Comments on: Quick Links on the Apple-Adobe Battle http://futureoftheinternet.org/quick-links-on-the-apple-adobe-battle Jonathan Zittrain is Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and co-founder of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School Thu, 02 Feb 2012 23:59:23 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Todd http://futureoftheinternet.org/quick-links-on-the-apple-adobe-battle/comment-page-1#comment-17900 Todd Wed, 21 Apr 2010 00:03:23 +0000 http://futureoftheinternet.org/?p=1378#comment-17900 Apple's tight control of it's platform has inspired a ton of innovation by people trying to get around it's strict rules. Apple’s tight control of it’s platform has inspired a ton of innovation by people trying to get around it’s strict rules.

]]> By: Charlie http://futureoftheinternet.org/quick-links-on-the-apple-adobe-battle/comment-page-1#comment-17873 Charlie Fri, 16 Apr 2010 12:46:11 +0000 http://futureoftheinternet.org/?p=1378#comment-17873 Apple hates Adobe for whatever reason and they also hate that many iPhone/iPad developers are writing their apps to run anywhere, particularly on Android. This new iPhone 4 SDK restriction lets them solve two of their 'problems' at one time. Apple wants to stop these "run anywhere" apps to keep Android from having a lot of good apps right away. If they make it so that developers have alot more work to port their apps, then they hope the developers won't do the port and stay right in fan-boy land. Lastly, the thought that most apps using a translation layer are poor apps is goofy - have you looked at most of the iPhone apps? Most are poor! Using translation layer or not is no substitute for good app design. They are not related. Apple just wants it's usual monopolistic market - but this time it's called 'restraint of trade'. Apple hates Adobe for whatever reason and they also hate that many iPhone/iPad developers are writing their apps to run anywhere, particularly on Android. This new iPhone 4 SDK restriction lets them solve two of their ‘problems’ at one time.

Apple wants to stop these “run anywhere” apps to keep Android from having a lot of good apps right away. If they make it so that developers have alot more work to port their apps, then they hope the developers won’t do the port and stay right in fan-boy land.

Lastly, the thought that most apps using a translation layer are poor apps is goofy – have you looked at most of the iPhone apps? Most are poor! Using translation layer or not is no substitute for good app design. They are not related.

Apple just wants it’s usual monopolistic market – but this time it’s called ‘restraint of trade’.

]]> By: Andrew http://futureoftheinternet.org/quick-links-on-the-apple-adobe-battle/comment-page-1#comment-17871 Andrew Fri, 16 Apr 2010 09:38:28 +0000 http://futureoftheinternet.org/?p=1378#comment-17871 "any logical reason Apple cares where an app’s code originates" The argument is the same as not allowing flash. Apps that use a translation layer are usually rather poor and do not follow normal iphone conventions. For example, 99% of flash apps can't seem to even get simple scroll bars right. Steve likes his apps to all be consistent in look and feel. People buy Apple products for the look and feel. Antitrust is irrelevant. Apple only has a 25% market share in smart phones. There are plenty of other phones out there for people who prefer a different development situation. Unfortunately open development often results in poor user experience. “any logical reason Apple cares where an app’s code originates”

The argument is the same as not allowing flash. Apps that use a translation layer are usually rather poor and do not follow normal iphone conventions. For example, 99% of flash apps can’t seem to even get simple scroll bars right. Steve likes his apps to all be consistent in look and feel. People buy Apple products for the look and feel.

Antitrust is irrelevant. Apple only has a 25% market share in smart phones. There are plenty of other phones out there for people who prefer a different development situation. Unfortunately open development often results in poor user experience.

]]> By: Brad Templeton http://futureoftheinternet.org/quick-links-on-the-apple-adobe-battle/comment-page-1#comment-17868 Brad Templeton Fri, 16 Apr 2010 00:51:14 +0000 http://futureoftheinternet.org/?p=1378#comment-17868 Well, it is indeed an anti-competitive practice, but Apple surely has reasons to do this for its own business purpose, it is not merely to spite Adobe. By insisting that all apps for the iPhone be coded in C/C++/Objective C, as the terms do, Apple makes it very unlikely you will be able to port an iPhone app to Android or Blackberry, which are Java based platforms. C code can run on Symbian and Windows Mobile. So if a developer is choosing how to write their app, if they decide to go for the iPhone they know they will have to rewrite, almost from scratch if they want it on Android. Only a company with market dominance would try that of course, but Apple's dominance is in high end smartphones, and such phones are still just a minor part of the mobile phone market. Indeed, of the platforms, I don't know if Apple yet even has the largest share in the smartphone market. A 2009 study showed Apple at 15%, Symbian at 47% and RIM at 21%. Clearly you would have a tough time doing an antitrust on the company that is in 3rd place in a small sector of the mobile market! But of course there is one area they are not at all in 3rd place, and that is in attracting app developers. If you want to get distribution for your app and make money from it, it is very hard to ignore the iTunes App Store. Thus you would agree to this ridiculous clause. In spite of all the Symbian phones out there, it just isn't as attractive an app market. Well, it is indeed an anti-competitive practice, but Apple surely has reasons to do this for its own business purpose, it is not merely to spite Adobe.

By insisting that all apps for the iPhone be coded in C/C++/Objective C, as the terms do, Apple makes it very unlikely you will be able to port an iPhone app to Android or Blackberry, which are Java based platforms. C code can run on Symbian and Windows Mobile.

So if a developer is choosing how to write their app, if they decide to go for the iPhone they know they will have to rewrite, almost from scratch if they want it on Android. Only a company with market dominance would try that of course, but Apple’s dominance is in high end smartphones, and such phones are still just a minor part of the mobile phone market. Indeed, of the platforms, I don’t know if Apple yet even has the largest share in the smartphone market.

A 2009 study showed Apple at 15%, Symbian at 47% and RIM at 21%. Clearly you would have a tough time doing an antitrust on the company that is in 3rd place in a small sector of the mobile market!

But of course there is one area they are not at all in 3rd place, and that is in attracting app developers. If you want to get distribution for your app and make money from it, it is very hard to ignore the iTunes App Store. Thus you would agree to this ridiculous clause. In spite of all the Symbian phones out there, it just isn’t as attractive an app market.

]]>