Apple Facing Antitrust Inquiry Over Flash-to-iPhone Compiler Ban?

[Jaro65]

Great! I love Apple, but I think they're taking the Adobe hate too far...

Well, Flash really does suck. It is good to see someone refusing to put up with it finally. If there were no other alternatives, that would be obviously a different story. But there are....

 

[Nebulance]

I have to side with Apple on this one... it's their "gizmos". If the FTC has an issue with cross compilers being banned, then why don't they have an issue with apps requiring approval in the first place?

exactly.

So, does this mean that Apple will be forced to allow software that degrades their products??

 

[lilo777]

They can not enforce that. They couldn't tell. And even then, Xcode would be the "middle layer". I think as long as Xcode/Objective-C is the only thing between your code and machine code, they're OK with that. Any thing that translates to Objective-C/Cocoa and is then fed into Xcode should be fine.

But Apple's agreement leaves no wiggle room here. Source code MUST be in C, C++, Objective C or JavaScript. If they did not require this I suspect Adobe could have redesigned Flash packager to generate some sort of C++ code instead of ARM executables. Most likely internally they do just that but they might not want to expose this code because this would allow competitors to see how the packager works.

 

[ranReloaded]

the irony is for a supposed "tech savy" forum, about 80% of the folks posting on this are just regurgitating what el jobso has said. If i were a developer i wouldn't want to be limited in the tools i use to create applications. apple fails to realize its the developers that will suffer and they are their bread and butter. Instead of locking down their platform they should help the community make it better.

Obviously you are NOT a developer. I am. Apple is protecting my investment in their technologies, from a flood of script kiddies and other people more skilled but less committed to Apple's platform. And as someone else posted above, if you expect to write quality code that is portable, 1) You go with C++, which is implemented everywhere (NOT Java or VMs you need to have implemented by others in the target platform), and 2) You keep a common code base in agnostic C++(no specific APIs) and a separate, "Deals with the OS" code base which uses the native APIs or wraps them to your taste.

But i am sure there will be plenty of posts about IE explorer and poor battery life and how flash is dead

Well, for one thing IE sucks H*A*R*D (any web designer can tell you how much damage that piece of crapware has caused) and Flash is, at the very least, "Not the Future". But I won't expand because it's off-topic.

 

[lilo777]

We develop Windows, Mac OS X, iPhone OS (including iPad), Android, etc. applications. A vast majority of our code base was purposely written in C++ since it has historically been a highly portable, efficient, flexible language to develop in. We then take this common code base and develop platform specific user interfaces over it and platform isolation layer on the back side (now using more and more of boost for this).

If your code is well enough designed then an relatively small amount of platform specific code need exist (heavy use of MVC and related design patterns).

For example our Mac and iPhone/iPad applications use a AppKit/UIKit developed user interface written in Objective-C/Objective-C++ that wraps our C++ application logic core.

We have been able to target the above platforms given their ability to consume natively compiled C/C++ code.

Anyway... many options exist to develop cross platform code that don't include things like flash but IMHO the good ways to do it involve using the native APIs of the targeted platform for UI development and not some 3rd party cross platform layer.

You must be working for a relatively big company then. Smaller companies and individual developers can not afford developing platform specific meta layer. They would need to buy it from someone and this is not allowed.

 

[spazzcat]

The issue of whether Apple is a monopoly or not is an interesting one.

...

3. If 95% of all sold applications (ignoring the free ones here) are the applications for iPhone OS, I'd say this does constitute a monopoly. If you are a mobile software developer, and you want to build a profitable business, these 95% is all that matters. Free apps do not matter ("market" and "free" have nothing in common), the number of phones/types does not matter. What matters is the income sources and as we all agree 95% of them are controlled by Apple. Being in this position Apple does have a monopoly power over mobile software developers and as such probably should be regulated.

This would be like saying because Macy's sells more then Sears, they have monopoly and should be regulated. Market share and the amount of apps does matter. Its is not Apple's fault they sell more apps. Maybe they sell more apps because apps are better one the iPhone?

 

[coleridge78]

That's weird. LLVM is a virtual machine, an abstract layer, between the CPU and the code. Steve says that's bad.

In fact, he doesn't, but it's a convenient strawman for you. (That's also not all that--or precisely what--LLVM is.)

 

[cryonic49]

We develop Windows, Mac OS X, iPhone OS (including iPad), Android, etc. applications. A vast majority of our code base was purposely written in C++ since it has historically been a highly portable, efficient, flexible language to develop in. We then take this common code base and develop platform specific user interfaces over it and platform isolation layer on the back side (now using more and more of boost for this).

If your code is well enough designed then an relatively small amount of platform specific code need exist (heavy use of MVC and related design patterns).

For example our Mac and iPhone/iPad applications use a AppKit/UIKit developed user interface written in Objective-C/Objective-C++ that wraps our C++ application logic core.

We have been able to target the above platforms given their ability to consume natively compiled C/C++ code.

Anyway... many options exist to develop cross platform code that don't include things like flash but IMHO the good ways to do it involve using the native APIs of the targeted platform for UI development and not some 3rd party cross platform layer.

I agree with you. This is an example of good traditional software development.

But probably not viable for some small time developers. So if a developer write a small semi media heavy game in flash (the only viable way currently as HTML5's performance isn't sufficient), and would like to explore how it will fare on the App Store, the game developer will have to learn/rewrite everything in Obj-C. This might not be viable for that developer.

 

[ranReloaded]

But Apple's agreement leaves no wiggle room here. Source code MUST be in C, C++, Objective C or JavaScript. If they did not require this I suspect Adobe could have redesigned Flash packager to generate some sort of C++ code instead of ARM executables. Most likely internally they do just that but they might not want to expose this code because this would allow competitors to see how the packager works.

As I pointed before, I believe the agreement clause is made simple on purpose to cut on the countless "what if"s you can come up with. But this is how I see it.

I don't know the exact definition of source code, but it sounds to me that anything human-readable Objective-C text you can feed to Xcode and compiles qualifies as "source code". If you generate it automatically from, say, ActionScript, I would call that ActionScript "meta-source code".

 

[coleridge78]

Apple then silently (and suddenly) changed the licesne agreement after IPhone OS4 announcement and weeks later, Steve Jobs publically stated that thrid party cross compiler will yield poor quality software and that's why they are banning it.

Can you support the assertion that he said that "third party cross compiler will yield poor quality software", and that it was either the only or primary reason for the change?

 

[coleridge78]

I actually saw this coming, and I am glad it is happening.

Anyone not drunk on Kool-Aid understands that Jobs does not want Flash or Java, because Flash and Java can break the wall of his walled garden and allow iPhone/iPad users to obtain apps and media without paying 30% to Apple.

Anyone who is not an idiot understands that banning cross-compilers is a way to keep Android from getting iPhone/iPad apps. Jobs sees Android as the iPhone's first real competitor, and want's to kill it.

An investigation is a good thing for all consumers.

Anyone who thinks this is a ban on "cross compilers" per se self-evidently has no idea what this discussion is actually about. You're as bad as the people from the other side who think that this has something to do with the Flash runtime on iPhones.

 

[BaldiMac]

\There are different ways to do business, and Apple's secrecy, paranoia and desire to exercice 100% control over their product and what the customers can do with them will ultimately hurt them in the market place.

Despite all evidence to the contrary.

This is the sort of thinking that needs to be stopped. Our hardware is no longer ours as long as they can dictate what runs on it!

You can install whatever you want on your hardware as long as you are properly licensing the code. But if you decide to license Apple's OS, you have to abide by that agreement.

Apple has a 99% share of mobile applications.

No, they don't. The have a very small share of mobile apps. They do have a large share of the mobile app distribution market.

But 99.4% of mobile app sales go to Apple.

Strangely, the chart says market share, but the report says revenue share.

Although the software is free, it cost 100 dollars to be an Apple developer so they are selling a dev environment.

No, it costs $100 to distribute your app, regardless of your dev environment. Apple's dev environment is free.

How did Microsoft prevent Competition? You can install any other browser you want...

Microsoft was found to have manipulated APIs to screw with other browsers. They also entered into restrictive licensing agreements with OEMs that created barriers to entry for the other browsers.

So if Apple were to say you could only browse the web using Safari that would be ok?

Legally, yes. They pretty much do with the iPhone OS.

 

[dagomike]

You must be working for a relatively big company then. Smaller companies and individual developers can not afford developing platform specific meta layer. They would need to buy it from someone and this is not allowed.

If you can't justify developing for other platforms, don't do it. Anything else isn't competition, it's a handout.

 

[macsmurf]

In fact, he doesn't, but it's a convenient strawman for you. (That's also not all that--or precisely what--LLVM is.)

"We know from painful experience that letting a third party layer of software come between the platform and the developer ultimately results in sub-standard apps and hinders the enhancement and progress of the platform." - Steve Jobs

 

[Berio]

Now would be a good time for Apple to spread some love. They can't rely on the underdog tag any longer. People are starting to notice.

i keep reading on these forums that apple needs to be careful about their image...

why?

does anybody think apple sell millions of devices because of some past, mythical underdog status that only tech people talk about, do you think the millions of iphone owners are "noticing" anything? do you think they even know who jobs is? i doubt it. most iphone, ipod macbook owners that i know haven't a clue and aren't interested. as long as apple makes "nice, cool" things -> people all over the world will buy them

most people i talk to about the gizmodo affair say "read something about it in the paper, don't know what it was about. heard the police confiscated somebody's computers. new iphone looks cool"

sure, people on these forums talk about it, but if none of us ever bought an apple device again -> apple would hardly notice, we do not have monopoly status amongst consumers

best
-B-

 

[mdriftmeyer]

True, but LLVM has runtime components, thus making it a virtual machine. It's a layer between the developer and the platform. That means worse performance and battery life according to the fundies on this site.

No. You're not understanding LLVM.

http://llvm.org/pubs/2008-10-04-ACAT-LLVM-Intro.html

Read the PDF.

Pages 9 and 10 show a graphic chart. Take a stab at where the Flash curved square would fit on that pyramid.

 

[shawnce]

You must be working for a relatively big company then. Smaller companies and individual developers can not afford developing platform specific meta layer. They would need to buy it from someone and this is not allowed.

We primarily use boost for our hardware/platform abstraction layer since it free, open source, and well supported (native C++ library). The rest is our product's application logic and GUI per platform we choose to support. Nothing about this really requires a large development house.

Granted the more platforms you target the more developers you likely need ...but attempting to get platform coverage with IMHO crappy 3rd party platform compatibility layers is not the way to serve your customers.

I am a strong believer in focusing on the platforms you can support well given the resources you have and not attempt to spray a subpar product on X number of platforms in the hopes of grabbing more money.

You can make plenty of money by focusing on fewer platforms and serve their customer base well.

 

[coleridge78]

"We know from painful experience that letting a third party layer of software come between the platform and the developer ultimately results in sub-standard apps and hinders the enhancement and progress of the platform." - Steve Jobs

Indeed. So, not only did he not mention "cross-compilers", but "sub-standard" apps was neither the only, nor clearly the primary, justification.

Thank you for saving me the trouble of debunking your nonsense.

 

[broken-chaos]

As Mal points out above - they actually have about 20%

Then why does this article state they had 99.4% of application downloads (last year) went through them? Keep in mind, raw numbers of applications in any given store is not an indication of market share (as at least some other people in this thread seem to believe). Downloads, sales, or profit are the important metrics, depending on what you specifically want to look at.

I can't actually find out what sort of metrics that specific Nielsen pie chart used, and the title of "most used application store" is rather vague...

 

[Slip Jigs]

the irony is for a supposed "tech savy" forum, about 80% of the folks posting on this are just regurgitating what el jobso has said. If i were a developer i wouldn't want to be limited in the tools i use to create applications. apple fails to realize its the developers that will suffer and they are their bread and butter. Instead of locking down their platform they should help the community make it better.

But i am sure there will be plenty of posts about IE explorer and poor battery life and how flash is dead

Apple doesn't seem to show much respect for their developers. Announcing the WWDC just a month ahead of time? Doesn't give one much time to plan and get cheaper air fares.

 

[xIGmanIx]

while i agree with your logic(and no i am not a developer) i would argue that quality shouldn't be the determining factor since there are "properly" written apps now that are terrible. for me the rub is that apple is limiting how app's can be developed. It shouldn't matter what tools they use because just because i use the "proper" language doesn't guarantee a quality app. apple should support the developers and let the consumers decide how they want to spend their ca$h

Obviously you are NOT a developer. I am. Apple is protecting my investment in their technologies, from a flood of script kiddies and other people more skilled but less committed to Apple's platform. And as someone else posted above, if you expect to write quality code that is portable, 1) You go with C++, which is implemented everywhere (NOT Java or VMs you need to have implemented by others in the target platform), and 2) You keep a common code base in agnostic C++(no specific APIs) and a separate, "Deals with the OS" code base which uses the native APIs or wraps them to your taste.

 

[botw]

my take on this

First of all, Apple controls the market of mobile apps. They claimed 200k apps and more than 4 billion downloads.

Secondly, if Apple builds all these by themselves, no one can say anything about it. However, Apple opened up the SDK and invited developers to work on the platform. The outside developers invested time and resource on it. Since then the platform has public interests in it, the government has rights to step in. It can be said that the success of iPhone is partially due to the independent developers.

 

[coleridge78]

Then why does this article state they had 99.4% of application downloads (last year) went through them? Keep in mind, raw numbers of applications in any given store is not an indication of market share (as at least some other people in this thread seem to believe). Downloads, sales, or profit are the important metrics, depending on what you specifically want to look at.

I can't actually find out what sort of metrics that specific Nielsen pie chart used, and the title of "most used application store" is rather vague...

Apps that someone downloaded, opened for thirty seconds, and never touched again--only because it was free and the store is *gasp* actually comparatively easy to use--is not a meaningful measurement of market share by any stretch of the imagination. Not shockingly, Apple will throw that number around for marketing purposes. It doesn't mean anything, except to the psychotic obsessives on either side.

 

[ranReloaded]

Digital Music Players? Ok? same story from the music retail business, nothing Apple has done is anti-competitive. People have the choice of buying MS zunes and everything else. Just because people likes iPod much better and prefer buying them only does not make Apple anti-competitive. Apple did not force anybody else out of the market, nor have they don't anything to restrict them from making better MP3 players. They have taken some actions against music players that look like iPods, but that's not anti-competitive, that's defending their IP which is allowed.

Perhaps he means apple is abusing its iPod monopoly to gain dominance in the smartphone market (by including an iPod in every iPhone) which they do not yet monopolize. But that's just an idea... (He doesn't soud like it occurred to him). In any case it's 3 years old.

I fail to see why anybody here would see Apple being an abusive monopoly. Show me one action done by Apple that's not related to defending their IPs? One single action. Show it to me.

The people who DO have a point here are saying that Apple is forcing a lock-in into developers who can not afford to learn the specifics of each platform and desire a cross-platform IDE. I say, screw them. If you are one little guy, put your bets in as many places as you can afford, no more. If you have resources to do one or the other, tough luck. Adobe isn't going to magically give you the capability of a whole team. Apple wants its platform to be special. Deal with it!

Now Flame me if you wish.

If Apple forced Best Buy to throw out all the MP3 players in their stores to sell iPods. That's an abusive monopoly there and Apple will get an anti-trust lawsuit against them.

That's the Microsoft Way. The Windows Tax™

 

[217833]

Seriously?

C'mon... I don't want both of Flash on my iPhone/iPad or even app made with Flash compiler/builder. I don't want any cr@p! Apple is providing a SDK, with all applications you need to develop nice and great app...

If you can't do it, don't do it... period!
Apple did the right choice and decision so far... and if you are just a lazy developer, go choose yourself an another devices and dev platform.

And, if by any chance Apple loose in court, I want them to precise ALL flash-compiled app in the App Store... because I will NEVER buy one... period!