Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New iPhone Agreement Bans Flash-to-iPhone Compiler & Others

daringfireball.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–430 of 495 posts

Re: New iPhone Agreement Bans Flash-to-iPhone Compiler & Others

#421

Post by Silhouette »

AlisdairO wrote: post #365
Silhouette wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is entirely about protecting Apple's own interests and the comparison to Nintendo's lock down of the NES is not applicable. What I don't understand is how this isn't anticompetitive behaviour. By creating an app store and lock-in for application vendors, Apple become the only provider in the market. They now appear to be leveraging that monopoly to restrict another market, that of developer tools, to their com…

Because they don't have a monopoly on smartphones. They control their own platform, but as long as there's a reasonably competitive smartphone market out there, it's not illegal.

But aren't there really three markets here?

First, we have the hardware, and as you say, Apple is certainly in a competitive market with its iPhone offering.

Then, for each type of hardware, we have the software that runs on it. Anyone could write software to run on Apple's hardware, but because Apple lock down the phone and run the only app store in town, they have a de facto monopoly on the supply of software to iPhone users.

Finally, we have software development tools. Again, anyone could write tools to help software developers using Apple's hardware. Indeed, according to recent reports connected to this story, many people have, from Adobe's Flash CS5 team to fans of Haskell.

Again, I'm no lawyer, but I would expect that Apple would be perfectly within its rights to lock down the software that can run on its device, but would not be allowed to use that power to unduly influence the secondary market of how that software can be made.

Re: New iPhone Agreement Bans Flash-to-iPhone Compiler & Others

#422

Post by bettynormal »

raganwald wrote: post #46

Getting away from the frenzied rhetoric, my opinion is that what Apple really wants to prevent is people releasing multi-platform compilers. So taking Flash as just one example, if I can build one app and the compiler can make me an iPhone executable, an Android executable, and so forth, Apple don't want that. In my experience so far with such "cross platform compatibility layers," they always produce results that wa…

How can anyone now develop a business and future with Apple when it could all be taken away at a moments notice.

Re: New iPhone Agreement Bans Flash-to-iPhone Compiler & Others

#423

Post by halostatue »

jrockway wrote: post #289
halostatue wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is incorrect. Apple's C is C99; they have also introduced a new optional syntax for blocks that they have submitted for standardization.

Right, and $foo is just C but with $bar.

Wrong.

Apple's C is C99 (as implemented by both gcc and clang). If you wish to take advantage of something like Grand Central Dispatch, they recommend that you do so with their completely optional syntax for blocks (which, aside from being closures AFAIK, are essentially anonymous functions in situ instead of defining a function externally).

You can still use GCD without the new block syntax by using function pointers, leaving you with bog standard C99.

Frankly, gcc implements a lot more non-standard stuff on its own than Apple's blocks have introduced.

Re: New iPhone Agreement Bans Flash-to-iPhone Compiler & Others

#424

Post by roc »

Andrey wrote: post #202
raganwald wrote: post #46

Getting away from the frenzied rhetoric, my opinion is that what Apple really wants to prevent is people releasing multi-platform compilers. So taking Flash as just one example, if I can build one app and the compiler can make me an iPhone executable, an Android executable, and so forth, Apple don't want that. In my experience so far with such "cross platform compatibility layers," they always produce results that wa…

Enjoy being Apple serfs, developers! The guys over at Titanium [1] can give you genuflecting lessons if you need. Apple has definitely crossed-over to the dark side. After 26 years of being a fanboy, they've finally exceeded what I can stomach. [1] http://developer.appcelerator.com/blog/2010/04/apple-4-0-and... [2] http://ipadmakesmesad.blogspot.com

You're beholden to whatever platform you develop on. That's simply the way it always is.

The web isn't appropriate for the apps I want to write yet, so I can't develop on a perfectly open platform and expect to find customers. And I can't reasonably create my own platform and create the software I want to create.

So I have to pick a platform that can reasonably support the apps I want to write and that gives me a reasonable chance to make a living at it. I'm going to be somebody's sharecropper.

When I have more resources, I can consider supporting multiple platforms to mitigate my risk. But until then, pointing out that we develop at the pleasure of the platform holder is redundant and the differences between more- and less-restrictive platforms is splitting hairs.

Re: New iPhone Agreement Bans Flash-to-iPhone Compiler & Others

#427

Post by gthank »

Silhouette wrote: post #421
AlisdairO wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because they don't have a monopoly on smartphones. They control their own platform, but as long as there's a reasonably competitive smartphone market out there, it's not illegal.

But aren't there really three markets here? First, we have the hardware, and as you say, Apple is certainly in a competitive market with its iPhone offering. Then, for each type of hardware, we have the software that runs on it. Anyone could write software to run on Apple's hardware, but because Apple lock down the phone and run the only app store in town, they have a de facto monopoly on the supply of software to iP…

In all likelihood, Apple would argue—successfully—that the market should not be defined as the "iPhone software" market but as the "smartphone software" market, at which point they no longer have a monopoly and are no longer subject to anti-trust scrutiny.

What gets interesting is when/if Apple's dominance continues to grow to the point that the "iPhone software" market is effectively the "smartphone software" market. At that point, the DoJ and/or FTC will almost certainly decide that many of these policies are anticompetitive and initiate some sort of action to remedy the situation.

So in some sense, Apple needs to worry about becoming too successful: it is only because they haven't achieved total dominance that they can get away with being so ruthless.

Re: New iPhone Agreement Bans Flash-to-iPhone Compiler & Others

#429

Post by logic »

eru wrote: post #395
newobj wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And how could this ever be proven?

Apple just sues you, if they suspect, and the court will find out.

No, Apple rejects your app from the App Store until you can prove it's provenance.

Re: New iPhone Agreement Bans Flash-to-iPhone Compiler & Others

#430

Post by axod »

statictype wrote: post #380
axod wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they started actively censoring/blocking websites that they determine haven't written javascript by hand, then that would be theonion.com territory (And the end of their sales) :)

> then that would be theonion.com territory As opposed to where they are right now? Enforcing what higher level language you write in before it gets compiled down to machine code?

The web = open

Native apps that run directly on their hardware = closed - you play by their rules or not at all.

shrug pretty clear difference IMHO.

Post reply on HN