Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

European Commission Joins Investigation of Apple's Flash Exclusion Policies

Anuba said:
(they have like a hundred products that isn't the Flash Player. All things Flash account for less than 10% of Adobe's business).
Click to expand...

Not to mention all the people basing their claims of "Adobe was past its prime in the 90s" on Flash forget that Adobe didn't own Flash in the 90s. They acquired Macromedia in 2005.

So either Adobe was way past its prime before Flash was even theirs or it's just a bunch of "Steve knows best, I must support him!" none sense.
 
Here all that I predict will happen:

1. Since Adobe Flash is not an open standard, Apple will not be forced to allow development with it on the platform.

2. Apple will agree to release an "web" SDK javascript library similar to what they used internally for their iPhone and iPad manual pages.

3. Apple will launch a gallery of web apps and link to other galleries of apps to appease the complainers with a disclaimer.

Game console development is closed and requires approval to carry the trademarks of the platform so I don't see why they should expect these devices to directly support cross-platform development.
 
Uragon said:
Sometimes I feel that the EC is becoming dictatorial.
Click to expand...

So you would think the same for Microsoft's case... right?

I'm sorry but this is the step to take for the EC, a company cannot exclude like this. Flash is obviously an alternative which Apple cannot control, hence no cashflow towards Apple's account.
I'm glad I live in the EU, and I'm even happier that the EC doesn't care about monopolies like Apple's :)

Fortunately this will result in Apple being forced to open its OS to Flash or... no European market (and don't worry... Apple won't leave the EU)

aristotle said:
Here all that I predict will happen:

1. Since Adobe Flash is not an open standard, Apple will not be forced to allow development with it on the platform.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but there aren't an open standard in web browser branding... and Microsoft was forced to provide a version of Windows without its IE, and now it currently lets you choose :)
This will happen, Apple will be forced to accept Flash, and I'm glad that such a corporation will not succeed in the EU, because, we, europeans consumers, want to have freedom (whether I use Flash or not, but it's not Apple's decision to tell me when I use Flash and when not)
 
aristotle said:
Put down your crack pipe. If it is illegal to scrape sites then "Browsers" would be illegal as would user side CSS. Almost every modern browser supports client side CSS to override the layout of the site. Once content is on the web, it is fair game unless you put it behind a pay wall.

That feature is there for for usability by screen readers and other programs which are also not "browsers" but they scrape sites to make them more accessible to the blind and people with vision problems.

Flash sites are virtually impossible to use by blind or people with diminished eyesight.

Do you understand that sites which use modern CSS are far more accessible to all people than flash?
Click to expand...

I was referring to the use of re-purposed copyrighted website material, e.g. using weather.com weather forecasts in a desktop widget not sanctioned by the company. This is typically referred to as scraping, but there are many legitimate reasons for scraping (price comparison, etc.). I over generalized when I used (often illegally). However, I stand by the rest of my post and I believe you missed his point. BTW, what you mention, e.g. reading a web page for accessibility reasons, is just an alternate way of rendering the HTML information, it is technically not considered scraping. Sites concerned about accessibility can easily provide the same content in a non-flash based version. BTW, flash has accessibility guidelines that if followed, produce an accessible experience, so does HTML, neither are, however, required.
 
KnightWRX said:
Not to mention all the people basing their claims of "Adobe was past its prime in the 90s" on Flash forget that Adobe didn't own Flash in the 90s. They acquired Macromedia in 2005.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

Adobe was pushing for an open standard (SVG) instead of Flash, but the market didn't want to listen - it wanted Flash all the way baby. Then Adobe acquired Flash through buying Macromedia – and now the market wants Flash to go away after it's become so ubiquitous that its roots go all the way down to the earth's core... and then Adobe gets the blame for everything. Huh?

And then people complain about EU "overregulation". Well, folks, if the EU Digital Agenda had been in place 15 years ago, it would've rejected Flash in favor of open standards, and then we wouldn't have been stuck with this closed standard, nor would Adobe, so you tell me if the market always knows best. :p
 
wschutz said:
So you would think the same for Microsoft's case... right?

I'm sorry but this is the step to take for the EC, a company cannot exclude like this. Flash is obviously an alternative which Apple cannot control, hence no cashflow towards Apple's account.
I'm glad I live in the EU, and I'm even happier that the EC doesn't care about monopolies like Apple's :)

Fortunately this will result in Apple being forced to open its OS to Flash or... no European market (and don't worry... Apple won't leave the EU)



Sorry, but there aren't an open standard in web browser branding... and Microsoft was forced to provide a version of Windows without its IE, and now it currently lets you choose :)
This will happen, Apple will be forced to accept Flash, and I'm glad that such a corporation will not succeed in the EU, because, we, europeans consumers, want to have freedom (whether I use Flash or not, but it's not Apple's decision to tell me when I use Flash and when not)
Click to expand...
You are so confused that I don't know where to begin. Web browser branding standard? Uh, yeah. MSFT was forced to offer a browser ballot in the EU to offer different browsers (programs) to pick as the default browser. Windows is a OS for a general purpose computer whereas the iPhone/iPad are more like the console situation. The EU is not going to do anything to Apple in the end of the day because they have done nothing to the console makers.
 
Johnny82 said:
You didn't read his post huh?
Click to expand...
No, I read the post. I was making a point. Mr. Bitter Flash Developer implied that Flash was core functionality for musicians, and I implied that musicians (defined as people actually playing music and not playing online games or surfing the internet) don't need Flash to use any of those applications.
 
2 Replies said:
Your parents made you.
Should they have the right to lobotomize the section of your brain that controls motor function, if they believe you as the user are incapable of properly using your legs? :rolleyes:

Hardware is one thing.
But banning or restricting software because you are either afraid it will reflect poorly on yourself, or trying to force a currently unadopted proposed web technology is a whole other deal.
Click to expand...
Hardware is one thing huh? I guess my parents and software is a more apropos comparison then.
 
Anuba said:
...the only level where competition happens, that's not what this is about at all. It's about competition on each OS platform. The platform itself is considered an arena for competition. Why else do you think MS gets in trouble over things like initially refusing to give Symantec and the other antivirus software companies the Vista kernel source code?
Click to expand...

OK, I see what you are getting at, but I think you are wrong. Each OS itself is not an arena for competition. The smartphone market as a whole is the only arena that is relevant. If we apply your logic to other industries: "McDonald's is a platform for soft-drink distribution. They should be forced to allow Pepsi to compete with Coke products in their stores." Of course, that argument is ridiculous because McDonald's can serve whatever they want to their customers. If a customer wants Pepsi, they can go to a restaurant that offers it. The same concept should apply for Apple and their exclusion of Flash.

Let me ask you this: if Adobe got really mad and refused to develop anything at all for OSX, including Creative Suite (putting aside the fact that this would really hurt their business), would that be considered anti-competitive? No. No one can force a software company to develop for a certain OS. Likewise, OS makers shouldn't be forced to support all software companies.
 
The Phazer said:
Apple have over 90% of the mobile application distribution market.

This is brilliant news. Hopefully the EU throws the book at Apple, and they're forced to grow up and let Flash on the platform, which will make it immeasurably superior. I come across sites that are broken due to the lack of Flash every day, and use features that HTML 5 simply cannot replace. I'd never buy an iPad because of it.

Phazer
Click to expand...
What does that mean? That Apple has over 90% of sales or 90% in size of the market?
 
John.B said:
No, I read the post. I was making a point. Mr. Bitter Flash Developer implied that Flash was core functionality for musicians, and I implied that musicians (defined as people actually playing music and not playing online games or surfing the internet) don't need Flash to use any of those applications.
Click to expand...
No, I was making the point that in the reality of today's internet, Flash is a necessity and will remain so until HTML5 can fully replace it and until there are HTML5/Canvas tools of the same caliber as Flash Professional. I illustrated this by listing a number of company websites in one particular creative field - had I been on an iPad I would've been barred from acquiring product information about 95% of the products in that particular business. It had absolutely nothing to do with Flash being "core functionality for musicians" and I can't even fathom how you made that connection.

I always appreciated Apple's efforts to stay one year or two ahead of the pack and lead the market to new technologies, but it appears that lately, Steve's reality distortion field has been fitted with a time warp module. He is now living 10 years into the future, where everyone is on terabit broadband, optical drives are in museums next to Blu-ray collections, and Flash has been in the technology graveyard for years. This is not leading the way, this is running off on your own path, so far astray that the people who were following you through the jungle lose sight of you, shrug, pull out the map and decide to continue on their own.
 
Puddinman said:
OK, I see what you are getting at, but I think you are wrong. Each OS itself is not an arena for competition. The smartphone market as a whole is the only arena that is relevant. If we apply your logic to other industries: "McDonald's is a platform for soft-drink distribution. They should be forced to allow Pepsi to compete with Coke products in their stores." Of course, that argument is ridiculous because McDonald's can serve whatever they want to their customers. If a customer wants Pepsi, they can go to a restaurant that offers it. The same concept should apply for Apple and their exclusion of Flash.

Let me ask you this: if Adobe got really mad and refused to develop anything at all for OSX, including Creative Suite (putting aside the fact that this would really hurt their business), would that be considered anti-competitive? No. No one can force a software company to develop for a certain OS. Likewise, OS makers shouldn't be forced to support all software companies.
Click to expand...

I think you have a good point. I don't believe there is a case to be made for Flash, but I think there is a case with the Flash to iPhone compiler. If the end result is a interpreted language packaged in a native executable that runs the interpreted code (please correct me if I am wrong with my interpretation of what their compiler did) it is very similar to many games that embed scripts that are interpreted by the game's engine. Therefore, to exclude the flash compiler, Apple would have to exclude games that use this method (which from what I understand, is a lot, tho, I am not in game development, just somewhat familiar).
 
scriptx said:
I think you have a good point. I don't believe there is a case to be made for Flash, but I think there is a case with the Flash to iPhone compiler. If the end result is a interpreted language packaged in a native executable that runs the interpreted code (please correct me if I am wrong with my interpretation of what their compiler did) it is very similar to many games that embed scripts that are interpreted by the game's engine. Therefore, to exclude the flash compiler, Acrobat would have to exclude games that use this method (which from what I understand, is a lot, tho, I am not in game development, just somewhat familiar).
Click to expand...
Yes, I was not making a case for the Flash Player (that has nothing to do with competition, really) but the fact that Apple won't allow applications ontp the platform if they were made with Flash. They have done in the past, so this was not a question of Apple having to put in extra work to accommodate Flash – instead they put in an effort to stop Flash-compiled apps. Adobe had made a Flash-to-iPhone compiler which was included with the CS5 release. Apple was perfectly aware I'm sure, and probably had been for months, yet they held off announcing the no-Flash policy until mere days (or was it hours?) before CS5 was released. That's the part the EC wants to investigate.
 
kernkraft said:
That is a very liberal interpretation of the term 'freedom'. Are you suggesting that freedom means that the state should also be free to do whatever they want?

Freedom only makes sense if it is in the hands of individuals, whether they are citizens or consumers. If freedom is only enjoyed by the stronger party, that is not freedom.
Click to expand...

So the whole "majority rule" thing is anti-freedom (majorities being by definition the stronger party)? Uh, interesting.

Freedom is buy or not buy, that's how it works. If enough people don't buy, the company changes the product or goes out of business. Very simple, and completely in the hands of consumers. It's not like there are no options.
 
farmboy said:
So the whole "majority rule" thing is anti-freedom (majorities being by definition the stronger party)? Uh, interesting.
Click to expand...

If misused, yes. You may have seen that in last week's US Federal District Court ruling that the "popular vote" in California to remove the freedom to marry from gay couples was struck down as being contrary to the equal protection and due rights provisions of the US Constitution.

Look up Tyranny of the Majority in your favourite civics text or on the web. The "checks and balances" built into the US Constitution are specifically there to protect the rights of minorities from the majority.

It's, uh "interesting" as you say that you don't recognize the basis of the law in your own country. Also interesting that Iowa, the state on Minnesota's southern border, has full marriage equality for all of its citizens. Whoever would have thought that Iowa would lead California in civil rights issues. ;)

(Disclaimer: I was born and raised in Iowa....)
 
farmboy said:
So the whole "majority rule" thing is anti-freedom (majorities being by definition the stronger party)? Uh, interesting.

Freedom is buy or not buy, that's how it works. If enough people don't buy, the company changes the product or goes out of business. Very simple, and completely in the hands of consumers. It's not like there are no options.
Click to expand...
What if purchasing the product involves supporting two companies and one of them sucks, as is the case with iPhone + AT&T? Is the success of the iPhone a testament to the greatness of AT&T's network and services? No, people buy iPhones in spite of AT&T. Is AT&T then supposed to draw the conclusion that since iPhone sales are great, the customers have unanimously voted with their wallets in favor of AT&T's wonderful services, so let's keep them just the way they are?

Over here I have the freedom to buy a locked or unlocked iPhone along with a plan from any of four different carriers. They all offer much lower prices and much better services than AT&T. Part of this is a trickle-down effect of regulations. The EC wouldn't allow any carrier to become such a giant dinosaur as AT&T is, and I doubt that any country would allow them to offer such crappy services. When carriers were given 3G licenses here in Sweden back in 2001, it came with a catch – they had to provide 85% coverage by 2003. The ones who didn't (I believe Orange and Vodafone were lagging behind) were under threat of being slapped with fines. As a result, we had tons of carriers who met the requirements for the iPhone 3G when it arrived, and now they're outbidding eachother with attractive deals on iPhones.

Sometimes freedom needs a push.
 
John.B said:
No, I read the post. I was making a point. Mr. Bitter Flash Developer implied that Flash was core functionality for musicians, and I implied that musicians (defined as people actually playing music and not playing online games or surfing the internet) don't need Flash to use any of those applications.
Click to expand...

You obviously didn't read what he said.
 
Anuba said:
By the same token you could argue that Microsoft never did anything anti-competitive with the Windows platform, all you have to do is go out and buy a different platform.
Click to expand...

No, you couldn't. What got MS into hot water was the fact that they either paid OEMs, or threatened them with licensing woes, to not sell competing operating systems.
 
Anuba said:
Yes, I was not making a case for the Flash Player (that has nothing to do with competition, really) but the fact that Apple won't allow applications ontp the platform if they were made with Flash. They have done in the past, so this was not a question of Apple having to put in extra work to accommodate Flash – instead they put in an effort to stop Flash-compiled apps. Adobe had made a Flash-to-iPhone compiler which was included with the CS5 release. Apple was perfectly aware I'm sure, and probably had been for months, yet they held off announcing the no-Flash policy until mere days (or was it hours?) before CS5 was released. That's the part the EC wants to investigate.
Click to expand...


Ok, but what's the difference, really? If Apple makes a rule that you can ONLY develop with XCode, then is that considered "anti-competitive?" It's really the same as the McDonald's argument. Developers can choose to get with the program and develop for iOS or not.
 
Puddinman said:
Ok, but what's the difference, really? If Apple makes a rule that you can ONLY develop with XCode, then is that considered "anti-competitive?"
Click to expand...
I don't know, but it can hardly be a coincidence that both the FTC and the EC have started looking into this issue with raised eyebrows. Most likely it's the combination of the app store's gargantuan market share and the fact that apps not developed with Apple's tools are not allowed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back