| Type | Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle | Source | Last Checked |  |
 |
Apple's iron-fisted control of the iPhone is starting to draw protests from some software developers who wonder if the company's policy will end up squelching competition.
In at least one recent case, Apple appears to have denied approving a software program, Podcaster, for the iPhone, that could be considered competitive with the company's own offerings or plans.
msnbc.com wants to know what you think. Is Apple squelching competition? What's your experience?
Umm, Yes?
Apple is quickly becoming the posterchild for closed, proprietary products and monopolistic, predatory business practices.
Of course considering the long standing defiance of anything appearing remotely proprietary or monopolistic by Macs fans, I'm sure they're all over this already.
#1 - Thu Sep 25, 2008 11:22 AM EDTFirst, no one is more "up Apple's ass" about this than Apple fans.
John Gruber, probably the most known Apple-centric blogger, is utterly dismayed by the whole situation, has written scathingly about it, as has almost every other Apple blogger on the planet...
Second, this is because no one expects *more* of Apple than those of us who use Apple products. When something needs to be changed, we're usually the first and loudest contingent to demand that change.
Third, Apple might not always do the right thing right away -- but I'm confident that this *will be* addressed, because it's going to prove to be a huge liability.
Apple is quickly becoming the posterchild for closed, proprietary products and monopolistic, predatory business practices.
I'm not sure this statement can be backed by more than this one example, but I'm willing to listen to your list...
John Gruber, probably the most known Apple-centric blogger, is utterly dismayed by the whole situation, has written scathingly about it, as has almost every other Apple blogger on the planet...
Also worth a mention are Wil Shipley and, of course, those "fans" over at Macworld.
I think that Apple has to better define what is off-limits and what is allowed in the App Store.
On MacBreak Weekly this week, Alex Lindsay made a comment about the whole Podcaster fiasco. He basically said that there could be 10,000 app ideas out there. Of that bunch, 100 will get you in trouble with Apple. His comapny writes apps for the OS X. He said they they stay away from those apps that are in that small subset.
Even with all of the bad press around this, it would be hard for a mobile app developer to get access to as many customer willing to pay for applications. The pot of gold is there for developers that are willing to put up with the 'off-limits' area.
Why are so many people surprised by Apple's business practices regarding the iPhone? They're just being consistent.
Remember the early to mid-90s? When the Mac was CLEARLY superior to Windows 3.1? How come Apple couldn't finish off Microsoft back then? Was it because they refused to open the Mac platform up to 3rd party hardware manufacturers and, to a lesser extent, third party app developers? Maybe.
Apple's history hase been to produce outstanding, revolutionary, ultra-cool products, but their business practices have always been either overly secretive or downright stupid. Apple should be the most dominant technology company in the world, given the track record of their products. But the reality is it has been up and down throughout it's corporate life, nearly dead a few times, and never as successful as it could have been.
#2 - Thu Sep 25, 2008 1:13 PM EDTWhy are so many people surprised by Apple's business practices regarding the iPhone? They're just being consistent.
Remember the early to mid-90s? When the Mac was CLEARLY superior to Windows 3.1? How come Apple couldn't finish off Microsoft back then? Was it because they refused to open the Mac platform up to 3rd party hardware manufacturers and, to a lesser extent, third party app developers? Maybe.
Apple's history hase been to produce outstanding, revolutionary, ultra-cool products, but their business practices have always been either overly secretive or downright stupid. Apple should be the most dominant technology company in the world, given the track record of their products. But the reality is it has been up and down throughout it's corporate life, nearly dead a few times, and never as successful as it could have been.
#3 - Thu Sep 25, 2008 1:17 PM EDTBrian said
"I'm not sure this statement can be backed by more than this one example, but I'm willing to listen to your list...
I probably can't give you a list other than what's already known about the two main Apple products: The Mac/OSX and the iPod/iTunes store.
Apple's OSX can be considered proprietary since it's tied to Apple's hardware. Even though there is no technical reason why I can't run OSX on a regular computer, Apple forces me to buy one of theirs if I wish to do so. Maybe it's just me but if I'm artificially limited to one company's products merely because of business reasons then I'd probably call that a closed, proprietary system.
iTunes is a given. If I want to shop at the #1 music store in the country, the one with overwhelming marketshare, I must buy an Apple music player. Again, not because of a technical reason, but because the store owner says so. That is a monopolistic, proprietary and extremely closed system and personally I'm surprised it's even legal. It probably won't be eventually. And add to that the exclusive content where Apple prohibits the provider from making that content available in other open, nonproprietary stores. Then there's this whole deal where if you want to sell in this proprietary store I can only do so if I promise not to compete with Apple.
Apple is all about strong-arming the consumer into purchasing their goods and services and if it was anyone else I imagine the outrage would be deafening. Why Apple continues to get a free pass is beyond me, but then again I see more and more protests every day. In the end it will probably end in a lawsuit, but why can't Apple simply take the high road? Just because you can coerce your customers doesn't mean you should.
#4 - Thu Sep 25, 2008 1:17 PM EDTApple forces me to buy one of theirs if I wish to do so. Maybe it's just me but if I'm artificially limited to one company's products merely because of business reasons then I'd probably call that a closed, proprietary system.
I promise you that if you want to buy Mac OS X, hack it, and install it on a computer of your choosing, you'll never hear from Apple.
However:
1) Do you want to mass produce that product and then resell it for a profit?
2) Do you think Apple is obligated to offer support for your product?
3) Do you think your (likely) problematic hack should reflect poorly on Apple when thousands of people line up to buy your inferior product at a reduced price, rather than their superior product?
Maybe it's just me but if I'm artificially limited to one company's products merely because of business reasons then I'd probably call that a closed, proprietary system.
You're not limited. Apple provides a product. A (variety of) Mac(s) with OS X preinstalled to make it (them) work. If you DO NOT like that product, you have 93% of the rest of the market to choose from. It's patently absurd that you're claiming that the company with (what?) 8% of the market is somehow engaged in monopolistic practices regarding the product in question with said 8%.
Do you believe that Nintendo has an illegal monopoly on Wii games? Do you believe that Sony has an illegal monopoly on PS3 games? What about Microsoft with the 360? The list goes on and on.
What you really mean is that you want something, you want Apple to support it, and if they don't, you're willing to make a stretch of an argument in order to sully their reputation.
iTunes is a given. If I want to shop at the #1 music store in the country, the one with overwhelming marketshare, I must buy an Apple music player.
Not so. Apple offers DRM free AAC files from iTunes. AAC files are supported by plenty of devices. You can also burn CDs of *any* song you buy from iTunes.
If you're upset that iTunes doesn't offer MORE DRM-free content -- blame the labels. They're stonewalling Apple because it hurts their feelings that Apple is successful. Apple has expressed an interest in removing DRM, the labels won't agree to do it.
How is that Apple's fault?
But, at any rate, here's something to chew on.
Say someone sues Apple, based on your argument:
That is a monopolistic, proprietary and extremely closed system...
Before the trial begins, when the judge learns that you've conveniently left out the thing about CD's, the ability to re-rip content to MP3 from those CDs, the thing about DRM free content, which is supported by other players, your case would be thrown out long before it ever sees a jury. Why? Because you left out facts which hurt (and destroy) your argument. Judges hate frivolous lawsuits and -- based on your argument -- you've just proposed a frivolous lawsuit.
And add to that the exclusive content where Apple prohibits the provider from making that content available in other open, nonproprietary stores.
You don't know much about business, it seems. The provider *agrees* to this. The provider accepts a business offer. What you fail to prove is that *other companies* aren't *also* getting exclusives which cuts *Apple* out. (They are.)
In the end it will probably end in a lawsuit, but why can't Apple simply take the high road?
My God. It already *has* resulted in that. And they never *go* anywhere, because they're usually so paper-thin as to be almost transparent. If you want to claim Apple is a monopoly, you need to plug some of the holes in your argument.
Even with the decisions they're making with the App store (which I think are stupid business decisions) *at worst* they're shooting themselves in the foot. Apple has every right to do that -- they'll just eventually lose business.
My prediction is that within two months, Apple will reverse this business decision, and we'll see a revised App store.
Brian Ford - dude, you are all about double standards. Microsoft is not even allowed to add a DVD codec or offer its own old software for free on MSDN without every lawyer from Apple, Sun, Oracle, etc. crawling all over them for "our own good".
Imagine if Microsoft made Windows and Office work only on Microsoft PCs, or made it impossible for 3rd party software devs to write software without MS licensing. I am sure Bill Gates would be crucified by now.
Apple gets away with all that.
#5 - Thu Sep 25, 2008 2:53 PM EDTBrian Ford - dude, you are all about double standards.
You didn't bother to address a single thing I *did* say, instead, you made up something you *wish* I had said, and you argued against that.
I'm sorry if it bothers you that Microsoft was *actually* convicted of an illegal monopoly at a time when they had upwards of 90% of the market in a stranglehold and were found to be using illegal anticompetitive maneuvers to stifle competition.
Now, perhaps you can describe to me how that compares to the Apple situation either relating to 1) their computer business at 8%-ish of the market or 2) their iPod lineup which has like 70%-ish of the market? Don't come up with something I haven't said and try to muddy the waters, either. Push some facts like, you know, I did in my last comment, which you completely ignored.
Your DVD codec argument doesn't even make any sense. Do you think Apple owns one?
Now, please -- address the comments I've actually made. I think I asked at least 10 questions. You apparently can't answer them in a way that supports your argument, so you've instead chosen to create a strawman to argue against.
OSX is proprietary! Can u buy OSX for a PC like you can buy Windows and many windows based programs for OSX?
#6 - Thu Sep 25, 2008 2:55 PM EDTI don't think you understand the term proprietary. You think Microsoft Windows is an open, non-proprietary platform?
Sounds like Apple is becoming like that other software company accused of proprietary business conduct.
#7 - Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:06 PM EDTWhich one?
(You must not be talking about Microsoft because they were *convicted* of *monopolistic* business conduct. You seem to think that having proprietary software is illegal or wrong, or that it's not a cornerstone of capitalism, which our Country embraces as the best thing since sliced bread.)
Good old Apple. Every time they create a cool new product and gain momentum, they always screw it up by being controlling and impossible to work with.
It's only a matter of time before another company creates something as cool as the iphone and actually lets other programmers create programs that run on it. Way to squander your competitive advantage, Apple.
You ne'er do well! I think that Justin Long should have Drew Barrymore and Kirsten Dunst co-star on the next Mac/PC commercial. Kirsten could represent Apple's interest in keeping superneurotic control of its products and Drew could represent caving in to customer demand. They could tear Justin's arms off, and the PC guy could drive up in a hearse.
#8 - Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:23 PM EDTGood old Apple. Every time they create a cool new product and gain momentum, they always screw it up by being controlling and impossible to work with.
It's only a matter of time before another company creates something as cool as the iphone and actually lets other programmers create programs that run on it. Way to squander your competitive advantage, Apple.
I've seen variations of this exact same comment made about the iPod for years now. Yet, it's still the market leader.
Funnily enough, the iPhone *is not* the market leader, but people talk about it as though it is. I guess Apple is doing something right.
Jesus, I sure wish someone who wants to show up and argue would come with a handful of facts to argue with, rather than the same old tired misrepresentations. This is like shooting fish in a barrel.
#9 - Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:30 PM EDTThis is like shooting fish in a barrel.
That's why MSNBC threads are sometimes fun, if you're in the right mood to ignore the tedium. :-)
I promise you that if you want to buy Mac OS X, hack it, and install it on a computer of your choosing, you'll never hear from Apple.
No, I don't want to hack it and I don't need support, I just want to be able to use one Apple product without being forced to buy another Apple product.
Not so. Apple offers DRM free AAC files from iTunes. AAC files are supported by plenty of devices. You can also burn CDs of *any* song you buy from iTunes.
Please send me the instructions on how to sync iTunes with my Creative Zen. Maybe I'm just confused and iTunes really is an open platform that will work with many different players.
You don't know much about business, it seems. The provider *agrees* to this. The provider accepts a business offer. What you fail to prove is that *other companies* aren't *also* getting exclusives which cuts *Apple* out. (They are.)
Actually you're the one that seems to be fairly ignorant about computer history and business law. Microsoft argued this exact point during the tying portion of their anti-trust trial. The argument that the provider agrees to it doesn't fly. Look it up. And what other companies do and don't do is irrelevant, especially if you have a monopoly position.
This is like deja vue from the MS trial and all the arguments you'd heard thrown around by the armchair quarterbacks, the only difference is now everyone is talking about Apple, not Microsoft.
#10 - Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:56 PM EDTNo, I don't want to hack it and I don't need support, I just want to be able to use one Apple product without being forced to buy another Apple product.
Well, that's tough. Apple started a company, and they run it how they want to. You don't like the product they sell, in the way they sell it. Why are they obligated to provide you the product you want, if they aren't interested in that product?
Maybe I'm just confused and iTunes really is an open platform that will work with many different player...
Ah, now your story changes, and it becomes clear once again: You want Apple to cater to your needs, despite the fact that your needs aren't in line with their business model. Why *should* they do that? You're far afield from arguing that they're a monopoly, now. I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but just about *every other store which sells music up through the amazon store* would not work with an iPod, because they use Microsoft's (proprietary) windows media format.
Microsoft argued this exact point during the tying portion of their anti-trust trial. The argument that the provider agrees to it doesn't fly. Look it up. And what other companies do and don't do is irrelevant, especially if you have a monopoly position.
I've already addressed Microsoft, and why *their* situation doesn't match Apple's. Did you even follow the antitrust case? Why won't you respond to the fact that I point out that other companies who sell music (Amazon's MP3 store to name just one) is already getting deals that Apple simply isn't getting. How is it that if companies *other than Apple* are *also* getting exclusive content deals, that Apple is a monopoly abusing it's power?
This is going on post #3 that you'll have ignored substantive facts, instead choosing to argue irrelevant points and misrepresentations.
Also, there's a "reply" button, which you might consider using.
No, I don't want to hack it and I don't need support, I just want to be able to use one Apple product without being forced to buy another Apple product.
Why would companies be obliged to provide a product to you on your terms? There are other options available on the market. If you do not like Apple's (or Microsoft's or whoever's) EULA, you are free to choose any other alternative.
Please send me the instructions on how to sync iTunes with my Creative Zen. Maybe I'm just confused and iTunes really is an open platform that will work with many different players.
I think that Brian meant that in the other way. You can purchase DRM-free music files from the iTunes Store and play them on any player that supports MP4 AAC. Or, you could cross-encode the files to MP3 (or whatever).
But, here are instructions:
1) Buy iTunesPlus music via iTunes.
2) In Windows Explorer, drag those files onto your Zen.
Brian, P to the C's email moniker figures prominently on Microsoft TechNet btw. I still think he is a re-trolling Cliff.
I wonder how much Steve Jobs is paying "Brian Ford"? Sounds like just another Apple fanatic bitter that so few people see the *absolute* wisdom and *benevolence* of the Mac Monopoly and won't worship at the Altar of the Jobs.
And as to facts? Plenty of posters are listing facts, all of which you claim are misrepresentations, or we're just changing our story, or heaven forbid that we expect a company to make products that we want to use WITHOUT their engineered-in limitations.
#11 - Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:56 PM EDTSorry, I can't take anyone seriously who opens up their comment with an accusation that I'm on Steve Jobs' payroll. Argue with something relevant, or move on. I won't hold my breath.
But, if you choose to play ball, please -- list out some facts that have been posted that I haven't rebutted with the truth. If you can come up with one, I'll apologize.
list out some facts that have been posted that I haven't rebutted with the truth
Been there done that. Guess there's no arguing religion.
Ahhhh yes. I love the MSNBC trolls coming out to play. Now really Brian - did you expect to get coherent logical, fact-based arguments in this thread? These are the same folks that argue that they identify more with the PC in the Apple ads, that the Mac guy is arrogant, demeaning and dismissive of the PC guy, that Open Source (cue angelic chorus) is the only way to run a computer, and that Apple is the new Microsoft(bad), but that Microsoft is still the king(good). You can't limit iTunes to just supporting the iPod/iPhone - because that's monopolistic (ignoring of course the real business law definition of the word), you can't specify that your OS runs only on your own hardware (unless you are a game system), and you can't limit what goes into your App Store. These are fairly simple rules, totally unrealistic drivel, and gives this thread all the subtle dynamics of an elementary school at recess. And of course if you request supporting evidence to back up a claim, "been there, done that" covers a multitude of more intelligent responses.
But that's OK - this coterie of critics represent nothing of the actual average consumer, which is where Apple is bringing their products. So commentary here is not reflective of the real marketplace, and therefore irrelevant.
Wait! Do I hear cries of "well - you're irrelevant too - so there!" Oh yes. I love intelligent conversation. When I can get it. Y'all have a good weekend.
#12 - Fri Sep 26, 2008 2:57 PM EDTyou can't specify that your OS runs only on your own hardware (unless you are a game system), and you can't limit what goes into your App Store.
I want to be able to play PS3 games on my Wii.
Of course the iPhone software market is anti-competitive!
We, software developers, "must" pay 30% of our revenues if we want to sell our software on the App Store. And the App Store is the only one store selling software for iPhone. In other words, we have no choice. We must pay 30% fee to Apple. And the worst is yet to come. Apple has the right to deny the access to anyone at any moment.
Many software, judged by Apple as potential competitors have been rejected by the App Store, no matter if they have spent time and money on those products. The official excuse used by Apple is that iPhone needs to be protected by bad applications and hacking attacks. But everybody knows that even filtered by the App Store we have seen on iPhone buggy and crashing applications as FaceBook and Safari (this latest right made by Apple Inc.)... Furthermore everybody knows that on a Mac computer usually we store data (even shared by the LAN, like company's financial data) who needs a better defense against attacks, while on the iPhone we usually store simple data like contacts and such. But I can't see (fortunately) any exclusive App Store for Mac.
Last, "any" device as a Mac, PC or iPhone... can always be violated. There is no protection in the world which can guarantee the utmost security. So the Apple thesis about the security provided by the filter of the App Store doesn't stand up. The real reason is the 30% of the revenues and the control over the 3rd parties. MOre than the rejected developers, you could easily figure out that all the lucky developers who have been admitted to the App Store must always "smile" to Apple, even if Apple kick their ass just for fun. We all have lost our independency. It's an attack to our financial balance and to our freedom.
In other words Apple is and is going to act in a monopolistic way, controlling the whole iPhone and (quite soon) the upcoming NoteBooks markets and deciding for fees (30%) and access to it. To be more explicit, Apple is asking all the iPhone and NoteBooks software makers to become the owner of 30% of their companies (well, only their profits!). And thanks to this ownership Apple can now control them as if they were just their own employees, deciding for their success and destiny. If the 3rd parties smile and behave, not releasing products in competition with Apple and if they sell at a cheap price, and if they help Apple to sell more devices, well, Apple will promote them, otherwise... go and raise grain for birds. That's not a free market. That's not the freedom I expect from a country like USA.
I strongly think that the community of Mac users/purchasers is not exclusive property of Apple. It belongs either to Apple and to all the 3rd parties who contributed to the growth of the Apple echo-system. Apple can't claim to be the only proprietary of this resource and sell it to the developers. Apple cannot take my clients and resell them to myself at 30% of "my" cover price if I produce a new software for iPhone.
Last, one of the reasons why Apple is over with the expo is the following: not longer sharing the mac users/purchasers resource with 3rd parties. The 3rd parties have to pay us a 30% fee if they want to sell on our App Store and even more if they want to sell on our Apple Stores ;-)
This is surely matter of antitrust.
#13 - Sat Dec 20, 2008 6:35 AM EST
We, software developers, "must" pay 30% of our revenues if we want to sell our software on the App Store. And the App Store is the only one store selling software for iPhone. In other words, we have no choice. We must pay 30% fee to Apple. And the worst is yet to come. Apple has the right to deny the access to anyone at any moment.
You have a choice. You can choose to develop for about 50 bagillion other phones out there, running on a few different platforms. Android. Windows Mobile. Palm OS. (Snicker) Symbian. Whatever it is that blackberry's use.
With that said, I've never heard a developer say that the cut Apple takes is excessive, and I've heard many say it's a great setup.
Many software, judged by Apple as potential competitors have been rejected by the App Store, no matter if they have spent time and money on those products.
True, depending on what your definition of "many" is. I can think of less than 10, and of those, a few were rejected because they didn't follow the guidelines. Some were wrongfully rejected, yes. Some that were rejected are now allowed. I'm betting this is going to be the *only* complaint you make which even approaches validity, though. We shall see...
Okay, done. Nope. It all got FUDdier from that point on.
Actually, 30% is not a bad rate for a company to handle all of the bandwidth and merchant services. The App Store certainly adds value to the developer in that it provides a showcase where there are a lot of customer eyeballs browsing for apps. Few developers would be able to get that much traffic through their own sites (if they could sell the apps directly).
It is certainly far more than a developer that has to create a physical packaging. In those cases, the manufacturing costs, distribution costs, retail markup, etc. take a much larger bite than 30%.
No Brian, we have no choice if we want to release a software for iPhone. We develop software for Mac for 20 years. We have spent time and money at learning Cocoa (so similar to iPhone SDK) and changing platform would cost us time and money. Furthermore we don't want to change the way "we think software". The alternative you propose (there are other phones) sounds really monopolistic, like the following sentence: "Don't you like this country, don't you like its lows, don't you like that me Apple control your company, don't you like that I have the right to make you fail or succeed, don't you like I force you to pay me 30%? No? Ok, you have a second choice... go and live in Zimbawe!"
I represent a 3rd party who has been contributing to the growth of the Apple echo-system, so part of this "country" is even mine. So now Apple can't tell me "if you want to sell software for iPhone and grow with me, now you have to pay me 30% and let me decide for your future. I don't like to feel controlled. I think you too don't like to feel handled. Would you put your company in another company's hands? Especially when there could be a real opportunity to find each other competitors? And that this competitor can "kill" you whenever he wants? Of course you say that Apple didn't kill anyone (just a few...), but they have the power to do it, and this is "wrong".
Think if Intel forced Apple to sell the Apple devices through the Intel Store (since there is an Intel chip inside), paying an additional fee, with the condition that Intel has the power to stop the sales of a given device at any time. Cool! :-)
Of course you have never heard a developer complaining about the App Store. Developers have to survive, just like you. So they say, ooo Apple you are so beautiful and kind. If you look at the history, when the population has one only choice provided by the "man of power", well that population always speaks well about that "man of power". The other choice is to move to another country. And this is the solution you propose to me. Nice! Anyway we have read about the letter written by Craig Hockenberry. Maybe something is moving on.
We have recently read that Apple denied a software maker to "be listed" on the Apple Download web page. The reason is that the software they produce is too similar to MobileMe. Amazing. How do you call that? I call that anti-competitive behavior. There are many software which are similar each other. But when it's similar to the Apple one, well, let's obscure it. I complain about the whole system, not only being rejected by the App store. And I am not speaking about a personal case. I didn't even submit any software at the App Store. I don't like the rules.
To reply to Jay Butler, there are other companies, e.g. Kagi.com, but there are so many, who apply less than 10% of the cover price at managing the purchase. If you think that credit cards gets 4%, Kagi applies only 5%, which is reasonable. 30% instead sounds really too much, especially if you think that at the App Store there is no packaging, no manufacturing costs, no distribution costs, retail markup... Keep informed before speaking. In 20 years, we have been releasing and promoting our software at zero cost. We put the new version on our web site (zero cost) and distribute an email with a press release to all the Mac related magazines (zero cost too). Then there is the 9% of the reseller, which we can choose freely and which can't never push us out of the market. Got the idea?
Last, when we publish a release or news on our web site, we do it in a second, while on the App Store we should wait at least one week, if they really accept. This is not the flexibility and reliability any company would like to work with. We are serious and we have clients. We cannot make our clients waiting for one week in order to fix a bug and release a new version. And we cannot abandon them if Apple decides to stop distributing our software.
That's matter of antitrust. Soon or later they will take care of this issue.
#14 - Sat Dec 20, 2008 1:32 PM EST
The alternative you propose (there are other phones) sounds really monopolist...
Sure it does. If you don't know what monopolistic means, or what it entails.
Sure I know what monopolistic means, look, I copy it from the Mac dictionary just for you to learn: "a person or business that has a monopoly". And Apple has the total control of the App Store, once again, deciding who and why could be admitted and rejected, and deciding the fee to go in. This is monopoly. And rejecting applications because are better than the Apple's one , e.g. "Podcaster" it's an anti-competitive behavior. It's not correct, not fair, not sportive. It's an act that can never get my admiration. Also, without competition there is no growth. Apple is eating itself, a part of its own echo-system. Apple lost points...
I even explained better the concept of monopoly with these sentences, but, I presume you didn't (or can't) get the meaning:
If you look at the history, when the population has one only choice provided by the "man of power", well that population always speaks well about that "man of power". The other choice is to move to another country. And this is the solution you propose to me: develop on another phone. And this will probably happen, I know, soon or later. And with me hundreds and then thousands of developers, who even right now, behind the scenes, are planning to retire their apps from the App Store and release them on...
To conclude, your unique line reply confirms me that you have no argument to reply to mines. Furthermore the form you built your concept is very funny, selfish... Firstly you admit (sure), then you pose the only case this can be sure denying the first sentence (if you don't know what monopolistic means), which is, also, wrong. I know well the concept, I even explained to you in simple terms. But you still look at the things from the user point of view. From that point, sure it's not monopolistic, the user can choose another phone. But the developers who for 20 years have been dealing and working aside Apple as independent, are forced now to turn into mere concessionaires. But you can't get this point.
Maybe reading is the solution for you. Read this:
.
#15 - Thu Apr 23, 2009 12:41 PM EDTYou're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
Recent Articles & Seeds 
Are fake celebrity tweeters better than real ones?Exposing the myth of Twitter's 'Cisco Fatty'Does Wii need better games? Facebook's "Whopper Sacrifice"Superman's planet is racially diverse — finally9 comic book characters to watch in 2009Evolution demands more Facebook drunkfailGadgets that make you look like a jerkPost-election Internet goes to the dogsSilly video infuriates InternetIs 'LittleBigPlanet' the PS3's killer app?
zz
I read your article about freecreditreport.com. Maybe I missed it, but I was hoping to find out who was actually the SINGER on the commercial. I read somewhere else that it is the songwriter, but I would have thought you would have put that detail in the article. Or maybe it was edited out?
YEROLDYETI LOVES YER STUFF!
Log In | Register
Start Tracking
Stop Tracking