Apple May Be Forced to Allow Developers to Create iPhone Apps with Adobe Tools Discussion

[tmedvick]

If you can't see how this is anti-competitive and how Apple is using it's leverage to force a tie-in for it's own, possibly lesser, product in the same manner that Microsoft leveraged Windows to tie-in Internet Explorer and Office and crush competition then your head is in the sand. Apple has taken it a step farther, Apple says you can use only this certain tool to develop your app because the others are capable of reducing your cost to generate competing apps for other platforms. If Apple is right and Adobe's (or anyone else's) tool creates substandard programs, than competition would reveal that. Apple is using it's leverage in one product to tie-in an unrelated, possibly inferior, product in order to prevent competition.

The government absolutely should look into this. It's its job to do so. Just as they looked into Microsoft's anti-trust practice (starting in 1991 after the release of Windows 3.0 in 1990 though no lawsuits emerged and then again with lawsuits in 1998 and IExplorer trouble in Windows '95 - perhaps not decades). No charges have been filed, jurisdiction hasn't even been established (FTC or DOJ)

This is not about Flash Video or enabling Flash on Apple machines, this is about Adobe creating a program to allow for creation of iPhone apps - not flash and Apple moving to block them to stifle competition.

The real question will not be whether or not this is anti-competitive. That is without question. The question will be just what is Apple's market-share. If the market is defined simply as Smartphone OSes, than Apple doesn't have enough market to be considered monopolistic. If the market is Smartphone Apps - Apple is proud of it's effective monopoly there.

Apple is consistently anti-competitive, but it is generally a small matter because of Apple's small market share. You have to have at least 50% of the market (generally) to be in anti-trust danger.

[harpgliss]

Hi,

No head in sand here, I get claustrophobic.

I also do not go looking for a big dastardly plot where there may not be one.

The more people argue about Apple, the more I get flashbacks to the "Pinky And The Brain" cartoon.

Just kind of hard to stifle a laugh about it sometimes.

Guess I was not done on the subject, oops.

David

[tmedvick]

I also do not go looking for a big dastardly plot where there may not be one.

David

You clearly don't look for them where there might be one. I suspect you don't find many plots at all. This one is pretty straghtforward.

The government - not Adobe - the FTC and the Department of Justice look at situation cursorily and say, "Gosh, something might not be ok here. We have various laws designed to ensure that competition exists and that large monopolies can't use their strength in one arena to force dominance in another arena. Y'know like Microsoft did."

No one is suing Apple, no one is charging Apple with a crime. The government - not Adobe - has seen this anti-competitive (inarguably anti-competitive) policy of Apple's and is going to check now if this anti-competitive stance of Apple's breaks the law. The government is going to do so, because the government's job is to look for plots where one might exist, and determine if laws are being broken.

[brickman65]

The real question will not be whether or not this is anti-competitive. That is without question. The question will be just what is Apple's market-share. If the market is defined simply as Smartphone OSes, than Apple doesn't have enough market to be considered monopolistic. If the market is Smartphone Apps - Apple is proud of it's effective monopoly there.

I think this is the real issue here. Apple's market share is way too small to be considered a monopoly, IMVHO. The App Store is the only real advantage that Apple has in this market. If a Developer does not want to develop for the iPhone then, go somewhere else. Rim or Nokia are MUCH larger than the iPhone. No one is forcing these developers to develop or the iPhone or stopping them from developing for any other platform.

Try this example on: I am a local builder of large custom homes but I do not like carpet. So I never put carpet in any of my homes because I do not like it. You come to me and want me to build you a home and put carpet in it. I say no. Your choices are to let me build your house without carpet or you can go let someone else build your house that will put carpet in it. Have I eliminated your choices of products that you can put in YOUR house? No. Have I eliminated carpet from being installed in other houses? No. Just in the houses that I build.

That is the way I look at it.

[tmedvick]

I think this is the real issue here. Apple's market share is way too small to be considered a monopoly, IMVHO. The App Store is the only real advantage that Apple has in this market. If a Developer does not want to develop for the iPhone then, go somewhere else. Rim or Nokia are MUCH larger than the iPhone. No one is forcing these developers to develop or the iPhone or stopping them from developing for any other platform.

Try this example on: I am a local builder of large custom homes but I do not like carpet. So I never put carpet in any of my homes because I do not like it. You come to me and want me to build you a home and put carpet in it. I say no. Your choices are to let me build your house without carpet or you can go let someone else build your house that will put carpet in it. Have I eliminated your choices of products that you can put in YOUR house? No. Have I eliminated carpet from being installed in other houses? No. Just in the houses that I build.

That is the way I look at it.

Nokia doesn't really matter in the U.S. inverstigation. Nokia is the global leader, but not particularly relevant in the U.S.A. The question is U.S. market share, and what is the market in question?

I think (IMNAHAISBO) this is a better opinion: you build a house, the house is great, and you used Anderson windows. a law prevents direct home sales - you have to have a realtor or you may not sell your work.
The local realtor, THE local realtor, has decided that only Pella windows are allowed on the houses it will sell. The customer is not allowed to decide if your Anderson-windowed house is ok. Pretend then, that
If there are many effective realtors in the area, if no one has a market share that allows control of the market, than there is no legal issue. It remains anti-consumer and anti-competitive, but not illegal. If there is one, massive controlling realtor, than this becomes illegal.

So the question is: are we looking at the smartphone market or the smartphone app market?



But you are right, the question is market

[harpgliss]

Hi,

Just the thing I want, the government getting into a corporate squabble when there are more important things to focus on.

We all know our government has a tendency to lose focus of important issues when it decides to focus on something flashy, forgive the pun, like this one.

Maybe the government should stay focused on the economy and such than putting its nose into this corporate bickering.

Ideally, they would focus on helping those who need jobs, such as me, and let the market work this out.

But nope, gotta have big brother get involved even if all this story is right now, as near as what I read, just a rumor.

Tmedvick, you take the first chance to slam Apple whenever there is a story like this, even though you say you are a customer, I guess I am not sure you are seeing this from an objective point of view.

Your comments on the subject of Apple and your comments about WebOS on this forum certainly give me an indication you may be less than open to the possibilty that Apple may not be doing anything wrong.

If you have a bias, fine, but do not accuse me of not knowing what I am commenting on or ignoring facts.

All the analogies in the world do not help make a point if there is not one to be made, and I think there is not one to be made here.

Anyways, back to trashing Apple because it appears to be a popular thing to do nowadays.

Apologies for the interruption.

David

[tmedvick]

This is not a corporate squabble, but a matter of law. As a matter of law, it is completely appropriate and responsible for the Government to inquire about it.

It is, additionally, the government taking responsibility for the economy. I am not sure what you expect the FTC and the DOJ to do to help the economy except make sure that commerce is being legally transacted.

I dislike many of Apple's business processes, but I have objectively and validly stated the issues here. Apple is hampering competition - that is certain. Apple has created a clause in iPhone app developer agreements dictating what tool may be used to create an iPhone app. This isn't about adding Flash to the iPhone, this is about allowing a third-party tool for creation of an iPhone app - not a Flash application. The PC equivalent would be Microsoft insisting that all Windows apps be created with Visual Studio. Apple is hampering competition between tools for creating iPhone programs, Apple is also hampering competition among platforms by increasing the cost (in time, if not money, but time = money) to creating cross-platform tools. Apple is hindering competition among applications, by not allowing the consumer to choose between Applications created with a third-party tools - be it Adobe or anyone else.

These are basic facts, the question is: Is Apple breaking the law? The answer is: No one knows yet, but the Government is going to check.

Apple will argue that it doesn't have the phone or smartphone market share to break the law. Adobe, if it is asked, will probably say that the market in question is not is not phones or smartphones, but rather smartphone applications. If it is smartphone applications, Apple likely has to take notice of anti-trust laws, because its marketshare is huge.

I have not given my opinion on the merits of the arguments, only whether or not there is something to be investigated. In My Not As Humble As It Should Be Opinion, there is a significant cause for the Government to research this question. This is a business of millions upon millions of dollars: this is the economy.

In my opinion on the merits: Apple is, once again, slimey but legal. I think the market in question is much more smartphones, and not smartphone apps. Apple and iPhoneOS may get to an actionable marketshare at some point, but from what I can see, it is not there just yet. RIM, Android, and MS all have enough of a chunk of the pie to prevent Apple from being in violation of the law. Android, may prove to have enough momentum to make Apple pay for this policy through the marketplace, but I don't know. Whether Apple is doing anything wrong? I believe that competition is good for the consumer and that Apple's policies are counter to competition, so I don't think those policies are good, and I hope they backfire.

[Varjak]

I'm in accord with TMedvick's various posts. And I think the principle is applicable to lots of situations. It's not about Flash or Apple for that matter.

Brickman, I have to disagree about marketshare. Apple is one of the 'big three' in smartphones with about 1/3 of the market in the USA (and since we're talking about the fed. gov.; the US is all that matters for the moment). And Apple also has about 100% of the consumer 'tablet' market.

I also have to laugh at your carpet example. While I totally support your right to behave in that fashion; with all due respect, it's a pretty ridiculous stand from someone providing a product to the consumer (not that carpet is something that's usually preinstalled in a house). If a customer wanted pink shag carpeting, so be it. You are (theoretically) providing a service WITH your product (if indeed they're not cookie-cutter spec houses). And in any event, that's not analogous to this situation. I fully support Apple's RIGHT to sell a specifically configured product. I don't support their right to tell developers HOW to develop the apps.