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

[Rocketman]

Cross-platform programming tools are a product not a "right".

Exclusive agreements, patents, trademarks, and compiled code are "anti-competitive" but are not illegally so.

Apple building a walled garden is legal. Not transmitting ad response data to the outside of the garden is proprietary, not illegal.

The over-reaching government can inquire all they want.

Rocketman

 

[daxomni]

If you have that much faith in HTML5, let it win the fight (like Blu-ray vs HD DVD). Let it go away on its own. If it truly is an antiquated framework/language/system, it will disappear.

I like your suggestion but I don't think HD-DVD vs. BD is a good example of allowing consumers to decide the winner in a fair market environment. In fact I'd say it's a perfect example of the exact opposite situation, whereby the content creators decided the result instead.

 

[lucasgladding]

The issue in my eyes is, why bother apple? If someone writes a crappy app using a cross compiler. It won't sell, If you have that much faith in HTML5, let it win the fight (like Blu-ray vs HD DVD). Let it go away on its own. If it truly is an antiquated framework/language/system, it will disappear.

Apple isn't worried about the crappy apps, they're worried about the great apps that give Adobe leverage over what Apple does with the SDK going forward.

Another approach could be apple helping adobe improve flash. What is flash/flex missing? What makes it a poor buggy framework? What, in apple's opinion would help improve it?

Why should Apple do this? They don't think Flash is the best direction going forward. Why sink money into something you think is failing.

Flash has a place in the future of the web IMO. Let's take advertising for an example. With flash ads are dynamically loaded as one swf. And it gives full interaction, font control, video etc. To do that with HTML5 and Javascript, you would have to load, the javascript, fonts, and media. Separate, or do some kind of iframe. Having an encapsulated SWF makes much more sense. (unless I'm missing something, which I may)

I don't see why loading the media separately is that big a deal. It may mean a few more lines of code, but it also gives you more accessible source. Even with an open format, it probably takes much more work for search engines to examine an SWF. My knowledge is very, very limited here, so I could also be missing something too.

Also saying they only use open platforms, but then they themselves close off their device is nice misdirection. Android is far more 'open'.

I'm a long time apple fan, and an even longer time Adobe fan, and I think this is poor form on apple.

If adobe could afford it, (I'm sure they can't) they could pull all of CS from Apple. And apple computers would go away. I'm quite confident, (though may be wrong) that it's still professionals that keep apple going. And with out the professional utilities on os x, we would have to go to a windows based platform. And if Adobe offered its Creative Suite to something like Ubuntu, I would probably make the switch.

Just a rant Please don't attack me.

I'm a long-time fan of both as well, but Adobe has done an excellent job of showing why they don't belong on either platform. From Flash applications not recognizing scroll input, to problems with Expose because they insist on writing their own windowing system on CS. I'm still using CS3 with Snow Leopard and see drawing issues every day where I need to switch to another app and switch back to get the precision cursors in Photoshop to show up. I rarely see these kinds of issues on older Mac-targetted applications. Also, do you think Apple would have kept Carbon around as long as they did without Adobe and Microsoft.

I think it's worth considering that other developers could step in if Adobe left the Mac. The print industry is changing, and that's where I believe users are still afraid to switch away. Remember, InDesign is still a relatively new application. I don't see Adobe as being any more competent than Quark now. 12 years ago most would assume that Xpress would be around forever.

Note: There are some decent Mac-based image editing applications available. It Photoshop wasn't around, I guarantee that you would see these grow much, much faster.

Those who are suggesting it wouldn't cost Apple anything to allow Flash on the platform aren't considering the implications of the technology. I'm not talking about foregone profits, I'm talking about the time Apple engineers would need to spend coordinating with the Flash team to ensure compatibility for the next OS. This would be significant, no buts about it. If Flash apps represented a significant portion of the App Store, nobody would update their device without checking compatibility notes. Does this sound familiar? It's what happens now when Apple releases an OS update. Innovative 3rd party developers need to keep supporting the older OS because users are tied into things like CS. This is exactly what Apple is trying to eliminate from their new platform.

Apple is trying to reinvent computing with the iPhone and iPad, and there is no place for the Adobe we know in this world. I would love to see the company change, but every interview I see suggests they're going to resist this.

 

[daxomni]

Exclusive agreements, patents, trademarks, and compiled code are "anti-competitive" but are not illegally so.

Originally patents were intended to foster innovation, but they seem to have become perverted to the point of working against that end these days. Thus, it might be time to rewrite what's legal and illegal again. I guess Apple fanatics aren't aware that moral and ethical considerations can be followed by new laws, but they can and maybe it's time we did something to clean up this mess.

 

[kdarling]

Apple is trying to reinvent computing with the iPhone and iPad, and there is no place for the Adobe we know in this world. I would love to see the company change, but every interview I see suggests they're going to resist this.

I think you're right.

I think the main computing reinvention that Apple is attempting, is to make it as controlled and profitable as possible.

That means creating very high garden walls and a fairly short device support lifespan.

It also means removing critical reliance on outside companies... be they Adobe or Sun or Google or even CPU designers. (I bet Apple would love to get into Flash memory fab as well.)

And finally, it means suing market threats, such as HTC.

 

[firewood]

I think the main computing reinvention that Apple is attempting, is to make it as controlled and profitable as possible.

In order for control to be profitable, it must create a compelling enough benefit in the customers perception to get them to spend more money.

It's obviously working, so what huge benefit is Apple's tight control providing? Is it quality? Trust? (In the device? Or in iTunes having your credit card number?) Is it security? The ease of finding top-25 apps? Better at picking up MOTOS's?

Is there a secret focus group result somewhere showing that a lot of people use Flash, but don't really trust it? (I almost never turn off Flashblock, so I fall in that category. Maybe there are lots more like me?)

 

[lucasgladding]

I think you're right.

I think the main computing reinvention that Apple is attempting, is to make it as controlled and profitable as possible.

That means creating very high garden walls and a fairly short device support lifespan.

It also means removing critical reliance on outside companies... be they Adobe or Sun or Google or even CPU designers. (I bet Apple would love to get into Flash memory fab as well.)

And finally, it means suing market threats, such as HTC.

I do agree that the HTC lawsuit is in poor taste, but everything else you suggested seems like good business practice to me. Users are free to choose other phones, you just need to follow Apple's rules if you want to use their products. This is been clear since day 1, and they still gained the influence they now hold. Apple regards this as one of their core strengths - try watching their product introductions. I have yet to hear of a company that requires its employees to buy iPhones because those are the only devices they support. Do we really want the government to step in to control what is currently up to consumers?

Adobe doesn't want freedom to choose, neither does Google. They want consumer to buy their products instead. If either company were in Apple's position, they would do the exact same thing. Like Apple, many of Google's products are closed source. You don't open-source your main source of revenue if you have the choice.

HTML5 isn't a scapegoat for Apple, they do believe in the technology. Their are examples of this in AdKit alone.

PS: Apple seems to be supporting devices for at least the typical contract length. You're saying this isn't reasonable? We're not talking about desktop devices, we're talking about $200-$600 devices that typically get replaced in that timeframe anyway.

 

[MikhailT]

I do agree that the HTC lawsuit is in poor taste, but everything else you suggested seems like good business practice to me. Users are free to choose other phones, you just need to follow Apple's rules if you want to use their products. This is been clear since day 1, and they still gained the influence they now hold. Apple regards this as one of their core strengths - try watching their product introductions. I have yet to hear of a company that requires its employees to buy iPhones because those are the only devices they support. Do we really want the government to step in to control what is currently up to consumers?

Adobe doesn't want freedom to choose, neither does Google. They want consumer to buy their products instead. If either company were in Apple's position, they would do the exact same thing. Like Apple, many of Google's products are closed source. You don't open-source your main source of revenue if you have the choice.

HTML5 isn't a scapegoat for Apple, they do believe in the technology. Their are examples of this in AdKit alone.

PS: Apple seems to be supporting devices for at least the typical contract length. You're saying this isn't reasonable? We're not talking about desktop devices, we're talking about $200-$600 devices that typically get replaced in that timeframe anyway.

While I understand the concept you're saying and agree, it's just that you're interchanging two different things and not understanding the difference.

Those two things are closed source and closed system. Apple uses and support open source projects, majority of Apple's stuff is open sourced by Apple. They do push code upfront from the work they do internally.

What Apple is excelling at is a complete ecosystem and that's what people are loving. Total control from the single part in the machine to the last line of the OS X source code to also integrated with the ecosystem at the Apple store. Tech support, retail store, everything that Apple does is integrated and supported by their machines and devices.

 

[lucasgladding]

While I understand the concept you're saying and agree, it's just that you're interchanging two different things and not understanding the difference.

Those two things are closed source and closed system. Apple uses and support open source projects, majority of Apple's stuff is open sourced by Apple. They do push code upfront from the work they do internally.

What Apple is excelling at is a complete ecosystem and that's what people are loving. Total control from the single part in the machine to the last line of the OS X source code to also integrated with the ecosystem at the Apple store. Tech support, retail store, everything that Apple does is integrated and supported by their machines and devices.

Sorry, I didn't intend to use them interchangeably. Everyone seems to be doing that these days, I must have just gotten caught up in the trend. I just think that both issues are closely related in this case, so used both in the post. Android is open-source and an open system, while most others trying to compete with Apple are closed-source and open system. Apple is very much closed-source and closed system.

I'm a developer with experience in both sides of both concepts, so I understand the difference.

 

[macsmurf]

I actually find it very interesting to have two major companies backing two different systems with completely opposite tactics.

I think developers will be fleeing the constraints of the Apple platform once the gold rush dies down.

 

[lucasgladding]

I actually find it very interesting to have two major companies backing two different systems with completely opposite tactics.

I think developers will be fleeing the constraints of the Apple platform once the gold rush dies down.

The tactics are different because the power isn't equal between the two companies.

The gold rush died down a long time ago. What I do think we'll see is companies abandoning native development for web-based apps. I'm curious to see what Apple does once that happens. It's worth noting that Apple isn't as strict with content as they are with process. The store would be a fraction of the size if they were.

 

[Max(IT)]

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?

You are correct. I don't understand his point because there is NO POINT at all.
Nobody will "jump ship", because that ship is full of money