More > Media Center 15 (Development Ended)
Open Letter to Steve Jobs -- Apple Flash Back
gvanbrunt:
I'm pretty much like Glynor, I purchased an iPhone because it was the first really usable multi use cell phone. While applications existed before it, they were not easy to use and the iPhones touch interface changed all that.
Time has moved on, and there are now real alternatives to the iPhone. I agree Android is still a bit of a gamble (and a mess of issues), but at least I won't have them changing what I'm allowed to do with my own device constantly.
Most importantly I won't have Mr. Jobs spitting in my face and then telling me he was worried my face might catch fire. I'm tired of his spin. He can make money off of others from now on. It won't be me...
JimH:
But Wait! There's more!
--- Quote ---After years of being the little guy who used Washington to fend off Goliaths like Microsoft, Apple CEO Steve Jobs is about to learn what life is like when the shoe's on the other foot.
According to a person familiar with the matter, the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission are locked in negotiations over which of the watchdogs will begin an antitrust inquiry into Apple's new policy of requiring software developers who devise applications for devices such as the iPhone and iPad to use only Apple's programming tools.
--- End quote ---
Article at the NY Post
Mr ChriZ:
--- Quote from: JimH on May 03, 2010, 10:42:27 am ---But Wait! There's more!
Article at the NY Post
--- End quote ---
Lol at the wording, "which of the watchdogs will begin an antitrust inquiry into Apple's new policy of requiring software developers"
That is quite amusing :)
glynor:
Well, this is probably a good thing. It will be pretty difficult to show monopoly status in these markets, which is the only way the government has any power to tell Apple what to do with its own business, so I'm skeptical that the feds will actually accomplish anything legally. However, the very threat of legal pressure might be enough to move Apple in a more developer-friendly direction over time. If we can get the App Store process made much more transparent, with hard-and-fast rules, appeal procedures, and everything else documented out, then that will have been a very good win. Maybe it will even keep Apple from trying to kill the MonoTouch project, which would also be a Very Good Thing.
On the other hand... An "inquiry" in DOJ and FTC parlance is not what you might think it is. The inquiry they are talking about is essentially an official process used to decide whether to open an investigation, not an investigation itself. So, what the Post reported was effectively: "The FTC and DOJ are talking to each other and trying to decide whether to try to decide to start an investigation into Apple's change in their Terms of Service." Ahhh... The Federal Government at work! What I'm afraid is that they'll spend lots of time and taxpayer money in order to pad the lawyers' balance sheets effectively issue another Sternly Worded Letter to Apple, which Apple will file in the circular file like the one they got in August from the FCC.
People like to yell "monopoly", but it is actually fairly difficult to prove monopoly status under the law, and then to prove that Apple is using that monopoly power in anti-competitive ways. It was far-from-clear that even Microsoft had monopoly power with Windows when the FTC launched their investigation of them back in the late 90's, and they were running with above 98% market share at the time. It would seem to me that there is LOTS of competition in this space right now, and by the time that the FTC or DOJ even decides whether to try to decide to do anything, there will likely be even more competing devices for sale.
Still, it could be viewed as a warning shot across Apple's bow. The DOJ/FTC could effectively say to Apple: "We don't like this, and if and when you DO take over the market, like you did with your iPod, we'll be coming for you unless you change this." And that might be worth something indeed.
glynor:
PS. If you're interested, John Gruber did a very good write-up on some of the background behind this and some of the history of why Apple doesn't want 3rd Party frameworks available on iPhone OS. Most people assume that it just because they want to maintain the App Store lockdown. I'm sure that has a LOT to do with it, but that is absolutely NOT the entire shooting match.
http://daringfireball.net/2010/04/middleware_and_section_311
It does somewhat assume you know some of the history of the OSX platform and the problems with CodeWarrior. But, suffice it to say that CodeWarrior is why Microsoft didn't ship a
"true" OSX version of Office for YEARS after it was released, and is why Adobe is only just now (10 years later) shipping a Cocoa version of Adobe Creative Suite.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version