So Apple will just refuse to sell anything that's developed in Flash?
Exactly. Here is the new addition to the EULA:
Applications must be originally written in Objective-C, C, C++, or JavaScript as executed by the iPhone OS WebKit engine, and only code written in C, C++, and Objective-C may compile and directly link against the Documented APIs (e.g., Applications that link to Documented APIs through an intermediary translation or compatibility layer or tool are prohibited).
That gives Apple the right to reject any app that isn't written in C, C++ or Objective-C. This is what we've been debating over the past few pages.
No... people sue you if you force manufacturers to install your software over someone else's.
Apple is the manufacturer, they make their own hardware and software. If you want to use their software, you buy their hardware. People are so used to Microsoft, that they forget that Apple is a hardware company, not a software company. They don't make software applications for other OSes. They make their own stuff to run on their own hardware. They have every right to control access to their software.
If anyone has a problem with that philosophy, then Apple products are clearly not for them. It's that simple.
Yeah. Okay. I'd like to see Apple announce tomorrow that iTunes will no longer run on anything but a Mac since they don't develop software to run on other OSes. Or how about since iTunes is a ported application, MS should have the right to refuse its use on Windows?
You can't use this argument only when it benefits Apple.
I also can't wait for the day that this "hardware company" loophole is closed.
Yeah. Okay. I'd like to see Apple announce tomorrow that iTunes will no longer run on anything but a Mac since they don't develop software to run on other OSes. Or how about since iTunes is a ported application, MS should have the right to refuse its use on Windows?
You can't use this argument only when it benefits Apple.
I also can't wait for the day that this "hardware company" loophole is closed.
To be fair iTunes only runs properly on a Mac.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke
Thats why Flames fans make ideal Star Trek fans. We've really been taught to embrace the self-loathing and extreme criticism.
Yeah. Okay. I'd like to see Apple announce tomorrow that iTunes will no longer run on anything but a Mac since they don't develop software to run on other OSes. Or how about since iTunes is a ported application, MS should have the right to refuse its use on Windows?
You can't use this argument only when it benefits Apple.
I also can't wait for the day that this "hardware company" loophole is closed.
Yeah, you got me. Clearly, their free iPod sync application completely destroys the notion that Apple is a hardware company.
Which is rather ironic when you think about it. Apple is using the justification that cross-platform apps are of low quality to ban them. Apple would be in a lot of trouble if iTunes was prevented from being run on Windows due to its low-quality. Or you could say they're proving their own point
I am out of contract now, so maybe I will upgrade this summer when the new hardware comes out. I played around with the 3GS a couple weeks ago and that thing is lightning fast compared with my old-man-easing-into-a-hot-bath-tub 2G. I can only assume the new hardware will be even better.
Yeah, you got me. Clearly, their free iPod sync application completely destroys the notion that Apple is a hardware company.
It blows my mind that people like yourselves believe the crap you spew.
Obviously at this point they are a "hardware company". However, that term is antiquated, as hardware people are very much into software (see: iTunes, App Store etc.)
Thus, a "hardware company" like Apple cannot be given a free pass on their software. At the same time, software companies also delve into hardware like Nexus One, Zune, so there hardware should also be scrutinized much like their software. I'm pretty sure there have been stats quoted that say that iTunes is a monopoly in terms of online music purchases, and practices like this one, where they're closing off other platforms also need to be seen with a close eye.
There's a reason why I said the fact that Apple is a hardware company is a loophole, not that they are not a hardware company. I cannot wait for the day that this BS excuse for why they can be a monopoly and not get sued is brought down.
I am out of contract now, so maybe I will upgrade this summer when the new hardware comes out. I played around with the 3GS a couple weeks ago and that thing is lightning fast compared with my old-man-easing-into-a-hot-bath-tub 2G. I can only assume the new hardware will be even better.
I've been pretty hard on Apple in this thread, but that's something I don't have a problem with. Since the 2G came out all sorts of functionality has been added to it (for free no less). At some point, older hardware has to be replaced in order to make way for features that require more horsepower. I think 3 years is a pretty reasonable timeframe for this.
It blows my mind that people like yourselves believe the crap you spew.
Obviously at this point they are a "hardware company". However, that term is antiquated, as hardware people are very much into software (see: iTunes, App Store etc.)
Thus, a "hardware company" like Apple cannot be given a free pass on their software. At the same time, software companies also delve into hardware like Nexus One, Zune, so there hardware should also be scrutinized much like their software. I'm pretty sure there have been stats quoted that say that iTunes is a monopoly in terms of online music purchases, and practices like this one, where they're closing off other platforms also need to be seen with a close eye.
There's a reason why I said the fact that Apple is a hardware company is a loophole, not that they are not a hardware company. I cannot wait for the day that this BS excuse for why they can be a monopoly and not get sued is brought down.
What am I believing? Reality? They make their own software to run on their own hardware. I suppose this "loophole" will be closed whenever they get out of the hardware business and just build Office applications for PCs.
Sure I'm a fanboy, but come on. Do you get equally pissed off when you buy a DVD player from Toshiba that runs Toshiba's DVD player OS? Is that a loophole too?
That was one of the worst posts I've read in an Apple thread here.
What am I believing? Reality? They make their own software to run on their own hardware. I suppose this "loophole" will be closed whenever they get out of the hardware business and just build Office applications for PCs.
Sure I'm a fanboy, but come on. Do you get equally pissed off when you buy a DVD player from Toshiba that runs Toshiba's DVD player OS? Is that a loophole too?
That was one of the worst posts I've read in an Apple thread here.
I don't think you even read my post. I'm saying that with the lines being blurred between hardware and software with these new classes of devices (like smartphones/iPad etc.), the level of scrutiny for competitiveness needs to be at the same level as what was done to large single-function companies before.
Basically, it's been shown that it doesn't matter that you own the software, you need to provide an option for competitors to use your software - Apple is just taking this a step further by saying "Well, this is my hardware so na-na-na can't touch this," even though the two situations are extremely similar and absolutely IS a loophole.
As has been shown, ported apps MAY be lower quality, but if you're going to approve every app that comes through anyways, why even bother with the clause? Just deny it based on low quality, rather than shutting out a large portion of developers.
As for your DVD player comparison: I would have accepted your analogy if Apple completely closed off their system and only developed iPhone apps in house. However, the second they opened up their platform to developers, the comparison with a DVD player is not valid, and we're starting to move towards computing devices.
I don't think you even read my post. I'm saying that with the lines being blurred between hardware and software with these new classes of devices (like smartphones/iPad etc.), the level of scrutiny for competitiveness needs to be at the same level as what was done to large single-function companies before.
Basically, it's been shown that it doesn't matter that you own the software, you need to provide an option for competitors to use your software - Apple is just taking this a step further by saying "Well, this is my hardware so na-na-na can't touch this," even though the two situations are extremely similar and absolutely IS a loophole.
As has been shown, ported apps MAY be lower quality, but if you're going to approve every app that comes through anyways, why even bother with the clause? Just deny it based on low quality, rather than shutting out a large portion of developers.
As for your DVD player comparison: I would have accepted your analogy if Apple completely closed off their system and only developed iPhone apps in house. However, the second they opened up their platform to developers, the comparison with a DVD player is not valid, and we're starting to move towards computing devices.
Nothing Apple is doing is preventing competitors from entering the marketplace. Apple going the freetard model and opening up does not encourage phone makers to enter the market nor does their current model keep companies out.
Even if they owned 100% of the smart phone (or music) market they would be a monopoly but monopolies are not illegal. If they were creating barriers of entry like controlling the supply chain of parts, punishing retailers for carrying competitive products, that would be anti competitive.
Having not read ANYTHING in this thread, I can assume this:
1. There are many people giving Apple the gears for stifling development.
To that, I say this:
I find it refreshing that a company would actually take time and care as to what happens to their product. We've seen it with PCs, phones, etc...poorly developed third party apps/programs that make vulnerabilities and devalue the brand...and that's the key. Don't devalue the brand. How do we do that? Maintain control of what can be developed.
I fully support Apple dictating what can be developed for their product, at least then I know it's approved and sanctioned.
Having not read ANYTHING in this thread, I can assume this:
1. There are many people giving Apple the gears for stifling development.
To that, I say this:
I find it refreshing that a company would actually take time and care as to what happens to their product. We've seen it with PCs, phones, etc...poorly developed third party apps/programs that make vulnerabilities and devalue the brand...and that's the key. Don't devalue the brand. How do we do that? Maintain control of what can be developed.
I fully support Apple dictating what can be developed for their product, at least then I know it's approved and sanctioned.
They already do control what can be developed. This isn't about that; it's about controlilng how apps are developed.
They control what can't be developed. There's a big difference.
The only difference there is a semantic one -- you can develop everything that you can't develop.
But that's beside the point. I don't think anyone is arguing about what Apple allows in their app store (at least not here, that's another debate entirely). The point is control over how apps are developed and not the apps themselves.
Opera Mini is a Java application, I would be very curious as to what tools Opera used to create the application. I would wager that they didn't write it from scratch, not when they have an established code base to leverage.
Plus Opera Mini isn't really a full fledged browser, all the data goes through Opera's servers, so don't use it to do your online banking (used to be you couldn't use HTTPS in Opera Mini at all, not sure if that's changed).
Plus this really goes against Apple's goal of quality. Now the browsing experience has a single point of failure, if Opera's servers go down the app doesn't work, or if Opera doesn't keep up to date with their code to render web pages (since the web pages are rendered on the server not the phone) it could be a very crappy application. Aren't these the arguments Apple just used.
Plus this highlights the complete randomness of Apple's decision process. Other developers had their applications turned down (or approved and then yanked a good while later) when they improved functionality of Apple's built in applications, but here's an application that does just that and it gets through.
Freedom isn't freedom when it's applied randomly.
Having another browser is nice, but I'm not pretending that it's openness.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
