Slashdot Mirror
iPhone SDK Rules Block Skype, Firefox, Java ...
An anonymous reader writes "Apple's iPhone software development kit is already drawing complaints due to the strict terms of service. Voice over IP apps like Skype that attempt to use the cellular data connection will be blocked. Competing web browsers Firefox and Opera are forbidden. Even Sun is now backpedaling on its recent announcement of a java port, noting that there are some legal issues. Critics are already comparing Apple's methods to Comcast's anti-net neutrality filtering, and Microsoft's Netscape-killing antitrust tactics. Could Apple face government regulators?"
The SDK made the iPhone interesting and attractive to new developers. Sun adding java added to that. But now Apple slamming the door on innovation will only drive those that wish for such a product to go elsewhere, such as to Googles Android or the OpenMoko, for examples.
Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
This is Apple we're dealing with here. They won't even let you build your own computer even though OS X runs on x86.
For all the crap Microsoft gets for its tactics, it should be clear from actions like this that Apple is the real villain.
And don't buy it. It's that simple.
It's not like comcast which is a monopoly in certain areas. There are hundreds of other cell phones to buy. Whoever wrote the summary is an idiot.
Look, I know the iPhone is all "snazzy" and "cool" and "trendy," but I think it's been known for a while that Apple would do this, yes?
If you're looking for a platform with more open SDK access, just don't write for the iPhone. Go for a mobile device with a Linux-based OS, or even Windows Mobile. That gives you a lot more flexibility in terms of writing your own software (I write C# on a Moto Q, myself) and you usually end up paying less, too.
Apple has a choice as to whether or not they open up their hardware just as you had the choice of buying the phone in the first place.
Proudly supporting the Libertarian Party.
What other cell phone company might be facing government regulators over their extremely locked down software choices?
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
How is this an issue for regulators? If Apple if determined to make their product not work, its not the regulators job to change their mind. If Apple decides they want no Opera and no Java and nothing else, its their decision. Let them make it and face the consequences.
It can be go tiem now plees?
It's not their phone. It's MY phone, bought and paid for. (Assuming I had one, of course. :P) As a consumer, it's not up to Apple to decide what programs I can and can't run. Keeping software from the app store is one thing. Restricting use of the cellular network is also understandable. (Why would you want to run Skype over GSM/EDGE rather than WiFi anyway?) But keeping users from running Java or an alternate browser by way of licensing? Sorry, that's not going to fly.
My device, my decision. Apple should control only their store, not license away the competition.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Could Apple face regulators for restricting third party development on THEIR SOFTWARE which is on THEIR HARDWARE which does not in any sense of the word have a monopoly.
Somehow.. I doubt it.
People seem to forget that Apple don't need to make it easy for people to develop for the iPhone. They don't have to assist at all. At. All.
Whilst I may disagree with their tactics, I'm certainly not going to tell them how to run their business. And whilst the Microsoft comparisons will be coming out of the woodwork like hungry mutant termites, it's simply not the same. Windows & Office locks people into a platform by being an established monopoly, it also uses this established monopoly to lock people into their other products. What this is, is simply Apple giving people a piece of cake and not letting them eat it. Sure it sucks, but you know what - don't like it; don't develop for it. Simple.
Could Apple face government regulators?
For what reason? Last I heard Apple did not have a monopoly on cell phones, or even on smart phones. The only thing they seem to have a monopoly on is fanboys.
Don't like the iPhone's rules, don't buy the phone. There are a multitude of alternatives. The FCC does not regulate what US providers can and can not restrict on their cell phone networks currently in any way.
On one hand, this reeks of the same type of behaviour microsoft have engaged in for the past two decades, and was rightfully sued over and over and over again about. At the same time, how is Apple's behaviour different from retarded mess that Verizon puts on its cellular phones to lock out developers and cripple the functionality. Noone goes after the cellular carriers and their enablers (handset makers). Also, where is the Zune SDK (not that Zune == IPod Touch/IPhone, but still)?
Most cell phone applications are written in J2ME. The lack of J2ME support means existing applications already on AT&T's approved app deck would need extensive porting. The only exception is Verizon which has their own language (called BREW), which has less apps than most other companies because of it. Even the Black Berry supports J2ME.
"Why can't Apple dictate what gets put on their device?"
It's "their" device right until I pay for it. Then it's "my" device.
Let me turn the question around. Why can't I dictate why software gets loaded on "my" device?
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
The iPhone is a niche product that one must go out of their way to pay a premium for. The people who buy it are buying it because they want what is being offered and they know what they are getting. The majority of Apple customers are going to use iChat, not GAIM, Safari, not Firefox, iWorks or MS Office (but only if they really must), not OpenOffice, etc.
This is a far cry from Microsoft forcing hardware manufacturers to install Windows on EVERYTHING or NOTHING, then using that penetration to foist IE, WMP, etc.
Apple users made a conscious decision for the whole kaboodle. Slashdot readers are not the norm for anything but obsessive Linux users. Say whatever it is that you want, but only Slashdot readers are going to be upset about this. The majority of iPhone purchasers and Apple users in general will hardly notice, if they even know what an SDK is.
borne shell, etc:
"no interpreted code may be downloaded and used in an Application except for code that is interpreted and run by Apple's Published APIs and built-in interpreter(s)."
"Why can't I dictate why software gets loaded on "my" device?"
That is the question I should have asked. When you buy the phone, you own the physical hardware, but only a license to use the software. Why can't Apple dictate how their software is used? They aren't Microsoft with a 90% market share, they are in a market with massive competition.
1) "Voice over IP apps like Skype that attempt to use the cellular data connection will be blocked." Yeah they're going to be blocked over the cellular network, not over WiFi, this is NOT NEWS. 2) The article that the "are forbidden" link goes to talks about the possible lack of Photoshop (among other apps) on the iPhone. Photoshop, come on. There is no way I'm going to take an article seriously that talks about the lack of Photoshop ON A PHONE. If you wanna use Photoshop get your own lappy 486 or Desktop. 3) Sun Java VM - Where the heck is the back peddling? This whole thing was announced less than a week ago, the article even states "if our crack engineers are able to build it" let alone where they mention the licensing in less than one full sentence... Get real. This is a Doom n' Gloom / FUD post.
that SDK says your app can't run in the background. I would imagine (not being an iPhone owner but having some common sense) that the iPhone will continue to play music if you are using say the Calendar functionality. If I am not able to create a media player that allows me to provide that same level of functionality, whether it is for some unsupported format not found in iTunes, or if I want to use another media player on my iPhone to download songs from Napster, then I think Apple will be opening itself up to a world of trouble, monopoly-wise. That is exactly how M$ got in trouble, was leveraging their OS to keep out competition. You can't have it both ways... you either allow 3rd party apps or you don't. If a particular carrier wants to prevent some type of network usage/traffic, I can see the carrier doing that, just like you ISP doesn't have to provide you with Newsgroups...but your OS had damn well better not try and block Newsgroups just because it has some forum software it wants to push.
http://blog.slaingod.com
I find that the Azureus client for BitTorrent, while slow to launch, does a fine job of helping me pirate video, audio and software. A victory for Java!
There's a difference between not providing support and using legal means to restrict the usage. Apple isn't just not supporting the SDK (which would be fine), they're saying that you LEGALLY cannot do this with your phone and the SDK.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
I've taken a look at the documentation, and as always it's excellent. Lot's of examples and stuff, so the SDK itself seems to be really good. And I personally think that their distribution system is a good idea (they NEED control for various reasons). I also have no problem with the fact that they don't allow voice services over the cellular network, only via WLAN (they have to, the providers would kick Apple in the nuts if they'd allow that).
But the limitation that instantly kills a ton of useful potential apps is the fact that you can't run an app in the background. If you switch away from your app (say, accept a phone call), your application quits. Bye bye instant messaging and every other application that needs to run for a long time/wait for events.
Not according to TFA:
(Emphasis mine)
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Game development is a hobby of mine. I was considering either doing some stuff in Microsoft's XNA Studio for the XBox or the IPhone SDK. It's funny that I'll be using a Microsoft product because it's more open.
Antitrust laws are a last resort for when the market can't correct itself. If Apple keeps up with this crap they risk the more dire consequence of consumers simply abandoning their platform. Can you say, Apple Lisa?
===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====
...who didn't expect this? Honestly, this is completely in line with how they have been acting with the iPhone/iPod Touch product lines. Commence Jailbreaking in 5, 4...
You realize, of course, that this very post is a RESOUNDING defense of Microsoft and all of their business practices, right?
This sword cuts both ways. What's wrong (or right, in your case) for one is wrong or right for the other. And according to reason litigation against M$, it would seem that those practices arent "fine and dandy" at all, and they ARE being forced to support competitor software. The same rules could apply down to Apple here.
The rules change when you have a monopoly position in a market - there are many things one business can do while another can't do. It doesn't mean the action itself is inherently right or wrong.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
So don't use their SDK - you haven't got an entitlement to use it, after all.
Microsoft got in trouble for leveraging their OS monopoly to squash Netscape, and Apple has no such monopoly to leverage. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with limiting what applications can run on your device, nor is there anything wrong with integrating a browser, but there are some behaviors that monopolies cannot engage in that a smaller company can.
You bought an Apple device, you couldn't have been expecting open-ness.
Will Apple face government regulation?
I seriously doubt it. The iPhone has not given anything and then taken it away. Nor have they made any promises they didn't keep. Further, the level of ubiquity of the iPhone platform is not high enough to be on any government regulatory radar. (Blackberry *might* be just to illustrate a point of reference.)
As to whether or not a "next version iPhone" will grant developers and users the freedom and flexibility they crave? I find it to be HIGHLY unlikely. Apple has been very consistent in stating their attitude about who controls their products. Apple does -- at ALL times -- especially after purchase. They're pretty good at blurring the lines of who actually owns the products they sell.
It's only "AMAZINGLY flexible and unrestricted" if you've been living in a cave.
Windows Mobile and Symbian have far more unrestrictive terms of use, in fact - simply being able to write an app in the relevant programming language is the only barrier to entry. There's no third-party enforcing distribution control, no ridiculous $99 sign-up fee - yet, ironically, some people justify the licence fee as "getting rid of the chaff". Unbelievable.
I try to credit people with intelligent reasoning for the most part but it's tough to argue in favour of people who advocate draconian control the likes of which Apple is putting into effect with its SDK, when if it was Microsoft or some other less-favoured darling at the helm there would - justifiably - be outcry.
Disclaimer: I own a Macbook Pro and an iPod.
I'm guessing some of these limitations will or can only be enforced by not allowing these applications on the iTunes app store. However if you pony up the $99 to get a developer certificate presumably you'll be able to compile and run whatever the heck you want on your own iPhone subject to SDK limitations.
Why is it that 99% of the developer reaction I've seen has been enthusiastically positive, and yet the spin here is so negative? Apple has dramatically exceeded people's expectations and are even allowing VOIP applications that use WiFi. When the competitive landscape in the cellphone world changes and the carriers just become dumb pipes, Apple will be the first to drop stupid restrictions, since their interests will be completely aligned with users: they make their money on hardware, not software. And why does every discussion like this devolve into AAPL=MSFT? Apple are winning here because they have good products, not because they are kneecapping their competitors to try to maintain a monopoly for mediocre products.
The issue here is about Apple using their strength in one arena to push their mechanisms in others. It's the EXACT same thing Sony did with the Playstation 3. They used their console success to try to push Blu-Ray out to everyone. People complained that it was "wrong". It's the same as when Windows uses the fact that they push an OS out to try to push a browser out with it as well. It applies to Apple just as much here. They are trying to use their phone to push out ObjC over Java.
Im willing to bet you're one of the same people who cries out how wrong it is when Sony or Microsoft does it. Why isnt it wrong when Apple does it? Is this because, yet again, it's Apple?
Incidentally, you can load whatever you want on it, through the jailbreak system. If the device is screwed up because of what you did, then the device maker has no obligation to help you.
You can choose not to buy it. A lot of devices are like that, consoles are a very popular example. If you don't like the limitations of the system, that's fine, don't buy it. The rules don't change just because someone buys it.
You mean like the X Box?
Windows is open because that is what the market demands. Notice how even signed drivers become an issue for them. The phone market has the Windows Mobile, Palm, etc, platforms if you want open (or semi-open). The iPhone is among the ranks of thousands that is not completely open. If the market demanded open phones, Palm and Windows Mobile would dominate.
Why do people get so bent out of shape? There are many, many phones on the market. It's hardly a shock that AT&T/Apple would lock out Skype when using the AT&T network! Sort of a business model threat, no? Apple has no monopoly on phones, smart phones, or even good phones. They make one nifty smart phone, and ways exist to run stuff on it outside the official SDK if you really want to.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
I have never seen an SDK that so blatantly locks users out of common usage like this, have you? Maybe I've managed a decade and a half in this industry without noticing that it's normal practice to use legal force to ensure that an SDK is only used a particular way?
(That was sarcasm, in case you didn't catch it. The worst I've ever seen is Sun's "do not use this in a nuclear reactor" bit, which wasn't written in a binding fashion. More like a "if you do this and frak it up, it's on your head, not ours.")
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Apple is not (yet) a monopoly here, so I'm not really sure why they should be legally compelled to do this. Compare to game consoles, where the situation is exactly the same, only often worse -- I'm guessing a real console SDK (and not just some arcade or virtualized crippleware) is going to cost a bit more.
That's not to say it's alright. But it does seem like something they should be allowed to do, and something which was an obvious move, given that the thing started out locked-down. I really hope no one bought an iPhone based on the coming SDK...
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
You're getting a skewed picture here on slashdot of course: most people have given up trying to overcome the special pleading and double standards on most internet fora that apply to Apple. What's left is more or less an echo chamber.
Anyway, I look forward to competition in platform openness, and it's definitely forthcoming. Apple can keep its touch screens. Tell the truth, I mostly just want a phone that has the battery life that my 8-year-old nokia had.
Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
This is no different than Nintendo/Sony limiting devkit distribution and not allowing some gaming subject matter or play mechanics to get through to the public. Whether its right or wrong isn't the question. The question is whether you as an individual will buy into there model and abide by there rules. Of course they are going to limit certain features, this is a cell phone. Anyway, they are a company generating revenue and have share holders to contend with. Also, i really don't think the lack of java support is that big of a deal. The cocoa/objective-c/xcode trifecta is more than adequate for development here and fits better into A$ way of doing things. If you have learned java and its libraries then learning objective-c (weird looking but cool) and cocoa (a really complete library) should pose no problem at all.
Actually, that makes no sense. If it's the most important thing to have work well, why wouldn't they welcome competition? If iPhone Firefox ended up being better than iPhone Safari, why wouldn't Apple be happy about this situation? Their customers get better utility out of the device, and Apple doesn't have to lift a finger.
I guess this can be the first documented case of the GPLv3 actually working, and working well. I'm sorry, but a version of an app which you can't modify without paying $100 for a "developer key" is not free software.
And amazingly locked down, compared with Android.
In what way is this OK?
If Microsoft wanted to charge you $100 to run Firefox on Windows, you would burn them at the stake. The only thing that makes Apple different is that they aren't a monopoly... yet.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
restricted people's ability to build clone machines back in the day.
...
The same Apple that restricted what software could run on their machines.
The same Apple that restricted
Nothing new here, this is Apple's secret formula to ensure they never have more than 3-5% market share of anything they do in the long term. I remember a time when Apple was very popular, but due to their complete lack of business acumen doomed their ability to take over the hardware and software markets. They could of taken the computer world by storm and buried IBM and Microsoft, but they have no clue how to market long term. Short term marketing and hype they've got down, but I didn't buy an iPhone, because, I know the end result, which we are now starting to see more clearly. Some people might say I was psychic, o which I would say know your history and you won't be doomed to repeat it.
Same ol' Apple. It's comforting to know I can rely on them to be consistent. Isn't Steve Jobs at the helm again?
They can, but if they do I'll just categorize them as the bullshitting coorporate profit whores that they are.
Same as I do with any coorporation that sell products with artifical limitations. Actually, as I don't really keep a black & white world view, I do have a sliding scale for it, but Apple is definitly not on the right side on that scale.
> decide that a phone is just an appliance and I can live with Apple's constraints...
Why the docile obedience? Just because it is Apple?
You buy it, you do whatever the hell you want with it! Isn't that the mantra here at Slashdot? Except when it is Apple.
I want to see someone port Iceweasel to the damned thing, post a torrent up on a server somewhere anonymously and watch Apple suffer the PR nightmare of trying to ban it. If we can't outright outlaw stupidity we can certainly make it painful.
Adn if Sun actually had a pair of dangling between their legs they would port Java and double dog dare Steve to sue. Come on, they stared Microsoft down over their mistreatment of Java, why be scared of Apple when, again, this is a case they can't lose. Because it won't ever make it to a court of law, Apple would get their asses handed to them in the court of public opinion years before the wheels of justice could turn.
Democrat delenda est
The dev. cert is free, and if you're only doing freeware that's the only thing you need.. anyone can sign an app for their own phone.
$250 if you want the convenience of commercial pre-signed apps. And Nokia don't take 30% of your revenue for the privilege... so it's *still* cheaper than the apple solution.
They would be leveled against Apple the same way they were leveled against Microsoft. Microsoft uses its legal monopoly in OSes to illegally create a monopoly in browsers. Apple uses its legal monopoly in portable music players and online music sales to extend that dominance into the phone market. And before you argue that iPod dominance and a content distribution network does not give them an advantage in the phone market, allow me to point out that /.'ers have been awarded +5 insightful to people for saying exactly that with positive Apple spin. I'm sure /. hypocrisy will see me modded down for point at cracks in Apple's armor though.
I have never seen an SDK that so blatantly locks users out of common usage like this, have you? Maybe I've managed a decade and a half in this industry without noticing that it's normal practice to use legal force to ensure that an SDK is only used a particular way?
Which industry? This isn't atypical in the embedded industry at all. It is very unusual in the general computing industry. I think the issue here is that the iPhone and iTouch span that divide moreso than any device that came before it.
If you wanted to develop for the PlayStation, for instance, you had to sign all kinds of agreements. And they were relatively open compared to some embedded device makers.
E pluribus unum
If Microsoft wanted to charge you $100 to run Firefox on Windows, you would burn them at the stake. The only thing that makes Apple different is that they aren't a monopoly... yet. Sorry, but this is different. See, Apple has never said you cannot run Firefox on their device. You are free to write it and make it work. You figure out a way to do that, congratulations. You can do whatever the hell you want with the iPhone. But how are you going to get this app on the iPhone? It's up to you to figure that part out, and if you brick your iPhone, that's your problem. All they are saying is that you cannot use their SDK to develop these apps. That's part of their licensing agreement. Don't agree? Don't use their SDK and go it on your own, you have that right after all.
"I have never seen an SDK that so blatantly locks users out of common usage like this, have you?" Sure I have: Microsoft XNA.
But not the one you're thinking of. It's a secret formula for Apple to remain profitable.
Apple's restrictions on hardware significantly reduce the amount of development they do and the amount of support Apple has to provide. OSX doesn't have to have drivers for every crappy, made-in-China knockoff MoBo. They never have to take support calls where someone says "Hey, I tried installing OSX on this 286 DX-2 66 machine, and it runs like crap!" When you're Microsoft, you can afford to blow off consumers, since they pretty much don't understand what their options are and have become used to having an OS maker who says "FU!" if you have a WGA problem.
It also ups Apple's profitability, since a lot of people (including yours truly) finally get tired of screwing around trying to get Windows to cooperate and decide to buy something that "just works" even if it costs a little more. I used to build my own boxes back in the day--but eventually I grew up, moved out of the basement (figuratively) and got a life. I want to take my wife to dinner and a movie and have a tea party with my daughter, not spend three hours diagnosing some obscure video card driver issue. I use Linux at work (and love it) but I'm not up for doing Linux support (for my wife and myself) at home.
Apple's thing may not be for you, but it seems to be working out for them.
Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
There's no SDK for a microwave, not even a limited one.
No one's stopping people from running whatever the hell they want on their iPhone either. Apple has not sued, attacked, harassed, or taken any legal action whatsoever against the jailbreak folks. Even the "bricking" software updates were announced ahead of time and could be refused by the owner. They haven't helped them--true. But neither has my microwave manufacturer.
If you don't want the restrictions, don't use the official SDK. You will face no legal action whatsoever for doing whatever you want to the phone you own. But Apple is not legally obligated to help you do anything to the phone you own either. There is absolutely no legal duty for a company to make any electronics device a software platform. If you want to hack your phone, go right ahead, you have every right, but don't expect a helping hand. Can't have it both ways.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
What Apple is not doing, and have never done, is to legally go after people who hack the phone without using the official SDK. They have never even so much as sent a threatening letter to the jailbreak folks.
There is no legal duty whatsoever to provide an SDK for an electronics device. Your legal rights to do whatever you want to your phone do not extend to forcing Apple to provide an official SDK to allow it. The law cuts both ways--you have the right to do what you want to your property, but you also have the sole responsibility for doing it.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
If Apple starts suing people who hack their own iPhone, I'll be at the front of the line complaining. I doubt they will though, because that is very shaky legal ground. Your property rights have nothing to do with Apple being "anticompetitive." They are based on common law principles that go back hundreds of years. But as I noted, those rights do not extend to forcing Apple to provide the SDK you want.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Whether I agree with it or not, Apple's direction is to completely control their offerings. From what I see, they do this to maintain the best possible user experience they can deliver. If they allow their users, who tend to be non-technical, to download anything from anywhere, then they (feel that they) become responsible for any degradation in the user experience. Whether or not that is reasonable is a matter of opinion. Whether or not they have the right to do that is not.
As far as Java goes, I'm yet another Java developer. I love Java apps. They need no installer; they bypass the corporate security monitor on my workstation. They would also bypass any controls Apple uses to protect the user experience on the iPhone.
I don't own an iPhone, and I probably never will. It's not as if I don't have options.
At risk of being modded down:
I'm no fan of blocking Firefox or Opera COMPLETELY for the iPhone (I use both), but the reason why they are preventing FireFox/Opera from having plugin architectures is due to the existence of Skype plugins for Opera/Firefox.
They aren't blocking Skype completely from the iPhone, they are preventing it from being able to operate over AT&T's cellular network. It can still operate under Wi-Fi. The reason for this is that iPhone plans allow UNLIMITED data transfer currently, and if AT&T wants it to stay that way, it has to prevent Skype from using 3G/EDGE because that will cut into their minutes-per-month pricing plans. That being said, Telecom companies are evil.
Honestly though, is this entirely unexpected? We will still see Firefox and Opera on the iPhone, possibly, and maybe Apple will relent and allow plugins that don't use the cellular network (like Pop-up blockers, Firebug), but can you really expect a company-no matter how much you question their ethics- to shoot themselves in the foot and destroy their entire buisness model?
The reason why Skype is allowed on most Windows Mobile devices is because AT&T charges money after the first 5000mb (don't trust that 0 cent per mb), AND they are getting an extra 35-65 dollars depending on your plan. With the iPhone, its included. They would be painting themselves into a corner if they allowed Skype on the iPhone to use the 3G network.
I'm sure you'll see lots of lovely apps for the iPhone.
Lastly: I'm not buying one of these stupid things, just so you know. I hate the cellphone I currently have. I run a desktop windows machine I built myself and I have an Apple MacBook. For christs sake though, it really does seem like too many people have a "Jump to Conclusions" mat.
Don't like it? Don't buy an iPhone. It's that easy. Nobody is forcing you to get one. There are plenty of other phones and tiny computers on the market, running everything from Windows CE to Palm OS to Linux. It's not the same as the former M$ monopoly of years past. That monopoly existed because there was no other product on the market to fill that need, and M$ leveraged that control to push their other products. In Apple's case, there are plenty of other products on the market, and this one comes with agreements that Apple made with AT&T. If you like it, buy it. If you don't, don't.
Not to defend Apple, but the situation is quite different for the iPhone than for Microsoft:
- Apple makes a complete, integrated product: hardware + software.
- They have an image of "style" and "high quality" to maintain.
- They are worried about "diluting" that image with potentially crappy 3rd party apps.
- With Apple, people expect a self-contained product that "just works", so the tech support calls would end up going to Apple.
- This is even more critical with a cell phone than a home PC. It can't crash when you need to make a 911 call!
On the other hand:
- Microsoft makes only the software and for cheap, commodity hardware. They don't make the whole product.
- Many things come to mind for people when the name Microsoft is mentioned, but style and high quality are not among them.
- 3rd party software vendors for Microsoft platforms are responsible for their own tech support.
You're too late. The thread was ended with that post according to Godwin's Law.
Can anymore hyperbole be stuffed into these pathetic excuses for journalism? "face government regulators"? Are you high? IT'S APPLE'S PHONE! It's THEIR OS! Like it or lump it. And don't even bother with bullshit about "monopolies". When the iPhone is 95% of the mobile phone market, we'll get back to you.
Fiat Homos et Pereat Theos