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

13468929

Posts

  • iTunesIsEviliTunesIsEvil Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    Hmmmm. Intriguing if true.

    Then again a summer iPhone hardware update has been as predictable as the sun rising.
    This is true, but a change of the frickin' architecture just months after they put out their new flagship portable device? That'd be a little weird even for Apple. Especially as they're gaining market-share at the rate they are.

  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    enc0re wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    There is nothing monopolistic about it. Apple is not a monopoly.

    monopoly is a VERY relative term. in terms of apps on non-jailbroken iphones, the app store DOES hold a monopoly.

    I'm not using the term judgmentally, I'm using it in the economic sense.

    It's an intra-brand monopoly. Just like Wal-Mart has an intra-brand monopoly on sales of Sam's Choice.

    They are however not an inter-brand monopoly, like the USPS or Microsoft. It's inter-brand monopolies that are dangerous. Nobody gives a goose about intra-brand monopolies. Otherwise we should argue that Wal-Mart should be forced to sell Sam's Choice through all retailers, not just their own.

    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.

    georgersig.jpg
  • His CorkinessHis Corkiness Registered User
    edited April 2010
    Even if it were true, Apple does not necessarily have access to the source of any apps on the Store, so people would have to wait for the developers to be bothered to recompile every app anyway. It's not like, if every app was developed with the SDK, Apple can just flick a switch and boom, every app runs on a different architecture.

  • FyreWulffFyreWulff Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited April 2010
    gearn wrote: »
    Hi, I just wanted to inform you guys that the reason for Apple doing this has nothing to do with Flash.

    They're banning Apps that are compiled from other tools because Apple is planning to switch architectures soon. If cross compilers became popular it would mean that once this switch occurred developers who compiled apps through other programs like the Flash-to-iPhone compiler would be screwed, as they would now have to wait for flaky companies like Adobe to write a new cross compiler for their apps to be compiled for the new architecture. If you have an Xcode project though then compiling to another architecture is pretty much a matter of just selecting it from a drop down list.

    See, they do care after all.

    Moral: Just fucking use Xcode to compile.
    No, if they actually cared, they would do what responsible companies do and provide a roadmap highlightging such shifts. Instead, we get the same old bullshit song and dance about how it actually benefits everyone when Apple keeps its cards close to its chest.

    And compiling to multiple architectures is not that simple, especially when you're talking mobile devices, where you have to code closer to the metal.

    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.

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    FyreWulff wrote: »
    And compiling to multiple architectures is not that simple, especially when you're talking mobile devices, where you have to code closer to the metal.

    You mean where Xcode lets you currently compile to both PowerPC and Intel at the same time?

    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.
    Apple told us last week that it would not prevent third-party ad networks from embedding ads in applications for the iPad, iPhone and iPod Touch, even though those networks would compete with its own iAd platform.

    “Yes, we still allow developers or other advertising companies to serve ads within their apps,” Apple spokeswoman Trudy Muller told Wired.com.

    However, section 3.3.9 of Apple’s new developers’ agreement appears to hobble non-Apple advertising networks, even though the company will allow them onto its devices.

    “The use of third-party software in Your Application to collect and send Device Data to a third party for processing or analysis is expressly prohibited,” reads the line in question, as noted by All Things Digital.

    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.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Spoiler:
  • nescientistnescientist Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    I'm not sure it would be premature to describe apple as having a monopoly in the "personal entertainment" computer-phone category. I mean, businesspeople of varying stripes have long used WinCE/WinMo, Palm, or Blackberry devices with elaborate Microsoft Exchange server integration and whatever corporate bells and whistles, but while those things are typically purchased by employers, the iPhone seems much more appealing to consumers intending the device entirely for personal use. The only real competitor for Apple in that arena is Android, which probably represents a small fraction of the marketshare the iPhone controls.

    Carl Sagan wrote:
    The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars.
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Spoiler:
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    PhoneGap will still work apparently
    Engadget wrote:
    PhoneGap framework fine for App Store development, sez Apple
    By Joseph L. Flatley posted Apr 15th 2010 3:04AM

    Now, we've all been concerned about recent updates to the iPhone dev agreement -- you haven't been sleeping and your parents are, quite frankly, worried for your sanity. And it's a heady subject: "what is the fate of PhoneGap in the wake of the iPhone OS 4 beta SDK?" Well, worry no more, little one -- it seems that Jesse Macfadyen, a contributor to the project, pinged Apple to make sure that users of the mobile development platform wouldn't find their apps rejected simply for using the tool. As you remember, the agreement states: "Applications must be originally written in Objective-C, C, C++, or JavaScript as executed by the iPhone OS WebKit engine" (and of course HTML and CSS are cool), so PhoneGap -- which indeed sticks to HTML, CSS and Javascript -- is totally safe. Now developers can get back to having their apps rejected for any number of other silly reasons.

    [Thanks, Bea]

    SEGATA SANSHIRO! LIVE AGAIN!
    Lanz.gif
  • PerpetualPerpetual Registered User
    edited April 2010

    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.

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Perpetual wrote: »

    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.)

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Spoiler:
  • PerpetualPerpetual Registered User
    edited April 2010
    Perpetual wrote: »

    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?

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Perpetual wrote: »
    Perpetual wrote: »

    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.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Spoiler:
  • KageraKagera Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    On the one hand, censorship sucks ass.

    On the other hand, political cartoons ALSO suck ass.

    Just one big ass sucking party really.

    “This is America. We’re entitled to our opinions.”
    “Wrong. This is Texas. And my opinion is the only one that counts."
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Kagera wrote: »
    On the one hand, censorship sucks ass.

    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.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Spoiler:
  • AtomikaAtomika Hypercritical Queen Bitch of Cinema Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    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?

  • edited April 2010
    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.

  • KageraKagera Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Ah poo wrong thread.

    “This is America. We’re entitled to our opinions.”
    “Wrong. This is Texas. And my opinion is the only one that counts."
  • AtomikaAtomika Hypercritical Queen Bitch of Cinema Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    bongi wrote: »
    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."

  • iTunesIsEviliTunesIsEvil Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    I don't see how 3.3.9 stops anyone from using 3rd party advertisers. It stops them from providing data about whats on your phone and how your phone is used to 3rd parties. Sounds like a perfectly acceptable idea to me.

  • GlalGlal Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    I assume the idea is that it kills targeted advertising.

  • BarrakkethBarrakketh Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Glal wrote: »
    I assume the idea is that it kills targeted advertising.

    Basically. And iAd is exempt from those restrictions.

  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    bongi wrote: »
    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."

    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.

    georgersig.jpg
  • AtomikaAtomika Hypercritical Queen Bitch of Cinema Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    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.

  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    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.

    georgersig.jpg
  • AtomikaAtomika Hypercritical Queen Bitch of Cinema Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    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.

  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    I'm speaking relative to a market.

    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.

    georgersig.jpg
  • PeregrineFalconPeregrineFalcon Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    The use of third-party software in Your Application to collect and send Device Data to a third party for processing or analysis is expressly prohibited.

    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 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]

    Looking for a DX:HR OnLive code for my kid brother.
    Can trade TF2 items or whatever else you're interested in. PM me.
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    If the market has a problem with it, it will respond accordingly.

    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.

    georgersig.jpg
  • gearngearn __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2010
    The only thing Apple has a monopoly on is coolness.

    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".

  • AtomikaAtomika Hypercritical Queen Bitch of Cinema Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    I'm speaking relative to a market.

    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.


    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!"

  • gearngearn __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    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.

    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.

  • AtomikaAtomika Hypercritical Queen Bitch of Cinema Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    gearn wrote: »
    Apple has become "Too awesome to fail".

    I'm sure someone in 1988 said the same thing about slap-bracelets.

  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    gearn wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    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.

    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.

    A better experience includes things like brand name, appearance, and regular peer pressure.

  • AtomikaAtomika Hypercritical Queen Bitch of Cinema Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    gearn wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    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.

    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.

    In two posts, I can't tell if you're being extremely ironic or just trolling.


    Kudos, if the former.

  • PeregrineFalconPeregrineFalcon Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    gearn wrote: »
    The only thing Apple has a monopoly on is coolness.

    Every other [strike]company, computer, device, OS[/strike] 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".

    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.

    Looking for a DX:HR OnLive code for my kid brother.
    Can trade TF2 items or whatever else you're interested in. PM me.
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    bongi wrote: »
    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."

    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.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Spoiler:
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    I'm speaking relative to a market.

    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.


    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!"

    Good thing that I have said NOTHING AT ALL about a legal context.
    gearn wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    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.

    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.

    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.

    georgersig.jpg
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    If the market has a problem with it, it will respond accordingly.

    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.

    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.

    SEGATA SANSHIRO! LIVE AGAIN!
    Lanz.gif
  • nescientistnescientist Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Well, the fact that being a monopoly isn't actually bad PR is sort of a thing. It reflects badly on the all-rational consumer.

    Carl Sagan wrote:
    The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars.
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Lanz wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    If the market has a problem with it, it will respond accordingly.

    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.

    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.

    georgersig.jpg
13468929
Sign In or Register to comment.