[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

iTunes yes, but more seriously FCP is still Carbon

There is quick and dirty Carbon, and well done Carbon. For the most part they are hard to tell apart if done right. In the last 10 years when their main product is the creative suite you'd think they be scared of competition and work hard to make it as best they can. Problem is there is no real competition so why try.

Just like after IE won over netscape IE didn't get updated at all for years until firefox proved a threat.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

There is quick and dirty Carbon, and well done Carbon. For the most part they are hard to tell apart if done right. In the last 10 years when their main product is the creative suite you'd think they be scared of competition and work hard to make it as best they can. Problem is there is no real competition so why try.

Just like after IE won over netscape IE didn't get updated at all for years until firefox proved a threat.

True, but also there are two kinds of Carbon apps: those who support 32-bit memory addressing and those that support... oh yeah!

Which is why a 32-bit FCP (because it is Carbon) is a serious thing, well written as it undoubtably is. It is limited to 4 GB RAM. A 32-bit iTunes isn't so sad.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

So... about that flash. Those are some pretty neat banner ads jumping all over our screens we are all gonna miss. At least we will have iAds

[Eug]

Federal Trade Commission / Department Of Justice mulling antitrust look at Apple

* Programming tools to write iPad/iPhone apps at issue
* Expert says policy is anticompetitive

WASHINGTON, May 3 (Reuters) - U.S. antitrust regulators are considering an inquiry into whether Apple (AAPL.O) violates antitrust law by requiring that its programming tools be used to write applications for the popular iPad and iPhone, a source familiar with the matter told Reuters on Monday.

Both the Federal Trade Commission and the Justice Department enforce antitrust law, and no decision has been made on which would take the probe, said the source, who spoke privately for business reasons.

The New York Post first reported regulators' interest in Apple's policy, which essentially requires people who write apps to choose between writing them only for Apple or for Apple's rivals.

The agencies are expected within days to make a decision on which would handle the investigation, the Post reported.

"What they're (Apple) doing is clearly anticompetitive ... They want one superhighway and they're the tollkeeper on that superhighway," said David Balto, a former FTC policy director.

Apple and the Justice Department declined to comment. The FTC did not immediately respond to a request for a comment. (Reporting by Diane Bartz and Gabriel Madway; Editing by Steve Orlofsky)

[Eug]

FTC, Justice Department Discuss Possible Inquiry Amid Complaints From Application Developers, Advertising Firms

People familiar with the matter said the latest interest from regulators was triggered by complaints from Apple competitors and application developers over the terms of company's agreement with iPhone and iPad app developers.

--

The FTC has also taken an interest in iAd in the context of the agency's investigation of Google Inc.'s $750 million purchase of mobile-ad company AdMob Inc. Several developers said they have been contacted by the FTC about the Google-AdMob probe, with two saying they were told that the agency was also looking into the iAd service.

--

Some critics contend Apple is now engaging in the kind of tactics that got Microsoft Corp. in trouble with antitrust enforcers in the 1990s. "Apple is playing right out of Microsoft's playbook—and it's one they complained about a lot," said David Balto, a former FTC official now at the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think tank.

Apple could try to head off trouble with antitrust enforcers by changing the terms of its developer agreement, one person familiar with the situation said.

[voodoo]

"some critics" and "experts" along with "people familiar with the matter" are saying quite a bit. Except who they are.

Regardless, there isn't going to be anything of this - Apple's reasoning for blocking Flash as a development platform is completely reasonable. Banning things on one's platform is ok.

Being a monopoly is ok even. It's only when abusing that position to further one's own profit at the expense of competition that it is illegal.

Maybe those "critics", "experts" and "people familiar with the matter" should relax a little bit. Apple is in no way profiting from banning Flash developed apps from the iPhone/iPad.

This is all about intent. Not appearances.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

Apple is in no way profiting from banning Flash developed apps from the iPhone/iPad.

Of course they are, otherwise there wouldn't be any point in doing it!

You're right though - no direct monetary benefit. However, they are doing this in an attempt to ensure a long-term competitive advantage against other mobile device makers.

They are not locking out the competition, though. Adobe isn't competition for Apple, nor is MonoTouch. They are tools that, should they become predominant on the iPhone OS, have the potential to make Apple uncompetitive. Very different things.

I welcome this investigation. It will hopefully shut up the discussion.

[Simon]

I disagree with parts of Apple's Flash strategy, but the allegation is totally unwarranted. And if it takes such an investigation to make that clear, well then so be it.

Neither the iPhone nor the iPad have anything close to a dominating position in the market. There are loads of alternatives to both. If regulation authorities have determined that the entire PC world can live with one company controlling 90% of the OSes, they should shut the **** up about the iDevices.

Secondly, I fail to see the anti-competitive nature here. Nobody in their right mind can expect a Ford replacement part to work in a Toyota. And neither Ford nor Toyota are being investigated for that matter. So why would anyone require Apple's dev tools to work in unison with other platforms? Requiring Apple to provide for cross-compilation is like requiring all cars to use the same screws so that mechanics need only buy one screwdriver. Who in their right mind would require that?

Right now the bottom line is that if you disagree with no Flash in iDevices, buy a Win tablet or an Android phone. I you disagree with no Flash development, develop for other devices. If you disagree with no Flash display, code your website for other devices. And if one day a majority of customers has determined that they'd rather live without Flash, well then that's just what a majority prefers. What you want to do in light of that will be your call as a developer.

[Simon]

Also, what's the deal with this notion that Apple can't do anything that remotely resembles what MS got away with decades ago? Let's see

- MS played Apple.
- Apple complained about it and sued.
- Apple lost. Authorities deemed what MS was doing sound and legal.
- And now Apple should not be allowed to do what was determined sounds and legal?

BS. If MS was in right in doing what it did and successful at it to, why shouldn't Apple learn and put these practices to use for their own good? They were suckered out of it in the late 80s/early 90s, now they're smarter. Good for them.

[Phileas]

Originally Posted by Simon 

Nobody in their right mind can expect a Ford replacement part to work in a Toyota.

Exactly.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

There is quick and dirty Carbon, and well done Carbon.

Regarding iTunes and Carbon, the reason it still is Carbon (and if you look more closely, you see plenty of old and hacked UI elements) is that it is cross-platform.

Regarding the anti-trust case:
While I think the conflict between Adobe and Apple has escalated beyond what it should have and that it is damaging both companies, I don't think it is an anti-trust issue. Apple is not dominating the smartphone/tablet market. If people want flash, then all they need to do is wait for Adobe to release their flash plugin for Android.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Regarding iTunes and Carbon, the reason it still is Carbon (and if you look more closely, you see plenty of old and hacked UI elements) is that it is cross-platform.

Safari is cross-platform and it is Cocoa. Being cross-platform is not a reason why iTunes needs to stay Carbon.

[Eug]

Car analogies always suck.

[Stogieman]

The same could be said about grandma analogies.

[osiris]

I prefer toboggan analogies.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Car analogies always suck.

Except when they work.

It's like SUVs always suck unless you need one to tow a boat.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Stogieman 

grandma anal orgies.

Say what ?




-t

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

Safari is cross-platform and it is Cocoa.

I thought the underlying WebKit engine is C and not Cocoa?

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

Being cross-platform is not a reason why iTunes needs to stay Carbon.

It's certainly no reason for iTunes to stay Carbon, but it might be an explanation why it was created as a Carbon app.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

[QUOTE=OreoCookie;3964213]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

Safari is cross-platform and it is Cocoa.
I thought the underlying WebKit engine is C and not Cocoa?

It's certainly no reason for iTunes to stay Carbon, but it might be an explanation why it was created as a Carbon app.

Im pretty sure the next itunes will be rewritten in cocoa and have the same UI as the iPad version.

[Eug]

Since some of you guys seem to like crappy car analogies.

You can in fact use third party parts on Toyotas obviously. However, with cars, parts manufacturers don't have to sell those parts through Toyota dealerships (iTunes app store), and aren't forced to use Toyota manufacturing techniques (iPhone 4.0 restrictions) either.

However, car parts aren't software, so again, it's a crappy analogy.

[The Final Dakar]

Not going through the dealership = Jailbreaking

The analogy still works! Huzzah!

[Eug]

Ah, but using some 3rd party parts purchased in 3rd party stores does not void the Toyota warranty.

[The Final Dakar]

Blast!

Someone else's turn.

[::maroma::]

(wait... nevermind)

[Phileas]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Ah, but using some 3rd party parts purchased in 3rd party stores does not void the Toyota warranty.

But of course they do. (I know, I know, it's a stretch).

[The Final Dakar]

Anyway, since when does every facet of an analogy have to be perfect?

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Ah, but using some 3rd party parts purchased in 3rd party stores does not void the Toyota warranty.

What about hacking the OS that it runs on to install custom unauthorized apps?
They gonna fix your accelerator software problem then?

[torsoboy]

I'm excited for the lawsuit, and I hope Apple loses. They are too restrictive for their position in the market. There is no reason (other than the desire for total control) for their heavy-handedness.

And for those of you saying that they are not profiting by not having Flash... you have got to be kidding me. Of course they are. No one can play any of the 1000s of online flash games on their iPad/iPhone. Every game that is played on the iPhone has to be downloaded (and generally purchased) through iTunes. Apple makes quite a bit of money by not allowing Flash on their devices.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Simon 

Neither the iPhone nor the iPad have anything close to a dominating position in the market.

They do - if you sell mobile apps for a living. Apple doesn't have a monopoly position on selling smartphones, but they do seem to have a monopoly as a market for mobile apps. Selling in Apple's App Store is the only way to make money. No one's gonna make any money selling for Android, BlackBerry, or anything else. (Discuss)

If regulation authorities have determined that the entire PC world can live with one company controlling 90% of the OSes, they should shut the **** up about the iDevices.

That's not quite what happened. The suit against MS was dropped when the Bush administration took power.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by torsoboy 

I'm excited for the lawsuit, and I hope Apple loses. They are too restrictive for their position in the market.

Apples position is still a tiny fraction worldwide. Why are they the superpower that needs to be stopped?

[Phileas]

Originally Posted by torsoboy 

I'm excited for the lawsuit, and I hope Apple loses. They are too restrictive for their position in the market. There is no reason (other than the desire for total control) for their heavy-handedness.

And for those of you saying that they are not profiting by not having Flash... you have got to be kidding me. Of course they are. No one can play any of the 1000s of online flash games on their iPad/iPhone. Every game that is played on the iPhone has to be downloaded (and generally purchased) through iTunes. Apple makes quite a bit of money by not allowing Flash on their devices.

1. The main reason Apple wants to keep control of the OS is to ensure that nobody can mess with their update cycle.

2. Just under 30% of all app store games are free, with 80% of the remainder priced below $5.00.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Apple doesn't have a monopoly position on selling smartphones, but they do seem to have a monopoly as a market for mobile apps. Selling in Apple's App Store is the only way to make money. No one's gonna make any money selling for Android, BlackBerry, or anything else.

So what's the problem with that? The only way to achieve decent sales figures back in the day was to develop for Windows. Did the DOJ investigate if MS devs should be forced to develop for the Mac? Or if MS had to include some kind of Mac binary execution on Windows? Of course not.

Same here. The app store is so popular because people like it. If you don't want to develop for it, develop for BB or Android or whatever. Entirely your choice. Antitrust doesn't mean forcing stuff people don't want down their throats after they have had a choice and decided to take something else.

[pooka]

So, hypothetically speaking, if the FTC (or whoever) says that Apple has to allow users the OPTION to install some 3rd party "enhancements", this is a BAD thing? Because then Apple doesn't have control and everything will go to shit.

Yeah, I don't see that jailbreaking community growing.

[Eug]

What I find a little ironic is that some of the most vocal Apple-must-lock-down-the-system-to-prevent-Flash people here have also at one time or another jailbreak'd (jailbroken?) iPhones.

[Simon]

They learned from bad experiences?

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by Eug 

What I find a little ironic is that some of the most vocal Apple-must-lock-down-the-system-to-prevent-Flash people here have also at one time or another jailbreak'd (jailbroken?) iPhones.

That's their risk and choice. They probably do it to add features that are not allowed like background apps and tethering and know there is a possible cost with security, and battery life. They know what they are getting into and Apple is clear on the matter as well.

This is not the same situation though as we are talking about apps that are bad flash ports that are approved by Apple and in the app store for a cost. If regular joe downloads a flash port and it crashes and eats the battery of his iphone he will not say "that is a poor flash port and I'm gonna delete it" he will say "My iphone sucks, it always crashes and the battery doesn't last". Lets ignore all the flash security issues and bad press if it gets into your cellphone.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Simon 

So what's the problem with that? The only way to achieve decent sales figures back in the day was to develop for Windows.

That's false.

Did the DOJ investigate if MS devs should be forced to develop for the Mac? Or if MS had to include some kind of Mac binary execution on Windows? Of course not.

They were pretty busy, so probably not every possible question could have been asked. Regardless, the suit was still dropped.

Same here. The app store is so popular because people like it. If you don't want to develop for it, develop for BB or Android or whatever. Entirely your choice. Antitrust doesn't mean forcing stuff people don't want down their throats after they have had a choice and decided to take something else.

Antitrust has nothing to do with customers, it has to do with businesses. And yes, the gov't could very well use antitrust to force Flash down Apple's throat. I don't think that's gonna happen, but forcing things on businesses is exactly what antitrust is all about.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Since some of you guys seem to like crappy car analogies.

You can in fact use third party parts on Toyotas obviously. However, with cars, parts manufacturers don't have to sell those parts through Toyota dealerships (iTunes app store), and aren't forced to use Toyota manufacturing techniques (iPhone 4.0 restrictions) either.

Of course you can - provided you wish to VOID YOUR WARRANTY (or the warranty has already expired).

Feel free to jailbreak.

Metaphor extended.

Edit: Oh dammit I'm too late.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

They do - if you sell mobile apps for a living. Apple doesn't have a monopoly position on selling smartphones, but they do seem to have a monopoly as a market for mobile apps.

That's not a monopoly on the market - that's just plain old irony.

The platform that's the most restrictive and that everybody loves to hate the most is the only one people actually develop for. They must be doing something wrong.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

This is not the same situation though as we are talking about apps that are bad flash ports that are approved by Apple and in the app store for a cost.

Like has been said before, if Apple wants to restrict by interface guidelines and quality, then they should restrict by interface guidelines and quality.

[Spheric Harlot]

Correct.

That isn't the issue.

[torsoboy]

Originally Posted by Phileas 

1. The main reason Apple wants to keep control of the OS is to ensure that nobody can mess with their update cycle.

2. Just under 30% of all app store games are free, with 80% of the remainder priced below $5.00.

1. You don't know jack about why they want to keep control.
2. That means that they are making a LOT of money off of those games. Were you agreeing with me, or just spouting irrelevant statistics?

[torsoboy]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Like has been said before, if Apple wants to restrict by interface guidelines and quality, then they should restrict by interface guidelines and quality.

Exactly.

[Phileas]

Originally Posted by torsoboy 

1. You don't know jack about why they want to keep control.

Actually, I do. And if you'd bothered to do some research, so could you.

Originally Posted by torsoboy 

2. That means that they are making a LOT of money off of those games. Were you agreeing with me, or just spouting irrelevant statistics?

You were insinuating that all iPhone games had to be purchased. That's not the case.

[torsoboy]

Originally Posted by Phileas 

Actually, I do. And if you'd bothered to do some research, so could you.

You were insinuating that all iPhone games had to be purchased. That's not the case.

This is ridiculous. You fail to read my post, then comment on it, and then try to defend your failed comment on it.

I have done just as much "research" on it as anyone else in this thread has done (including you), and none of us know the exact reason for their wanting total control. To me, it seems like it is all about the money, the desire for absolute power/control, and bitter feud between two companies . To you, it is about the "update cycle" (which I find amusing).

My exact comment about the games was "Every game that is played on the iPhone has to be downloaded (and generally purchased) through iTunes." I did not insinuate that all iPhone games had to be purchased. I have downloaded plenty of free ones myself, and I know that there are free ones. But, using your 70% figure, let's do some rough/sketchy math: The 3,000,000,000th app store download was made in January, and 30% of all downloaded apps are games. That turns out to be 900,000,000 games downloaded. We'll round it up to 1,000,000,000 since it has been a few months since the 3 billionth app was downloaded. So, 1 billion game apps have been downloaded, and 70% are paid for, with a cost below $5.00. Even if we put the average price at $2.00, Apple has made more than $420 million on games that they did not develop, in less than 2 years. So, tell me again that it's not about the money.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Antitrust has nothing to do with customers, it has to do with businesses. And yes, the gov't could very well use antitrust to force Flash down Apple's throat. I don't think that's gonna happen, but forcing things on businesses is exactly what antitrust is all about.

I agree, antitrust is about businesses but that's beside the point.

The point I was trying to make is that antitrust regulation is concerned with leveling the playing field and making sure there is actual competition. However, as long as there is that competition and customers have a selection to chose from, antitrust is not an issue. It is not meant to step in and ensure all competitors receive an equal share of the market. It is supposed to make sure they have an equal chance at competing for market share. If under such circumstances a majority of the customers choses one product over others that still doesn't indicate an antitrust issue. As long as competition is held upright everything is fine.

And that is the situation we face today. Developers have a wide range of devices and OSes to chose to develop for. Apple's iPhone/iPhone OS/App Store combo is one such option. Its limitations are publicly noted for all customers to consider when they decide if they should enter that ecosystem. And accordingly devs are free to develop for whomever they chose. IMHO Apple is no way obligated to provide for cross-platform compilation.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by torsoboy 

I have done just as much "research" on it as anyone else in this thread has done (including you), and none of us know the exact reason for their wanting total control. To me, it seems like it is all about the money, the desire for absolute power/control, and bitter feud between two companies . To you, it is about the "update cycle" (which I find amusing).

Ex-Apple employee weighs in:

/dev/why!?! - /dev/why!?! - Its all about the�framework…

What Apple does care about is their ability to control their own development cycles. iPhoneOS runs on extremely tight schedules, with a very high degree of secrecy, and at a pace completely controlled by Apple. I know it is popular to claim that maintaining binary compatibility is easy, that is the argument du jour made by people claiming Apple should just support developers using private APIs. Well, they are just wrong. Ask anyone who has been involved with a couple of releases of Mac OS or Windows about the amount of effort involved in keeping old apps working, especially those using private APIs. There is a reason why the majority of current and former framework engineers who comment on the issue come out really strongly against any use of private APIs.

[…]

This isn’t some perceived risk, I can think of incidents where Apple reverted OS changes, dumped new APIs, or was forced to committing massive engineering resources to something it did not want to do because a Must Not Break™ app vendor told them to. Apple does not want to give anyone that sort of influence over them. So ultimately, preventing Flash on the platform is about control, but is not control over the user experience of the Flash applications, or even the languages used. It is about the runtimes they bring on to the system, and Apple's control over future releases of iPhone OS.

[…]

Personally, in this whole thing the most distasteful part is that Adobe used its userbase and their livelihood as a bargaining chip. These kinds of high stakes negotiations have happened in the past many times. They are much more common than people think, and until the last few years Apple was more likely to be on the weaker side of the negotiation. The story of MacBasic is a classic example, but I can think of other (not publicly disclosed) incidents involving Adobe and Macromedia (which was acquired by Adobe, and is where the Flash team comes from) applying extreme pressure to Apple. This is the only case where I feel an active user community was publicly jerked around like this in order for one side to try to gain leverage over the other. That is saying a lot, because I am not pleased with Apple's actions either, but Adobe put Apple in a position where either Adobe got its way or Apple screwed developers.

Still laughing?

This is the article that Jobs himself pointed out as pretty spot-on:

Daring Fireball: Why Apple Changed Section 3.3.1

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by torsoboy 

I'm excited for the lawsuit, and I hope Apple loses. They are too restrictive for their position in the market. There is no reason (other than the desire for total control) for their heavy-handedness.

Even if you see Apple's move as bad, I think it's inconsistent to `hope that Apple loses' an anti-trust suit just because you happen to disagree with this business policy. To be honest, it's Adobe's Flash that has a dominant position on the market, so from an anti-trust point of view, if anyone, it's them who should be investigated.

Originally Posted by torsoboy 

And for those of you saying that they are not profiting by not having Flash... you have got to be kidding me. Of course they are. No one can play any of the 1000s of online flash games on their iPad/iPhone. Every game that is played on the iPhone has to be downloaded (and generally purchased) through iTunes. Apple makes quite a bit of money by not allowing Flash on their devices.

There are tons of examples where companies have business models exactly like this one (think of the licensed parts business, for instance). And of course Apple is making money with it.

[Phileas]

Originally Posted by torsoboy 

Apple has made more than $420 million on games that they did not develop, in less than 2 years. So, tell me again that it's not about the money.

Your numbers are wrong. Apple makes between $20 and $45 million per billion apps* sold, on average. That's pretty well documented and widely available information - all you need to do is google it.

Just a hint: Sales price ≠ profit, but that's another conversation for another day.

So, even at the highest estimation Apple made $45 million on app sales per billion per year. That's pocket change compared to the money they are making from their core business, which is hardware sales. The one and only reason the app store exists is to support the hardware market.

Apple would support the app store even if it was losing cash, because the app store is the single most compelling reason for people to buy the iPhone and now the iPad - there's an app for that. The primary job of the app store is not to generate income directly, although of course that income is welcomed, it is to generate income indirectly, through hardware sales. If you don't understand this then there's really no reason to even continue this conversation with you.

Read the Daring Fireball article Spheric linked to. It confirms my own opinion and has been quoted by, wait for it, Steve Jobs himself.

Also, from Business Insider:

But how much money is Apple making from all those app downloads?
Not that much, Lightspeed Venture Partners' Jeremy Liew calculates. By estimating how many app downloads are paid vs. free -- 1:15 to 1:40 range -- and how much the average paid app sells for -- about $2.65, consistent with our analysis -- he calculates that Apple has made about $20 million to $45 million in net revenue from the 30% cut it takes from paid app downloads. Compared to Apple's overall business, that's tiny.
But that's the point!
Big picture: Apple has said publicly that its plan is to run the App Store near breakeven. The main idea is to make money by selling iPhones and iPods, which Apple is doing nicely. Just last quarter, for example, Apple sold almost $3 billion worth of iPhones and iPod touch devices. The App Store played a big role in that. (And it's making a lot of money for developers, in the process.)

The article is a little dated, but the numbers hold.

*That's for apps in general, not just games. However, the average suggests that games prices are not in any way dissimilar to app prices in general. Even if we'd double the numbers to allow for, speculative, higher revenue from games they still come in significantly lower than the example you used.

[TETENAL]

Can you develop for the Playstation 3 or the Playstation Portable with Flash?
Can you develop for the Wii or Nintendo DS with Flash?
Can you develop for the XBox with Flash?