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

[Berio]

It's not so easy for small companies to change direction when they've established their business in a certain way in which they were able to develop for multiple platforms. Suddenly, the rules change, and because the Apple app store represents 80% of their revenue, all they can do is abandon development for other platforms and stick to Apple. They don't really have a choice...

i agree with your description of the situation, but what is your point? isn't this simply the nature of the game? i presume most of these companies exist in market economies, and that is how things are. there are no guarantees that investment will be returned or be profitable, there is always risk. conditions change.
surely you agree that it is a company's and developer's responsibility to devise strategies so that when change comes they can adapt and flourish, it is not up to apple to promise that conditions will never change

 

[twilson]

That's fine, if they do it from the start. But not after 3 years of development and investment. I think that's where the real issue is, the rules change this late in the game...

Not really, it was pretty much implied before, now they've just made it very explicit.

How could Apple ban something that didn't exist?
These third-party tools haven't been around for three years. If it was 3 years, they'd have started off in Xcode and Objective-C.

Flash-to-iPhone as a concept has been around/demoed for past 6-9 months or so.
MonoTouch has been around for about 9 months.

Are you saying Apple should have banned them two years before they existed?

Monotouch I think will be a little different, having read some info on it, as it is a 1-to-1 API mapping for the iPhone SDK, unlike Flash which just can't do that at all. Monotouch also still relies on the Apple UI metaphors and guidelines, where as Flash does what the hell it likes.

 

[MikhailT]

That's fine, if they do it from the start. But not after 3 years of development and investment. I think that's where the real issue is, the rules change this late in the game...

This section 3.1.1 change is for iPhoneOS 4.0 if I recall correctly. Companies shouldn't be expecting that Apple to maintain the same terms and agreements for every major OS release. Every major OS is going to have something changed.

 

[lilo777]

Get it through your head. Apple has 95% of the mobile market selling apps to their iPhone customers. You don't see apps for android phones being sold on the AppStore do you? All this shows is that iPhone/iPad/Touch owners buy more apps than users of other platforms do. So, if Apple wants things a certain way, IN THEIR STORE, then they should be allowed to.

This all boils down to (referring to the haters) they want to make money using Apple, but don't want to play by Apple's rules. If you don't like it, I'm sure Google will have no problems with you (and your app.)

My 2¢

And why are people so naive? Do you even know what Microsoft was sued for? They packaged Internet Explorer to its own operating system (for free). They got sued and lost. In short, no, you can not do whatever you want with your own product (especially if you are in a monopoly position).

 

[cmaier]

I am not going to claim that I am an expert on these matters. However, I highly doubt that the notion of "market" is well defined in the law in a first place (just look at the history of litigation against Intel - "market share" vs. "market segment share"). Next, if I am a software developer, I can develop apps for any platform

It is very well defined. There is tons of case law on it. Entire books have been published on the topic.

 

[Mac-Michael]

And why are people so naive? Do you even know what Microsoft was sued for? They packaged Internet Explorer to its own operating system (for free). They got sued and lost. In short, no, you can not do whatever you want with your own product (especially if you are in a monopoly position).

No, no, no. Microsoft makes a product which is only half of the final product. So they pushed the guys responsible for the other half of the final product into corner and told them they can only sell a final product thats made up of their hardware and Microsoft's software, no third parties. Just like that

 

[marksman]

For a more balanced view of the issue read this:
http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire...w-app-playbook-debunks-mobile-app-store-myth/

So yeah, of course Apple was far ahead in terms of App Store sales since they had the only store in place that hasn't just started.

Quote:
With only eight Android devices launched in 2009 – and the Droid launching late in the year – the Android Market Store saw modest popularity. Since then, a large number of Android devices launched, and the popularity of the Android Market Store is expected to increase as a result. This is further illustrated by the high satisfaction scores the Android Market received in the Nielsen study, second only to the Apple App Store.

Wow #2 in App Store satisfaction.

How many app stores are there? 2?

 

[lilo777]

No, no, no. Microsoft makes a product which is only half of the final product. So they pushed the guys responsible for the other half of the final product into corner and told them they can only sell a final product thats made up of their hardware and Microsoft's software, no third parties. Just like that

By this logic, though, Apple also sells half product (AT&T sells the full one). And yet they deny AT&T an opportunity to install 3rd party software

 

[Max(IT)]

This is good. If Apple loses the support of the developer, it will be 1994 all over again (crappy software support for mac, that is)...

... there's more to mac than the iPhone, Steve.

And this is GOOD ?!?
There is NOTHING good in wishing Apple a debacle, if you Are a Mac user

 

[MikhailT]

And why are people so naive? Do you even know what Microsoft was sued for? They packaged Internet Explorer to its own operating system (for free). They got sued and lost. In short, no, you can not do whatever you want with your own product (especially if you are in a monopoly position).

No, it wasn't that simple. Microsoft did not get sued just because of that. It was far, far more complex than that. Microsoft abused their position to force the other competitors out, it wasn't illegal to include IE with Windows. It was illegal to do that with intention to force other browsers out by doing so with broken APIs and forcing other companies not to include other softwares and so on the computer. By mandating that all vendors must use IE only, that's illegal.

Here's how it would've been if it was Apple.

Suppose Apple allowed clones and HP/Dell both makes the clones. What would be totally illegal if the OEM agreements between Apple and HP/Dell is to tell HP/Dell that they can not include other software like Firefox and Chrome, that's anti-competition as well as telling the clones they can't install Windows or Linux on them and telling Dell and HP that the only computers to be on front page of their stores is the Apple hardware. Apple can get away with this today because their OS is restricted to their hardware only and there are other computers with different OSes on it.

Now in this case with the cross-compilation, same thing, Apple can get away because it is only restricted to their own hardware. There are many other handsets with their own OS.

 

[lilo777]

Wow #2 in App Store satisfaction.

How many app stores are there? 2?

Did you read the article? There are 8 stores. Apple and Android are almost tied (at 84% and 81% of satisfaction rate respectively which is probably within the margin of error for this poll)

 

[CFreymarc]

There is a saying in Silicon Valley that rings true here, "Those who can't innovate, litigate."

IMO, Apple legal is going to wipe the courtroom floor with suit this if it goes that far.

First, Apple has not been declared a monopoly in any of its markets it sells into right now. Second, IMO none of their market shares are even close to consideration of a monopoly. From that, IMO, if they are trying to leverage any of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, a court declaration that Apple is a monopoly needs to be made for it to be effective.

IMO, this is a last ditch effort from Adobe management to make up for years of cheap, underpaid software engineering. Adobe has kept Flash from being an open standard where third parties could author Flash run-time engines as HTML5 is right now. If Adobe wanted Flash to be an open standard, the would have published the run-time binary specifications years ago.

I believe this is only going to give Adobe a "we tried" look to save a software product that is quickly becoming dated.

 

[MikhailT]

By this logic, though, Apple also sells half product (AT&T sells the full one). And yet they deny AT&T an opportunity to install 3rd party software

AT&T isn't a vendor for the phone, they are providing the data/voice service for the phone, they have nothing to do with the actual hardware and OS, they are just selling the Phones on their stores to provide their services with it.

That's the difference between that and Microsoft and the computer vendors. Vendors built the hardware and install the OS themselves, they can include their own services and so on because they are providing a service to their customers and the customers are paying them for the OS license.

 

[Mac-Michael]

By this logic, though, Apple also sells half product (AT&T sells the full one). And yet they deny AT&T an opportunity to install 3rd party software

I don't know, you might be right, but that's a gray area for me. But I do know that you cannot run Microsoft Windows without hardware (a computer) and that's half a product.

 

[zweigand]

Blah, blah, blah ... the license agreement impacts far more than that "*particular* way" which is what I ALREADY SAID. There are other competitive ways that Apple can protect its user experience, but Apple chose to be anti-competitive.

What part of invest more heavily in did you not read?!?!?! Apple should not be dictating what tools developers/companies choose to invest in, that is inherently anti-competitive.

Unless installing Xcode disables other development environments (spoiler: it doesn't) this makes no sense. Developers invest in whatever tools get the job done. If the tool doesn't do what you want, use a different one. I wouldn't look to Flash to create a PS3 game either.

 

[lilo777]

There is a saying in Silicon Valley that rings true here, "Those who can't innovate, litigate."

IMO, Apple legal is going to wipe the courtroom floor with suit this if it goes that far.

First, Apple has not been declared a monopoly in any of its markets it sells into right now. Second, IMO none of their market shares are even close to consideration of a monopoly. From that, IMO, if they are trying to leverage any of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, a court declaration that Apple is a monopoly needs to be made for it to be effective.

IMO, this is a last ditch effort from Adobe management to make up for years of cheap, underpaid software engineering managing the Flash product line Flash product managers are have kept it from being an open standard where third parties could author Flash run-time engines as HTML5 is right now.

I believe this is only going to give Adobe a "we tried" look to save a software product that is quickly becoming dated.

First, it's not like we have official lists of monopolies. Apple is not a monopoly... only until FTC says so.

Second, Apple has 95% market share in mobile apps (by revenue). It's well above the level required to declare a company a monopoly.

Third, so far nobody said that Adobe had any part in [alleged] FTC investigation.

 

[twilson]

By this logic, though, Apple also sells half product (AT&T sells the full one). And yet they deny AT&T an opportunity to install 3rd party software

WRONG!

The iPhone is the FULL product.
AT&T sells a SERVICE for use with that PRODUCT.

Don't over simplify things.

 

[CFreymarc]

Unless installing Xcode disables other development environments (spoiler: it doesn't) this makes no sense. Developers invest in whatever tools get the job done. If the tool doesn't do what you want, use a different one. I wouldn't look to Flash to create a PS3 game either.

Very well said. If you think Apple is tight and vertical in their third party developer community, some of the counsel game third party developer agreements makes Apple look downright social.

 

[Emoo]

I do think that looking into the developer terms is a fantastic thing. I think developers should use whatever they're best at to create the program, and then change it into all the separate platforms.

But...I'm not a programmer. So is there a specific reason not to allow the use of these third party apps besides simply maintaining the heavily controlled environment of the iFamily?

Also, I feel like I'm one of the very few who still likes Flash.

 

[lilo777]

Unless installing Xcode disables other development environments (spoiler: it doesn't) this makes no sense. Developers invest in whatever tools get the job done. If the tool doesn't do what you want, use a different one. I wouldn't look to Flash to create a PS3 game either.

Xcode indeed does not disable other development environments (spoiler: Apple does - read the story of Adobe Packager for iPhone)

 

[TennisandMusic]

And this is GOOD ?!?
There is NOTHING good in wishing Apple a debacle, if you Are a Mac user

I don't think you understood his point at all. He WANTS developers to stay, and Apple, with their draconian policies, will drive them away (I work on the platform grudgingly actually).

He wants devs to be able to use the tools they want and compile with the tools they want. Otherwise they will jump ship, and leave Apple with the situation they had in 1994. Is that more clear?

 

[twilson]

Second, Apple has 95% market share in mobile apps (by revenue). It's well above the level required to declare a company a monopoly.

Sadly, the "by revenue" metric doesn't count for **** when determining a monopoly.

 

[lilo777]

Sadly, the "by revenue" metric doesn't count for **** when determining a monopoly.

I think FTC disagrees with you. Here is the quote from their web site:

Market Power
Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. That is how that term is used here: a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power. Courts look at the firm's market share, but typically do not find monopoly power if the firm (or a group of firms acting in concert) has less than 50 percent of the sales of a particular product or service within a certain geographic area. Some courts have required much higher percentages. In addition, that leading position must be sustainable over time: if competitive forces or the entry of new firms could discipline the conduct of the leading firm, courts are unlikely to find that the firm has lasting market power.

 

[firewood]

Second, Apple has 95% market share in mobile apps (by revenue). It's well above the level required to declare a company a monopoly.

No it isn't because it isn't Apple's revenue. 70% of that alleged 95% is mine (plus 50k other app developers). Apple's 30% cut puts it well below monopoly revenue level. That's the only portion they can legally put on their financial reports.

 

[marksman]

Because Apple sells over 99% of mobile applications, which gives them a monopoly on the market, and they are deliberately excluding certain tools from that store and are introducing those restrictions after establishing their AppStore monopoly.

That is like saying GM has a monopoly in On-Star Systems.