Actually, many of us wish that Apple would protect us like that. We can choose to only buy all our software from Apple directly, but the added layer of protection would be just like we enjoy on the iPad. Me, personally, I wish that the Mac could only download and install software that is sold by Apple.
Really? I personally think that's a completely stupid way of doing business. Especially considering that for the App Store, there are numerous cases where Apple initially accepted a piece of software, only to remove it later for reasons unknown. Or they reject it for reasons unknown or apply their conditions too harshly.
I would not like to be in an environment where one day, the software I want is available and the next day gone off the shelf with no explanation. Nor have to wait for software that ends up readily available for Windows, but I'd have to wait who knows how long for Apple to approve it or deny it and make my wait all for nothing. Nor one where I'd either have to wait to get it shipped from Apple (better be free shipping), visit one of the rare Apple stores in my area, or wait for who knows how long for it to download online. If there's a retail copy of the software available for cheaper at the big name store just down the street from me, why shouldn't I be able to go get it there?
Considering that the vast majority of software developers create for Windows first, I wouldn't be surprised if Apple going the route you describe would futher alienate the developers. I believe a lot of software out there now would not pass Apple's mysterious "tests". If they're earning the majority of their money on Windows sales, why would they want to spend the time and effort into developing another version to make Apple happy?
It puts another platform in between Apple's APIs and the user. If Apple adds 200 more great APIs in iOS 5, and Adobe's "code generator" doesn't support these new APIs, then Apple is at Adobe's mercy as to what will and will not run on the phone.
But Apple rejects apps that don't use APIs anyways! They should just go on rejecting substandard apps, no matter how they are written. That has been there strategy so far, and it has resulted in the best app store in the entire world.
I think that Apple should be allowed to do anything and everything that they can think of to improve my User Experience. That is what they are there for.
Yeah, well, people who want everything to be equally crappy, just so they can make a buck is an issue worth getting upset about. Anyone who gives a damn ought to be upset, very upset, if they're still alive.
Software is a lot better today that it has ever been. Like everything else, it is two steps forward and one step back. But the alternative to Flash has yet to take the two steps forward. If there was an HTML5 IDE that could put together even half of what Flash can do with the same amount of effort, that might be the final nail in the coffin. So rather than bitch about Flash just make HTML5 half as good with proper application development tools.
Wait - the FTC is trying to dictate that we must use Flash? That is unAmerican.
No there determining if blocking Flash or Adobe's tool to convert Flash to Objective C is unlawful. I don't think anything anywhere has said that the result would be forcing Apple to install Flash. It would be forcing Apple to allow people to install flash if they choose to do so.
For everyone saying Flash is crap and there's not even a working version for iPhone. This is more than Flash, Adobe may have filed the complaint. But Apple isn't just blocking Flash, there blocking the next genius kid that invents something better than Flash, Silverlight, iOS and wants to release it for the most famous phone.
Apple may not have a monopoly but in the EU that doesn't matter. We have competition laws and if it is deemed that you are acting in an un-competitive way then you can be ordered to change. Everything with the iPhone after it's initial purchase is un-competitive.
What a load of BS. It may be convenient for you to divide the world into two camps, but it's the sign of a small mind to do so. If you can't explain why you are right, maybe you aren't. And, no, my argument is not at all like the arguments made against investigating Microsoft and there isn't any similarity in the situations, as much as you are unable to distinguish them. There's also no similarity to the situation with Intel, so while you may think you have some purpose in mentioning it, it's really entirely beside the point.
You miss every point by a country mile.
If you take the trouble to read through the many, many posts on this issue, you will see that that vast majority of the arguments in defense of Apple break along these lines. Some are in both camps. The problem isn't that I haven't explained my position, which I've done multiple times now, but that you have either not read or understood it. This is particularly the case with the Microsoft and Intel comparisons. For the last time, I will tell you that they were NOT mentioned for any similarity of their "situations" apart from the simple fact that they were BOTH investigated for competition law violations and they responded to those investigations in VERY DIFFERENT ways.
So no, it's hardly beside the point. In fact it is the point. If this investigation proceeds, Apple could very well be at this very same fork in the road. They could either go the Microsoft route and fight for every square inch of ground on the premise that they have could not have possibly done anything wrong, or they could concede a small point and move on. For the sake of Apple, I hope (if it gets this far) that they take the latter course.
Your argument that Apple can't possibly have done anything actionable by regulators prejudges facts which neither you nor I are in possession. I know it may be difficult for you to understand, but I'm not pretending knowledge that I do not possess, nor am I driven by any ideological positioning that dictates who is right before the facts are known. All I know, all any of us really knows, is that both the FTC and EU have found sufficient merit in a complaint to investigate further.
The problem is iOS is the dominant platform for mobile apps. No one else is close. RiM and Nokia may sell more smart phones but Apple is the clear leader for Apps. If you develop mobile Apps you don't have much real choice except to be on iOS.
Yeah, well, people who want everything to be equally crappy, just so they can make a buck is an issue worth getting upset about. Anyone who gives a damn ought to be upset, very upset, if they're still alive.
So as OS X, Windows and Linux all operate in a free open market every single app available on all 3 platforms is crappy and they has never been anything any good. And as the web is open standards with no restrictions on people publishing stuff however they want every single website is crappy. Are you saying in-fact that this website is crappy as it's been allowed to exist as it's been allowed to have been accessed without any approval from Apple? Seriously dude you better get off the internet now this whole place in unregulated, just wait for websites to exist as apps on your iPhone and only then look at them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SendMe
Then stay away from iOS. Problem solved.
Not much of a solution if you'd just bought an iPhone!
I've been blocking flash for years I don't care what it does or doesn't do, it has no bearing in my life, it is unimportant in the grand scheme of things, if it was gone my life would not be affected at all.
Adobe has no right to demand that proprietary software like Flash should be forced on people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
Software is a lot better today that it has ever been. Like everything else, it is two steps forward and one step back. But the alternative to Flash has yet to take the two steps forward. If there was an HTML5 IDE that could put together even half of what Flash can do with the same amount of effort, that might be the final nail in the coffin. So rather than bitch about Flash just make HTML5 half as good with proper application development tools.
So why hasn't Adobe set up their own App store in order to compete, there are more Symbian and RIM phones than iOS phones not to mention billions of Java ME running dumbphones.
It's a big world out there there are plenty of opportunities for everyone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orlando
The problem is iOS is the dominant platform for mobile apps. No one else is close. RiM and Nokia may sell more smart phones but Apple is the clear leader for Apps. If you develop mobile Apps you don't have much real choice except to be on iOS.
I keep seeing people post things about Apple keeping software developed in flash off the apple platform because they are protecting the customers from crap and from software that doesn't get updated properly. How is software compiled from Flash going to change this?
Here are two easy examples from the same company:
This one was released and promised great things in a vague way but offered no user guide and didn't offer tremendous support. The developer never updated it, either. Apple approved it and it's still for sale:
This one started out strong and was one of the best when first released. Hasn't been updated since 1998 (OS 2.0) but is still for sale and has been crash-prone to the point of being unusable since OS 3.0 but Apple still has it up there for sale:
These are two prime examples of CRAP on the App Store - One which was crap from the start and NEVER updated and the other which was good but broke after an Apple update two years ago and was never updated to work properly again. To me, the best argument for these being there is "Buyer Beware". Hopefully, most people are smart enough to look at the reviews and see that in one case, nothing has happened with it and in the other, the overwhelming thunder of people giving it single stars... But you can't really use the common sense argument when your saying Apple is protecting people from having to use common sense when buying from them and that the App store is there to protect us from this kind of stuff. As someone who has had their phone for a good long time, I could site many other examples of things that have been or are still around that are most definitely CRAP so please, pick another post to hitch your horses to.
Another point I find interesting is that in the beta stages, Apple actually *did* accept apps made from the Flash compiler so obviously, a well done app coming from that compiler *can* pass Apple's standards for quality...
This leaves me wondering exactly what Apple is allegedly protecting us from?
I don't develop in flash or objective-c or in anything else meaningful and I'm guessing that most of the people arguing against the use of the compilers on here don't either. I don't really have a horse in this race and I don't think most of you do, either... So unless you really are brainwashed or have stock in Apple, why do you care so much? Obviously, they're not protecting us from Jack $#@& when it comes to the quality of stuff.
For what it's worth, I just purchased my third iPhone upgrade. I am a customer and I am happy with my phone so please don't tell me to go to android if I'm not happy. At the same time, I'm not an apologist... And if Apple ever started handling the Mac the way they do these products, I think you would see the Mac disappear from the professional landscape. I personally don't want a glorified console or web TV for a computer. My PS3 and Wii do that nicely already... And not to throw gass on the fire (ok, maybe) but they both run flash and I'm pretty sure that if Microsoft developed Silverlight plug-ins for their browsers, they'd accept it, too.
But does Apple have the right to force you not to use Flash and only proprietary software from them.
They aren’t forcing you to "not to use Flash and only proprietary software from them” as you have the right to buy the competitor’s product that best suits your needs.
If you take the trouble to read through the many, many posts on this issue, you will see that that vast majority of the arguments in defense of Apple break along these lines. Some are in both camps. The problem isn't that I haven't explained my position, which I've done multiple times now, but that you have either not read or understood it. This is particularly the case with the Microsoft and Intel comparisons. For the last time, I will tell you that they were NOT mentioned for any similarity of their "situations" apart from the simple fact that they were BOTH investigated for competition law violations and they responded to those investigations in VERY DIFFERENT ways.
So no, it's hardly beside the point. In fact it is the point. If this investigation proceeds, Apple could very well be at this very same fork in the road. They could either go the Microsoft route and fight for every square inch of ground on the premise that they have could not have possibly done anything wrong, or they could concede a small point and move on. For the sake of Apple, I hope (if it gets this far) that they take the latter course.
Your argument that Apple can't possibly have done anything actionable by regulators prejudges facts which neither you nor I are in possession. I know it may be difficult for you to understand, but I'm not pretending knowledge that I do not possess, nor am I driven by any ideological positioning that dictates who is right before the facts are known. All I know, all any of us really knows, is that both the FTC and EU have found sufficient merit in a complaint to investigate further.
I think you're getting a little too much involved with the legal mumbo jumbo here: "prejudges facts which neither you nor I are in possession." We know why they banned Flash apps. they did it so Adobe couldn't turn iOS into a stinking pile of shit by forcing them to maintain backward compatibility with a meta platform that would produce thousands of crapware apps. You don't need to conduct an investigation to know whether Apple is justified in doing that or not. Just like you didn't really need a trial to know that Microsoft abused it's monopoly to take over the browser market on Windows. Both of these issues are obvious to anyone with common sense.
And, so far, you haven't shown that your fork in the road even exists for Apple. In fact, you admit the situations aren't similar, so why would there be a similar fork, a similar dilema? Why does Apple have to choose the right horn or the left horn? You contradict yourself. In fact, they don't need to choose either horn, they'll jump through the middle. Otherwise, they might as well just stop selling iOS devices.
Software is a lot better today that it has ever been. Like everything else, it is two steps forward and one step back. But the alternative to Flash has yet to take the two steps forward. If there was an HTML5 IDE that could put together even half of what Flash can do with the same amount of effort, that might be the final nail in the coffin. So rather than bitch about Flash just make HTML5 half as good with proper application development tools.
HTML4 already builds better websites than Flash does. We don't need to wait for anything.
So as OS X, Windows and Linux all operate in a free open market every single app available on all 3 platforms is crappy and they has never been anything any good. And as the web is open standards with no restrictions on people publishing stuff however they want every single website is crappy. Are you saying in-fact that this website is crappy as it's been allowed to exist as it's been allowed to have been accessed without any approval from Apple? Seriously dude you better get off the internet now this whole place in unregulated, just wait for websites to exist as apps on your iPhone and only then look at them.
Sort of off topic, but flash runs just fine on my EVO 4G (Froyo). I thought that it would run like crap given what everyone on these forums has said about flash performance.
I wouldn't mind having the OPTION of using it on my iPhone 4.
I think you're getting a little too much involved with the legal mumbo jumbo here: "prejudges facts which neither you nor I are in possession." We know why they banned Flash apps. they did it so Adobe couldn't turn iOS into a stinking pile of shit by forcing them to maintain backward compatibility with a meta platform that would produce thousands of crapware apps. You don't need to conduct an investigation to know whether Apple is justified in doing that or not. Just like you didn't really need a trial to know that Microsoft abused it's monopoly to take over the browser market on Windows. Both of these issues are obvious to anyone with common sense.
And, so far, you haven't shown that your fork in the road even exists for Apple. In fact, you admit the situations aren't similar, so why would there be a similar fork, a similar dilema? Why does Apple have to choose the right horn or the left horn? You contradict yourself. In fact, they don't need to choose either horn, they'll jump through the middle. Otherwise, they might as well just stop selling iOS devices.
We don't know the substance of Adobe's complaint and the facts they have apparently assembled in support of their case, which obviously were sufficient to make the FTC and EU pay attention. Clear as day, full stop. Follow it or don't. As for the Intel and Microsoft scenarios, that was also as clear as day, but I have given up any hope of you understanding the analogy no matter how often it is explained.
You might want to try fashioning an argument that doesn't have such a heavy dependance on "crap." It might help your case.
Comments
That is what I meant.
That's what I meant.
Hey Tecky .... I see you're still having trouble saying what you mean ..... haha ... luv it.
Actually, many of us wish that Apple would protect us like that. We can choose to only buy all our software from Apple directly, but the added layer of protection would be just like we enjoy on the iPad. Me, personally, I wish that the Mac could only download and install software that is sold by Apple.
Really? I personally think that's a completely stupid way of doing business. Especially considering that for the App Store, there are numerous cases where Apple initially accepted a piece of software, only to remove it later for reasons unknown. Or they reject it for reasons unknown or apply their conditions too harshly.
I would not like to be in an environment where one day, the software I want is available and the next day gone off the shelf with no explanation. Nor have to wait for software that ends up readily available for Windows, but I'd have to wait who knows how long for Apple to approve it or deny it and make my wait all for nothing. Nor one where I'd either have to wait to get it shipped from Apple (better be free shipping), visit one of the rare Apple stores in my area, or wait for who knows how long for it to download online. If there's a retail copy of the software available for cheaper at the big name store just down the street from me, why shouldn't I be able to go get it there?
Considering that the vast majority of software developers create for Windows first, I wouldn't be surprised if Apple going the route you describe would futher alienate the developers. I believe a lot of software out there now would not pass Apple's mysterious "tests". If they're earning the majority of their money on Windows sales, why would they want to spend the time and effort into developing another version to make Apple happy?
It puts another platform in between Apple's APIs and the user. If Apple adds 200 more great APIs in iOS 5, and Adobe's "code generator" doesn't support these new APIs, then Apple is at Adobe's mercy as to what will and will not run on the phone.
But Apple rejects apps that don't use APIs anyways! They should just go on rejecting substandard apps, no matter how they are written. That has been there strategy so far, and it has resulted in the best app store in the entire world.
I think that Apple should be allowed to do anything and everything that they can think of to improve my User Experience. That is what they are there for.
Yeah, well, people who want everything to be equally crappy, just so they can make a buck is an issue worth getting upset about. Anyone who gives a damn ought to be upset, very upset, if they're still alive.
Software is a lot better today that it has ever been. Like everything else, it is two steps forward and one step back. But the alternative to Flash has yet to take the two steps forward. If there was an HTML5 IDE that could put together even half of what Flash can do with the same amount of effort, that might be the final nail in the coffin. So rather than bitch about Flash just make HTML5 half as good with proper application development tools.
Wait - the FTC is trying to dictate that we must use Flash? That is unAmerican.
No there determining if blocking Flash or Adobe's tool to convert Flash to Objective C is unlawful. I don't think anything anywhere has said that the result would be forcing Apple to install Flash. It would be forcing Apple to allow people to install flash if they choose to do so.
For everyone saying Flash is crap and there's not even a working version for iPhone. This is more than Flash, Adobe may have filed the complaint. But Apple isn't just blocking Flash, there blocking the next genius kid that invents something better than Flash, Silverlight, iOS and wants to release it for the most famous phone.
Apple may not have a monopoly but in the EU that doesn't matter. We have competition laws and if it is deemed that you are acting in an un-competitive way then you can be ordered to change. Everything with the iPhone after it's initial purchase is un-competitive.
I would not like to be in an environment where one day, the software I want is available and the next day gone off the shelf with no explanation.
Then stay away from iOS. Problem solved.
What a load of BS. It may be convenient for you to divide the world into two camps, but it's the sign of a small mind to do so. If you can't explain why you are right, maybe you aren't. And, no, my argument is not at all like the arguments made against investigating Microsoft and there isn't any similarity in the situations, as much as you are unable to distinguish them. There's also no similarity to the situation with Intel, so while you may think you have some purpose in mentioning it, it's really entirely beside the point.
You miss every point by a country mile.
If you take the trouble to read through the many, many posts on this issue, you will see that that vast majority of the arguments in defense of Apple break along these lines. Some are in both camps. The problem isn't that I haven't explained my position, which I've done multiple times now, but that you have either not read or understood it. This is particularly the case with the Microsoft and Intel comparisons. For the last time, I will tell you that they were NOT mentioned for any similarity of their "situations" apart from the simple fact that they were BOTH investigated for competition law violations and they responded to those investigations in VERY DIFFERENT ways.
So no, it's hardly beside the point. In fact it is the point. If this investigation proceeds, Apple could very well be at this very same fork in the road. They could either go the Microsoft route and fight for every square inch of ground on the premise that they have could not have possibly done anything wrong, or they could concede a small point and move on. For the sake of Apple, I hope (if it gets this far) that they take the latter course.
Your argument that Apple can't possibly have done anything actionable by regulators prejudges facts which neither you nor I are in possession. I know it may be difficult for you to understand, but I'm not pretending knowledge that I do not possess, nor am I driven by any ideological positioning that dictates who is right before the facts are known. All I know, all any of us really knows, is that both the FTC and EU have found sufficient merit in a complaint to investigate further.
Then stay away from iOS. Problem solved.
The problem is iOS is the dominant platform for mobile apps. No one else is close. RiM and Nokia may sell more smart phones but Apple is the clear leader for Apps. If you develop mobile Apps you don't have much real choice except to be on iOS.
Yeah, well, people who want everything to be equally crappy, just so they can make a buck is an issue worth getting upset about. Anyone who gives a damn ought to be upset, very upset, if they're still alive.
So as OS X, Windows and Linux all operate in a free open market every single app available on all 3 platforms is crappy and they has never been anything any good. And as the web is open standards with no restrictions on people publishing stuff however they want every single website is crappy. Are you saying in-fact that this website is crappy as it's been allowed to exist as it's been allowed to have been accessed without any approval from Apple? Seriously dude you better get off the internet now this whole place in unregulated, just wait for websites to exist as apps on your iPhone and only then look at them.
Then stay away from iOS. Problem solved.
Not much of a solution if you'd just bought an iPhone!
Adobe has no right to demand that proprietary software like Flash should be forced on people.
Software is a lot better today that it has ever been. Like everything else, it is two steps forward and one step back. But the alternative to Flash has yet to take the two steps forward. If there was an HTML5 IDE that could put together even half of what Flash can do with the same amount of effort, that might be the final nail in the coffin. So rather than bitch about Flash just make HTML5 half as good with proper application development tools.
So why hasn't Adobe set up their own App store in order to compete, there are more Symbian and RIM phones than iOS phones not to mention billions of Java ME running dumbphones.
It's a big world out there there are plenty of opportunities for everyone.
The problem is iOS is the dominant platform for mobile apps. No one else is close. RiM and Nokia may sell more smart phones but Apple is the clear leader for Apps. If you develop mobile Apps you don't have much real choice except to be on iOS.
Adobe has no right to demand that proprietary software like Flash should be forced on people.
But does Apple have the right to force you not to use Flash and only proprietary software from them.
Here are two easy examples from the same company:
This one was released and promised great things in a vague way but offered no user guide and didn't offer tremendous support. The developer never updated it, either. Apple approved it and it's still for sale:
http://itunes.apple.com/app/mediashare/id291172550?mt=8
This one started out strong and was one of the best when first released. Hasn't been updated since 1998 (OS 2.0) but is still for sale and has been crash-prone to the point of being unusable since OS 3.0 but Apple still has it up there for sale:
http://itunes.apple.com/app/textguru...288458312?mt=8
These are two prime examples of CRAP on the App Store - One which was crap from the start and NEVER updated and the other which was good but broke after an Apple update two years ago and was never updated to work properly again. To me, the best argument for these being there is "Buyer Beware". Hopefully, most people are smart enough to look at the reviews and see that in one case, nothing has happened with it and in the other, the overwhelming thunder of people giving it single stars... But you can't really use the common sense argument when your saying Apple is protecting people from having to use common sense when buying from them and that the App store is there to protect us from this kind of stuff. As someone who has had their phone for a good long time, I could site many other examples of things that have been or are still around that are most definitely CRAP so please, pick another post to hitch your horses to.
Another point I find interesting is that in the beta stages, Apple actually *did* accept apps made from the Flash compiler so obviously, a well done app coming from that compiler *can* pass Apple's standards for quality...
This leaves me wondering exactly what Apple is allegedly protecting us from?
I don't develop in flash or objective-c or in anything else meaningful and I'm guessing that most of the people arguing against the use of the compilers on here don't either. I don't really have a horse in this race and I don't think most of you do, either... So unless you really are brainwashed or have stock in Apple, why do you care so much? Obviously, they're not protecting us from Jack $#@& when it comes to the quality of stuff.
For what it's worth, I just purchased my third iPhone upgrade. I am a customer and I am happy with my phone so please don't tell me to go to android if I'm not happy. At the same time, I'm not an apologist... And if Apple ever started handling the Mac the way they do these products, I think you would see the Mac disappear from the professional landscape. I personally don't want a glorified console or web TV for a computer. My PS3 and Wii do that nicely already... And not to throw gass on the fire (ok, maybe) but they both run flash and I'm pretty sure that if Microsoft developed Silverlight plug-ins for their browsers, they'd accept it, too.
But does Apple have the right to force you not to use Flash and only proprietary software from them.
They aren’t forcing you to "not to use Flash and only proprietary software from them” as you have the right to buy the competitor’s product that best suits your needs.
You miss every point by a country mile.
If you take the trouble to read through the many, many posts on this issue, you will see that that vast majority of the arguments in defense of Apple break along these lines. Some are in both camps. The problem isn't that I haven't explained my position, which I've done multiple times now, but that you have either not read or understood it. This is particularly the case with the Microsoft and Intel comparisons. For the last time, I will tell you that they were NOT mentioned for any similarity of their "situations" apart from the simple fact that they were BOTH investigated for competition law violations and they responded to those investigations in VERY DIFFERENT ways.
So no, it's hardly beside the point. In fact it is the point. If this investigation proceeds, Apple could very well be at this very same fork in the road. They could either go the Microsoft route and fight for every square inch of ground on the premise that they have could not have possibly done anything wrong, or they could concede a small point and move on. For the sake of Apple, I hope (if it gets this far) that they take the latter course.
Your argument that Apple can't possibly have done anything actionable by regulators prejudges facts which neither you nor I are in possession. I know it may be difficult for you to understand, but I'm not pretending knowledge that I do not possess, nor am I driven by any ideological positioning that dictates who is right before the facts are known. All I know, all any of us really knows, is that both the FTC and EU have found sufficient merit in a complaint to investigate further.
I think you're getting a little too much involved with the legal mumbo jumbo here: "prejudges facts which neither you nor I are in possession." We know why they banned Flash apps. they did it so Adobe couldn't turn iOS into a stinking pile of shit by forcing them to maintain backward compatibility with a meta platform that would produce thousands of crapware apps. You don't need to conduct an investigation to know whether Apple is justified in doing that or not. Just like you didn't really need a trial to know that Microsoft abused it's monopoly to take over the browser market on Windows. Both of these issues are obvious to anyone with common sense.
And, so far, you haven't shown that your fork in the road even exists for Apple. In fact, you admit the situations aren't similar, so why would there be a similar fork, a similar dilema? Why does Apple have to choose the right horn or the left horn? You contradict yourself. In fact, they don't need to choose either horn, they'll jump through the middle. Otherwise, they might as well just stop selling iOS devices.
Software is a lot better today that it has ever been. Like everything else, it is two steps forward and one step back. But the alternative to Flash has yet to take the two steps forward. If there was an HTML5 IDE that could put together even half of what Flash can do with the same amount of effort, that might be the final nail in the coffin. So rather than bitch about Flash just make HTML5 half as good with proper application development tools.
HTML4 already builds better websites than Flash does. We don't need to wait for anything.
So as OS X, Windows and Linux all operate in a free open market every single app available on all 3 platforms is crappy and they has never been anything any good. And as the web is open standards with no restrictions on people publishing stuff however they want every single website is crappy. Are you saying in-fact that this website is crappy as it's been allowed to exist as it's been allowed to have been accessed without any approval from Apple? Seriously dude you better get off the internet now this whole place in unregulated, just wait for websites to exist as apps on your iPhone and only then look at them.
You need to learn how to read.
But does Apple have the right to force you not to use Flash and only proprietary software from them.
Well, when they have the right to force you to buy iOS devices, then yes.
Yeesh.
I wouldn't mind having the OPTION of using it on my iPhone 4.
I think you're getting a little too much involved with the legal mumbo jumbo here: "prejudges facts which neither you nor I are in possession." We know why they banned Flash apps. they did it so Adobe couldn't turn iOS into a stinking pile of shit by forcing them to maintain backward compatibility with a meta platform that would produce thousands of crapware apps. You don't need to conduct an investigation to know whether Apple is justified in doing that or not. Just like you didn't really need a trial to know that Microsoft abused it's monopoly to take over the browser market on Windows. Both of these issues are obvious to anyone with common sense.
And, so far, you haven't shown that your fork in the road even exists for Apple. In fact, you admit the situations aren't similar, so why would there be a similar fork, a similar dilema? Why does Apple have to choose the right horn or the left horn? You contradict yourself. In fact, they don't need to choose either horn, they'll jump through the middle. Otherwise, they might as well just stop selling iOS devices.
We don't know the substance of Adobe's complaint and the facts they have apparently assembled in support of their case, which obviously were sufficient to make the FTC and EU pay attention. Clear as day, full stop. Follow it or don't. As for the Intel and Microsoft scenarios, that was also as clear as day, but I have given up any hope of you understanding the analogy no matter how often it is explained.
You might want to try fashioning an argument that doesn't have such a heavy dependance on "crap." It might help your case.