Apples actual response to the Flash issue

Peter Alcibiades palcibiades-first at yahoo.co.uk
Sun May 2 03:59:45 EDT 2010


The article explains, in somewhat emotional and overwrought terms, why Apple
would want to there to be an  alternative to the major programs people run
on Macs, like MS Office and Photoshop.  It still does not really explain why
it rationally needs these alternatives to be developed in-house, but still.

It also gives a conjectured motivation why Apple should feel that Adobe's
IPR limits its ability to develop an in house alternative in the case of
image processing.  Yes, possibly so.  It happens in business.  When Apple
imposes such restrictions its called 'protecting our IPRs'.

What the article does not explain is Apple's apparent felt need to control
what apps its users install on their devices, what content they access on
their devices, or its apparent need to control what tools developers use.    

Its like most of the defenses of Apple's conduct:  One, the arguments fail
to defend the behaviors people find objectionable, two, if they were offered
in favor of similar conduct by any other company, they'd be indignantly
rejected.

Fortunately however the implications of the lock-in and control mania are
now hitting the MSM, so lets hope that Apple's free ride on these issues is
coming to an end.
-- 
View this message in context: http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/Apples-actual-response-to-the-Flash-issue-tp2075668p2122605.html
Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.



More information about the Use-livecode mailing list