The Cache: Technology Expert's Forum
 
*
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register. September 21, 2019, 06:02:38 AM

Login with username, password and session length


Pages: [1] 2 3
  Print  
Author Topic: App developer writes in defense of Apple App store policies, then has own app sh  (Read 7258 times)
nop_90
Global Moderator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2203


View Profile
« on: June 01, 2010, 09:49:05 PM »

http://shiftyjelly.wordpress.com/2010/06/01/sentence-first-verdict-afterwards/
Logged
perkiset
Olde World Hacker
Administrator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10096



View Profile
« Reply #1 on: June 01, 2010, 10:31:45 PM »

A peculiar and unfortunate situation, but I know that app and it definitely is a sometime-replacement for the desktop, which has been an acknowledged no-no for a long time. Also, reading the comments i was struck by the timing of the thing. The WWDC is less that a week away and I suspect that were going to be hearing a lot more about this sort of thing. I think this is more indicative of something in the works.

But all that said, it would really piss me off if i were in their shoes as well. I have no argument with Apple having rules, regs and all kinds of hoops you need to jump through ... But write them down and let people live within them FFS. I agree that this sort of behavior will be the most damaging to the future developer base.   
Logged

It is now believed, that after having lived in one compound with 3 wives and never leaving the house for 5 years, Bin Laden called the U.S. Navy Seals himself.
isthisthingon
Global Moderator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2879



View Profile
« Reply #2 on: June 02, 2010, 12:46:25 PM »

Quote
I see now why people are so angry at the ‘murky’ nature of the App Store, and I’m starting to agree with them. My Frame was approved by Apple 3 times (once for each version we released), and then now, at version 1.2 they decide it’s to be removed? How can a company be prepared to invest into a platform that can change at any time, cutting you off and kicking you out, with no course of action but to whine on some no-name blog. There is no alternative platform (that's called a monopoly, if true - ITTO), despite what others may say about Android, it’s immature and their app store(s) are a wild west nightmare. It really is Apple’s way or the highway, and that really stinks. Badly. Very badly. Apple is the angry queen from Alice in Wonderland, screaming “Off with her head!” and we have little recourse but to watch their pack of card minions execute those orders.

Of course we all know my drumbeat on this one Wink

Apple: Honest, open and transparent!  ROFLMAO
Logged

I would love to change the world, but they won't give me the source code.
perkiset
Olde World Hacker
Administrator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10096



View Profile
« Reply #3 on: June 02, 2010, 01:04:32 PM »

@monopoly - not true at all. AU doesn't allow it yet, but US stores allow the sale of Android apps I believe. In addition to the fact that anyone is able to prop up cydia and sell all they want. Apples just the largest at the moment. But based on all the noise from the Apple Is The Devil crowd, Android is growing faster than Apple and should overtake and be dominant any day now.  Roll Eyes
Logged

It is now believed, that after having lived in one compound with 3 wives and never leaving the house for 5 years, Bin Laden called the U.S. Navy Seals himself.
isthisthingon
Global Moderator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2879



View Profile
« Reply #4 on: June 02, 2010, 04:37:54 PM »

Notice I said "if true."  If the following statement is true, then you have a monopoly, or at least something close enough to watch closely: "There is no alternative platform" 
Logged

I would love to change the world, but they won't give me the source code.
perkiset
Olde World Hacker
Administrator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10096



View Profile
« Reply #5 on: June 02, 2010, 05:11:44 PM »

LOL I was just responding mate.
Logged

It is now believed, that after having lived in one compound with 3 wives and never leaving the house for 5 years, Bin Laden called the U.S. Navy Seals himself.
nop_90
Global Moderator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2203


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: June 02, 2010, 06:15:53 PM »

A monopoly is when a good or service is provided and consumer is unable to get an alternative.
And another company is unable to open up which provides same/similar service.

So something like an electric company is a monopoly.
For all practical purposes I can not open up another competing electric company.
This is not because I am unable to generate electricity, but I would be unable to get right of way to build power lines etc.

But just because u have majority of market share does not make u a monopoly.
I think Gillette probably sells over 50% of razors.
But anyone else can make a razor factor, start making razors and sell them.

In the case of apple, the consumer has an exclusive agreement between Apple and them.
As in they agree they will only buy/install apple apps.

This is not different then a "franchise".
With McD franchise, I agree I can use thier logo, but the requirements is the everything I sell must be purchased from McD supplier.
So if i own a McD franchise, I can not just decide to add my own sandwiches to the menu.

Anyone can start making portable devices etc. And they can stick what ever OS they want on them.
And that is what is happening.

Biggest problem with istore is they decide what apps consumer should use.
For example with media player, I have to use their player.
I can not use the much better player provided by videolan for example.

Whether or not apple's strategy will work remains to be seen.
That is the only part i question Smiley

Logged
kurdt
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1153


paha arkkitehti


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: June 02, 2010, 09:28:09 PM »

All I can say anymore to these posts is - if you don't like Apple's way of nazing apps in their store, just don't develop for them. Those monopoly claims are always a clear sign that there's a fanboy developer in the house that got fucked and is now bitter as hell. Having a monopoly means there's no alternative available, not that you don't like alternatives.
Logged

I met god and he had nothing to say to me.
isthisthingon
Global Moderator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2879



View Profile
« Reply #8 on: June 02, 2010, 11:55:07 PM »

Monopoly

Definition - "A situation in which a single company owns all or nearly all of the market for a given type of product or service. This would happen in the case that there is a barrier to entry into the industry that allows the single company to operate without competition (for example, vast economies of scale, barriers to entry, or governmental regulation). In such an industry structure, the producer will often produce a volume that is less than the amount which would maximize social welfare."

http://www.investorwords.com/3112/monopoly.html

Again all, not saying there is in fact a monopoly.  But damn if this concept isn't widely misunderstood as only the extreme definition we learned in grammar school.  Antitrust policies prevent sliding into harmful monopolistic practices.

Quote
The antitrust laws apply to virtually all industries and to every level of business, including manufacturing, transportation, distribution, and marketing. They prohibit a variety of practices that restrain trade.

Investopedia Says:
Examples of illegal practices are price-fixing conspiracies, corporate mergers likely to reduce the competitive vigor of particular markets, and predatory acts designed to achieve or maintain monopoly power.

Microsoft, AT&T, and J.D. Rockefeller Oil are companies who have been convicted of antitrust practices.

http://www.answers.com/topic/antitrust

Agree with this or not, the common belief is that Microsoft was guilty of monopolistic practices.  If that's true then we should be a little less black and white about Apple and others.  But if you believe MS was wrongfully accused then I understand.
Logged

I would love to change the world, but they won't give me the source code.
nop_90
Global Moderator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2203


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: June 03, 2010, 12:34:54 AM »

In the case of Standford oil,
Oil in those days was shipped by railcar in tankers.
Rockerfeller had a secret agreement with the railways to stop other refineries from shipping oil.

AT&T is fairly clear cut, since they owned local phone lines, no other operator could compete.
M$ is less clear cut.

If M$ is a monopoly, then so are oil companies, Pepsi and Coke etc Smiley
Logged
daviator
Expert
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 333


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: June 03, 2010, 02:39:28 PM »

Agree with this or not, the common belief is that Microsoft was guilty of monopolistic practices. 

I worked closely with PC OEMs in Europe during the 80s and early 90s and saw Microsoft's monopolistic practices first-hand.  They required PC vendors to pay a Windows license fee to Microsoft for every machine shipped, whether it shipped with Windows or not.  Vendors were trying to offer machines that could be shipped with either Windows or Linux, for example, and Microsoft was forcing them to pay even on the machines that shipped with Linux.  If a company didn't agree to those terms, Microsoft would cut them off completely.  I saw it happen.  Every company had to acquiesce since, obviously, Windows-based machines were their bread and butter.

That wasn't the only egregious behavior I saw from MS, but it's some of the easiest to explain.
Logged
isthisthingon
Global Moderator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2879



View Profile
« Reply #11 on: June 03, 2010, 03:43:20 PM »

>That wasn't the only egregious behavior I saw from MS, but it's some of the easiest to explain.

Egregious for sure.  Perhaps it could be classified as unfair competition instead, an umbrella term unhindered by the specifics of a monopoly or monopolistic practices:

Unfair Competition

The law of unfair competition includes several related doctrines. Nevertheless, some courts have attempted to simplify the law by defining unfair competition as any trade practice whose harm outweighs its benefits. The U.S. legal system is a cornerstone of the free enterprise system. But the freedom to compete does not imply the right to engage in predatory, monopolistic, fraudulent, deceptive, misleading, or unfair competition. On balance, competition becomes unfair when its effects on trade, consumers, and society as a whole are more detrimental than beneficial.

unfair competition n. wrongful, fraudulent and/or business methods to gain an unfair advantage over competitors, including: a) untrue or misleading advertising or promotion which misrepresent the nature, characteristics, qualities or geographic origin (such as where wine comes from), b) misleading customers by imitative trademark, name, or package, including trademark infringement, c) falsely disparaging another's product. Under federal statute (Lanham Act) and many state laws, unfair competition is the basis for a legal action (suit) for damages and/or an injunction to halt the deceptive practices against an unfair competitor if the practices tend to harm one's business. (See: trademark, infringement, fraud)
Logged

I would love to change the world, but they won't give me the source code.
nop_90
Global Moderator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2203


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: June 03, 2010, 03:47:36 PM »

They required PC vendors to pay a Windows license fee to Microsoft for every machine shipped, whether it shipped with Windows or not.  Vendors were trying to offer machines that could be shipped with either Windows or Linux, for example, and Microsoft was forcing them to pay even on the machines that shipped with Linux.  If a company didn't agree to those terms, Microsoft would cut them off completely.
Then M$ was doing a Standford oil Smiley

Apple to the best of my knowledge does not
1) force developers to only produce IStore Apps.
2) Apple does not force artists to only sell using IStore.

And there are lots of alternatives out there.
Even percentage wise Apple does not have a monopoly.
Logged
daviator
Expert
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 333


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: June 03, 2010, 07:43:44 PM »

I wasn't trying to imply that Apple has a monopoly, they certainly do not have one, by any definition of the word. 

What they do have now is incredible power and influence in their markets, and they need to be a bit careful how they swing their weight around so that they aren't guilty of unfair trade practices.  I don't think they've crossed that line, but they have come closer recently than in the past.

My point was that Microsoft crossed that line, quite blatantly, and eventually got slapped back for it.  There was no question that their actions put their competitors at an unfair disadvantage.
Logged
isthisthingon
Global Moderator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2879



View Profile
« Reply #14 on: June 03, 2010, 07:56:26 PM »

I wasn't trying to imply that Apple has a monopoly, they certainly do not have one, by any definition of the word. 

What they do have now is incredible power and influence in their markets, and they need to be a bit careful how they swing their weight around so that they aren't guilty of unfair trade practices.  I don't think they've crossed that line, but they have come closer recently than in the past.

My point was that Microsoft crossed that line, quite blatantly, and eventually got slapped back for it.  There was no question that their actions put their competitors at an unfair disadvantage.

Unfair disadvantage, no question.  It's just that exhibiting "monopolistic practices" was determined to be the actual case with Microsoft.  I don't necessarily agree with this at all.  But level the playing field and call a spade a spade 

Anti-competitive practices.

Quote
In some cases, anti-competitive behavior can be difficult to distinguish from competition. For instance, a distinction must be made between product bundling, which is a legal market strategy, and product tying, which violates anti-trust law. Some advocates of laissez-faire  capitalism (such as Monetarists, some Neoclassical economists, and the heterodox economists of the Austrian school) reject the term, seeing all "anticompetitive behavior" as forms of competition that benefit consumers.
Logged

I would love to change the world, but they won't give me the source code.
Pages: [1] 2 3
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Perkiset's Place Home   Best of The Cache   phpMyIDE: MySQL Stored Procedures, Functions & Triggers
Politics @ Perkiset's   Pinkhat's Perspective   
cache
mart
coder
programmers
ajax
php
javascript
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC
Seo4Smf v0.2 © Webmaster's Talks


Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!