I believe antitrust is a misnomer, transformed into a sort of umbrella term that covers anything anticompetitive.

It's kind of neat to watch Apple and Microsoft squirm around and try to wiggle past Anti-Trust laws.

Except that MS gets sued for including capabilities and Apple gets sued for preventing them.

What's w/ Richard Stallman eating pieces of his foot?

Robert Reich (former US Labor Secretary) basically has the same opinion I do of this whole "obsessively control platform" thing el oh el

[quote=Robert Reich]
Apple's supposed sin was to tell software developers that if they want to make apps for iPhones and iPads they have to use Apple programming tools. No more outside tools (like Adobe's Flash format) that can run on rival devices like Google's Android phones and RIM's BlackBerrys.

What's wrong with that? Apple says it's necessary to maintain quality. If consumers disagree they can buy platforms elsewhere. Apple was the world's #3 smartphone supplier in 2009, with 16.2 percent of worldwide market share. RIM was #2, with 18.8 percent. Google isn't exactly a wallflower. These and other firms are innovating like mad, as are tens of thousands of independent developers. If Apple's decision reduces the number of future apps that can run on its products, Apple will suffer and presumably change its mind.[/quote]

http://www.macrumors.com/2010/05/05/former-u-s-labor-secretary-defends-apple-on-antitrust-issues/

That's a horribly unintelligent argument.

It's self-fulfilling. How is competition supposed to spur better actions by Apple if the competition never happens because developers have to effectively double their workload to do so? They will target the most profitable platform, Apple's. Consumers won't disagree, they don't understand the developers' problems.

Also, the fact that he used RIM in those statistics shows he has no understanding of the market in the first place. Does RIM even /have/ a app store? I don't recall it having one, and even if it did, it would be so infinitely small and restricted that no one would develop for it anyway.

Here's something to think about: if tomorrow Microsoft announced that you could only develop applications for Windows using .NET and Visual Studio, they would be taken to court by the end of the week.

First of all, his statement was consumer-oriented. If consumers don't agree with Apple's business practices and their rationale for them (as you don't), then consumers will refuse to buy Apple products.

If developers act rationally and if the cost of having to be restricted by Apple's platform outweighs the benefit of targeting "the most profitable platform" they will switch platforms. Otherwise they will stay with Apple's platform. I.e. if benefit of being unrestricted (i.e. not developing for Apple's platform) - cost of "doubling workload" (assuming this is true; I don't know) > benefit of developing for "most profitable platform (Apple's)" - cost of being restricted then developers will develop elsewhere.

What he is saying is that there is nothing wrong with Apple's practices because they will suffer if the market doesn't like it and will benefit if they do. That makes perfect sense and in fact is inherently rational so there's nothing intelligent or unintelligent about it (because it's not really an opinion; he's just stating a fact (assuming rationality) and extending it to this situation).

RIM does have an app store (http://na.blackberry.com/eng/services/appworld/) and his whole point was that competitors with higher phone market share are TRYING to establish their own competing app stores, so if developers don't like Apple's platform they will move (as noted above). It's not always about which App Store is most profitable right now (again, assuming developers are rational). If the cost of feeling restricted > the benefit of developing for a large target market to the developer then developers will switch. As more and more developers switch, network effects will increase and other app platforms will become more profitable. I.e. market forces will ensure the platform that is most favored by consumers and developers are successful.

Anticompetitive would mean Apple is preventing other app stores from competing.

I personally think Apple's decisions make strategic sense; the point of what Robert Reich is saying (and what I agree with), however, is that if Apple is wrong, the market will prove it to them (and prove me wrong). I don't have a stake in Apple's success, so in either case it will be an interesting case study.

I don't think they would lose the court case, although it would be a pretty stupid thing for them to do because it would mean all future versions of Windows would be doomed and in ~10 years an alternative platform would become dominant.

The gist of it is that just because you do something that affects controls people (developers)'s actions and options doesn't mean you're being anticompetitive, because a developer never HAS to develop for a particular platform. That doesn't mean it's RIGHT to do something like that, because if a developer's livelihood depends on Windows apps then that developer will be out of a job, incur huge retraining costs, and will be in trouble -- especially in the case of Windows where there isn't a major competing platform (just OSX and Linux). It's a ***** thing to do to developers. But it's not anticompetitive. If Microsoft somehow made it so developers could only develop for Windows and no other platforms -- THAT would be anticompetitive. But there are other options -- just not necessarily good ones for current Windows developers. Similarly, I get the feeling that the anger at Apple's practices are justified but are being articulated incorrectly. Apple's being a dick to developers but they're not doing anything (other than being successful/profitable as a platform, which is not illegal) to say "you can only develop for the App Store". And because of that, if developers don't like being dicked around, they should show that by moving to other platforms. There's no bigger statement than to say "it's more worth it to me to earn less from my apps and boycott your platform than have a successful app and be tied to your platform". It's almost a chicken an egg problem, because again -- the more people (consumers and developers) switch to alternative platforms, the more successful those platforms will be due to network effects.

What he's actually saying is that the economics of a competitive market still work even though Apple's engaging in anticompetitive behavior.

The US has a funny outlook on anti-competitive law ('antitrust'.) It definitely doesn't only cover monopolies. The big ones here are an artificial barrier to entry and exclusive dealing... it really doesn't matter that Apple has competitors, they're still using their position in one market to impose themselves on another market. Clearly anti-competitive.

It's only double the work load if they still target apple products. A developer could target an entirely different platform like android or winphone7, and not make an iphone version at all - how is that double the work load? (It's not.)

Did you completely ignore the first part of that post? Apple has the largest market by far. Ceasing development for it in exchange of Android just isn't a choice for many of them. In addition, new developers will want to target the largest market, and that's Apple.

I don't think any of that matters considering Titanium and other cross-platform toolkits are ENCOURGED by Apple. I'm pretty sure Steve Jobs just hates Adobe.

Apparently enough to ban all frameworks in an attempt to just ban Adobe.

Isn't it in itself anticompetitive that being a market leader brings such undesirable elements to one's business where restricting the means of development on their own platform warrants a backlash? While this doesn't seem like a very logical thought considering such restrictions will serve what is probably the purpose of limiting competition, my reasoning is that such things make striving to become a market leader a less attractive of an objective.

But of course no corporation should be allowed to just do what they want with no repercussions.

Yeah I never really had any valid point, I just had to say something for some reason!

I thought of a new first person shooter multiplayer game mode on my way to work this morning:

Capture The Liver (CTL). One team is a bunch of Steve Jobses, and the other is a bunch of terminal patients on the liver transplant queue. The latter team, being ahead of the Steves on said queue, must defend their new livers while still being under anaesthetics on the operating table, while the Steves attempt to capture them by infiltrating the patients' HQ (which is a hospital) and throwing money at neutral NPC hospital staff. The patients must rely on adrenaline shots to be able to put up a fight once the Steves get past the staff.

Waiting period in between respawns is infinite.