101–110 of 130 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If Microsoft had a clause saying that you had to use Visual Studio Ultimate on Windows 7, they would get demolished. But XCode is free with every copy of OSX. If the same were true for Visual Studio Ultimate, I don't think it would be an issue.
OS X isn't.
Genuine question: How are the restrictions placed by Apple on what's allowed in the App Store any different then the restrictions placed by console owners on what's published for the XBox or PS3? For example, the XBox XNA community games system requires people to use .Net - there's no technical reason for this (the XBox is clearly capable of running native code). However, Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo still seem to be allo…
Exercising control over a given market ("video games for Xbox" or "software for iPhones") in which you have a monopoly is not illegal, it's when you use your monopoly to push out competitors in different markets (such as "development tools" or "mobile advertising") that the Sherman Act prohibitions on illegal tying apply. In Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services, Inc., the Supreme Court ruled that Kodak had a…
Is it anti-competitive if Wal-Mart refuses to stock goods from a vendor who doesn't meet their quality requirements? If it were, all businesses would go out of business.
Apple isn't competing with Adobe. They are saying that they have quality standards for the ways apps are made.
It's as if Wal-Mart said to their (potential) vendors: Company X's factory equipment does not meet our quality standards. We refuse to stock goods made with Company X's factory equipment. So if you use Company X's factory equipment, we will not stock your goods.
This is hypothetical, but Wal-Mart does use its extreme leverage to get conformity of all sorts out of its supplies, including (believe it or not) by eliminating questionable agricultural production processes.
And, so far as I know, nobody has ever screamed monopoly about that.
By comparison, Apple does not keep the parts (XCode) or the instruction manuals (documentation) from their competitors. They are not withholding secrets. They do not lock them out of developing for the platform in compliant ways; they do not block them from cross-compiling to cacheable web app that can also be placed on the iPhone "desktop"; they do not stop them from loading their non-compliant apps directly, outside of the store.
They just will not stock their goods, in their store.
Now. Are there precedents of desirable retail stores being forced to carry products they don't want to?
I think an intervention would be a disaster. If Steve Jobs is right, and the progress of the platform is really slowed by cross platform toolkits, then intervention would literally slow down the progress of computing, and possibly set a precedent that slows progress indefinitely. If by being right, Apple ends up in a more dominant position, that won't prevent Google and Microsoft from altering their own strategies to…
A) He's right and forcing them to allow frameworks will slow computing as a whole B) He's wrong and cool apps will start to appear on all the competing platforms
There's also, just as one example:
C) He's wrong but large numbers of cool apps will not start to appear only on competing platforms (perhaps because the app markets on all those platforms combined are dwarfed by Apple's App Store)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having a monopoly is not a requirement, all it takes is anti-competitive behaviour and the restriction of free trade.
I don't understand how they are being anti-competitive. They control the entire stack from hardware to software. The fact that you can write any software for their platforms is more of a privilege than a right.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The distinction Apple is making is thus: A "bad" behavior written into an app by hand may break on a new update, but it affects only itself. A "bad" behavior written into middleware may break on a new update, and may take out dozens, hundreds or perhaps thousands of apps. No-one would expect Apple to take special pains to avoid breaking a handful of random apps in the app store. But if some middleware bug effected th…
Wouldn't that apply to C/C++/Objective C libraries as well? Let's say everybody is using some popular Objective C library from github and it has a bug with a new iPhone OS. Apple would then be in a position of getting that library patched and getting potentially hundreds of apps to update to the latest version of the library. Should Apple outlaw 3rd-party Objective C libraries as well?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Neither is Windows.
Couldn't you concievably develop with Mono, though?
My point is that comparing a Visual Studio Ultimate requirement to an XCode requirement is misrepresenting the weight of the XCode requirement. XCode is free and included with every copy of OSX, while Visual Studio Ultimate will set you back $3,800 (the cost of a well equipped Mac Pro). Requiring VS Ultimate would no doubt cause angry mobs to storm One Microsoft Way, but it is not a fair comparison by any means.
A more realistic comparison is that if Zune/XBox development required Visual Studio Express[1], which is a free download. And really, I can't imagine there being much backlash out of that. I wouldn't be surprised if it was currently the case.
[1] That's still a bit off since there is no up-sell from XCode, but for the sake of argument, say they are equivalent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OS X isn't.
OS X is less expensive than Visual Studio, in fact you could probably get the operating system and a mac mini to go along with it for less than Visual Studio Ultimate...
And then you need Apple to censor your app (since they obviously know better than anyone what people should be allowed to buy).
And even after all that, Apple are using all of these, to kill Adobe (because that's what it's all about, since adobe is a competitor to Apple). Remember, when Aperture was first released, people were much more impressed with Lightroom, and Adobe hasn't lost much traction.
Anyway, Apple are treating developers like crap. Even if this is only a rumor, it is only a matter of time until antitrust trials get underway (for any number of things). In fact, I'm surprised they didn't happen sooner for the iPod's (which surprise surprise, use protocols to limit them to Apple's own software, which doesn't allow foreign music stores to be integrated).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If Microsoft had a clause saying that you had to use Visual Studio Ultimate on Windows 7, they would get demolished. But XCode is free with every copy of OSX. If the same were true for Visual Studio Ultimate, I don't think it would be an issue.
OS X isn't.
I think an intervention would be a disaster. If Steve Jobs is right, and the progress of the platform is really slowed by cross platform toolkits, then intervention would literally slow down the progress of computing, and possibly set a precedent that slows progress indefinitely. If by being right, Apple ends up in a more dominant position, that won't prevent Google and Microsoft from altering their own strategies to…
Your comment is an example of a false dichotomy. We do not have precisely two options: A) He's right and forcing them to allow frameworks will slow computing as a whole B) He's wrong and cool apps will start to appear on all the competing platforms There's also, just as one example: C) He's wrong but large numbers of cool apps will not start to appear only on competing platforms (perhaps because the app markets on al…
I think an intervention would be a disaster. If Steve Jobs is right, and the progress of the platform is really slowed by cross platform toolkits, then intervention would literally slow down the progress of computing, and possibly set a precedent that slows progress indefinitely. If by being right, Apple ends up in a more dominant position, that won't prevent Google and Microsoft from altering their own strategies to…
Your comment is an example of a false dichotomy. We do not have precisely two options: A) He's right and forcing them to allow frameworks will slow computing as a whole B) He's wrong and cool apps will start to appear on all the competing platforms There's also, just as one example: C) He's wrong but large numbers of cool apps will not start to appear only on competing platforms (perhaps because the app markets on al…
Both Google and Adobe seem to be saying that they are happy to compete with Apple, and that their approach is better, and there is no shortage of prognosticators who say that Apple's strategy will fail independently of intervention.