Adobe to sue Apple now?

I'm pretty sure they don't have a case.

Apple can clearly point to RIM, Android, Windows Mobile, and (for now?) Palm as other options. If consumers care about things Apple doesn't offer then there are many other places for them to go.

The iPhone would have to have a much, much larger market share before this would even begin to be a legal issue.

That's like Burger King sueing McDonald's because they don't sell the whopper.

Small White Car said:

I'm pretty sure they don't have a case.

Apple can clearly point to RIM, Android, Windows Mobile, and (for now?) Palm as other options. If consumers care about things Apple doesn't offer then there are many other places for them to go.

The iPhone would have to have a much, much larger market share before this would even begin to be a legal issue.

Click to expand...

You can not point to RIM, Android or Windows Mobile as all 3 allow side loading apps from location other than the official store. WP7 I am not so sure about what those restrictions are going to be but I have a feeling they are not going to stop things like the middleware compilers.

Android does not prevent you from using another compilers nor does RIM so those arguments are pointless. Apple could solve all the problems by allowing 3rd party app stores.

Rodimus Prime said:

You can not point to RIM, Android or Windows Mobile as all 3 allow side loading apps from location other than the official store.

Click to expand...

So? I don't see how any of your points matter one bit.

The point is, the consumer has options. If consumers want Flash, for example, they will flock to the Android phones that offer it and Apple will lose business.

That's the free market at work. The legal system steps in when something prevents the free market from working. What's stopping it here? Nothing. It's working just fine.

Small White Car said:

So? I don't see how any of your points matter one bit.

The point is, the consumer has options. If consumers want Flash, for example, they will flock to the Android phones that offer it and Apple will lose business.

That's the free market at work. The legal system steps in when something prevents the free market from working. What's stopping it here? Nothing. It's working just fine.

Click to expand...

But Adobe as the argument that Apple is abusing its market power in volume of apps downloaded. We are talking just about the app market and that area apple has huge market power that the other phones can not even touch.
I believe our resident Apple fanboy (*LTD*) posted an article a while back saying apple had 99.4% of the number of apps downloaded. 99.4% is a huge market power.

Sounds like a desperate move.

Perhaps there's some legal reasoning I don't understand.

But it seems to me that if there are other phones (there are) and there are other app markets (there are) then Adobe needs to prove how Apple prevents people from buying Blackberry apps or Android apps. What is it about their low-sales did Apple cause?

Because I can't think of a reason.

But maybe I'm wrong (I'm no lawyer) and maybe I don't know what I'm talking about. But it seems to me that the fact that people own Blackberries and Android phones means that Adobe has every chance in the world to sell their software to those users.

I would think that's what matters: They have a (quite large) market available to them. Apple can't block that. If 90% of the users owned iPhones then, yes, Apple is cutting Adobe off from their buyers. But they don't. So what's stopping Adobe from selling to the other types of phones?

Small White Car said:

Perhaps there's some legal reasoning I don't understand.

But it seems to me that if there are other phones (there are) and there are other app markets (there are) then Adobe needs to prove how Apple prevents people from buying Blackberry apps or Android apps. What is it about their low-sales did Apple cause?

Because I can't think of a reason.

But maybe I'm wrong (I'm no lawyer) and maybe I don't know what I'm talking about. But it seems to me that the fact that people own Blackberries and Android phones means that Adobe has every chance in the world to sell their software to those users.

I would think that's what matters: They have a (quite large) market available to them. Apple can't block that. If 90% of the users owned iPhones then, yes, Apple is cutting Adobe off from their buyers. But they don't. So what's stopping Adobe from selling to the other types of phones?

Click to expand...

It is not about phones. I limited my argument to just the apps market. Apple has 99.4% of that market locked up.

I love how people yay or nay legal actions in a thread without referencing a single law or precedent

I really want to know about the dialogue between these two companies. Why are there not discussions between the two of them at an executive level? Is it arrogance that they aren't picking up the phone?

I have a feeling this story is completely bogus.

Rodimus Prime said:

It is not about phones. I limited my argument to just the apps market. Apple has 99.4% of that market locked up.

Click to expand...

That's what I'm saying. I don't think that's a market.

This is a lot like if CBS is getting 90% of the viewers for a time slot and NBC sues them by saying "it's not fair, they have more viewers, it's a monopoly!" Just because they have the majority of the viewers, that doesn't make it a monopoly. Owning all the channels would be a monopoly.

Group A
TV Channels (NBC, CBS) = Cell phone platforms (iPhone, Android)
Group B
TV Shows (House, Evening News) = App Stores (iPhone App Store, Android Store)

I'm pretty sure it's Group A that matters. If you own all the phone platforms or all the TV stations then that's a monopoly.

Group B is just consumers going where they want to go. Assuming Group A is being kept fair then I don't see how the government can step in on Group B.

So the Android developers are welcome to put out programs to attract buyers. And Adobe is certainly welcome to be one of those developers. Apple sure isn't stopping them.

But as niuniu succinctly points out. I'm not a lawyer. I'm not saying I'm right. I'm just saying that this is how I would think it would work. So just a guess, really.

Small White Car said:

That's what I'm saying. I don't think that's a market.

This is a lot like if CBS is getting 90% of the viewers for a time slot and NBC sues them by saying "it's not fair, they have more viewers, it's a monopoly!" Just because they have the majority of the viewers, that doesn't make it a monopoly. Owning all the channels would be a monopoly.

Group A
TV Channels (NBC, CBS) = Cell phone platforms (iPhone, Android)
Group B
TV Shows (House, Evening News) = App Stores (iPhone App Store, Android Store)

I'm pretty sure it's Group A that matters. If you own all the phone platforms or all the TV stations then that's a monopoly.

Group B is just consumers going where they want to go. Assuming Group A is being kept fair then I don't see how the government can step in on Group B.

So the Android developers are welcome to put out programs to attract buyers. And Adobe is certainly welcome to be one of those developers. Apple sure isn't stopping them.

But as niuniu succinctly points out. I'm not a lawyer.

Click to expand...

No you can still control Group B illegally with out having control over group A. You can illegelly abuse your power in group be to control group A. Apple is abusing market power in group B to control group A.

Rodimus Prime said:

It is not about phones. I limited my argument to just the apps market. Apple has 99.4% of that market locked up.

Click to expand...

You're right, it's not about phones. It's about perceptions. Apple's moves to block not only Flash from the Iphone platform but now also block Flash-derived apps tells the market that Flash is a bad product. And that's what Steve Jobs has been doing for ages but he hasn't been able to do too much to make a huge impact (regardless of the Iphone being such a success.) The Ipad has the possibility of making a huge impact if it takes off like many think it will, and with Adobe releasing software that will compile App Store-ready apps from Flash, Adobe was prepped to become a major player in the Iphone app game even without an Iphone Flash player. But this move to block their compiler says to everyone that Adobe products are bad, in general. How many people were set out to buy CS5 because they could make apps in it . . . and now they won't be because they can't do anything with it? Adobe wants to make the case that Apple is out to destroy their business in general.

The biggest thing I see, with an Ipad now, is that I just don't notice that much missing without Flash. A LOT fewer ads, that's for sure, but it certainly isn't the hobbled internet experience that Adobe wants us to believe the Ipad's browsing experience is. And that should scare Adobe a lot. The internet on a regular browser without AdBlock and the like is like going to Vegas and being harassed by those guys with the flyers for strip clubs and casinos, all Flash ads moving across the screen at odd times and all that. The Ipad browsing experience is . . . serene . . . in comparison. Flash started out with a lot of promise and quickly became corrupted for some really annoying crap that makes browsing the internet irritating for smart people and even a hazard for the very young and/or gullible.

r3vo said:

That's like Burger King sueing McDonald's because they don't sell the whopper.

Click to expand...

Pretty much what this guy said. If Adobe does come after Apple, they'd have to go against Opera as well, because their mobile browser doesn't support Flash either in other OSs.

Adobe Preparing to File Suit Against Apple?






ITworld reports that the dust-up between Apple and Adobe over Apple's refusal to permit Flash content on the iPhone and its recent move to block Adobe's Flash-to-iPhone packager in its forthcoming Flash Professional CS5 is set to move to the next level, with Adobe preparing to file suit against Apple over the dispute.

Usually I write about security here, but Apple's iron-bound determination to keep Adobe Flash out of any iWhatever device is about to blow up in Apple's face. Sources close to Adobe tell me that Adobe will be suing Apple within a few weeks.

It was bad enough when Apple said, in effect, that Adobe Flash wasn't good enough to be allowed on the iPad. But the final straw was when Apple changed its iPhone SDK (software development kit) license so that developers may not submit programs to Apple that use cross-platform compilers.

Click to expand...

While Adobe has officially remained silent on the new cross-platform compiler issue other than to note that it is looking into the ramifications of Apple's move, a "platform evangelist" for the company strongly objected to the move, even going so far as to say "Go screw yourself Apple."

For his part, Apple CEO Steve Jobs reportedly noted in an email exchange with a developer that allowing such intermediate layers inevitably leads to a substandard user experience and "hinders the progress of the platform."

Article Link: Adobe Preparing to File Suit Against Apple?

I'm 100% behind Adobe.. and I hope Unity and Appcelerator joins in.

And just what is Adobe going to sue Apple for ?

and what the hell can they sue for? apple can stipulate what ever they want on there own platform, its a closed ecosystem and if people want to be part of it they must abide by apples rules.

As the saying goes, any fool can file a lawsuit. But your opponent actually has to have broken the law before you can win.

I'm confused... what are they suing for exactly?

Peace said:

And just what is Adobe going to sue Apple for ?

Click to expand...

Using Adobe's patented RDF 2.0 with Flash capabilities in Steve Job's last Keynote.

It was too magical to happen...

and Adobe brings out the shovel to begin digging their grave even deeper....

I would be surprised if Adobe won a lawsuit if it revolves around the approved programming procedures for App store applications. I would be even more surprised if they won on the basis that Apple MUST allow FLASH on the iDevices....

let the beatings begin

and they SHOULD sue.