and verizon kill net neutrality over there?and we do nothing about it. The bastards have won but at least we have cool iDevices to keep up preoccupied. :-(
It's true that it's not a dangerous precedent to simple "get involved in competition issues" but that isn't really the case here. Apple's competition seems to be arguing that Apple can't tell them how to develop apps for their platform.
It seems to me that something you create, like an OS or a mobile device is a private thing. Why should the government tell a business owner what kind of products they can stock on their shelves (virtual or otherwise), and why should a government tell the maker of a product that they have to include this, that, or the other thing?
There is no monopoly, there is no anti-competitive issue at all.
If all mobile OS vendors got together and banned a certain tool then they might have an anti-competitive issue, but that isn't the case.
From what I've heard, Adobe's complaint seems weak -- but then, we haven't actually seen Adobe's complaint, have we? Evidently the FTC and the EU both think it has sufficient merit to warrant at least an investigation. That's all we really know. So your conclusive statements about both the facts and the law seem very premature.
All of these competition issues are "private things." No "monopoly" is required for the laws to come into play. This is a common misperception.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B
If Android is the big hit the press is saying it is, then there is plenty of choice in the mobile app space and Apple won't have to do a damned thing.
Maybe. I'm sure Apple will make a similar argument in their defense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by piot
Simple question.
Why?
If Apple is shooting itself in the foot by banning all these great cross-compiled apps, then surely that is providing the competition with an advantage.
Again, maybe. Not to repeat everything I've said before, but Apple may be put into the position of having to justify their restrictions on a technical basis. I sure don't claim to know that it will get that far, but it might.
Also, even if what you say is true, it's a dangerous precedent for any government body to be telling a private company or individual what they can and cannot allow with their own products. This is the same thing as the government mandating that you use a certain kind of gas in your car, or forcing you to allow someone who doesn't like the colour of your house to paint the side facing them another colour.
That argument fits better when talking about Pystar trying to install Apple's OS on their hardware. At the time, people tried to argue that once you purchased the OS, you should be able to do with it whatever you want. But those folks failed to realize that you are licensing the OS, so modifying it can be restricted by Apple because you don't "own" it.
It gets a little muddy with the iPhone. You own the hardware, but are still licensing the OS. So while you would argue "who does the government think they are to tell a private company...what they can and cannot allow with their own product." But once you buy your iPhone, the hardware is no longer Apple's. It's yours. You own it. So I could argue, "who does Apple think they are to tell me what I can and cannot do with MY property." As long as I don't modify the OS, why can't I run whatever I want to on it, just like I can with my Mac?
What if Ford told you that you could only buy gas from them? What if they put speed limiters in their vehicles because they don't want their users to suffer from a bad user experience of crashing? Or they want to preserve the image of their vehicles as safe to drive, and you crashing would give them a bad reputation. Apple wants you to get all your apps from them, but every state has laws that prevents car manufacturers from forcing you to their own dealerships for regular service (oil changes, etc) by threatening to void your warranties if you don't.
Apple was fine as long as they appeared benevolent. But the last update to the developers agreement was not so. It not only banned Flash derived apps from the iPhone, it made it less appealing for developers to develop using Flash for ANY platform, because they wouldn't be able to reuse their work for an iPhone app. Many would argue that Flash is "crap", and I'd agree. But that's just Apple's and our opinions. There are thousands of developers (and Adobe) who would argue that the benefits outweigh the downsides. It's all subjective.
You say it's within Apple's rights to dictate how the iPhone is used. What if they next did the same thing for Mac computers? All in the interest of give you a better user experience and protecting you from "crap." You could only buy the apps Apple approves and you have to get them from Apple. I'm pretty sure you and everyone else here would go ape-sh*t if they tried that.
[And just wait until a subpeona uncovers the embarassing internal Apple emails about how to best re-write the developer agreement in order to kill Adobe's method of converting Flash to native iOS code. You know that discussion took place at Apple. And then Apple will be no better than MS in the eyes of the regulators.]
Flash, like tobacco and carbon, is a hooker. You crave for it and it's killing you. You fill up, inhale, shoot video, one foot down memory lane, the other up Nature's ass.
Big time Bogeymen, small change moneymen make cravings for a living. And regulators make sure the money flows down stream, with a brief and discreet stopover at 'nurture' Island...
Apple throws a tantrum into the still of the night; well, this is no time for 'after hours' they reckon, you break curfew ...we make a fool, break the good out of you!*
Apple has to test every App before they put it into THEIR store, that is probably an expensive task.They provide the servers for the Apps to be downloaded from, the interface (iTunes store) to make it easy to search for the App you like. All of that is overhead that costs them money before they make any money on a sale.
Apple has determined from experience that cross-compiled code has issues, especially when they make changes to the OS and they don't want to spend their time and money promoting Apps made this way, it COSTS them to do so. Why must they be forced to babysit a situation that they know from experience will fall just so someone else can make money? I don't know of any stores here in my town that do that. If they know a product is more trouble than will be profitable, they simply don't put it into their store.
Now that jailbreaking is deemed to be legal this should even be less of an issue. There is another store where people can buy apps made with cross-compiled code, no one is stopping anyone from creating apps for that store or from downloading them. All Apple is saying is that if you jailbreak and put stuff on your iDevice that we think is a bad idea due to X, Y, Z reasons we are not going to fix it.
At the end of the day everyone gets what they want, so I really don't see any issue.
Good points. It would be ironic if the efforts of the EFF in getting the Library of Congress to legitimize jailbreaking, which were undertaken to reduce the amount of control Apple was exerting over its own App Store, now resulted in Apple being able to argue that its complete control over its App Store was no danger to competition.
And if the commentor I quoted had attached his blanket statement to the discussion at hand, I might have responded with a more pointed response. But it was a blanket statement baselessly accusing the EU of wasting others' money, when they are in the business of limiting power and protecting those with less resources.
Nobody in America can reasonably believe this statement. EU regulators are extremely biased against American companies as has been demonstrated again and again. In effect the EU operates in such a way as to protect their native companies from real competition. Yes competition that would wipe many of them out.
This is stupid. What's next, Microsoft asking the FTC to investigate Apple because they won't allow DOS run on the iPhone?
If Adobe hadn't made Flash such a memory and resource hog, then perhaps this could all have been avoided. Instead they just want to stomp their feet and throw a tantrum.
You can only come to this conclusion by completely prejudging the situation and based entirely on your opinions, rather than the law as it is viewed by those who are responsible for enforcing it. You might end up being right, but only by random chance.
Well, they bring their own prejudices, as you bring yours, but there's nothing in what I've said, or in what Apple has said, that amounts to Apple saying, "We're doing it because we can and no one can tell us differently." Clearly their are technical reasons, which everyone is conveniently ignoring, which have no analogy to Microsoft or Intel, or their respective situations. The biggest reason is that allowing apps written to meta-platforms puts Apple in the position of being controlled by others, of having to either make platform development choices based on not breaking meta platforms, not advancing in the direction they think is best, or indefinitely breaking existing apps that use these meta-platforms. clearly, the responsible action, for everyone concerned is to just say no meta-platforms. It's better for consumers, better for developers, and better for Apple. The only ones left out in the cold are meta-platform developers, and lazy app developers, none of whom are interested in whether they cause harm to consumers or Apple, or not. They're just a bunch of leeches who want to have their way whatever the cost to everyone else.
I'm the last person in the world to say there is no place for government regulation, but this sort of thing gives regulation a bad name. As others have said, this is nothing but companies using their influence over regulators to attach themselves parasitically to successful companies -- in effect, the regulators are being played. A situation utterly different from what Microsoft did with IE, and what Intel has been doing with chips, and in both of those cases, whether there is mention of it or not, the overriding issue is that those are monopolists, even if Intel has not been convicted like Microsoft has been.
EDIT:
And I'm really tired seeing crap be successful. I mean crap like Android and everything else Google does. I mean crap like Flash. And I mean crap like Windows, which even on its best day wasn't half as good as Mac OS on its worst. Crap like IE that destroyed Netscape. And the idea of a company, which is not a monopoly, which has never based it's business on "crushing competitors" but simply on making the best products they can, being forced to allow crap to get in the way of trying to make that product the best product in its class just makes my blood boil. Apple isn't being anti-competitive. They are just trying to be actually competitive, while at the same time making the best effing smartphone the world has ever seen or likely ever will over the next 10 years or more.
There's just way too much crap in the world already, and way too many people trying to make it all we can have.
Comments
So you're saying if the cross platform compiler company lags behind the least iOS updates too much I could take my app to a company whose compiler is updated responsibly. Thanks for the idea.
However, I understand your point about if it's never there, no one will miss it. But if everyone else has it, it could be missed.
No, I'm saying that if you insist on using a cross compiler, there are plenty of places to market your product where they don't care about the quality of the user experience or the apps on their platform, like Android, for example. They have contests where people win thousands of dollars for producing junk apps. Sounds like the platform for you.
If you want to run some sort of home-brew, there are plenty of platforms which will run any old thing.
You are free to buy any one of them. But your User Experience will suffer.
That is the difference with Apple. They will not allow you to have a bad time, and the haters say that is wrong.
I was satirising Adobe's position with my post, I don't actually have my own plugin called 'U R A N0B'.
How can you prejudge the situation so completely? It's not a "dangerous precedent" for governments to become involved in competition issues, unless you are referring to 19th century precedents, since this is how long it's been going on.
It's true that it's not a dangerous precedent to simple "get involved in competition issues" but that isn't really the case here. Apple's competition seems to be arguing that Apple can't tell them how to develop apps for their platform.
It seems to me that something you create, like an OS or a mobile device is a private thing. Why should the government tell a business owner what kind of products they can stock on their shelves (virtual or otherwise), and why should a government tell the maker of a product that they have to include this, that, or the other thing?
There is no monopoly, there is no anti-competitive issue at all.
If all mobile OS vendors got together and banned a certain tool then they might have an anti-competitive issue, but that isn't the case.
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.
If Android is the big hit the press is saying it is, then there is plenty of choice in the mobile app space and Apple won't have to do a damned thing.
Apple can well be prohibited from arbitrarily making it more difficult to develop for their platform.
Simple question.
Why?
If Apple is shooting itself in the foot by banning all these great cross-compiled apps, then surely that is providing the competition with an advantage.
Since when do bureaucrat regulators in any country have the right to investigate anything that does not concern the physical health and economic freedom of AMericans?
Wait, what mobile devices run the full version of Flash? Because I don't remember seeing any...
Yes, it runs pretty well on my Nexus One. Your iPhone doesn't have the CPU to run it? That sucks... I'm here playing some sweet, free, flash games.
Well, your argument might carry weight if a) there were an artificial barrier to competition, or b) if there were actually valid analogies with Microsoft's browser gambit to be made. But, since the "barriers" are entirely reasonable, and based on valid technological considerations, protecting consumers and developers, as well as iOS, and since the situation has nothing in common with the IE stuffing that MS engaged in, then Apple should have no trouble convincing regulators that Adobe's whining is just that.
You can only come to this conclusion by completely prejudging the situation and based entirely on your opinions, rather than the law as it is viewed by those who are responsible for enforcing it. You might end up being right, but only by random chance.
My analogy to Microsoft had nothing to do with the technical situation, let alone with browsers. It was a reference only to the potential downsides of engaging in a game of chicken with regulators. At the start, Microsoft made the strategic decision to argue that they could not possibly be doing anything wrong, that they were going to beat the government at all costs. Bad idea. They came off to regulators and to the judge in the case as being exceptionally stubborn and arrogant. Not to mention, evasive and dishonest.
I know every time I mention the recent settlement between Intel and the FTC the response is the sound of crickets in the night, but I still think this could be model for how a company can deal with these sorts of investigations. Intel agreed to stop using a pricing policy they never admitted to employing in the first place. Everyone declared themselves pleased with the outcome, and the story was over. If this investigation continues (and we hardly know yet that it will), Apple would be wise to fashion a similar response. I've already made a suggestion as to what that might be.
No, I'm saying that if you insist on using a cross compiler, there are plenty of places to market your product where they don't care about the quality of the user experience or the apps on their platform, like Android, for example. They have contests where people win thousands of dollars for producing junk apps. Sounds like the platform for you.
I agree with Dr Millmoss. Apple has to demonstrate cross compiler apps in general are not to it's level of quality, and Apple mist set a standard for said quality. Otherwise it is abritrary and gives them an unfair power in the form of app prejudice.
Apple has to test every app submitted as it stands now. If a cross compiled app doesn't work reject it, even with advice to use native language. But if the app works as advertised, it would cause harm to the dev and costumers to reject it for an artificial cause.
I've seen apps with descriptions apple vetted as saying don't update to version x.xx because it doesn't work with iOS version x.x.x, wait for next update in coming days. How is this better than cross compiler apps that may break if you update the OS?
It's true that it's not a dangerous precedent to simple "get involved in competition issues" but that isn't really the case here. Apple's competition seems to be arguing that Apple can't tell them how to develop apps for their platform.
It seems to me that something you create, like an OS or a mobile device is a private thing. Why should the government tell a business owner what kind of products they can stock on their shelves (virtual or otherwise), and why should a government tell the maker of a product that they have to include this, that, or the other thing?
There is no monopoly, there is no anti-competitive issue at all.
If all mobile OS vendors got together and banned a certain tool then they might have an anti-competitive issue, but that isn't the case.
From what I've heard, Adobe's complaint seems weak -- but then, we haven't actually seen Adobe's complaint, have we? Evidently the FTC and the EU both think it has sufficient merit to warrant at least an investigation. That's all we really know. So your conclusive statements about both the facts and the law seem very premature.
All of these competition issues are "private things." No "monopoly" is required for the laws to come into play. This is a common misperception.
If Android is the big hit the press is saying it is, then there is plenty of choice in the mobile app space and Apple won't have to do a damned thing.
Maybe. I'm sure Apple will make a similar argument in their defense.
Simple question.
Why?
If Apple is shooting itself in the foot by banning all these great cross-compiled apps, then surely that is providing the competition with an advantage.
Again, maybe. Not to repeat everything I've said before, but Apple may be put into the position of having to justify their restrictions on a technical basis. I sure don't claim to know that it will get that far, but it might.
Also, even if what you say is true, it's a dangerous precedent for any government body to be telling a private company or individual what they can and cannot allow with their own products. This is the same thing as the government mandating that you use a certain kind of gas in your car, or forcing you to allow someone who doesn't like the colour of your house to paint the side facing them another colour.
That argument fits better when talking about Pystar trying to install Apple's OS on their hardware. At the time, people tried to argue that once you purchased the OS, you should be able to do with it whatever you want. But those folks failed to realize that you are licensing the OS, so modifying it can be restricted by Apple because you don't "own" it.
It gets a little muddy with the iPhone. You own the hardware, but are still licensing the OS. So while you would argue "who does the government think they are to tell a private company...what they can and cannot allow with their own product." But once you buy your iPhone, the hardware is no longer Apple's. It's yours. You own it. So I could argue, "who does Apple think they are to tell me what I can and cannot do with MY property." As long as I don't modify the OS, why can't I run whatever I want to on it, just like I can with my Mac?
What if Ford told you that you could only buy gas from them? What if they put speed limiters in their vehicles because they don't want their users to suffer from a bad user experience of crashing? Or they want to preserve the image of their vehicles as safe to drive, and you crashing would give them a bad reputation. Apple wants you to get all your apps from them, but every state has laws that prevents car manufacturers from forcing you to their own dealerships for regular service (oil changes, etc) by threatening to void your warranties if you don't.
Apple was fine as long as they appeared benevolent. But the last update to the developers agreement was not so. It not only banned Flash derived apps from the iPhone, it made it less appealing for developers to develop using Flash for ANY platform, because they wouldn't be able to reuse their work for an iPhone app. Many would argue that Flash is "crap", and I'd agree. But that's just Apple's and our opinions. There are thousands of developers (and Adobe) who would argue that the benefits outweigh the downsides. It's all subjective.
You say it's within Apple's rights to dictate how the iPhone is used. What if they next did the same thing for Mac computers? All in the interest of give you a better user experience and protecting you from "crap." You could only buy the apps Apple approves and you have to get them from Apple. I'm pretty sure you and everyone else here would go ape-sh*t if they tried that.
[And just wait until a subpeona uncovers the embarassing internal Apple emails about how to best re-write the developer agreement in order to kill Adobe's method of converting Flash to native iOS code. You know that discussion took place at Apple. And then Apple will be no better than MS in the eyes of the regulators.]
Big time Bogeymen, small change moneymen make cravings for a living. And regulators make sure the money flows down stream, with a brief and discreet stopover at 'nurture' Island...
Apple throws a tantrum into the still of the night; well, this is no time for 'after hours' they reckon, you break curfew ...we make a fool, break the good out of you!*
Apple has to test every App before they put it into THEIR store, that is probably an expensive task.They provide the servers for the Apps to be downloaded from, the interface (iTunes store) to make it easy to search for the App you like. All of that is overhead that costs them money before they make any money on a sale.
Apple has determined from experience that cross-compiled code has issues, especially when they make changes to the OS and they don't want to spend their time and money promoting Apps made this way, it COSTS them to do so. Why must they be forced to babysit a situation that they know from experience will fall just so someone else can make money? I don't know of any stores here in my town that do that. If they know a product is more trouble than will be profitable, they simply don't put it into their store.
Now that jailbreaking is deemed to be legal this should even be less of an issue. There is another store where people can buy apps made with cross-compiled code, no one is stopping anyone from creating apps for that store or from downloading them. All Apple is saying is that if you jailbreak and put stuff on your iDevice that we think is a bad idea due to X, Y, Z reasons we are not going to fix it.
At the end of the day everyone gets what they want, so I really don't see any issue.
Good points. It would be ironic if the efforts of the EFF in getting the Library of Congress to legitimize jailbreaking, which were undertaken to reduce the amount of control Apple was exerting over its own App Store, now resulted in Apple being able to argue that its complete control over its App Store was no danger to competition.
Well you went that far, why don't you get something to change the user agent ID in
Safari, so it isn't identified as an iPhone.
I haven't been able to find one. You wouldn't have an idea would you?
And if the commentor I quoted had attached his blanket statement to the discussion at hand, I might have responded with a more pointed response. But it was a blanket statement baselessly accusing the EU of wasting others' money, when they are in the business of limiting power and protecting those with less resources.
Nobody in America can reasonably believe this statement. EU regulators are extremely biased against American companies as has been demonstrated again and again. In effect the EU operates in such a way as to protect their native companies from real competition. Yes competition that would wipe many of them out.
If Adobe hadn't made Flash such a memory and resource hog, then perhaps this could all have been avoided. Instead they just want to stomp their feet and throw a tantrum.
You can only come to this conclusion by completely prejudging the situation and based entirely on your opinions, rather than the law as it is viewed by those who are responsible for enforcing it. You might end up being right, but only by random chance.
Well, they bring their own prejudices, as you bring yours, but there's nothing in what I've said, or in what Apple has said, that amounts to Apple saying, "We're doing it because we can and no one can tell us differently." Clearly their are technical reasons, which everyone is conveniently ignoring, which have no analogy to Microsoft or Intel, or their respective situations. The biggest reason is that allowing apps written to meta-platforms puts Apple in the position of being controlled by others, of having to either make platform development choices based on not breaking meta platforms, not advancing in the direction they think is best, or indefinitely breaking existing apps that use these meta-platforms. clearly, the responsible action, for everyone concerned is to just say no meta-platforms. It's better for consumers, better for developers, and better for Apple. The only ones left out in the cold are meta-platform developers, and lazy app developers, none of whom are interested in whether they cause harm to consumers or Apple, or not. They're just a bunch of leeches who want to have their way whatever the cost to everyone else.
I'm the last person in the world to say there is no place for government regulation, but this sort of thing gives regulation a bad name. As others have said, this is nothing but companies using their influence over regulators to attach themselves parasitically to successful companies -- in effect, the regulators are being played. A situation utterly different from what Microsoft did with IE, and what Intel has been doing with chips, and in both of those cases, whether there is mention of it or not, the overriding issue is that those are monopolists, even if Intel has not been convicted like Microsoft has been.
EDIT:
And I'm really tired seeing crap be successful. I mean crap like Android and everything else Google does. I mean crap like Flash. And I mean crap like Windows, which even on its best day wasn't half as good as Mac OS on its worst. Crap like IE that destroyed Netscape. And the idea of a company, which is not a monopoly, which has never based it's business on "crushing competitors" but simply on making the best products they can, being forced to allow crap to get in the way of trying to make that product the best product in its class just makes my blood boil. Apple isn't being anti-competitive. They are just trying to be actually competitive, while at the same time making the best effing smartphone the world has ever seen or likely ever will over the next 10 years or more.
There's just way too much crap in the world already, and way too many people trying to make it all we can have.