CCCToad on 13/6/2010 at 00:12
Apple Inc is now under investigation for (
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703509404575301242754089172.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection) Anti competitive practices.
Quote:
WASHINGTON—The U.S. Federal Trade Commission will investigate whether Apple Inc.'s business practices harm competition in the market for software used on mobile devices, people familiar with the situation said.
Its about time Apple got in some hot water for its obnoxious, oppressive, and even outright evil business practices. However, this case doesn't seem that strong, since the most solid point mentioned so far is that Apple does not allow Flash on its devices. Far more obnoxious are the things that Apple isn't in trouble for, like bricking people's phones remotely.
Aerothorn on 13/6/2010 at 01:03
This is especially ironic given what I (dimly) remember as Apple's cheering during the Microsoft anti-trust suit back in the day. Go Go FTC.
Renzatic on 13/6/2010 at 01:22
Microsoft. Apple. All bastard closed source companies. I guess Linux really is the only answer.
Oh well, I'm still saving my pennies for a Macbook Pro just so I can put Windows 7 on it.
SubJeff on 13/6/2010 at 01:51
It always amazes me, CCC, that no matter how right you are in principle you come out with stuff that just sounds so wrong. It's like saying "Yeah, Pol Pot was a bad person. He only let people eat rice noodles but not the rice itself!!". I get the impression you read about some popular opinion and then choose to support or refute it without actually understanding the facts behind it. I don't know why I get that impression, but I just do. There, I said it.
CCCToad on 13/6/2010 at 04:04
In this case, you're accurate. I simply posted it because I was curious how other people would react to it. However, I've got enough going on in my own life right now that the Apple FTC investigation doesn't rate high enough on my priorities list for me to do any research or factchecking. Waiting for the facts to come out over time is sufficient for this one.
Schechter on 13/6/2010 at 04:41
Personally, I can see Steve Jobs' point of view - trying to cover every technology only limits the resources that can be put towards those technologies that actually work. I will agree that Flash is too CPU intensive for what it actually does, and with the advent of things like H.264 and HTML5, it does look less appealing. Of course, if that was all there was to it, this would be a non-issue. When Apple has complete control over how, when, or if their devices work, and their devices have such a major influence on the market... that's a lot of power for one company, led by one megalomaniac, to be wielding.
For the time being, I'll lean towards Apple's side of things (he says, typing from his Blackbook) though I'll agree that it is frustrating that Apple continues to disallow any non-in-house development to occur on its platform.
Tonamel on 13/6/2010 at 05:31
The Flash Player thing is certainly the most public part of this fight, but I think the straw that broke the camel's back was this:
Quote:
Apple has also banned software developers from using other companies' tools to develop software for its devices.
One of Adobe's major selling points for Flash CS5 (the development environment, not to be confused with Flash Player) was that it could compile projects to the iPhone app format. Then, just a couple weeks, maybe even days, before CS5 launched, Apple changed their terms of service to say this:
Quote:
3.3.1 — Applications may only use Documented APIs in the manner prescribed by Apple and must not use or call any private APIs. Applications must be originally written in Objective-C, C, C++, or JavaScript as executed by the iPhone OS WebKit engine, and only code written in C, C++, and Objective-C may compile and directly link against the Documented APIs (e.g., Applications that link to Documented APIs through an intermediary translation or compatibility layer or tool are prohibited).
Which is to say, if you don't program in 100% C (or js, if you're making an html-based app), then you're not allowed in the app store.
Which is ridiculous.
It's blatantly aimed at Flash, which uses ActionScript, but it catches so much stuff in the crossfire. Want to use a ruby library with a C++ wapper? Too bad. Want to write in python because you know it better, then user a translator to convert it to ObjectiveC before compiling? Apparently you don't know what "originally written" means. It's insane, and Apple deserves to be called out for it.
Phatose on 13/6/2010 at 05:33
But really, Apple wouldn't be responsible for any of those costs - porting flash would be Adobe's job, not Apple's. Their ban, despite the claims, has precisely zippo to do with costs or effectiveness - you'd need a working implementation for those to even be considered. It's about controlling the platform, nothing more, nothing less.
Beyond that? Why make myself look like an idiot? Trade laws are complicated, and the justice department will decide.
Edit:
Tonamel: Here's the thing. Being a dick isn't actually against trade laws. Being anti-competitive is. Dick move? Absolutely. Anticompetitive? Not so sure.
At any rate, while I don't like Apple on the simple basis that their fans are the biggest asshats you'll find outside of the OSS community, I'm not too concerned about them. They're a cult of personality built around a man who's had a liver transplant. While I wish I owned stock, I wouldn't bet on their longevity.
Demetros on 13/6/2010 at 08:14
Quote Posted by Steve Jobs
We do believe we have a moral responsibility to keep porn' off the iPhone. Folks who want porn can buy an Android phone.
-notices the Playboy app's for the iPhone-
...Well, as you command Lord Jobs.
I wonder what will happen next.
PeeperStorm on 13/6/2010 at 17:17
I don't know if any of Apple's dickheadery rises to the level of being anticompetitive, but they've become a company that I don't want to support with my dollars anymore. They've done stupid and/or evil things in the past, but the situation seems to be getting worse as time goes on. I blame Jobs.
Disclosure: I worked there twice in the '90s, so my opinions may be biased.
Quote:
While I wish I owned stock, I wouldn't bet on their longevity.
Reminds me of The Apple Death Clock website. They predicted Apple's demise would happen "soon" for years. Eventually the site died, but Apple rolls on.
