Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

Steve Jobs tells us how he really feels about Flash...

<< < (3/3)

Eóin:
They will need to force Apple to allow downloading and installing from other sources in order to make any decision against Apple stick. THAT would be nice to see.
-Renegade (May 03, 2010, 11:29 PM)
--- End quote ---

Plus that would have the knock on effect that MS would be forced to do the same with their new Windows Phone 7. The conspiracy theorist in me mused that MS might have been copying Apples tactic just to force a case like this eventually.

40hz:
It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

In many ways, Apple's Xcode requirement isn't much different from arguments that embedded device manufacturers have used for years to justify requirements that developers purchase and use their proprietary SDKs.

Apple could argue that the iPhone and iPad are embedded devices, and that their restrictions are no different than those placed on many game box, telephone hardware, and industrial control developers by other hardware manufacturers.

One key point is that Apple has always insisted on calling itself a hardware developer. And even more important, has always insisted their hardware remain a closed system. So this is one instance where an argument that they are not trying to influence or control anything other than their own hardware platform could gain legal credence by the fact Apple always rabidly defended its proprietary base. Far from trying to go outside their domain, they've actively and routinely discouraged 3rd party hardware and system level software being integrated into their products. And they've absolutely forbidden the use of their software on anything other than their own devices.

So the only argument that can be made is that the simple marketplace success of the iPad/iPhone is actively hampering competition from similar devices because Apple requires its developers to use tools it alone provides - even though such tools are intended for exclusive use with its own hardware.

Yoiks! That's gonna be a tough one.

Successfully dominating a market because you have the product people want isn't, in itself, a violation of law. And for some to argue they can't afford to develop for multiple platforms because they need to concentrate their efforts on developing for the market leader doesn't make the market leader culpable for their lack of resources.

Right now, the FTC and DOJ will have a pretty tough case to prove if it comes to that. I think of this more as a the government putting Apple on notice they're beginning to look at some of their business practices in a different light than previously. Apple will no longer automatically be viewed as an underdog going forward. This is just the proverbial warning shot across the bow.

In the end, the real battle will likely come down on the lock-in with AT&Ts network. That would have a lot more traction in court because the success of a hardware product combined with its lock-in to one network provider does have ramifications beyond the device itself. Especially when the designated network provider's bandwidth can't adequately support the full capabilities of the device.

Of course, Apple already has an inkling of that looming threat, hence the leaks about the iPhone possibly going to additional carriers "real soon now." And note how that rumor only talks about the iPhone - not the iPad. Cute!

Smoke and mirrors... 8)

superboyac:
40hz dropping some knowledge knuggets!

Eóin:
I admit that the connection between the iPhone/iPad approach and say game consoles always niggled at the back of my mind. But I think there is a big enough difference here that such an argument won't work.

The precedence in the mobile phone and pocket PC markets was always one of openness, Apple have only been able to go against that because of their market dominance and so the case for stifling competition to me seems very real.

40hz:
Precedence for openness has little legal bearing on the matter. Unfortunately.

And while precedence may have some bearing - on "this side of the pond" it still doesn't pack the wallop it does in most civilized countries. Heck, the US often prides itself on just how little respect it generally has for precedence and history.

US antitrust and anti-competitive restrictions have traditionally only been invoked to enforce some level of open competition in emerging markets. Once a market has reached a level of sustainability or maturity, US law backs off and lets the market decide who the ultimate winners will be. These so-called natural monopolies are usually left alone by US regulators unless some outside party can make a convincing argument that the dominant company is engaging in some form of anti-competitive behavior specifically forbidden by law.

Being so big and powerful that nobody else can compete in the monopoly's market is not sufficient grounds for government intervention. At least not in the USA.  Belief in the doctrines of "last man standing" and "to the victor go the spoils" has a long tradition in American business and law. US antitrust laws are not designed to enforce ongoing competition - only to prevent a company from securing an "unfair advantage" when a market is being created or a new industry is emerging.

To a certain extent, you can say that the US business model almost assumes natural monopolies will emerge once a market reaches maturity. This is viewed as both natural and, in many cases, a desirable outcome since economies of scale and cost efficiencies often result. Some see a further advantage in having a single dominant supplier because it tends to bring about product standardization which results in lower consumer prices and the creation of "add-on" businesses.

Or at least so the theory goes... ::)

( Yeah, right! ;D )

On the other hand, European antitrust regulations do seem to have the creation and enforcement of ongoing competition as part of their goal. So if I'm correct in that belief, Apple will likely have a much harder time with European regulators over Xcode.

And be far more likely to face sanctions in the EU.

Go EU!  :Thmbsup:

---------------------

ADDENDUM::

I forgot to add that I strongly doubt this will ever make it to court.

Apple has way to much to lose by pushing the issue. The minute it looks like they risk having a judgment rendered, they'll relent on the developer tool restrictions. The minute they do that, the issue will become moot.

There's also a lot they could do to Flash such that it could be allowed on the iPad without actually being workable once it got there. One way would be to wrap so many OS-level security 'safeguards' around it that Flash's performance and stability would drop right through the floor.

It's a long way from over folks.

This puppy isn't even the opening act.  It's more like hearing the overture music while queuing up for popcorn in the lobby...

(Butter on mine, please?)

 ;)  8)

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page