Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it,
follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given
their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
Apple To Developers: Fuck You
Posts
all monopolies are dangerous, some are just not dangerous enough to require regulation.
I'm not advocating that some one needs to come and "fix" this, I'm just pointing out that it is consumer negative.
You mean where Xcode lets you currently compile to both PowerPC and Intel at the same time?
All that would happen if Apple publically disclosed an arch change is that they would Osborne the current iPhone.
Just because you can flip a toggle that "allows" you to compile to a specific architecture doesn't mean it's going to work. Especially on a mobile device where you can't just let the machine's power do the heavy lifting for you.
And, Apple goes out and out anti-competitive.
Basically, if you want to be able to use ad serving that, you know...works, you only have one choice - iAd.
Edit: This also has the potential to take away the BEST tool that devs have to improve their applications - gathering real-world usage metrics.
If they approved it, then people would probably say SO YOU NEED TO WIN A PULITZER FOR APPLE TO ACCEPT YOUR SATIRICAL APPS?!?!? THAT IS SOOOOO UNFAIR!!!
Like I said above, haters gonna hate. It's very easy to find stuff on which you attack Apple.
Well, Apple could solve the whole problem by getting out of the content regulation business (well, beyond the usual boundaries.)
What are the usual boundaries?
Explicit content, hate speech (and no, what Fiore does doesn't come close), and illegal content.
On the other hand, political cartoons ALSO suck ass.
Just one big ass sucking party really.
Well, that, on top of 3.3.1 and now 3.3.9 is evidence that the FTC really needs to step in.
Citation?
For what, exactly?
For being mean ol' doodie-heads.
"Dear Dudes of the FCC,
It has come to our attention that those hipster douches over at Apple have waaay too much of the market. We feel this is likely due to like a monopoly, or something. Some kind of Opoly. Marketopoly? That doesn't sound right. I don't think that's even a real word.
Anyway, look into it. I'm sure those cockbags are up to something, bro. I mean, look at 'em.
Totally yours,
Badical Dudez, Inc."
Basically. And iAd is exempt from those restrictions.
This is why Economics really ought to be a mandatory course. So that people understand what econ terms actually mean, and don't just treat them as buzzwords.
What terms would those be?
As a lettered economist, I'm dying to find out.
The way that people treat "monopoly" as though its only usage is in terms of anti-trust legal cases.
There are plenty more, but that's the relevant one right now.
You used the term "monopoly" to describe the dispersion of proprietary software through the company that holds the proprietary license.
It's basically the same argument as saying that Chrysler is a monopoly because you can only buy their cars through approved dealers instead of competing dealers that would undercut them.
"Monopoly" has nothing to do with proprietary development and distribution. If the market has a problem with it, it will respond accordingly. Apple just happens to be a company that chooses not to subcontract their sales piecemeal. Granted, there are fewer companies doing this than there aren't, but it's really a pretty optimal situation if you can grant it.
And "optimal situation" isn't a euphemism for "monopoly," either, any more than sub-contracted patent developers signing non-compete contracts for exclusivity are forming an anti-trust.
Are developers free to develop for other platforms? Are other platforms readily available? Is Apple allowing access to those platforms by methods other than market preference?
If these answers are "yes," then monopoly isn't occurring.
That market, in particular, is software that will run on a proprietary device, yes.
But due to the marketshare of that particular device in another market (the cellphone market) that particular smaller market stops being quite so non-significant.
HOWEVER, my point was that there is an issue with folks using economic terms as buzzwords. To call the app store a traditional monopoly would be insane, of course. That DOES NOT mean, though, that one can't point out that it has some monopolistic qualities and tendencies.
If you're gathering usage data for improving your application, I doubt that you'd be using third-party tools rather than your own performance/usage metrics, and you'd also be sending it to yourself, not a third-party.
It is written in a way to fuck over targeted ads that aren't Apple's though, and "Device Data" needs to be clarified. Which I doubt they'll do.
[random speculation]
Re: arch switch being the reason behind the Obj-C and XCode push, I doubt it's coming anytime "soon." Even though there's an order of magnitude in performance between ARM and IOP x86 (Atom for example) there's also an order of magnitude in power consumption. They might go with an NVIDIA Tegra, but that would be more of an OpenGL clusterfuck since I'm not sure if the Tegra GPU is licensed for PVRTC, and Moorestown (Intel's Atom SoC) is an unknown quantity at this point.
[/random speculation]
Can trade TF2 items or whatever else you're interested in. PM me.
Not if it is being incentivised otherwise.
It is my opinion that Apple's current business model is far more consumer negative than folks are willing to realize. They prey on a lack of information on the consumer end. Apple builds a strong loyalty for their brand through word of mouth and very well designed marketing, and sells the consumers a device at a level of mark-up that is honestly quite stunning. The real problem comes in when lower prices from competitors aren't even able to dissuade a large chunk of consumers from that marketing. What occurs is that the competitors can't really compete on a large scale level with Apple's offering, so instead they mimic it, in order to maximize the small marketshare that they can do nothing to expand. This effectively kills off a lot of potential innovation that competition could bring to the marketplace. Don't believe me? Look at the featureset of the Zune device. Features like built-in wifi and built in FM radio did very little to gain marketshare, but when apple implements similar features, they are lauded.
I am NOT arguing for regulation here, because I do think that given time, the market will correct. That time, though, could be decades. The bottom line is that if a company were performing this sort of behavior with necessities, rather than the very epitome of luxury goods, we would have a serious problem on our hands.
Every other company, computer, device, OS and brands are a piece of shit by comparison, and are constantly waging an uphill battle against Apple's unstoppable evangelism.
Apple has become "Too awesome to fail".
Monopolistic markets can't be demand-side derived, certainly not in regards to any legal context.
"Quick, call the SEC! Too many people are buying things from Apple instead of their readily-available competition!"
The only thing people are ever willing to pay more money for is a better experience.
The only thing people are ever willing to pay more money for is a better experience.
I'm sure someone in 1988 said the same thing about slap-bracelets.
A better experience includes things like brand name, appearance, and regular peer pressure.
In two posts, I can't tell if you're being extremely ironic or just trolling.
Kudos, if the former.
Fixed that for you.
What they have is a motherfucking 800lb gorilla of a brand image that gives the appearance of the other four being tip-top.
Can trade TF2 items or whatever else you're interested in. PM me.
3.3.1: Apple is using their lead position in the smartphone application market as leverage to place roadblocks in the way of developers seeking to develop cross-platform. By saying "you can only use these specific languages to develop for us, and you must write the code yourself", Apple makes it harder for developers to maintain their codebase to implement their application for other platforms. And for a lot of smaller developers, they may just decide the pain isn't worth it.
3.3.9: This one's even more blatant - Apple's pretty much crippled all third party ad streaming services, granting their own first party ad streaming service a clear advantage.
Good thing that I have said NOTHING AT ALL about a legal context.
Not really, but I'll play along.
Perception is not the same as reality. When you take an uninformed consumer base, and convince them that they are getting a superior experience, you get the same effect as if they were ACTUALLY getting a better experience.
And here's the catch: the market stagnates because they don't know enough to tell that they would get the same experience, or better, from a competing device.
The issue with the particular markets that I'm talking about is that Apple is playing two roles. Both the role of information source AS WELL AS the role of supplier.
Evander, what on earth does any of that have to do with Apple only letting apps sold through the app store run on non-Jailbroken units?
It also seemed like half your argument boils down to "People are being somehow manipulated by PR to love Apple instead of these better alternatives!" Which... has nothing to do with monopolies at all.
It's a tangent. If some one wants to split the discussion to a new thread, I'll follow.