05-04-2010, 12:46 PM
|
#81
|
#1 Goaltender
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackEleven
Apple pretty well owns the mobile app market. If there were multiple players in the market and Apple had less than half of it, I don't think this would be a big deal as developers that wanted to cross-compile apps would still have viable alternatives to sell their apps.
|
Except they don’t own the mobile app market - there are multiple platforms with multiple app stores. This is not an abuse of monopoly situation, as there is no monopoly (except on distribution of software for the iPhone, which again I liken to what the game console manufacturers do, which is to license, approve, and oversee console game sales)
__________________
-Scott
|
|
|
05-04-2010, 02:39 PM
|
#82
|
Redundant Minister of Redundancy
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Montreal
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by sclitheroe
Except they don’t own the mobile app market - there are multiple platforms with multiple app stores. This is not an abuse of monopoly situation, as there is no monopoly (except on distribution of software for the iPhone, which again I liken to what the game console manufacturers do, which is to license, approve, and oversee console game sales)
|
You don't have to have a monopoly to be susceptible to anti-trust laws, you have to have a dominating market share. This is why Microsoft faced anti-trust; although there are other O/Ses out there, they have an overwhelming market share. And I'm no lawyer, but I believe the anti-trust will be focused around Apple making it prohibitively time-consuming/expensive to develop mobile apps for any other platform while they maintain such a dominating market position that developers cannot afford to abandon their platform completely.
|
|
|
05-04-2010, 05:08 PM
|
#83
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Violating Copyrights
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackEleven
You don't have to have a monopoly to be susceptible to anti-trust laws, you have to have a dominating market share. This is why Microsoft faced anti-trust; although there are other O/Ses out there, they have an overwhelming market share. And I'm no lawyer, but I believe the anti-trust will be focused around Apple making it prohibitively time-consuming/expensive to develop mobile apps for any other platform while they maintain such a dominating market position that developers cannot afford to abandon their platform completely.
|
They faced the suit because they were a Monopoly in x86 OS market and used that monopoly to crush other competitors by creating barriers of entry to would be competition by strong arming OEM manufacturers into not offering competing products and punished them if they did.
Apple is not keeping people from developing for other platforms. There are ways to create cross platform applications for use on multiple platforms. It is not a God given right that it be easy and cheap.
|
|
|
05-05-2010, 07:57 AM
|
#84
|
Redundant Minister of Redundancy
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Montreal
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barnes
They faced the suit because they were a Monopoly in x86 OS market and used that monopoly to crush other competitors by creating barriers of entry to would be competition by strong arming OEM manufacturers into not offering competing products and punished them if they did.
|
I didn't say that the two situations were completely analogous, just that you can be seen as a monopoly without actually being one. Apple can be seen as a monopoly in the mobile app market, otherwise any anti-competitive legislation never would have got off the ground.
Also, Microsoft's relationship with OEM manufacturers was only one pieces of the puzzle in the anti-trust that they've faced. The bundling of IE with Windows and creating APIs that benefited IE over other browsers was another piece. The API manipulation is much more similar to what's going on with Apple than the OEM relationships, but, again, I stress NOT
identical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barnes
Apple is not keeping people from developing for other platforms. There are ways to create cross platform applications for use on multiple platforms. It is not a God given right that it be easy and cheap.
|
They're not keeping other people from developing from other platforms, and I never claimed otherwise. What I said is that they're making it much more difficult. And if you're seen as a monopoly by the FTC or DoJ, then that's anti-competitive.
No one is claiming is a God given right to develop cross-platform applications cheaply and easily. But the fact is that there are already ways to do it cheaply and easily and Apple is banning these ways with a legal clause, not a technical requirement. And when you use legalities to potentially hurt your competitors business, the FTC may step in.
|
|
|
05-05-2010, 08:40 AM
|
#85
|
#1 Goaltender
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackEleven
And when you use legalities to potentially hurt your competitors business, the FTC may step in.
|
This would be true if Apple made the OS that ran on 90% of the available devices in the market. But they don’t; their OS runs on one device only, theirs.
I think furthermore its going to be hard to call any of this antitrust when Apple doesn’t compete in the application space directly. All developers are subject to the same restrictions, there are no favorites being played (not overtly anyways)
If anything was antitrust, it was apps for the old iPods - there was no clear cut way to get your software into the iTunes store, only a handful of developers got to play in that space, etc.
__________________
-Scott
|
|
|
05-05-2010, 08:52 AM
|
#86
|
GOAT!
|
Exactly why I don't get this whole "anti-trust" thing. This is nothing like what MS did in the 90s. Not even close. This isn't Microsoft telling HP that they can't use any other OS than theirs. This isn't Microsoft telling users that they can't pick any other browser than IE.
Apple makes their own hardware, runs their own software and hosts their own application service. If you want to develop for their hardware and software, then you have to do it through their application service, using their toolkit. If you don't want to use Xcode, you still have the ability to write apps for the Android, Blackberry, Windows Phone, etc.
People are getting a little too carried away with the monopoly thing. It doesn't matter how many people use an iPhone. Even if I wasn't an Apple user, I still wouldn't have an issue with this.
Edit: Is this any different than a grocery store that only sells organic food? Do non-organic food growers have the right to demand that their food be allowed for sale there? Does the Government have the right to step in and force the them to sell non-organic food? The App store is a store. The owner of that store can decide what they sell or don't sell. If they only want to sell apps that were built using their toolkit, then that's their right.
Another thing to note is that this story originated in the New York Post. Not exactly the most fact-driven paper on the planet. There's been no official confirmation or acknowledgment of anything.
Last edited by FanIn80; 05-05-2010 at 09:10 AM.
|
|
|
05-05-2010, 09:06 AM
|
#87
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Supporting Urban Sprawl
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by FanIn80
Exactly why I don't get this whole "anti-trust" thing. This is nothing like what MS did in the 90s. Not even close.
Apple makes their own hardware, runs their own software and hosts their own application service. If you want to develop for their hardware and software, then you have to do it through their application service. Just because a lot of people use iPhones, it doesn't change the game at all. People are getting a little too carried away with the monopoly thing.
Even if I wasn't an Apple user, I still wouldn't have an issue with this.
|
Actually, this is a little like Microsoft in the 90's. Microsoft was trying to make it hard(er) for other companies to produce applications (browsers) for Windows and Apple has made it impossible for other companies to do the same unless they do it in the way Apple says is ok. They disallow some applications that duplicate things like phone usage on the iPhone so that people must use the services they provide.
This doesn't mean they are guilty of any sort of anti-trust violations though, not by a long shot. It is the same thing as Nintendo not letting people make certain types of games for the Wii. Apple is selling an entire product from begining to end, an entire user experience. If they don't want x application to run on thier hardware/software then they shouldn't be forced to.
__________________
"Wake up, Luigi! The only time plumbers sleep on the job is when we're working by the hour."
|
|
|
05-05-2010, 09:14 AM
|
#88
|
GOAT!
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rathji
Actually, this is a little like Microsoft in the 90's. Microsoft was trying to make it hard(er) for other companies to produce applications (browsers) for Windows and Apple has made it impossible for other companies to do the same unless they do it in the way Apple says is ok. They disallow some applications that duplicate things like phone usage on the iPhone so that people must use the services they provide.
This doesn't mean they are guilty of any sort of anti-trust violations though, not by a long shot. It is the same thing as Nintendo not letting people make certain types of games for the Wii. Apple is selling an entire product from begining to end, an entire user experience. If they don't want x application to run on thier hardware/software then they shouldn't be forced to.
|
That's a actually a good point, and it's similar to the IE thing in the 90s. They've loosened up a bit though. They're allowing other browsers on the phone, and they're even allowing phone apps (like Skype) to work over 3G etc.
I'm still holding out hope that they allow for another media player. One that plays some other codecs, though I know that's wishful thinking.
|
|
|
05-05-2010, 09:19 AM
|
#89
|
#1 Goaltender
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by FanIn80
People are getting a little too carried away with the monopoly thing.
|
This is a good time to point out that there is nothing wrong with, and it not illegal to be, a monopoly.
It is illegal to abuse powers of monopoly, but Apple only controls their own mobile ecosystem, not an entire market or industry. Claiming Apple is a monopoly here is like claiming GM is a monopoly on GM's.
If there were 6 companies making iPhone compatible phones, there would be issues here, undoubtedly. But there isn't.
__________________
-Scott
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to sclitheroe For This Useful Post:
|
|
05-05-2010, 09:43 AM
|
#91
|
First Line Centre
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Toronto
|
For those looking for a relationship other than the one they have with their iphones
Quote:
Cupidtino is a beautiful new dating site created for fans of Apple products by fans of Apple products! Why? Diehard Mac & Apple fans often have a lot in common – personalities, creative professions, a similar sense of style and aesthetics, and of course a love for technology. We believe these are enough reasons for two people to meet and fall in love, and so we created the first Mac-inspired dating site to help you find other Machearts around you.
Cupidtino will launch in June 2010 exclusively on Apple platforms – including sweet location-based social apps for the iPhone and iPad.
http://gizmodo.com/5531275/cupidtino...boys-and-girls
|
__________________
|
|
|
05-05-2010, 09:45 AM
|
#92
|
Redundant Minister of Redundancy
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Montreal
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by sclitheroe
This would be true if Apple made the OS that ran on 90% of the available devices in the market. But they don’t; their OS runs on one device only, theirs.
|
It's not about the OS, its about the applications that run on it -- ie using their dominance in the mobile app market to try and make the apps OS-specific.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sclitheroe
I think furthermore its going to be hard to call any of this antitrust when Apple doesn’t compete in the application space directly. All developers are subject to the same restrictions, there are no favorites being played (not overtly anyways)
|
They take a cut of every app sold, plus having the largest volume of apps available is a selling point of the phone as a whole. Further, the anti-trust isn't on the part of the developers its on the part of companies that compete in the mobile-app market space. It may be Adobe that's bringing the complaints against Apple, but they are not the competitors in any anti-trust case. Android and any other companies that can have apps cross-compiled to run on their platforms are.
|
|
|
05-05-2010, 10:18 AM
|
#93
|
GOAT!
|
I'm confused. How would iPhone apps not be OS-specific, even without the "no-3rd-party-dev-tools" clause?
|
|
|
05-05-2010, 10:21 AM
|
#94
|
Dances with Wolves
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Section 304
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by FanIn80
|
Thank god. While this isn't the ideal way to get documents and files on and off the iphone, it's certainly a step in the right direction. All I want is a way for me to send my documents to my dropbox and I'll stop caring about this all together.
|
|
|
05-05-2010, 10:25 AM
|
#95
|
GOAT!
|
Yeah, exactly.
Mind you, I have a MobileME iDisk...
|
|
|
05-05-2010, 11:00 AM
|
#96
|
Redundant Minister of Redundancy
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Montreal
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by FanIn80
I'm confused. How would iPhone apps not be OS-specific, even without the "no-3rd-party-dev-tools" clause?
|
Cross-compiling apps means that the same app can run on multiple OSes. You build it the app once and some tool (like MonoTouch or Adobe's new Flash CS5 feature) will compile that app for iPhone, Android and whatever else. This is what Apple bans in the new EULA.
The general thinking is that by forcing developers to decide between coding the app exclusively for iPhone OS (ie no cross-compiling), compiling for everyone else except Apple with cross-compiling or doing both, the majority of developers will chose to compile only for Apple. This is because the time, effort and money necessary to code the apps over again for non-Apple OSes or to code them exclusively for non-Apple OSes is not worthwhile being that Apple OS represents 95% of the market (or whatever the actual number is, I'm not sure) for mobile apps.
Last edited by BlackEleven; 05-05-2010 at 11:03 AM.
|
|
|
05-05-2010, 11:10 AM
|
#97
|
Dances with Wolves
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Section 304
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by FanIn80
Yeah, exactly.
Mind you, I have a MobileME iDisk...
|
Do you know if you can send to iDisk from the iPad?
|
|
|
05-05-2010, 11:13 AM
|
#98
|
GOAT!
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russic
Do you know if you can send to iDisk from the iPad?
|
Hmm... I'm not sure. I imagine if you can't right now, you'll be able to in a future update. Actually, I wonder if the area of the disk that the MobileME app accesses, is the same area that apps write their docs to...
|
|
|
05-05-2010, 11:36 AM
|
#99
|
#1 Goaltender
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackEleven
The general thinking is that by forcing developers to decide between coding the app exclusively for iPhone OS (ie no cross-compiling), compiling for everyone else except Apple with cross-compiling or doing both, the majority of developers will chose to compile only for Apple. This is because the time, effort and money necessary to code the apps over again for non-Apple OSes or to code them exclusively for non-Apple OSes is not worthwhile being that Apple OS represents 95% of the market (or whatever the actual number is, I'm not sure) for mobile apps.
|
Except that this logic is ridiculously easy to strike down in court.
Microsoft Office is most definitely not cross-compiled for Windows and OS X, and yet Microsoft makes the effort even though Windows is 90% of the market. I’m sure the same could be said of InDesign or Photoshop too. In fact, the lack of platform agnostic code was the principal reason Adobe dragged their feet for so long delivering a 64bit Cocoa native Photoshop on the Mac platform.
__________________
-Scott
|
|
|
05-05-2010, 11:51 AM
|
#100
|
Redundant Minister of Redundancy
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Montreal
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by sclitheroe
Except that this logic is ridiculously easy to strike down in court.
Microsoft Office is most definitely not cross-compiled for Windows and OS X, and yet Microsoft makes the effort even though Windows is 90% of the market. I’m sure the same could be said of InDesign or Photoshop too. In fact, the lack of platform agnostic code was the principal reason Adobe dragged their feet for so long delivering a 64bit Cocoa native Photoshop on the Mac platform.
|
?????
Windows and OS X have absolutely zero to do with any of this. There is no EULA in either Windows nor OS X that restricts you from cross-compiling apps with any other platform. Just because MS bothered to port an app to OS X doesn't mean that cross-compiling isn't a valid option for some people. Nor does it mean that everyone should have to port their apps like MS did. Moreover, large apps like Word are not typically easily cross-compiled where small apps like the ones that run on mobile phones are, but again desktop/laptop OSes are completely irrelevant because there is absolutely zero legal means stopping you from cross-compiling.
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:39 PM.
|
|