Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Facing Antitrust Inquiry Over Flash-to-iPhone Compiler Ban?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I saw a small list and then check it out. The games played poorly and I just deleted them. Nothing to see here, mob along.
And yet we all drive unleaded cars now or Diesel. Which was the case at the time they came out, you had to find the gas station that had your fuel. I remember looking for gas stations with my parents as a kid.
Not completely. I can (and have) pulled some of my apps from the App store. I can (and have) offer some of my apps on other mobile platforms.
Being the revenue leader does not give one market power. Palm's platform once had over 80% revenue in the handheld mobile app market. What power does Palm (HP?) have now?
Isn't debating whether Apple is wrong or not on the basis of whether they are a monopoly essentially splitting hairs. If what they're doing is wrong, it's wrong.
This is of course non-legally. On the subject of Anti-Trust issues, I'm not qualified to speak. I do think it follows logic though that they wouldn't want their market share to be the one factor that exonerates them. If that were the case, greater success would quickly become a liability.
On the subject of the Flash Compiler, there isn't anything inherent to it that makes bad apps. Why not judge the actual measurable quality of an app rather than blanket kill off a method to make them in general? Given release dates of 3rd party tools, I think it's safe to say the vast majority of buggy apps on the app store got that way with pure apple dev tools and no help from anything else. I can't think of any development tools that inherently spit out bad code for every situation, but I can sure think of specific examples of when they did.
This is of course non-legally. On the subject of Anti-Trust issues, I'm not qualified to speak. I do think it follows logic though that they wouldn't want their market share to be the one factor that exonerates them. If that were the case, greater success would quickly become a liability.
On the subject of the Flash Compiler, there isn't anything inherent to it that makes bad apps. Why not judge the actual measurable quality of an app rather than blanket kill off a method to make them in general? Given release dates of 3rd party tools, I think it's safe to say the vast majority of buggy apps on the app store got that way with pure apple dev tools and no help from anything else. I can't think of any development tools that inherently spit out bad code for every situation, but I can sure think of specific examples of when they did.
Yes. Developers (not all, but a huge portion) are lazy. They'll use last years code and last years tools given the choice (professionals call this laziness "reuse"). Take away the crutches and dangle enough money and a much larger fraction of the development community will force themselves to innovate. The result: more innovative apps a bit sooner than for the competition.
The only reason Apple still exists is that they didn't allow developers to use arrow keys (because there were none on the first few Mac models) until after they learned how to write GUI apps with the mouse. That gave Apple developers maybe a year, maybe a couple years, head start ahead of Windows developers. Without that head start, there would be no Apple today.
Flash is this year's "arrow key".
When the market gets huge enough, specific examples become useless. You have to go by statistical methods.
Say the developers correlated with tool A produce billions of apps of which 20% sampled are cr*p. The developers correlated with tool B produce billions of apps of which 30% sampled are cr*p. You simply outlaw tool B, and potentially reduce the amount of cr*p by 10% (+- some statistical error), without have to filter any of the billions of apps/urls/LOCs/etc.
In 1984, this little pig got too aggressive
Finally!
It's pretty annoying that a corporation is trying to tell me that another one's product is not something that I can enjoy.
Guess what - many of us think that we can decide, I don't need a patronising and greedy bunch telling me what's bad for me.
It's not just about Flash. It's also about Apple's unbelievably selfish and short-sighted exclusion of a number of program languages and platforms. There could be some great apps created in Corona and iPhone Wax, for example. In fact, there are several, but in the App Store anymore. Yet, Apple says no. Not because of security or efficiency hazards - I don't even know why.
About Flash - again, there is no justification for this childish and amateurish crusade against it. Flash is part of the current web and it has more potential in the near future than HTML5, which is still miles off from widespread popularity and sophistication that would make it a replacement for any of the tasks that developers seek from Flash at the moment. Even Apple Inc cannot entirely eliminate Flash from its own websites -have a look at MobileMe and you'll see.
Finally!
It's pretty annoying that a corporation is trying to tell me that another one's product is not something that I can enjoy.
Guess what - many of us think that we can decide, I don't need a patronising and greedy bunch telling me what's bad for me.
It's not just about Flash. It's also about Apple's unbelievably selfish and short-sighted exclusion of a number of program languages and platforms. There could be some great apps created in Corona and iPhone Wax, for example. In fact, there are several, but in the App Store anymore. Yet, Apple says no. Not because of security or efficiency hazards - I don't even know why.
About Flash - again, there is no justification for this childish and amateurish crusade against it. Flash is part of the current web and it has more potential in the near future than HTML5, which is still miles off from widespread popularity and sophistication that would make it a replacement for any of the tasks that developers seek from Flash at the moment. Even Apple Inc cannot entirely eliminate Flash from its own websites -have a look at MobileMe and you'll see.
Seems like you have no clue. Wal-Mart isn't obligated to sell every single consumer product made in China. They choose the ones they want to sell.
Apple isn't obligated to approve every single app submitted to the App Store. They choose the ones they want to sell.
Uhh. Psst. There's no Flash on the MobileMe site. Not even in the "find my iPhone" section.
People are misapplying the Microsoft comparison over and over again here.
Apple is not preventing anyone from making Apps for their devices.
What are saying is if you make an App for our devices you must do it in a specific way. This would be like Microsoft saying in the 1990s, , "Anyone who wants to create a browser for Windows may do so, and it will be available along with IE on install, but to be included you must use a certain set of api calls to make sure it is compliant with windows."
What Microsoft got in trouble for, was using their marketshare to eliminate competition. That is not what Apple is doing here. They want everyone to develop for the iDevices. However, they want people who choose to do so to be serious and make full use of the features and options of the devices. Not just make a generic water-downed copy for the least common denominator device.
Apple believes the quality of their devices and what they can do provides a superior user experience and thus they want software designed for it to represent that...
If Apple said, to sell in the App Store, you can not sell the program on any other device or platform, it would be along the lines of what Microsoft did.
The two situations are not comparable at all.
Apple is not preventing anyone from making Apps for their devices.
What are saying is if you make an App for our devices you must do it in a specific way. This would be like Microsoft saying in the 1990s, , "Anyone who wants to create a browser for Windows may do so, and it will be available along with IE on install, but to be included you must use a certain set of api calls to make sure it is compliant with windows."
What Microsoft got in trouble for, was using their marketshare to eliminate competition. That is not what Apple is doing here. They want everyone to develop for the iDevices. However, they want people who choose to do so to be serious and make full use of the features and options of the devices. Not just make a generic water-downed copy for the least common denominator device.
Apple believes the quality of their devices and what they can do provides a superior user experience and thus they want software designed for it to represent that...
If Apple said, to sell in the App Store, you can not sell the program on any other device or platform, it would be along the lines of what Microsoft did.
The two situations are not comparable at all.
If you had said "there are so many drivers for old devices that don't run on x64 Windows" I'd believe you - many third party hardware manufacturers orphaned old devices at the x64 transition.
But "so many programs" - I don't buy that. On the desktop, almost all NT and later programs run fine. Are there some server suites written for Windows Server 2003 that don't work right on Windows Server 2008 R2? Probably, but they likely would not work on an x86 version of 2008 R2 if that existed.
(ps: I assume that by "so many programs" you didn't mean that 16-bit Windows 3.1 programs from 1992 will not run on x64 Windows 7 - since no current Apple will run binaries from 1992 either.)
Consoles
This I can agree with. As long it goes though the Xcode then it should be alright. But the Flash compiler wouldn't have output that can go though Xcode.
The X-Box 360 dev kit was actually a G5 when it fist started out. The Dev kits have since changed since then, but the point is the kit was changed to what ever they are using now. What do you think happen to the developers
that was still using the G5 kit, they had to scrap it in order to take advantage of the new features that were released in the new kit. Or they can just drop the X-Box and move to another platform.
No different then how the consoles work. (see above)
No that's not correct. They used their license agreement with the hardware co's to. If they wanted Windows to install on their computers for sale, they couldn't have any 3rd party browser installed (Netscape) on the machine. They abused the agreement so IE was the only browser installed on the computers.
This is not the case with Apple. Apple is saying, If you want to develop for our toys you need to use our tools. Which I don't see as a anti-trust. You don't like Apple rules you go to another platform. Nothing is forcing you to develop for the imachines.
Hugh
This I can agree with. As long it goes though the Xcode then it should be alright. But the Flash compiler wouldn't have output that can go though Xcode.
The X-Box 360 dev kit was actually a G5 when it fist started out. The Dev kits have since changed since then, but the point is the kit was changed to what ever they are using now. What do you think happen to the developers
that was still using the G5 kit, they had to scrap it in order to take advantage of the new features that were released in the new kit. Or they can just drop the X-Box and move to another platform.
No different then how the consoles work. (see above)
No that's not correct. They used their license agreement with the hardware co's to. If they wanted Windows to install on their computers for sale, they couldn't have any 3rd party browser installed (Netscape) on the machine. They abused the agreement so IE was the only browser installed on the computers.
This is not the case with Apple. Apple is saying, If you want to develop for our toys you need to use our tools. Which I don't see as a anti-trust. You don't like Apple rules you go to another platform. Nothing is forcing you to develop for the imachines.
Hugh
They did! It worked! They removed more than all but one row of keys!
They replaced all the keyboard rows with multi-touch. According to download counts versus device counts, customers are far happier with apps developed for Apple's multi-touch devices, than with apps developed for Android and BlackBerry devices with tiny keyboards. That would not have happened if Apple put a keyboard on the first iPhone and allowed iPhone developers to port their thousands of WinMob and PalmOS apps with no API & tool changes.
Thanks for helping prove my point.
You're welcome, I guess
Seriously though, I think your notions about developers are fairly exotic.
Yes but like everyone said there are only 100 apps written with Flash CS, in a store of 200k apps. So I really wouldn't say the majority of the developers are in a bad position because of this. And the rules of the game can chance at any point. Apple made a transition to OS X > developers had to learn how to code in carbon/cocoa or stop developing for Apple. It's technology. Things change, developers have to get along with the changes.
Keep dreaming. When news sites first reported about the changes in the agreement and people said that this might be a reason for FTC action, all Apple fanboys cried that this was ridiculous and no such thing could happen. Well it seems like it is happening. We'll see.
Honestly why is everyone so up in arms about Flash? There are quite a few of you carrying it's banner into the battle as if it were your baby? I personally don't have a problem with the closed aspects of Apple products. If I did I wouldn't buy them. But I do take issue with the invasive property of Flash.
It has been said by more than just Apple that there are Security risks with Flash as well as it is a resource hog. I see it as a bunch of ads I don't want to deal with that take up a ton of bandwidth. All these cutesy ads that are flash based use up bandwidth for the 3G users. Why should they have to pay for that crap? Because that is what is happening when you load a page with a bunch of flash ads on it.
Unless you are a programmer who is so entrenched in using Flash why would you fly that banner? If you are just a consumer who is unhappy with what you think are draconian tactics by Apple then vote with your money and get a PC with Windows or Linux or what ever platform doesn't hurt your ethics.
For me I will stick with Apple. Not because I drink the Kool-aid but because it works for me, both as a professional and with what I use their product on a personal level for as well.
I hope this doesn't go to court and they stop wasting our tax dollars on something like this. I don't see why it is an issue that a company that only has 20% of the market share can't choose how their products work. One thing Apple does well is deliver what they say. Not what others say it should do but what they say it will do.
It has been said by more than just Apple that there are Security risks with Flash as well as it is a resource hog. I see it as a bunch of ads I don't want to deal with that take up a ton of bandwidth. All these cutesy ads that are flash based use up bandwidth for the 3G users. Why should they have to pay for that crap? Because that is what is happening when you load a page with a bunch of flash ads on it.
Unless you are a programmer who is so entrenched in using Flash why would you fly that banner? If you are just a consumer who is unhappy with what you think are draconian tactics by Apple then vote with your money and get a PC with Windows or Linux or what ever platform doesn't hurt your ethics.
For me I will stick with Apple. Not because I drink the Kool-aid but because it works for me, both as a professional and with what I use their product on a personal level for as well.
I hope this doesn't go to court and they stop wasting our tax dollars on something like this. I don't see why it is an issue that a company that only has 20% of the market share can't choose how their products work. One thing Apple does well is deliver what they say. Not what others say it should do but what they say it will do.
Do you seriously believe that there will be a time in the future when web pages will be free of flashy ads? If it is not Flash then it's HTML 5 or something else. Someone has to pay for "free" internet. It is silly to blame Flash for those ads. Last year Apple did more security patches in OS X than Adobe in Flash. Does that mean that OS X should be banned? And, there is no worse resource hog on Windows than iTune. Should it be banned?
Yes. It's proof that Apple tries to fix its security problems while Adobe lets them linger.
By whom? If there is a power with authority to institute such a ban, and the responsibility to ensure the functionality of Windows, then sure. Ban it. Though I suggest that there is indeed a worse resource hog on Windows: Windows.
No I don't any more than I think there will be TV without ads.
But it is really most of what is Flash on the net. It isn't being banned. It is just not available on iPod touch, iPhone, and iPad. How is that being banned?
How many devices can go on the internet that you can use flash on?
Ridiculous
When will the federal government deal with important stuff? Whether or not a flash compiler can make software for a particular device is offensive. Does this mean that every device that has software must allow adobe to compile software for them?
When will the federal government deal with important stuff? Whether or not a flash compiler can make software for a particular device is offensive. Does this mean that every device that has software must allow adobe to compile software for them?