Apple Anti-Trust (was Apples actual response to the Flash issue)

[Kay C Lan]

On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 11:21 PM, David Bovill <david.bovill at gmail.com>wrote:

>
> I think Steve Jobs underestimated developer reaction in the age of the
> internet and open source - he can't get away with the same sort of things
> quite as easily as companies could last century. I also doubt he will take
> very well to the sudden realization that he has turned from underdog
> fighting the cause of good design, to a one-man-band lock-in merchant in
> the
> eyes of quite so many young developers.
>
> RunRev needs all of this + the anti-trust threat to make sure revMobile on
> the iPhone does not fall out of this as collateral damage - the more
> pressure the more reason Apple will have to negotiate exceptions.
> Especially
> in Runrev can offer some technological features that are specific to the
> iPhone that CS5 does not offer? Google must be loving this.
>
>
> Let me start off by saying I very much hope that Rev will be able to do
it's thing on the iPhone and iPad. I also believe that there could have been
much more compromise or middle ground taken by Steve Jobs in the Flash
decision. But, I don't know all the facts. I've read another thread here
with interest about starting a RevStore and am bemused by comments about the
HyperCard days and the overwhelming number of poor quality Apps, the
enormous amount of manpower spent shifting through them, and the negative
image those Apps created. Basically some have made a Steve Jobs like
decision that a RevStore wouldn't be a good idea because so many poor
quality Rev Apps would reflect poorly on the company.

So to the article:

In forcing computer programmers to choose developing an Apple-exclusive app
> over one that can be used on Apple and rival devices simultaneously, critics
> say Apple is hampering competition since the expense involved in creating an
> app will lead developers with limited budgets to focus on one format, not
> two.
>

Sorry, but I thought that's exactly the environment the Mac has lived in
since 1984. The vast majority of developers, not just limited budget
developers, have always chosen to develop for one platform only. If this is
an Anti-Trust issue now, why hasn't it been for the last 26 years?

Shaun Meredith, a former Apple employee who runs software development
> company InfoBridge, said that as a result of Apple's rule change, some of
> his customers are choosing to finance apps that are compatible with all of
> Apple's competitors instead of those that work only with the iPhone or iPad.
>
>

Sorry, people are now choosing to develop for Apple's competitors so this is
the basis for an Anti-Trust inquiry because it's stifling competition? I
clearly don't understand something here. Yes it is unfortunate that one
option has been removed, but as far as I can tell it's a completely level
playing field. If an iPhone Developer wants to port his App to a Android
device, he'll be up against the exact same hurdles as an Android developer
deciding to port to the iPhone.

Indeed, though Apple has the most applications, it is a distant second in
> terms of operating system market share. According to comScore, RIM, which
> makes the BlackBerry, has a 42 percent share, while Apple's take is 25
> percent. Microsoft has 15 percent and Google's Android software has 9
> percent.
>

Sorry, Jobs doesn't control 95% of the market share, he isn't even ranked No
1? There even seems to be more players and a more even spread of market
share, than in the PC OS arena, so why is this a competition problem?

At this point the only line of argument I can see is "we think Steve Jobs
has shot himself in the foot with this decision, a vast majority of
developers will no longer develop for the iPhone, most Apps will be on other
mobile phone systems, Apple will go bust, therefore there will be less
competition"

To that I say, let it happen, let market forces play out, let capitalism do
it's thing. If Steve wants to make his 'walled garden' experience, where
everything is vetted by him, are made just so, and will never crash his
iPhone; then let the market, the buying public decide if he's right.

A while back I was chatting with a colleague, an avid Mac hater, Steve Jobs
despiser and committed Nokia user. He'd just bought an iPhone. Why? Because
on more than one occasion, during important business trips, his Nokia had
frozen on him leaving him very out of contact and very embarrassed. He
assumed it was due to one of the many Apps he had on the thing, but he
couldn't be bothered figuring out which one, he just needed a phone that
worked.

Once America was great because it allowed greatness to be fed by capitalism.
Now America wallows in mediocrity because bureaucracy decides which
companies will survive under Chapter 11 protection, and which ones are too
big to fail, and what the consumer gets, and.... oh, wait a minute, that's
not capitalism.