Between the Lines

Larry Dignan, Andrew Nusca and Rachel King
Home / News & Blogs / Between the Lines

Apple in antitrust crosshairs? If so, Jobs' Flash rant makes more sense

By | May 3, 2010, 5:36am PDT

Summary: The Feds are reportedly poking around on Apple’s requirement that software developers only use its—or neutral—programming tools. Perhaps Steve Jobs’ Thoughts on Flash missive was geared toward regulators.

The Feds are reportedly poking around on Apple’s requirement that software developers only use its—or neutral—programming tools.

The New York Post reports that the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission are pondering an antitrust inquiry into Apple’s Section 3.3.1 in its iPhone 4.0 software developer kit license agreement.

Here’s the section, which is largely viewed as the no Adobe Flash allowed part:

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).

Now the Feds may just poke around on the section and decide not to pursue an antitrust complaint. These inquiries are started to find out if there needs to be an antitrust suit. However, it’s possible that either the DOJ or FTC will pursue something.

Although the Post’s track record isn’t exactly perfect—the paper is citing on unnamed source—an antitrust move does add up. Ever since Apple CEO Steve Jobs penned his Thoughts on Flash missive, which panned Adobe’s software, noted a bevy of problems like stability and security and outlined why the iPhone and iPad don’t support Flash, there has been a nagging question in my mind. That question can be summed up in one word: Why?

Why would Jobs post his Flash thoughts? Were developers whining about section 3.3.1? Was Adobe winning a PR offensive by saying Apple wasn’t open? Could Adobe show damages? Why does Jobs have to make the case against Flash now?

Assuming the Post is correct, then Jobs’ Flash rant makes a lot more sense. Jobs’ blog post about Flash was really geared to regulators. His Flash rant outlines the reason Adobe’s software is limited—a few of those points are hard to argue—and lays out Apple’s rationale for section 3.3.1. In other words, Jobs is laying out the case for the Feds.

Related:

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

More from “Between the Lines”

Topics

Software, Job, Steve Jobs, Antitrust, Apple Inc., Feds, Flash, Corporate Law, Security, Business Operations, Larry Dignan

Larry Dignan is Editor in Chief of ZDNet and SmartPlanet as well as Editorial Director of ZDNet's sister site TechRepublic.

Disclosure

Larry Dignan

Larry Dignan has nothing to disclose. He doesn’t hold investments in the technology companies he covers.

Biography

Larry Dignan

Larry Dignan is Editor in Chief of ZDNet and SmartPlanet as well as Editorial Director of ZDNet's sister site TechRepublic. He was most recently Executive Editor of News and Blogs at ZDNet. Prior to that he was executive news editor at eWeek and news editor at Baseline. He also served as the East Coast news editor and finance editor at CNET News.com. Larry has covered the technology and financial services industry since 1995, publishing articles in WallStreetWeek.com, Inter@ctive Week, The New York Times, and Financial Planning magazine. He's a graduate of the Columbia School of Journalism and the University of Delaware.

For daily updates, follow Larry on Twitter.

Related Discussions on TechRepublic

Did you know you can take part in these discussions with your ZDNet membership?
Ask a Question Start a Discussion
146
Comments
Add Your Opinion

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: Apple in antitrust crosshairs? If so, Jobs' Flash rant makes more sense
yarinsiz Updated - 11th May 2011
Great!!! thanks for sharing this information to us !
seslisohbet seslichat
View in thread
0 Votes
+ -
Hardly a rant
Fred Fredrickson 3rd May 2010
Jobs' explanation is not a rant, his language is quite
reasonable. You may not agree with his point of view, but his
arguments are quite strong. Three in particular are solid:

1. The pervasive use of rollovers in Flash applets means they'll
need to be rewritten to support touch devices, it's not simply a
matter of putting Flash support into phones.

2. Decoding Flash encoded video is very expensive in resource
and battery terms, much better to use plain H.264

3. Flash creates a layer between the OS and user that Apple
would rather not allow another proprietary company to control.
MS is able to screw PC OEMs because they depend on Windows
to show their hardware's qualities. Apple doesn't want users to
be dependent on Adobe implementing new features that might
have been available in the OS for some time.

These are very good arguments, well supported by the fact that
not one smartphone currently has Flash support. Perhaps Jobs'
words will prompt Microsoft to expedite Flash on its mobile
platform, but I suspect not - MS likely has exactly the same
misgivings as Apple.

Adobe promised in February 2009 that Flash would be in most
smartphones by early this year[1]. Apparently it will be in
Android 2.2 in June[2], and maybe Windows Phone 7 by the end
of the year[3].

I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens, but I
suspect it will be restricted to advertisements and banners for
some time.

1. http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13970_7-10164745-78.html
2. http://thesmartphonehub.com/smartphone-hub/it?s-
official-adobe-flash-support-will-be-built-into-android-2-2/
3. http://www.mobilecrunch.com/2010/02/25/adobe-flash-
10-1-holds-out-for-windows-phone-7-6-5-devices-can-
haz-upgrade-to-wp7/

--
FF
0 Votes
+ -
Excuse you?
JT82 3rd May 2010
"These are very good arguments, well supported by the fact that
not one smartphone currently has Flash support."

The Droid Incredible currently supports Flash Lite 4 AND all Android 2.x devices have the ability to install the Skyfire browser which will play flash based videos. Then as you said, in June we should see Android 2.2 with Flash 10.1.
0 Votes
+ -
Yes, Excuse...
john@... 3rd May 2010
"HTC Droid Incredible does support Adobe Flash Player, but unfortunately
it uses Flash Lite 4.0 rather than the newer Flash Player 10.1! The Flash
Player lite is buggy, and only displays some Flash, not all. HTC has not
announced whether or not HTC or Adobe plan on releasing a Flash Player
10.1 plugin for the HTC Droid Incredible."

So it does not at present support flash. Like what he said.
0 Votes
+ -
Bottom line is....
JT82 3rd May 2010
no matter how you slice it, there IS flash support in the Android eco-system whereas Lord Jobs has cast it out to exile forever. Sure right now its very limited, may even be "buggy" (though there are no reports of such on the Droid Incredible that I have seen). We can argue sementics all day but at the end of the day you can view SOME flash content on an Incredible whereas you wont on an iDont, er iPhone.
0 Votes
+ -
Flash Lite is not Flash
Ted T. 3rd May 2010
If Flash Lite meant anything, Adobe wouldn't be going nuts trying to
finally, after years of empty promises, finish Flash 10.1.

So, no, your precious Droid doesn't have Flash on it until Flash 10.1 is
released and you install it, assuming it is compatible with you
phone/OS.

Flash, thank goodness is already dead anyway. I spent some time
surfing blogs with lots of embedded video yesterday and all of the
videos, from sites like YouTube, Vimeo, Daily Motion, etc. played
beautifully in full screen mode on the iPad. No fans, no egg frying heat,
no battery drain. Welcome to HTML5.
0 Votes
+ -
the problem is...
john@... 3rd May 2010
a light buggy flash is precisely what jobs is trying to keep off the phone.
A broken watch although right twice a day is still broken.
0 Votes
+ -
... and the question is...
jpdemers@... 3rd May 2010
IF Adobe had gotten Flash 10.1 out the door in time, and IF it worked smoothly on the iPad without sucking the batteries dry and/or roasting the CPU, would Apple have released the iPad with Flash support?

We'll never know. Might be fun to ask Jobs, but my money is on something like "I'm not going to answer hyopthetical questions about situations that never occurred."

In any event, Adobe being late to the party gave Apple plenty of reasons, and/or excuses, to omit Flash from the first-generation iPad.

Adobe is just too slow, or maybe Flash is just too damned hairy, to keep up with Apple's relentless product development. If I were H-P, I'd be worried about the first-generation Slate having to face off against a second-generation iPad (running OS4, no less.)
0 Votes
+ -
Even on pads
Partners in Grime 3rd May 2010
how is Flash working out for JooJoo?
0 Votes
+ -
Jobs is BSing
honeymonster 3rd May 2010
? 1. The pervasive use of rollovers in Flash
applets means they'll need to be rewritten to
support touch devices, it's not simply a matter
of putting Flash support into phones. ?

Really? A lot of Flash applets do not use
rollover effects. Some of those that do work
perfectly fine even if they cannot sense the
rollover. And yes, some Flash applets do rely
on a mouse being hovered. But so do many
websites based on CSS and Jobs? beloved
HTML. You don?t even need JavaScript to create
a dependency on mouse hovering. So Jobs?
position is really a strawman: The issue is
most of the web is designed with mouse
hovering in mind. This is orthogonal to Flash.

? 2. Decoding Flash encoded video is very
expensive in resource and battery terms, much
better to use plain H.264 ?

Again, strawman argument. Flash video is also
based on H.264. If Safari is using hardware
acceleration to decode the video stream it may
be lighter on cpu/battery right now . But
this is a minor technical issue which
BTW is solved with Flash 10.1. Banning Flash
based on this argument is clearly the result of
desperately looking for a reason. All Jobs had
to do was to call Adobe and ask when they would
be ready to take advantage of hardware support.

? 3. Flash creates a layer between the OS and
user that Apple would rather not allow another
proprietary company to control. MS is able to
screw PC OEMs because they depend on Windows to
show their hardware's qualities. Apple doesn't
want users to be dependent on Adobe
implementing new features that might have been
available in the OS for some time. ?

Nobody forces developers to use Flash.
The argument that this creates a ?layer? is ?
again ? simply not true. If it benefits
developers they will use it. If they cannot
create the applications they want using Flash
they will use something else. If Jobs are so
concerned about the quality of apps,
Apple could just set standard requirements for
apps. Hell, the current (arbitrary) approval
process could easily be used to reject sub-
standard apps.

----

Jobs does not have a point whatsoever. The
banning of Flash and other cross platform
techs is so obviously a business decision
designed to protect the app store from
competition.
0 Votes
+ -
True, but...
dmclean@... 3rd May 2010
"Nobody forces developers to use Flash."

This may be true - unfortunately, USERS get no choice but to use whatever crap the developers foist on them. As a user I say good riddance to Flash. As a proponent of open standards I say good riddance to flash.
0 Votes
+ -
Do you NOT see the supreme irony in your post?
Wolfie2K3 3rd May 2010
BAHAHAHAHAHA!

It DOESN'T really matter WHAT technology a developer uses - open or proprietary! You're STILL stuck with whatever they've 'foisted' on YOU.

As a user I say good riddance to Flash. As a proponent of open standards I say good riddance to flash.

You say you support 'open standards' and yet, we're talking about the iP/P/P here - which is THE most proprietary platforms. Ever.

Gotta love them double standards...
0 Votes
+ -
Do you NOT see the supreme ignornace in your post?
NaderBelaid 3rd May 2010
Open Standards has nothing to do with platforms being open or closed. They are both different.

Flash is trying to be part of the Web standards and its closed proprietary.

iPhone is closed Platform & its something totally different then the Web Open Standards.

Compare Apples with Apples.
0 Votes
+ -
Not really BSing
MacCanuck Updated - 3rd May 2010
>>> Jobs does not have a point whatsoever. The
banning of Flash and other cross platform
techs is so obviously a business decision
designed to protect the app store from
competition. >>>

Certainly it's a business decision, what isn't, and not just about the App Store but future Apple products.

Why should Apple (or any company) be reliant on a 3rd party to control it's own product development?

As per Abobe (products) and OS X, Mac users have often had to wait for features found in similar Windows Adobe apps or not have them at all. Why should Apple be held back and have to wait for Adobe to get it's butt in gear if Apple wants to introduce a product or feature but is reliant on Adobe?

Why be prevented or stifled from introducing a "new/innovative" feature that sets your product apart from competitors because you have to rely on Adobe's cross-platform strategy or creating for the lowest common denominator amongst platforms?

(one of Job's Flash points... "It is not Adobe's goal to help developers write the best iPhone, iPod and iPad apps. It is their goal to help developers write cross platform apps. And Adobe has been painfully slow to adopt enhancements to Apple's platforms.")

Apple wants to control it's own destiny (product development) and not have to rely on Adobe's timeline or agenda or "laziness" (write once and "fudge it" to work cross-platform).

One reason Apple is often ahead of the competition and creates something better and "different".
0 Votes
+ -
However...
john@... 3rd May 2010
"Again, strawman argument. Flash video is also based on H.264. If Safari
is using hardware acceleration to decode the video stream it may be
lighter on cpu/battery right now."

If you wrap H264 in Flash you don't access the hardware acceleration. So
not a strawman argument at all.
0 Votes
+ -
Oh yes, Flash 10.1 will feature hw acceleration
honeymonster 3rd May 2010
So this is nothing but a lame excuse for
artificially using the iPhone market share to
fence off competition.
0 Votes
+ -
HW acceleration = RESOURCE HOG
wackoae 3rd May 2010
Guess what? Unless you have a dedicated chip for Flash, hardware acceleration means using more CPU cycles than before.

In other words it will still be a resource hog.
0 Votes
+ -
But wait ...
mwagner@... 3rd May 2010
You said ...

"These are very good arguments, well supported by the fact that
not one smartphone currently has Flash support."

This may be true but the reality is that Apple is trying to sell the iPad not as a smartphone replacement but as a netbook replacement. What it is is an over-sized iPod Touch.

If it cannot do everything that a notebook can do, it cannot replace a road warrior's notebook/netbook. It doesn't support voice so it doesn't even replace the iPhone.

Jobs cannot have it both ways. Either it is a tool or it is a toy. If it is a tool, it needs to do everything the tool it is intended to replace does. Otherwise, it is a toy - just the the iPod Touch, but bigger.
0 Votes
+ -
Yet more misinformation
Ted T. 3rd May 2010
"It doesn't support voice so it doesn't even replace the iPhone."
The iPad most certainly does support voice -- Skype works on it just
fine. It of course is not intended to replace your cell phone due it its
size.

But anyone whose actually used both a NetBook and iPad can tell you
the iPad does way more than a NetBook, and Flash isn't missed one bit -
- it works fine with every major video site except Hulu and they are
hard at work on an iPad app. If you have used ABC or Netflix on the
iPad you'll know there is much to look forward to. As it stands the main
thing not having Flash on it does is act like a bonus ad blocker.
0 Votes
+ -
Point Is...
bowened 3rd May 2010
That if you can't go to sites developed in Flash, of which there are many, you can't call this a tool...

Apple IS antitrust...they control hardware, software, and now content. Apple is the EXACT OPPOSITE of "open".

I would think that people who rant about open standards would realize this and see that Jobs is a hypocrite that only seeks to control everything. Good business model for a company, not very good for consumers.
0 Votes
+ -
7% market share warrants antitrust?
sunergeos Updated - 3rd May 2010
To be labeled "antitrust" and have a case against you succeed, you have to have control over a large portion of the market share and show the ability to block entrance into that market. Think IE on the desktop of MS Windows and not allowing any other browser to work on it. You're barking up the wrong tree.
0 Votes
+ -
And when...
rapson 3rd May 2010
...did any other browser not work on Windows? Microsoft's anti-trust problems were related to pressure on OEMs, not the browser; as I recall, the browser issue was dropped (in the U.S., at least). Other browsers have always worked in Windows, in both the U.S. and the E.U.

Carl Rapson
0 Votes
+ -
No! Think iphone and ipad and not allowing...
windozefreak 3rd May 2010
other developers to add apps except those apple dictate. Apple has about 60% of iphone market and 100% ipad market. Thus, fits the realms of anti-trust.
0 Votes
+ -
Who owns the other 40% of the iPhone market???
wackoae 3rd May 2010
Come one dude!! Stop pulling stuff out of your rear end.
0 Votes
+ -
Antitrust != Monopoly
slaing0d 3rd May 2010
Antitrust laws are more generally called competition laws.

From Wikipedia:
"Competition law, known in the United States as antitrust law, are laws that promote or maintain market competition by regulating anti-competitive conduct."

One of the main goals of competition law is
"banning abusive behavior by a firm dominating a market, or anti-competitive practices that tend to lead to such a dominant position. Practices controlled in this way may include predatory pricing, tying, price gouging, refusal to deal, and many others."

I could imagine how the SDK decision could be construed as violating the spirit of competition along the lines of 'refusal to deal', or anti-competitive practices that might lead to a market dominating position in 'Apps'.
0 Votes
+ -
Oy.. the FUD! the FUD!
Wolfie2K3 3rd May 2010
But anyone whose actually used both a NetBook and iPad can tell you the iPad does way more than a NetBook, and Flash isn't missed one bit...

Uh.. Right. So what you're saying here is that a netbook running Windows (any flavor) is LESS capable of doing things than an iPad...?

What the heck have you been smoking? Seriously. You say there's 180,000 odd apps in the apps store.

Big fat hairy deal... There are MILLIONS of Windows apps out there - and precious few of them won't run right on a netbook. The ones that won't run well would be limited to things like CAD apps that really would be best run on a BIG screen. And even those executables would likely run properly.
0 Votes
+ -
Needs to?
jpdemers@... 3rd May 2010
"If it is a tool, it needs to do everything the tool it is intended to replace does."

I don't think antitrust law tells Apple what the iPad "needs" to do. It does what Apple wants it to do. Customers will buy it if it does what THEY need it to do. (One million so far, and counting.)

If you "need" Flash, buy a laptop or netbook. You can even buy one with the keyboard left off, if you need to look sort of cool.
0 Votes
+ -
"Undocumented and private APIs"...
Scubajrr 3rd May 2010
Undocumented and private APIs. Leveraging it's position to force the use of specified development platform tools. Blocking specific software protocols. Does any of this sound familiar? These claims were exactly what was levied against Microsoft in the 90s and everyone was screaming Big Bad MS was using unfair tactics to stifle any competition.
0 Votes
+ -
Those are prohibited
yoshipod 3rd May 2010
That is the point, Apple prohibits linking and using private and
undocumented APIs.

Microsoft was accused of doing the reverse. Developing APIs and not
disclosing them to their competition. My guess is Apple does this as
well, however, it would seem that they eventually release those APIs for
all to use.
0 Votes
+ -
Undocumented API's are dangerous to use ...
de-void-21165590650301806002836337787023 3rd May 2010
... not least because they're likley to change or even disappear at any moment.

API's are usually undocumented for good reason: they may be untested for user scenarios, they may be implementation-specific necessities to, for example, allow test mechanisms to work correctly, etc.

If you try to be clever and make use of undocumented API's then you're highly likely to get broken in the future.

Vista removed a large number of previously undocumented API's which caused a large number of apps to fail. MS chose to do this to reduce the likelihood that malware could attack a user's machine or the apps running on it via undocumented API's.
0 Votes
+ -
That doesn't sound right...
Wolfie2K3 3rd May 2010
Vista removed a large number of previously undocumented API's which caused a large number of apps to fail. MS chose to do this to reduce the likelihood that malware could attack a user's machine or the apps running on it via undocumented API's.

That makes NO sense whatsoever...

The cause for application failure on Vista for the most part had little to do with undocumented APIs.

In fact, it was the opposite. Most apps that failed to work on Vista failed because the developers were using API calls that were well documented, but were NOT classified as "best practices". Stuff like Intuit Quickbooks 2005 and earlier using the registry (of all things) to pass information to its various modules. Things Microsoft told everybody was a bad way of doing things way back in 2001 when XP was released.

In XP Microsoft told devlopers what was acceptable programming practices and under Vista they enforced them.

The APIs are still there, but they're fenced in by UAC. You can't write to the registry willy nilly any more unless you're installing something - and that requires UAC approval.
0 Votes
+ -
Go speak to Symantec, DaemonTools, Slysoft and others ...
de-void-21165590650301806002836337787023 4th May 2010
... who had to significantly re-work their anti-malware software and virtual-CD/DVD mounting tools because MS removed several API's in Vista that they'd previously been hooking to gain access to Windows' kernel's internal workings.

I am WELL versed in the reasons most apps failed on Vista (read some of my prior posts on this matter), but MANY apps broke because undocumented API's that had remained in Windows for many years were yanked in Vista.

BTW - you CAN write willy-nilly to the registry if you're elevated AND you have sufficient security rights. You don't HAVE to be an installer to do so.
0 Votes
+ -
Again, it's about market share
sunergeos 3rd May 2010
But they had 97% of the market share and they were controlling (read: blocking) entrance into the market through manipulation of their software licenses and APIs. That's why they had to change their license and why the EU still has them over a barrel. Don't just read the headlines, take a look at the new stories themselves and get the details.
0 Votes
+ -
Undocumented = subject to change without warning
wackoae Updated - 3rd May 2010
Undocumented APIs mean not for normal usage and subject to change without warning.

Private APIs means supporting functionality for public APIs. They are also subject to change without warning.

So, why in the world would any decent developer ever relied on either for their project?
0 Votes
+ -
There is no case for antitrust violation
jameskatt 3rd May 2010
The fact that the Droid Incredible supports Flash Lite means
that Apple isn't forcing anyone to avoid using Flash on any
other platform. Flash has a market where it can be sold.

In fact, if one considers the iPhone as a computer, then the
case for an antitrust violation is even weaker. After all, Flash
is on over 90% of computers.
0 Votes
+ -
Apple has 90%+ of the market for mobile apps
honeymonster 3rd May 2010
That is ample reason for probing possible
antitrust violation.

Especially when Apple engages in
practices where they will increase the cost for
offering the same app on multiple platforms.

If a developer - because of Apples requirements
- needs to develop the app twice - once for
iPhone OS and once other platforms the
developer may very well chose to just produce
it once. And which market will he go after, the
90% or the 10%? Doh.
0 Votes
+ -
I just don't see it
HollywoodDog 3rd May 2010
Your thesis rests on the idea that "mobile
apps" are a separate business which Apple
dominates. But that's only the case because
very recently Apple invented the market by
creating the iPhone.
If we followed your logic, every company who
invents a new distinctly unique product is a
monopolist in that product.
If I invented a new kind of boat and required
that the boat only work with oars I
manufacture, you would accuse me of being a
monopolist in that boat, and the requirement an
unlawful restraint of trade or something.
Why don't you just go build your own phone and
quit the whining?
0 Votes
+ -
its not illegal to ba a monopoly. ..
JT82 3rd May 2010
What is illegal is to abuse that power and by launching the assault on
adobe flash (which merits are sketchy at best) gives the impression
(which is all that matters) that apple is abusing that power and strong
arming the market - a case could be more than valid, or at least worth
investigating.
0 Votes
+ -
It is not so much an assault on Flash as ...
mwagner@... 3rd May 2010
... it is an assualt on any independent software developer (ISV) who wishes to compete with Apple to develop a better iPhone application using third-party tools.

Apple doesn't want such products on the market becasue these products compete with the Apple's own App-store.

That's from where the abuse of Apple's monopoly status comes.
0 Votes
+ -
Apple does not have a monopoly
HollywoodDog 3rd May 2010
The market share of the iPhone, among
smartphone handsets, is what, 19%? I have not
checked lately. Or is it 25%?
It would be impossible to convince me that
Apple has a monopoly in smartphones, until you
get up in to the 90% bracket.
If the other smartphone makers do not run an
app store program, or run a different program,
or wish to deliver all apps themselves and not
let third parties do it, they have the prerogative.
Just because Apple has gone the app store route
they have gone, and because it has proven
popular, does not make them a monopoly.
If they aren't a monopoly, they have no power
to abuse it because it does not exist.
0 Votes
+ -
Exactly
Tigertank 3rd May 2010
So many people in their zeal to defame Apple don't stop to think through
the logic of what they're saying.

Nothing is preventing other Smartphone makers from opening their own
App stores. And if developers are really inconvenienced by Apples
development requirements then why not develop for the vast majority of
of phones, whose market is not saturated like Apple's?

Apple's actions may hurt themselves in the long run, but certainly
don't indicate an abuse of monopoly power.
0 Votes
+ -
Apple isn't stopping anyone from writing apps on other platforms
jameskatt 3rd May 2010
There is no antitrust case since Apple isn't stopping anyone from writing
apps on any other platform.
0 Votes
+ -
well then by your logic...
JT82 3rd May 2010
Microsoft is free from anti-trust regulation because they aren't locking
browsers out and certainly not stopping others from writing a browser
for their platform. Double standard much?
0 Votes
+ -
Wrong.
jaypeg 3rd May 2010
Microsoft licenses it's OS broadly to a harem of OEMs. The license, in
effect, makes the promise to the OEMs that the OS and platform will
remain 'open' to all developers and device manufactures. Apple has
always remained closed. They don't owe a living to anyone. This has
always been the essential difference between Apple and MS, and many
people like yourself fail to see it. Apple is a closed, vertical silo of
proprietary products and services which invites the participation of
developers only under a Terms of Service Agreement and while it
remains as such, it will never be an abusive monopoly.

Not accepting Flash into their vertical silo is a calculated risk on
Apple's part. It could very well hurt Apple themselves. There's nothing
anti-competitive about it. In fact, it is quickly scooped up as a
competitive advantage by the Android crowd.

Maybe Adobe will want to sue Apple for publicly slandering their
product, but the burden will be upon them to prove that what Jobs
said was untrue.
0 Votes
+ -
Same standard, new facts.
jpdemers@... 3rd May 2010
"Microsoft is free from anti-trust regulation because they aren't locking browsers out and certainly not stopping others from writing a browser for their platform."

Not any more, they're not.
0 Votes
+ -
You are wrong...
Tholian_53 3rd May 2010
Any application written for the app store cannot be used outside of the app store according to Apple Almighty's secret writ to app developers which they were not allowed to reveal to anybody.
0 Votes
+ -
antitrust
dpt308 3rd May 2010
Apple is stopping anyone from running fash on any of their portable devices. when microsoft tried to keep everyone running internet explorer and tried to squeeze out the compition. they were hit with antitrust. so what makes apple different. apple is telling you that you cannot use flash at all. thats not wright.they are trying to squeeze out the compition.and if they are not they still do not have the right to tell you what to use.
0 Votes
+ -
It's worse...
DevStar 3rd May 2010
If it were just using Flash, I think that would be fine. They don't have a monopoly on mobile devices. But they have a monopoly on mobile app distribution. And I think they crossed the line when they said, "We don't care about the content of what you submit, but we care about you built it." That is if two people happen to submit the exact same application (bit for bit) and one was built with XCode and the other with Adobe's CS5 then they'd reject the Adobe based app outright.

It could the best app ever written. It could use no battery (in fact give your phone more battery life), have great perf, and be the funnest game ever. Apple doesn't care. They care about how the app was built.

It's a form of anti-competitiveness that I've never seen, and quite frankly probably one of the most spiteful acts against developers I've ever seen.
0 Votes
+ -
Forcing developers to choose
John Zern Updated - 3rd May 2010
writing code between an App store with millions apon millions apon millions of users (iPod and iPhone), or an App store with millions of users (Android)

Yeah, if I only had the resources to write for one, I'd have to choose the store with the largest amount of users to get my ROI back.
0 Votes
+ -
Poor developers.. they're like crippled orphans..
Tigertank 3rd May 2010
Give me a break...

Apple's App store is number one because they did it first. Everyone is
playing catchup, but they are catching up. Droid has over 40,000 Apps
and it is growing every day.

Apple's App store may enjoy more downloads, but it is also super
saturated with multiple- sometimes dozens of Apps with the same
function. There is a huge competitive advantage to making your
development business thrive outside of the Apple Eco system.
0 Votes
+ -
"so what makes apple different."
jpdemers@... 3rd May 2010
Only the difference between 20% and 90%.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Apple in antitrust crosshairs? If so, Jobs' Flash rant makes more sense
yarinsiz Updated - 11th May 2011
Great!!! thanks for sharing this information to us !
seslisohbet seslichat

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

Blog Roll

Blog Archive

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix