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

Michael Kann mikekann at
Tue May 4 11:06:44 EDT 2010


Did you catch the misleading use of logic in Steve's anti-Flash explanation? He outlined a scenario whereby third-party developers would become dependent on Flash, thereby causing problems when Apple innovated faster than Adobe.

But think it through. The only reason that third-party developers would become dependent on Flash would be if they could sell enough of their products to make it worthwhile. That dependency only means that people want to buy products made with Flash (or RunRev).

If it were true that the products where somehow inferior then the consumers would figure it out and the developers would soon switch over also.  So the quality protection explanation is completely bogus. (Which you already know I'm sure).



--- On Tue, 5/4/10, Richard Gaskin <ambassador at> wrote:

> From: Richard Gaskin <ambassador at>
> Subject: Re: Apple Anti-Trust (was Apples actual response to the Flash issue)
> To: "How to use Revolution" <use-revolution at>
> Date: Tuesday, May 4, 2010, 9:56 AM
> Kay C Lan wrote:
> > To that I say, let it happen, let market forces play
> out, let capitalism do
> > it's thing.
> Amen.  I can't help but wonder if underlying all of
> this may be that Steve Jobs doesn't have faith in Apple's
> ability to deliver an unquestionably superior experience.
> He writes about how multi-platforms apps -- such as the
> ones we Rev folks make for the desktop -- lower the quality
> of the user experience.
> If that were the case to any degree that mattered, people
> simply wouldn't buy our apps, and would instead choose a
> truly native alternative.
> But in practice I see two factors that support using a
> "middleware" engine like Rev:
> 1. The quality difference is not significant enough to
> matter to users.
>    My Rev-based app got a 4.5-out-of-5
> review at not just any mag,
>    but MacWorld, where the reviewer,
> editorial director Jason Snell,
>    knows a thing or two about Mac UI
> conventions.  His review
>    never mentioned that the text in my tab
> controls is one pixel
>    lower than spec.  Instead, he lauded
> its efficiency and ease
>    of use.
>    The language doesn't make the software,
> the developers does.
>    You can make sloppy apps in Objective-C,
> and you can be
>    diligent with Rev.
> 2. In many cases, our is the only Mac offering available.
>    Many of the apps I make for my clients do
> not have Mac-native
>    competitors.  Instead, our
> competitors tell their Mac customers
>    to run their Windows apps under Parallels
> or Bootcamp.  Few
>    Windows developers bother to port to Mac
> -- why double
>    development costs only to gain an extra
> 10% market potential?
>    If we weren't able to keep our costs down
> by using a single code
>    base to deliver to all three platforms,
> we probably wouldn't
>    deliver for OS X at all, since we make
> four to eight times as
>    much money from our Windows customers.
>    But thanks to cross-platform tools like
> Rev, it's affordable
>    to deliver for the Mac audience, and even
> on our worst day our
>    UX better conforms to the Mac HIG that
> running a Win app under
>    emulation. :)
>    If we were prevented from using Rev for
> OS X, OS X simply wouldn't
>    have some software categories addressed
> at all.
>    Today this may not seem relevant on the
> iPhone OS with its
>    200,000 apps, but over time I think it'll
> start to become
>    noticeable, esp. in vertical categories
> such as those most
>    Rev developers make.
> If Steve Jobs believes that Apple can deliver an
> unquestionably superior user experience, one that matters
> enough to drive sales, why not let cross-platform tools
> continue to address vertical needs for iPhone OS as they do
> for OS X?
> Is he afraid that he'll see on the iPhone what we've all
> been seeing on the desktop for years, that it really doesn't
> matter to end-users what language is used to make an app as
> long as it enhances their workflow?
> Is he afraid that Apple won't be able to offer sufficiently
> compelling differentiation unless he locks developers into
> making apps for iPhone OS exclusively by arbitrarily raising
> their development costs to the point that they have to
> choose between iPhone or the rest of the world?
> I agree with your statement:
> Let the market decide if Rev apps are worthwhile.
> One significant irony in all of this is that Apple already
> allows one universal scripting language to be used to make
> app bundles for iPhone OS, with access to the accelerometer,
> GPS, multitouch, and other features common among modern
> mobile devices:  JavaScript, via WebKit.
> With JavaScript you can use a single code base to deliver
> apps to multiple mobile OSes, and you could even make them
> as ugly as you like, and they'll be fully compliant with the
> new license terms.
> If they allow that scripting language, why not also Rev?
> --
>  Richard Gaskin
>  Fourth World
>  Rev training and consulting:
>  Webzine for Rev developers:
>  revJournal blog:
> _______________________________________________
> use-revolution mailing list
> use-revolution at
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage
> your subscription preferences:


More information about the Use-livecode mailing list