If Apple is illegally wielding monopoly power that would be "important stuff." Let the government do their job - they'll doubtless find there's no issue here and move on to something else.
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
If Apple is illegally wielding monopoly power that would be "important stuff." Let the government do their job - they'll doubtless find there's no issue here and move on to something else.
"Prearranged dog and pony show"... hmm, interesting.
[not unlike some of the posts by certain members around here perhaps?]
But, go on . . . prearranged by whom? (and why?)
--
>> Apple Facing Antitrust Inquiry Over Flash-to-iPhone Complier Ban
Yes yes... Apple is surely doomed *this* time. They should have done their homework, some research on the matter. They should have thought this out ahead of time.
Now Steve will have to go out and find some lawyers to start working on it. [i hope they're smarter than those top notch bulldogs working for the govt.] Tsk tsk tsk. Oy veyyyyyyyyyyy!It might but it does not. I checked national database for software vulnerabilities. I entered two queries to find software flaws reported last year (January to December) . First one was for Flash plugin:
* Includes only Software Flaws (CVE)
* Has CPE: cpe:/a:adobe:flash_player_plugin
* Published: After 01/01/2009 and Before 01/01/2010
I got 0 vulnerabilities (I know it's not correct but this is the best I could find).
The second query was for OS X:
* Includes only Software Flaws (CVE)
* Has CPE: cpe:/o
mac_os_x* Published: After 01/01/2009 and Before 01/01/2010
I got this:
Statistical Data
Year # of Vulns % of Total
2009 101 1.76
2010 0 0.00
So the score is 101 to 0 in favor of Flash (plugin)
It might but it does not. I checked national database for software vulnerabilities. I entered two queries to find software flaws reported last year (January to December) . First one was for Flash plugin:
* Includes only Software Flaws (CVE)
* Has CPE: cpe:/a:adobe:flash_player_plugin
* Published: After 01/01/2009 and Before 01/01/2010
I got 0 vulnerabilities (I know it's not correct but this is the best I could find).
...
So the score is 101 to 0 in favor of Flash (plugin)
So you know "it's not correct," but you rely on it to prove your point.
Ok.
So you took some vague wording that could be used to justify your point of view, or not, and now present it as evidence that your interpretation is correct. Market share and sales can both be expressed in revenue or units. However, market share is most commonly expressed in unit share with respect to product sales.
Have you ever seen any antitrust case that was based on revenue share? All of the big ones seem to be unit share.
Yeah. I just can not believe that nobody found a flaw in Flash last year. So most likely the flaws are underreported. Probably for both tools. But this might be the only database that registers these things so it's clearly better than our own guesstimates.
first thing that comes up on google 'flash security risk'
http://www.computerworld.com/s/arti...puts_most_sites_users_at_risk_say_researchers
http://www.computerworld.com/s/arti...puts_most_sites_users_at_risk_say_researchers
If this is in reference to the stats that I mentioned, this article does not actually disproves them. As I understand, this particular vulnerability was on server side and not in Flash plugin (I listed stats for plugin).
Comparing the number of public vulnerabilities in a closed source plugin to an OS with a large number of open source components is comically arbitrary.
The phrase "comically arbitrary" is appropriate for many of the turtlenecked overlord's recent statements, and Apple's actions.
I just saw the "live" Daily Show segment on AppleGate tonight on TiVo (http://tv.gawker.com/5526868/jon-stewart-slams-apple-over-its-handling-of-gizmodo-case). I wonder if Jon's comments about Mason jars could be accurate....
IMO, the topic of Flash dilutes the issue. The problem is that given the following hypothetical:
Program A: Written using Objective-C in the XCode IDE. Given more than a cursory once over, this particular app is riddled with a minefield of memory leaks and other issues.
Program B: Written using a forbidden language and then compiled into a 100% compatible iPhone OS executable app, tuned to run smoothly and efficiently by the compiler's author.
Program A passes inspection and Program B does not. This is the problem. Although I am inclined to believe Apple's official reasoning and that they aren't behaving this way simply to be jerks, I do think it undermines their message when the rules they say are in place to protect the end user's experience don't necessarily have anything to do with the end user's experience.
Program A: Written using Objective-C in the XCode IDE. Given more than a cursory once over, this particular app is riddled with a minefield of memory leaks and other issues.
Program B: Written using a forbidden language and then compiled into a 100% compatible iPhone OS executable app, tuned to run smoothly and efficiently by the compiler's author.
Program A passes inspection and Program B does not. This is the problem. Although I am inclined to believe Apple's official reasoning and that they aren't behaving this way simply to be jerks, I do think it undermines their message when the rules they say are in place to protect the end user's experience don't necessarily have anything to do with the end user's experience.
I should learn this "I know it's not correct but..." stuffFirst one was for Flash plugin:
* Includes only Software Flaws (CVE)
* Has CPE: cpe:/a:adobe:flash_player_plugin
* Published: After 01/01/2009 and Before 01/01/2010
I got 0 vulnerabilities (I know it's not correct but this is the best I could find).
So the score is 101 to 0 in favor of Flash (plugin)
Can be useful when I know I am at the wrong but still want to argue
And the biggest security risk is in Flash by design. Flash sets it own cookies (LSOs or supercookies) that ignore any browser security settings. They ignore any private browsing type state. Flash provides no indication to the user of the storage. It tracks all Flash enabled sites that you visit, and maintains this list and the LSOs indefinitely.
And the best part, to manage settings related to these privacy issues, you have to visit a website that is inaccessible from the Flash context menu. No user accessible way to change these settings from within the plugin or the browser chrome. You have to go to a website that you can only find by searching the internet if you come up with some reason to suspect it exists.
Depends on the odds of A versus the odds of B. If the odds are right, the costs of just banning all type B apps might be lower than the costs examining each app far more carefully, especially with on the order of a million app submissions (including updates) per year likely soon.
If government did as you said, Apple would not be around today. It was government that told Microsoft "to let Apple live". After that MS developed MS Office for Mac and invested $100 million into Apple.
I understand where you're coming from on that, however I think there would be some sort of middle ground that could be reached. This is also going on the assumption that the percentage of bad apps are higher on the side of the 3rd party tool which isn't necessarily going to be true depending on the tool.
As a developer, I've been studying Objective-C, Cocoa, and Cocoa Touch but I still have quite a ways to go before being proficient in any of it. I realize my background in Windows development isn't going to be a perfect match to developing for Mac/IPhone but it would certainly help to not have to use Objective-C. In a perfect world I'd like C# and a unicorn. In this world, I'd settle for being able to write to the APIs using only C++.
Care to prove that government told Microsoft to let Apple live? Or it's one more of your "I know it's incorrect but..."?
Microsoft developed Office 98 with a more Mac-like interface because their Mac Business unit made tons of dough from Mac software sales and was fretting over the loss of many of those sales in the wake of the Word 6 debacle.
As for the $150 million dollar "vote of confidence", it is broadly accepted that that centered primarily on the desire by Microsoft to keep their theft of Quicktime code (for purposes of improving Video for Windows), via the San Francisco Canyon Company, out of the courts and adding to their then-already long list of headaches on the anti-trust front. It also enabled them to get Explorer installed on Macs as the default browser...
That is especially a concern with the new multitasking implementation (in the upcoming iPhone OS 4.0) i would imagine. These controversial conditions in the latest SDK seem like a logical step, to make separating the wheat from the chaff an easier task for Apple. [harder for **some** developers of course, but all to the user's (and the platform's) benefit.]
"Fart apps" my Aunt Fanny: X-Plane
Why do so few posts (such as yours there) mention "Ansca Corona" when listing middleware? (you know, these guys). I don't see them whining, wringing hands, etc.
Great analogies (not).
...but they would probably get laughed out of court (if they even made it that far). Say what??? [clearly your grasp of the underlying technical issues in this case is beyond anyone's understanding.]
It would have been nice if MacRumors had used a title more like Slashdot's, which was "Apple May Face Antitrust Inquiry."
But that probably wouldn't stir things up as much as their current title, which seems to pit Adobe against Apple.
But that probably wouldn't stir things up as much as their current title, which seems to pit Adobe against Apple.
I had to post this because I didn't see it the first time probably because my brain went "ignore ignore warning, bADDD" and i totally skipped it.
Totally not "Great analogies" as stated in the previous poster.
The most accurate analog would be, "if you want to work in a german play on stage, you must be speaking german only with a german accent." It makes no sense for a german show to have all americans speaking with the southern accent, would it?.
As for the car analogy, it would be "to create an engine part or any other parts for our GM engines and our GM made cars, you must use GM specs (language)". Tires and gas are like graphics and sounds, it doesn't matter what format they're in, the language will accept it (almost all formats).
Your analogies are so far off, it's not even funny.
That is especially a concern with the new multitasking implementation (in the upcoming iPhone OS 4.0) i would imagine. These controversial conditions in the latest SDK seem like a logical step, to make separating the wheat from the chaff an easier task for Apple. [harder for **some** developers of course, but all to the user's (and the platform's) benefit.]
"Fart apps" my Aunt Fanny: X-Plane
Why do so few posts (such as yours there) mention "Ansca Corona" when listing middleware? (you know, these guys). I don't see them whining, wringing hands, etc.
Great analogies (not).
Say what??? [clearly your grasp of the underlying technical issues in this case is beyond anyone's understanding.]
Thanks for the link.
Since most people won't actually read it, I'm posting a key section:
actually, i personally believe that this is the most accurate: "apple sucks"... really clear, easy to understand, zero confusion whatsoever.
You want to say Adobe can do what they want, scr*w Apple and its platform for years, and now when Apple is finally in a position to make its new platform awesome, it's "horrible" because it doesn't want Adobe's little doggie to pis* on their new turf?