Look, it might be a good decision to keep Adobe's tools away from the iPhone OS.
Then why not just say so? "We believe that it is not in our best interest to approve Adobe's tools". How hard can it be?
Why all the arbitrary changes in TOS and the arguments against layers between the developer and the platform, which most developers can tell you are bogus? Why refuse to acknowledge the other frameworks not associated with Adobe? That behavior just creates apprehension among devs at best and at worst they'll drop the platform entirely.
Why ban languages other than C, C++, Obj-C, and JavaScript and not enforce the ban on anyone except Adobe?
Don't piss off the devs for your platform. Just come right out and say it instead of creating confusion. In other words, don't spread FUD.
If you want to stop a tool from spreading into your platform, you ban the idea of it, not the actual product or company. This makes it clear for anybody in the future who thought about making a similar tool like Python to Obj C or something like that. Apple is banning ALL frameworks related to providing "intermediary translation or compatibility tool", not just Adobe's Flash to ObjC.
Let me repost the section 3.3.1.
3.3.1 Applications may only use Documented APIs in the manner prescribed by Apple and must not use or call any private APIs. Applications must be originally written in Objective-C, C, C++, or JavaScript as executed by the iPhone OS WebKit engine, and only code written in C, C++, and Objective-C may compile and directly link against the Documented APIs (e.g., Applications that link to Documented APIs through an intermediary translation or compatibility layer or tool are prohibited).
The confusions are with frameworks such as Unity because they output to Xcode with ObjC of which you must compile. It's still ObjectiveC. They are not using any intermediate player between the developer and xcode to compile. The problem is Unity3D's devs are using C# to output those ObjC files, so they are in violations of the first part of section 3.3.1. They can get around it by rewriting their Unity3D into ObjC if they want to or if Apple let them slide.
Apple is allowed to let certain frameworks pass, they are after all the gatekeeper. I am sure there's a clause somewhere at the end where it says Apple can change some of the rules in this agreement anytime.
The legality of it is affected by the motivation behind it. If the investigators were to uncover an internal Apple e-mail stating that the purpose of this was to force developers to make apps that could not be easily ported to competing platforms, that would have a tremendous bearing on the outcome of the investigation. Similarly, if Apple can show that the motivation was solely to get the best user experience for iPhone users, that puts the case in an entirely different light.
Steve Jobs' letter already explained the motivations behind the change, that's the company message to everybody including the Justice department. That's the genius part of this letter. That's what they'll use as the answer if the Justice department decides to request some information from Apple. It's a pre-emptive move by Jobs and the company.
Forcing developers to use specific tools for developing for a platform is clearly a monopolistic behavior.
No, it's not. Companies are allowed to dictate which tools to use for THEIR platform. All Apple did was set a requirement of ObjC/C++/JS for source to destination. All game consoles have the same requirement for their consoles as well. Apple isn't a monopoly in the smartphone market.
If you assume iPhone OS devices are the biggest part of its specific market, like Apple and others are stating now, and as anyone can see, if you look at the number of users, applications, maket share, revenue, media effect, sell estimations, etc, of the iPhone OS platform, then you could compare this to the Windows platform.
You can't choose a specific market, it's has to be the general market. In OS market, Windows is the largest. In smartphone market, Apple is barely number two or three and even at number 1, they don't have a durable market share. It must be proven that their market share will last over time.
In US Mobile OS market, Apple once again isn't the number one. RIM's still there as one for now. Worldwide, Symbian is the number 1 monopoly.
It will be like if Microsoft forces to use their own tools to develop applications for Windows. That will be clearly monopolistic, even when there are other "PC platforms" and "PC systems" available.
Monopolies by itself aren't illegal. Also MS is already doing this with W7 phones, they are mandating Silverlight with managed .Net code for their phones using their provided tools.
I don't see why MS can't require .Net languages for its OS platform either. They should be allowed to.
I think Apple must support multiplatform development and hence, the Flash development. The point 3.3.1 of the SDK must be corrected back.
Why? Apple is allowed to dictate whatever they want for THEIR platform. It's not a democracy when it comes to businesses and companies, the owners can do whatever they want, and don't have to follow the needs of the people.
Apple is trying to force something that will happen if it has to, if Flash has to die, it will, but trying to kill it this way is unnatural and unjust.
If Apple wanted to kill Flash, they would've start with banning Flash on the desktop. Adobe is the one that's killing Flash slowly.
There's no Flash player on any mobile devices right now on the market. Apple has the right to mandate no flash just like they have the right to mandate no java on their iPhones.
Much better, WSJ reported that the FTC's inquiry is also about the iAds.
In this case, I happen to agree with the inquiry. That's something that Apple is being anti-competitive with. The fact that they aren't allowing other ads network to transmit certain data should apply to iAds as well but they are using it for the iAds, which is completely anti-competitive.
http://www.appleinsider.com/article...trust_probe_about_apples_iad_service_too.html
