Apple – The New Comics Censors

[Deckerd]

scotpens wrote:

---

What? What flagrant errors in grammar, usage or spelling does the article contain? I couldn't find any.

Try the first paragraph for starters.

[David cgc]

Stone_Cold_Sisko wrote:

---

I do have an iPhone and it's a cool device but I find myself wishing i'd gone for Android instead.

What, specifically, would you like to do with your iPhone that you can't, but could on an Android device? Come on. Sell me on it.

[Dusty Ayres]

Christopher wrote:

---

So defining this as a censorship issue is missing the more basic problem, which is monopolistic business practices. The problem isn't that Apple is intentionally restricting free speech; the problem is that Apple is too much of a monopoly and is thus restricting free trade, with free speech being a casualty. What we need is to break up the monopoly, restore the antitrust laws to the strength they used to have.

Just my thinking exactly; that what I've been saying all along.

[FordSVT]

Christopher wrote:

---

So defining this as a censorship issue is missing the more basic problem, which is monopolistic business practices. The problem isn't that Apple is intentionally restricting free speech; the problem is that Apple is too much of a monopoly and is thus restricting free trade, with free speech being a casualty. What we need is to break up the monopoly, restore the antitrust laws to the strength they used to have.

In what way is Apple a monopoly? They have less than 20% of the smart phone market (about 3% of the total worldwide cell phone market), they have a 10% share of the OS market in North America but their worldwide share is less than 5%. They do have a very dominant share of the MP3 player market between the various models of iPod.

So your beef comes down to whether or not the iPod Touch, iPhone and the iPad constitute a monopoly. Given the existence and thriving nature of the Android platform I'd say not, and there are several competitors to the iPad coming down the pipeline. They pretty much invented this tech segment, it's hard to condemn them for it. There are other outlets for making money that don't require forcing Apple to distribute products they don't want to sell or to split up into multiple companies. If you can't get Walmart to sell your wares, maybe Target will.

You can download movies and content through the PS3 and XBox live service, and consoles only play approved software. I don't think anyone who buys an iPad is under the illusion the device is anything but a pipeline for Apple-approved content in the exact same way a console is. They are not PCs, hell they aren't even as open as an OSX desk or laptop is, but the people who buy them don't expect them to be. The ones who do jail break them and put whatever the hell apps they want from a shit-ton of free and paid app websites that are out there.

[Small White Car]

FordSVT wrote:

---

In what way is Apple a monopoly?

Exactly.

Don't like what Apple's selling? There are plenty of other places to go.

And there always will be.

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Small White Car wrote:

---

Don't like what Apple's selling? There are plenty of other places to go.

And there always will be.

That much is certain.

[Arrqh]

David cgc wrote:

---

What, specifically, would you like to do with your iPhone that you can't, but could on an Android device? Come on. Sell me on it.

Flash (coming soon)? Installing apps from a source other then the official store? Being able to customize the OS and swap out built in apps? Use it on another network from AT&T? Be able to unlock your phone without being accused of breaking the law? Have a choice of multiple devices to better suit your specific needs and cost requirements? Being able to buy apps that Apple hasn't rejected for arbitrary reasons?

There's nothing wrong with having an iPhone, but to suggest that it is the end all be all of phones and that no other choice might be better suited to any specific person is silly.

Don't like what Apple's selling? There are plenty of other places to go.

And there always will be.

Just because they're not a monopoly they're beyond reproach? Should we only hold companies to ethical and legal standards once they cross the threshold of controlling 51% of whatever market you decide to look at?

It doesn't matter if Apple is a monopoly or not. Their choices are affecting content across all platforms. That may not even be what their intent is, but it's still happening (and in the case of App developer restrictions, you can be damn sure that that's the intent). And when any company is in a position to unfairly control its competitors or any other company besides themselves, monopoly or not, then it's bad.

As it turns out, the FTC is currently running an investigation on Apple as a precursor to a possible antitrust suit. So... yeah.

[Christopher]

Small White Car wrote:

---

Exactly.

Don't like what Apple's selling? There are plenty of other places to go.

And there always will be.

I hope you're right, but it seems to me that it's not for want of trying on Apple's part. And "there always will be" will only be true so long as we maintain strong antitrust protections.

[Small White Car]

Arrqh wrote:

---

Just because they're not a monopoly they're beyond reproach? Should we only hold companies to ethical and legal standards once they cross the threshold of controlling 51% of whatever market you decide to look at?

What's "ethical" about deciding what to run on the device you manufacture?

Nintendo gives the ok to 100% of the material released for the Wii. That's unethical to you?

I disagree.

Arrqh wrote:

---

As it turns out, the FTC is currently running an investigation on Apple as a precursor to a possible antitrust suit. So... yeah.

And online music sales IS an area where Apple is closer to a monopoly.

So, yeah, I'd say it does matter. Even your own example proves how it becomes much more serious once you pass that 50% mark.

Christopher wrote:

---

I hope you're right, but it seems to me that it's not for want of trying on Apple's part.

No, trust me. Having the smaller market-share (of hardware) is Apple's business plan.

It'd be stupid of them to mess that up. It's working VERY well for them. Why change plans now?

[Arrqh]

Small White Car wrote:

---

What's "ethical" about deciding what to run on the device you manufacture?

Nintendo gives the ok to 100% of the material released for the Wii. That's unethical to you?

I disagree.

You believe that restricting developers from deploying cross platform applications on your platform to hurt other platforms is ethical?

I disagree. And so does the justice department, Microsoft got beaned for the same thing (settled out of court, but used as evidence in the antitrust suit). Nintendo's policies, of course, aren't designed to discourage people from developing on the PS3 or the 360 so it really is an entirely different matter.

So, yeah, I'd say it does matter. Even your own example proves how it becomes much more serious once you pass that 50% mark.

Perhaps you missed the bit that referenced the other investigation triggered by a complain by Adobe? Because that has nothing to do with iTunes.

Antitrust laws apply to all companies regardless of their market position... it's just easier for a smaller company to fly under the radar. Doesn't make it legal and it doesn't make it ethical. And just because a company does not have a monopoly does not mean they are not in a position to unfairly harm their competitors or control other companies.

[Small White Car]

Arrqh wrote:

---

Antitrust laws apply to all companies regardless of their market position... it's just easier for a smaller company to fly under the radar. Doesn't make it legal and it doesn't make it ethical. And just because a company does not have a monopoly does not mean they are not in a position to unfairly harm their competitors or control other companies.

Ok, but you're asking to give Adobe the right to hurt Apple.

It's not ok for Apple to hurt Adobe, so we should just reverse it and that makes everything ok?

At a certain point you just have to realize that everything can't be fair and that someone has to come out ahead. Why shouldn't the market get to make that decision?

Why let the government arbitrarily pick one company to win out over the other? Who gets to make that choice?

[Arrqh]

Small White Car wrote:

---

Ok, but you're asking to give Adobe the right to hurt Apple.

It's not ok for Apple to hurt Adobe, so we should just reverse it and that makes everything ok?

How does letting Adobe release a software package that lets developers create iPhone apps hurt Apple? How does letting Adobe release a version of Flash for the iPhone and iPad hurt Apple?

Letting the free market decide would be great! Unfortunately, Apple doesn't seem to agree because their current restrictions on developers are designed to unfairly influence the market. Further, by your logic Microsoft should still be in a position to force the OEMs to do their bidding and your phone company should be Ma Bell. The free market put those companies there so why should the government interfere! A pure free market has never worked and that's why we have antitrust legislation in the first place. And forcing Apple to play by the rules is most certainly not equivalent to picking a different company to win over them.

The law applies to everyone, not just companies we don't like. Microsoft, Google, Apple, IBM, Nintendo, Sony... they all have to play by the same rules.

[Small White Car]

Arrqh wrote:

---

How does letting Adobe release a software package that lets developers create iPhone apps hurt Apple? How does letting Adobe release a version of Flash for the iPhone and iPad hurt Apple?

Apple's competitive advantage is their ability to come out with unique devices that (they hope) work better than their competitors and offer neat new features before anyone else has them.

Adobe's goal is to get their software involved in all hardware platforms. Having hardware be more similar is an advantage for them. Thus, wherever Apple has the ability to pull out ahead of the pack, Adobe has no vested interest in helping them do that.

So, given that, let's look at a 'what if?' world. What if Adobe Flash ran on the iPhone and its compiler made apps for the app store? In that world, any new feature that Apple adds to their phone will only be a "real" feature once Adobe adds support for it. And we've already established that speed doesn't really matter to Adobe in such matters.

So Apple adds a compass to the 3GS model? Great. People will care once Adobe adds support for it to their software. Which is...when...exactly? Oh, probably a month or two after all the other phones finally get around to adding it to their devices.

Or what about bugs? Right now if there's a bug in the Apple software, Apple can fix it. If there's a bug in 3rd party software...well, it's not like everyone uses that program.

But a bug in Adobe's software? That will pretty much affect everyone and Apple can't do anything about it. Remember, Adobe is a company that let Flash for Mac lag far, far behind Flash for Windows for years. They've made it quite clear that fixing their software for Apple is not a priority for them. What makes us think the iPhone will be any different? Huge flaws could last for weeks...months. iPhone sales are slipping? Whatever...they're just jumping over to a different phone with Adobe software. No reason to hurry.

Right now, Apple controls when and how their phone gets updated. Allowing Adobe Flash or the compiler in will transfer that control from Apple to Adobe. (To Adobe, mind you, not to the consumer, as many people think.) So what possible reason can we say to Apple "We're taking control of your product away from you to give to another company" and not have that be an egregious abuse of government power?

That's like telling McDonald's "You're selling too many Big Macs so we're gonna let Burger King design what'll be in them from now on."
Or telling Sony that the X-Box isn't doing so well so Playstations must run X-Box games from now on.

I just can't see the justification for any of that.

Arrqh wrote:

---

Unfortunately, Apple doesn't seem to agree because their current restrictions on developers are designed to unfairly influence the market.

And this, I just don't get. How are Apple's policies stopping anyone from buying a Droid or a Pre? You want to buy a Pre? Explain to me how Apple's policy on Flash is stopping you. I don't see it.

[Arrqh]

Small White Car wrote:

---

So, given that, let's look at a 'what if?' world. What if Adobe Flash ran on the iPhone and its compiler made apps for the app store? In that world, any new feature that Apple adds to their phone will only be a "real" feature once Adobe adds support for it. And we've already established that speed doesn't really matter to Adobe in such matters.

So Apple adds a compass to the 3GS model? Great. People will care once Adobe adds support for it to their software. Which is...when...exactly? Oh, probably a month or two after all the other phones finally get around to adding it to their devices.

Such a scenario would be correct if having Flash on the iPhone would suddenly mean that the App Store was not available. But of course, it still would be. As a result you've gotten this entirely backwards. Apple still retains total control over both the hardware and the OS and if they add a feature that Flash doesn't support then they can promote apps on their app store that do support it, thus differentiating them from the rest of the market in the way that you describe. Removing the unfair and potentially illegal restrictions that Apple has placed on Adobe does not hurt them in the way that you describe; it does, however, mean that they have to compete on equal footing... and then let the free market decide.

Isn't that what you wanted, the free market? Or is the free market only a valid selector if the choice is pre-weighted in someone's favor? You say you want the free market to decide, but you also don't even want to give them the option of playing a Flash game instead of buying one from the App store. How is that anything even resembling a free market?

That's like telling McDonald's "You're selling too many Big Macs so we're gonna let Burger King design what'll be in them from now on."
Or telling Sony that the X-Box isn't doing so well so Playstations must run X-Box games from now on.

And it's worth pointing out again, just like your Nintendo comment earlier this is not the same at all and most certainly is not what I'm suggesting. What this is like is telling Microsoft that they can't restrict Java on their platform in an attempt to poison the market or telling Microsoft that they can't force the OEM's to not install Netscape... and both of those things have already happened. Were you opposed to the antitrust investigation on Microsoft in the 90s? Were you opposed to the EU's investigation, fines and eventual enforcement on browsers and media players in Windows? If so, then I guess I can see why you would be opposed to any investigation on Apple or any company in general, but if not then isn't it hypocritical to give Apple a pass when they're doing the same sorts of things Microsoft got in trouble for?

On the topic of Flash on Macs, I feel that pain everytime I go to YouTube on my Macbook Pro. The situation isn't exactly as clear cut as you make it seem however; the issue is that Flash does not do any hardware accelerated H.264 decoding on Macs. It isn't entirely clear exactly who's fault this is, and a case can be made for both Apple and Adobe as to why this hasn't been addressed. But a month ago, Apple added the Video Decode Acceleration Framework API to OSX 10.6.3. Adobe has long said that they lack the proper API's to optimize Flash for the Mac and shortly after this API was released Adobe announced that they will be implementing it in Flash. You can read about it here.

[Small White Car]

Arrqh wrote:

---

Such a scenario would be correct if having Flash on the iPhone would suddenly mean that the App Store was not available. But of course, it still would be.

You seem very sure of that. The idea here is that the Adobe programs would be IN the app-store, remember. Since they're cross-platform, what do you want to bet that many developers will use them?

I'm betting that most of the app store would BE Flash-made apps.

I do not believe the consumer would have a choice at that point. They would go from having to buy Apple-software-made apps to having to buy Adobe-software-made apps. Not because the Adobe-made ones are better, but because they were easier to make. The developers would have an easier job. The consumer would get no greater choice, however. They'd just switch from one thing to another thing.

Clearly it's impossible to know for sure, so we're stuck here at a difference of opinions. I am firmly convinced that the consumer would not gain any choice through any of this. You disagree, but we have no way of knowing, either way.

Arrqh wrote:

---

Removing the unfair and potentially illegal restrictions that Apple has placed on Adobe does not hurt them in the way that you describe; it does, however, mean that they have to compete on equal footing... and then let the free market decide.

Like I said, I don't think that'll happen. I think the 'free market' will never get a chance to choose. Right now I can choose between a phone without Flash (iPhone) or a phone with (eventual) Flash (Android.) I consider THAT to be the free market deciding. I have a choice of which kind of phone to buy. Forcing Flash onto the iPhone means that I then must buy a phone with Flash. If I want one without it, I would no longer have that choice.

Basically, we're arguing about 2 different kinds of choice:

1) I think giving consumers the choice over what kind of platform to buy is paramount.

2) You think that giving developers the choice over what kind of software to design with is paramount.

Those are contradictory goals in this case. Are you a software writer? Then it would make sense why you'd pick #2 over #1. Me? I'd rather give the freedom to the public than the software writers. Sorry, but I think the people spending the money have the greater rights. That sucks for the developers, I know, but SOMEONE has to win there. I choose consumers.

Arrqh wrote:

---

Were you opposed to the antitrust investigation on Microsoft in the 90s? Were you opposed to the EU's investigation, fines and eventual enforcement on browsers and media players in Windows? If so, then I guess I can see why you would be opposed to any investigation on Apple or any company in general, but if not then isn't it hypocritical to give Apple a pass when they're doing the same sorts of things Microsoft got in trouble for?

The difference here is that I can easily buy an Android phone instead. What was my alternative to Windows in the 90's? Macs? Linux? Please. Those were not real choices then.

When you have no alternatives then you're held to a higher standard. The existence of both Blackberries and all those Android phones make this a totally different scenario.

If iPhones become 90% of the market I will totally agree with you. But that's never going to happen.

Arrqh wrote:

---

On the topic of Flash on Macs, I feel that pain everytime I go to YouTube on my Macbook Pro. The situation isn't exactly as clear cut as you make it seem however; the issue is that Flash does not do any hardware accelerated H.264 decoding on Macs.

That's what Adobe wants you to think. That they WOULD fix things, if only Apple would let them. But it's just a red herring. If that were true then non-video Flash programs would work fine on a Mac. You'd see a clear-cut difference between video Flash running poorly and other kinds of Flash running well.

This isn't the case, however. Run 'Farmville' on your Mac and check the processor. Compare that to a Windows machine and you'll see the difference. Video acceleration has nothing to do with that, so why does it run so poorly? Adobe hopes you'll just think "hardware acceleration" is the answer to everything, when it really isn't. The real answer is that they just didn't care about the Mac.

It really is as clear cut as what I said: Adobe's Flash team didn't care about the Mac until very, very recently.