Apple was right, Adobe get over it?

[spaceman]

given that there are actually 3rd-party flash compilers and players, and the Open Screen project, its quite misleading. it might be a proprietry standard, but its not that closed, really, nor is it locked to a specific set of tools.

so its a bit hypocritical to start talking about 'proprietry' especially given the 'you can only use our compilers' revision to the developer agreement. now that is closed and proprietry requirements.

The argument still stands though in my opinion. It's Adobe who controls the Flash standard. So, just like Apple, the developers are at Adobe's mercy. You never know what Adobe's going to do with Flash in the future. So if it's your device, what would you do? Keep control by choosing the standards used on your device (open standards, with H.264 under discussion) or allow some 3rd party to control a big part of dependencies? That, by any standard, would be considered seriously bad judgment.

[whyterabbyt]

The argument still stands though in my opinion.

which one? the implication that somehow the Ipod is a more open platform than Flash? nah, all the evidence says otherwise.

It's Adobe who controls the Flash standard. So, just like Apple, the developers are at Adobe's mercy.

Well, at least they would have had the choice as to who's mercy they were at. Now the developers are only at Apple's mercy. What an improvement.

You never know what Adobe's going to do with Flash in the future.

We dont know what's going to happen with HTML5 in the future either. Why is the future more of an issue than the present? And who says Apple wont try and cram in their own proprietry standards? Quicktime anyone?

I mean is it really a sane argument that if Apple can change everything overnight, then that's a good thing, but if Adobe do it, that's bad?

So if it's your device, what would you do? Keep control by choosing the standards used on your device (open standards, with H.264 under discussion) or allow some 3rd party to control a big part of dependencies?

I'd opt for the open platform. Closed platforms always lose in the long term. Locking out third-party media formats is closed, simple as that.

That, by any standard, would be considered seriously bad judgment.

No, not by 'any' standards. Just selectively chosen ones. Unless you somehow think monopolies are good, and every decision being taken about content on the iPhone is related to monopolising content provision.

[spaceman]

The argument still stands though in my opinion.

which one? the implication that somehow the Ipod is a more open platform than Flash? nah, all the evidence says otherwise.

No, that Flash is closed compared to HTML5, CSS, etc.
No one will argue that the iPad is open. That's quite clear.

It's Adobe who controls the Flash standard. So, just like Apple, the developers are at Adobe's mercy.

Well, at least they would have had the choice as to who's mercy they were at. Now the developers are only at Apple's mercy. What an improvement.

Well can you blame them?

You never know what Adobe's going to do with Flash in the future.

We dont know what's going to happen with HTML5 in the future either. Why is the future more of an issue than the present?

Because the present decides what the future will bring.

And who says Apple wont try and cram in their own proprietry standards? Quicktime anyone?

We'll start a new thread then when that happens.

I mean is it really a sane argument that if Apple can change everything overnight, then that's a good thing, but if Adobe do it, that's bad?

I don't think anyone says that. I definitely don't say that. But what I am saying is that if you are Apple then the fact that someone else can change everything is a VERY big deal. Them allowing that on their own device is seriously bad business.

So if it's your device, what would you do? Keep control by choosing the standards used on your device (open standards, with H.264 under discussion) or allow some 3rd party to control a big part of dependencies?

I'd opt for the open platform. Closed platforms always lose in the long term. Locking out third-party media formats is closed, simple as that.

I think Android will provide the test case. We'll see how people get on with it, how many good applications become available, see how many people get spyware on their phone downloaded from somewhere, etc etc

My guess is that in ten years time, when putting 'open platform' and 'closed platform' in two columns and compared pros and cons, you end up 50/50

That, by any standard, would be considered seriously bad judgment.

No, not by 'any' standards. Just selectively chosen ones. Unless you somehow think monopolies are good, and every decision being taken about content on the iPhone is related to monopolising content provision.

How can you talk about monopoly? What about Android and the rest then? Are you rejecting them already as competition?

[whyterabbyt]

No, that Flash is closed compared to HTML5, CSS, etc.
No one will argue that the iPad is open. That's quite clear.

OTOH, Flash is more open than the iPad SDK. As are Java, Python, Ruby et.c. et.c.

Well can you blame them?

well, yes.

Because the present decides what the future will bring.

The 'present' of HTML4 did no such thing vis HTML5.

We'll start a new thread then when that happens.

Not just append it to this one like everything which pops up 'pro' Apple? Tsk.

I don't think anyone says that. I definitely don't say that. But what I am saying is that if you are Apple then the fact that someone else can change everything is a VERY big deal. Them allowing that on their own device is seriously bad business.

Yup. Thing is, I don't know why there's this need to defend Apple, when its Apple customers whom this affects. From developers to device owners.
I guess I didnt realise Cupertino was in Stockholm.

I think Android will provide the test case. We'll see how people get on with it, how many good applications become available, see how many people get spyware on their phone downloaded from somewhere, etc etc

Well, actually I dont think we will see that in actual real numbers as much as we'll see it scaremongered by Apple and its acolytes. And after all, just because a system is closed doesnt mean it cant get viruses or malware. If the iPhone is a more attractive target, in terms of numbers or some other reward (banking apps, eh?) it will be targetted. In Objective-C.

My guess is that in ten years time, when putting 'open platform' and 'closed platform' in two columns and compared pros and cons, you end up 50/50

Maybe. Maybe not.

How can you talk about monopoly? What about Android and the rest then? Are you rejecting them already as competition?

The Microsoft monpoloy cases existed even although there were Macs. Havent you learned from that that its not about whether there's an alternative product? Its about trying to control competition.

In economics, a monopoly (from Greek monos / μονος (alone or single) + polein / πωλειν (to sell)) exists when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it.

Note : 'product or service' not 'class of products or services'.

How does the existence of Android affect Apple's control over the Ipod. Answer : it doesnt and cant. Just like the existence of the Mac had no effect on Microsoft's control over Windows. Microsoft illegally used their control over windows to leverage IE against Netscape. Apple are using their control over the iPhone etc for the same ends. By incorporating their own ad systems, gaming network, etc into the iPhone, by mandating the toolchain required for development, they're actually behaving more monopolistically than MS did with Internet Explorer. And MS were found guilty.

[brambos]

I think Android will provide the test case. We'll see how people get on with it, how many good applications become available, see how many people get spyware on their phone downloaded from somewhere, etc etc

Well, actually I dont think we will see that in actual real numbers as much as we'll see it scaremongered by Apple and its acolytes. And after all, just because a system is closed doesnt mean it cant get viruses or malware. If the iPhone is a more attractive target, in terms of numbers or some other reward (banking apps, eh?) it will be targetted. In Objective-C.

Sure, but the virus programmers will first need to get their trojans and viruses approved by Apple's App quality reviewers.

I for one appreciate the "last line of defense" that Apple is providing; as a sort of bottom line quality control - and, mind you, I'm a developer myself.

Unless you're trying to get pr0n and other crap onto the app store, their review process is quite reasonable, and the review wait-times have gone down considerably. Down to 1 or 2 days for a new app and 1 day for an update, in my personal experiences - which I think is really good.

[whyterabbyt]

D'ya think it would be a monopoly if Apple bought ARM and stopped selling them to other companies?

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard- ... xstrata.do

[spaceman]

Well can you blame them?

well, yes.

Why would you care? People have options. There's Android and WebOS and Blackberry.

Because the present decides what the future will bring.

The 'present' of HTML4 did no such thing vis HTML5.

That's open for discussion. HTML4 and 5 are still very similar in many ways. And many open standards combined give you a more robust direction. Even if one of them changes, if you build on a combination, then the others will limit the effect of the change. HTML5 may have some completely new additions, but it doesn't change the way it works with CSS and Javascript much, for instance.

We'll start a new thread then when that happens.

Not just append it to this one like everything which pops up 'pro' Apple? Tsk.

you should know by now that my 'pro' Apple stance is not as pro as you might think. Arguing Apple's position does not mean that I agree with it from a consumer position, just like proving a certain mathematical formula does not have to mean you think the formula is nice.

I don't think anyone says that. I definitely don't say that. But what I am saying is that if you are Apple then the fact that someone else can change everything is a VERY big deal. Them allowing that on their own device is seriously bad business.

Yup. Thing is, I don't know why there's this need to defend Apple, when its Apple customers whom this affects. From developers to device owners.

I think too many people are reading too much in what other people say. And whether Apple customers will be worse off is your guess as much as mine.

I think Android will provide the test case. We'll see how people get on with it, how many good applications become available, see how many people get spyware on their phone downloaded from somewhere, etc etc

Well, actually I dont think we will see that in actual real numbers as much as we'll see it scaremongered by Apple and its acolytes. And after all, just because a system is closed doesnt mean it cant get viruses or malware. If the iPhone is a more attractive target, in terms of numbers or some other reward (banking apps, eh?) it will be targetted. In Objective-C.

Come on now.. Apple scaremongering? You read a lot in some people's (mine included) post and label everything 'pro-Apple' (or fanboy if you're jhm) but saying Apple is scaremongering sounds a lot more exaggerated than anything I've ever said to be 'pro-Apple' here.

But anyway, I don't know how they could target iPhones and iPads? Jailbroken ones yes, but how would they target the others?

My guess is that in ten years time, when putting 'open platform' and 'closed platform' in two columns and compared pros and cons, you end up 50/50

Maybe. Maybe not.

Indeed. So how can you say Apple customers are worse off? They cant use Flash, yes. It's still to be decided whether that is good or bad.

How can you talk about monopoly? What about Android and the rest then? Are you rejecting them already as competition?

The Microsoft monpoloy cases existed even although there were Macs. Havent you learned from that that its not about whether there's an alternative product? Its about trying to control competition.

They can't control competition. Everyone is free to go and code for an other platform. It's up to the competition to do better than Apple and provide developers with a platform to make money and provide customers a platform to enjoy their phone. If they can't do that it's not Apple's fault.

In economics, a monopoly (from Greek monos / μονος (alone or single) + polein / πωλειν (to sell)) exists when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it.

I have to lines of thought here:

A)
When Apple states statistics about their market share, people go 'bollocks! they don't have such a market share. They are lying!'. But when it suits the anti-Apple sentiments they all of a sudden DO have a leading market position. So what is it? Do they have the biggest market share or don't they? Just curious.

B)
So, considering A) are you saying that Apple has the same market share in mobile devices as Microsoft has in personal computing? I seriously doubt so. But anyway, I thought closed systems were doomed anyway, so why should we care? Open platforms will win so there's no panic needed.

Note : 'product or service' not 'class of products or services'.

How does the existence of Android affect Apple's control over the Ipod. Answer : it doesnt and cant. Just like the existence of the Mac had no effect on Microsoft's control over Windows. Microsoft illegally used their control over windows to leverage IE against Netscape. Apple are using their control over the iPhone etc for the same ends. By incorporating their own ad systems, gaming network, etc into the iPhone, by mandating the toolchain required for development, they're actually behaving more monopolistically than MS did with Internet Explorer. And MS were found guilty.

So do you consider Microsoft's products to be closed systems as well? If they are not, then it seems that the fact whether systems are closed or open doesn't have that much bearing on their success after all.

And let me just clarify my position here once more:

I do not want any company to have a monopoly on anything, whether it's Google, Microsoft or Apple. Put any of them in that position and they will abuse it. I believe Apple is still far from achieving that for mobile devices. And I believe that them deploying a closed or open system is not the factor that's going to get them there. It's deploying a system that works where the competition fails. If the competition fails, it's because of themselves, not because of Apple. And I don't want to be called a fanboy for realising that. I'd be going through the exact same arguments if Google had build the iPhone.

[spaceman]

D'ya think it would be a monopoly if Apple bought ARM and stopped selling them to other companies?

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard- ... xstrata.do

Why do you never put any effort in dissecting Google's behaviour? Do you think it's ok that they control advertising on the web? Or that they're working hard on not only controlling DNS but also the hardware the web is running on? 2% on all servers online are already build by Google and it won't stop there. Surely that must worry you as well?

[whyterabbyt]

Why do you never put any effort in dissecting Google's behaviour?

Same reason I dont put any effort into dissecting China's record on human rights in a debate about the death penalty in the USA.... I dont subscribe to the fallacy that the actions of X are made less bad if you somehow enumerate bad actions by Y.

Or put it another way, why dont you put any effort into dissecting Apple's behaviour in every thread about Microsoft doing bad stuff?

[spaceman]

Why do you never put any effort in dissecting Google's behaviour?

Same reason I dont put any effort into dissecting China's record on human rights in a debate about the death penalty in the USA.... I dont subscribe to the fallacy that the actions of X are made less bad if you somehow enumerate bad actions by Y.

Or put it another way, why dont you put any effort into dissecting Apple's behaviour in every thread about Microsoft doing bad stuff?

I didn't mean in this thread.
But I'll start a thread then next time Google buys up an other company.

[whyterabbyt]

edit : cant be arsed right now, my back's bugging me too much. apologies.

[spaceman]

Do you think it's ok that they control advertising on the web?

Do they control anyone else's ability to offer advertising?

No, just like Microsoft didn't control anyone's ability to build different computer platforms (ie Mac). But they still had a monopoly. Anyone can offer advertising but that doesn't mean anyone will use it. They have a monopoly position in the same way as Microsoft has in PC. You posted the definition yourself.

Or that they're working hard on not only controlling DNS

Do they control anyone else's ability to provide DNS services?

See above. If google eventually manage to route half the web through their own DNS, are they still in a fair position? But I'm sure you're going to say 'who says they will?'

but also the hardware the web is running on?

Do they control anyone else's ability to provide web servers?

2% on all servers online are already build by Google

How many of them serve something that isnt a Google service or site, though?

and it won't stop there. Surely that must worry you as well?

There are a lot of issues with Google, but I think I'd need to see something a bit more substantial to put those speculations in particular high up the list.

I think you're being very naive about Google's intentions.
But only the future will tell.

[robogone]

Not so sure that I find the Google takeover of the world that worrying considering how the Microsoft effort gained steam then got cut back. I hate to see any company getting the amount of power that these two have, but it's encouraging to see the European Union force MS to stop its predatory practices.

As bad as MS has been in that respect, Google has probably done worse by encouraging China's net censorship. They made it sound like they made their own decision to reverse that, but I'm sure that someone in marketing realized that they could somehow make more sales by making a big deal about the reversal.

Not sure what Apple would do if they started growing much bigger and eating other companies. I don't think they're really in that league right now.

[spaceman]

edit : cant be arsed right now, my back's bugging me too much. apologies.

yes, there's a limit to how many time one can copy paste [ quote ] and [ /quote ]

[spaceman]

Not so sure that I find the Google takeover of the world that worrying considering how the Microsoft effort gained steam then got cut back.

Microsoft didn't have the web though and they didn't have your data. Google, Facebook, etc. handle data of every aspect of your life.