Why Apple Denied the Google Latitude App

awyeah writes "A recently revealed Apple patent looks remarkably similar to the functionality of Google Latitude, which Apple relegated to WebApp status earlier this year. Obviously if Apple is working on their own version of Google Latitude (or owns the IP rights to this functionality), they'd be hesitant to put an app with the same functionality on their devices from another company."

Comments

I Smell Patent War

[Bigjeff5]

This begs the question, if Google already had an app out, who did it first?

Obviously the patent process takes years.

Re:I Smell Patent War

[Anonymous Coward]

Either way, this is a pretty clear example of why no company should be allowed to have control over what software consumers can put on devices that they own. It was wrong when the phone companies tried to be sole arbiter, and it is just as wrong for Apple to play that role. It is guaranteed to be abused sooner or later in a way that prevents competition in the marketplace and harms consumers. It was only a matter of time.

I so badly want to see the FTC slap Apple with fines every day until they open the iPhone up to apps sold outside the app store without Apple vetting. That is the only action that sets a strong enough precedent that consumers are in charge of devices that they paid for and have a right to tinker.

Re:I Smell Patent War

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean raises the question. Begging the question is a form of logical fallacy which basically means that you are assuming something is true/false in order to prove that it's true/false.

Re:I Smell Patent War

[Bigjeff5]

Yes, my mistake. It's so often misused sometimes it's hard not to.

Re:I Smell Patent War

[drgruney]

if I had mod points I would give them all to you testify!

Re:I Smell Patent War

[Anonymous Coward]

While I agree that it is in the consumer's best interest to have Apple open the store to all comers I don't agree that the FTC has legal grounds to slap them with fines (I know you didn't SAY that they had it - just sort of implied that maybe they could). Anyway, the lack of open access to the store is why I don't have an iPhone and instead waited and waited and waited and finally got a Droid (which I am thrilled with). It's also why anyone who cares about this type of issue shouldn't get an iPhone. We all talk about voting with our wallets. Some even practice it. But I sure see a lot of iPhones in the hands of folks who really (if they practiced what they preached) should have known better.

Re:I Smell Patent War

[toppavak]

The patent application was filed on June 30th 2008. Google released Latitude February 4th, 2009. This would seem to indicate Apple was first, but there's a key difference between the products. The Apple patent specifically deals with sharing location information by text message and only by text message, Google Latitude makes use of mobile internet connections. There's no patent dispute here, merely Apple acting like Apple and rejecting apps which may compete with current or planned functionality that Apple wants to deliver over their platform.

I am by no means a big fan of Apple or Apple products in general, but for those screaming "anti-trust" Apple is entirely within their right to do this (although whether its the "right" thing to do is questionable) considering A) Apple has nothing near a monopoly over the smartphone market B) A monopoly over one's own product is hardly a monopoly and C) Even if Apple were able to completely supplant Google Latitude among iPhone users, they're not going to be selling their software on the other 90% of smartphones out there anytime soon.

Re:I Smell Patent War

[mjihad]

This begs the question, if Google already had an app out, who did it first?

Obviously the patent process takes years.

It's not as if broadcasting your location is something new or innovative coming from Google. For example, Helio had Buddy Beacon back in 2006, which allowed you to find your friends.

Re:I Smell Patent War

[Belial6]

No. It is not. When they sell it to you, it stops being their product and becomes your product. If Apple wants it to remain theirs, then they should not sell it. They should rent it, or just keep it for themselves.

Re:I Smell Patent War

[Ragzouken]

This just begs the question "Who the hell cares?"

Re:I Smell Patent War

[trytoguess]

Begs the question makes the unitiated English speaker (or those who didn't pay much attention in English 101) think something is so off in some way that one feel a powerful urge to comment. An emotionally stronger version of raising the question so to speak. To say that begs the question can only be a logical fallacy is about as well... logical as claiming a straw man is only a fallacy, and can't be a humanoid shaped object made of straw.

Re:I Smell Patent War

[mystikkman]

I am by no means a big fan of Apple or Apple products in general, but for those screaming "anti-trust" Apple is entirely within their right to do this (although whether its the "right" thing to do is questionable) considering A) Apple has nothing near a monopoly over the smartphone market B) A monopoly over one's own product is hardly a monopoly and C) Even if Apple were able to completely supplant Google Latitude among iPhone users, they're not going to be selling their software on the other 90% of smartphones out there anytime soon.

I love it how *cough* some people on here comment on Apple stories. If it's a discussion about smartphone marketshare, then it's "WOW, APPLE TOTALLY RULEZ THE MARKET FOR SMARTPHONES, THE FUTURE OF ALL PHONES. HERE'S THE LINK TO PROVE THE NUMBERS". And in these kind of stories it's 'Apple is not a monopoly, it has only 10% of smartphone marketshare'. Which is it? And both of such kind of comments are regularly modded way up into the sky by *some people* depending on which kind of story it is. Hate to see so many geeks so enamored with shiny things as to suffer from cognitive dissonance.

At the least, it's a dominant platform(I hate to use that term for someone that's not open to all) which surely deserves some protection from abuse. Apple makes money on the iPhones when selling it to AT&T or unlocked, a forced 30% cut on all software soft for it and a ~$17 kickback from AT&T from every iPhone user every month. This is one of the reasons they don't want people going to websites and downloading programs.

Re:I Smell Patent War

[Swift2001]

Buy what you want. That's the American way.

I don't quite understand the outrage at an iPhone store that has 100,000 apps and whose costs range from free to pretty cheap, and which has lacked a few dozen well-publicized apps, most of which are rejected due to mistakes and errors.

If you don't like it, don't buy it. That's simple.

Re:I Smell Patent War

[Swift2001]

They brought it to market, and their executives (Jobs) decide the way things can go. If you want something else, get a Blackberry/Drobo/whatever. There will be lots of choice for those who feel offended easily.

Re:I Smell Patent War

[Swift2001]

"Apple makes money on the iPhones when selling it to AT&T or unlocked, a forced 30% cut on all software soft for it and a ~$17 kickback from AT&T from every iPhone user every month. This is one of the reasons they don't want people going to websites and downloading programs."

Yes, Apple makes money selling iPhones. It is a business. If it's part of a subscription, much of the real cost is picked up by AT&T and they paid back by the subscriber. If you buy the phone unlocked, you pay the whole cost yourself. Now, AT&T won't give you a cheaper, non-subsidized fee, so take that up with them.

If it's so horrible that a Apple takes a 30% cut, please tell me why people have flocked to the platform? Do they love slavery? Or are a sizable minority making a decent amount of MONEY, and 30% to Apple pays for all your marketing expenses, freeing you to just develop?

As for the last, I'm sure it's true that part of the reason they don't want people going to websites to buy apps is because they don't get a cut. Oh, terrible crime. I think that the 30% probably works about like the music store, where profits are thin. A lot of that is eaten up by bandwidth -- I wonder what Apple paid for those billion downloads? -- and credit card fees.

Another thing I'm sure Steve-o wants is a lot fewer Russian web sites selling Trojans mixed in with their neat app. I bring your attention to the hack of jailbroken iPhones, which went from practical joke to a real-live Trojan gathering up your banking passwords, etc. Sure, it only happened with people who didn't reset their ssh password. But good luck with the free as a bird buying of software from the web.

Re:I Smell Patent War

[Anonymous Coward]

That isn't what "begs the question" means.

Re:I Smell Patent War

[Toonol]

He is telling you TO demand it, by buying a product that has it. Apple is free to sell locked down devices, we are free to not buy them. What is NOT free is demanding that a government agency force Apple to change their product... that's no more free than it would be for the agency to require us to BUY Apple's product.

Speaking out for what's right is not "doing a corporation's bidding".

Re:I Smell Patent War

[mystikkman]

If it's so horrible that a Apple takes a 30% cut, please tell me why people have flocked to the platform? Do they love slavery? Or are a sizable minority making a decent amount of MONEY, and 30% to Apple pays for all your marketing expenses, freeing you to just develop?

They have flocked to the platform because there is no other way to sell apps to the iPhone crowd. My beef is not that Apple takes a 30% cut, they can take 60% for doing a fantastic job for all I care. My beef is that other stores are excluded from competing. There might be a company that can charge only 20% but still provide the bandwidth, absorb CC fees and prove good marketing. Apple's App Store and other app stores can compete on merits instead of being forced upon developers and users. If MS started anything like this and forced it upon all PC users to get rid of viruses and malware and sold Windows only their overpriced hardware while banning Firefox because it duplicates IE's functionality, I am sure you will be singing a different tune. Or would you?

So yes, I do consider it a terrible crime that political apps, anything that can be seen as risque and potentially offensive(to some segment of the population) are banned from what essentially is a handheld computer.

Re:I Smell Patent War

[Belial6]

Or enough people could complain and make a big stink thus pushing government force Apple to work towards their benefit. I always find if funny how many individuals think that corporations SHOULD have more rights than individuals. A corporation has no god given right to do business in my country. The people in my county (supposedly) get to make whatever rules they want. If the people absolutely have the right to decide that what Apple is doing is wrong.

I flat out deny your assertion that corporations are inherently imbued with the right to decide right and wrong. I also flat out deny your assertion that I as a citizen of my country do not have the right to try and sway public opinion to favor me as an individual over a corporation.

Re:I Smell Patent War

[Lars T.]

So your beef is actually that Apple decided that the way everybody else was doing it wasn't that good for the consumers - and that the consumers seem to agree, because they do indeed flock to the one shop to get apps.

Re:I Smell Patent War

[Lemmy Caution]

Such a gracious response! And how sadly rare: most would rush to defend the "evolution" of language.

Re:I Smell Patent War

[Dog-Cow]

And the public has the right to decide that the poster who posts using the handle Belial6 on slashdot should be tortured to death.

Same logic, near as I can tell.

Re:I Smell Patent War

[MojoStan]

The patent application was filed on June 30th 2008. Google released Latitude February 4th, 2009. This would seem to indicate Apple was first,

To be more clear, on that date Google released Latitude for 4 mobile platforms (Android, Blackberry, Symbian, and Windows Mobile) in 27 countries and 42 languages. Apple hasn't released a product yet.

but there's a key difference between the products. The Apple patent specifically deals with sharing location information by text message and only by text message, Google Latitude makes use of mobile internet connections.

That sounds very similar to Dodgeball, which was aquired by Google in 2005. From the Wikipedia page:

• Dodgeball was a location-based social networking software provider for mobile devices. Users text their location to the service, which then notifies them of crushes, friends, friends' friends and interesting venues nearby.[1] Dodgeball was shut down by Google in March 2009 and replaced with Google Latitude.

Re:I Smell Patent War

[jeff4747]

Either way, this is a pretty clear example of why no company should be allowed to have control over what software consumers can put on devices that they own

Depends on the consumer.

The idea of trying to clean malware off my parent's iPhones gives me nightmares. And I can guarantee they'd get infected if it were possible to install any old app, or if Apple had to allow any old app in the store. I'm rather happy they can only get apps that have been blessed by Apple.

OTOH, I'd like more options. Fortunately, Apple's got competition.

Re:I Smell Patent War

[arminw]

...They should rent it...
Isn't that what effect AT&T does? If you don't pay the rent ( service charge ), then your device is a useless brick.

Re:I Smell Patent War

[arminw]

...corporations SHOULD have more rights than individuals....
So if Apple were owned personally by Steve Jobs then everything would be fine? It seems that you are persuaded that if a person or corporation is successful and has a good product, government should in effect take it away from them for the good of society. I think they call that idea communism.

Re:I Smell Patent War

[arminw]

....I will never own an iPhone...
If every Slashdot reader refuses to buy an iPhone, with the bean counters at Apple even notice this? Fortunately for Apple, there are millions of customers willing to open their wallet for their products.

Re:I Smell Patent War

[Runaway1956]

Bravo. Now - let's try to make Congress, the Senate, and each of the 50 states understand that. NO CORPORATION HAS A RIGHT TO EXIST, let alone decide how they will do business. They are LICENSED by the states to do business, according to state laws.

Now, let's shoot all corporate lobbyists, lynch every politician who has ever been bought off by a lobbyist, and get things back on track. One voter, one vote, and the rich sumbitch has no more say in anything than a ghetto welfare recipient.

Re:I Smell Patent War

[Runaway1956]

I disliked some of your posts - but this one crosses the line. Definitely retarded. You've left the realm of corporate and business law, and tried to justify a violation of human rights.

Re:I Smell Patent War

[mystikkman]

So your beef is actually that Apple decided that the way everybody else was doing it wasn't that good for the consumers - and that the consumers seem to agree, because they do indeed flock to the one shop to get apps.

This is the most backwards logic that I've read in a long time. Apple decided that the way everybody else was doing it didn't elicit enough $$$. And how do you know the consumers agree? Was there a survey that showed that people would shun or boycott any other store or never download any app from the author's website? Your logic when applied to MS seems to imply that Windows was top notch quality at the end of 90s, after all, so many people flocked to buy it that it had 95%+ market share. It's just sad how so many intelligent people blindly defend a cultish company at all costs with convoluted logic.

Re:I Smell Patent War

[LordVader717]

I am by no means a big fan of Apple or Apple products in general, but for those screaming "anti-trust" Apple is entirely within their right to do this (although whether its the "right" thing to do is questionable) considering A) Apple has nothing near a monopoly over the smartphone market B) A monopoly over one's own product is hardly a monopoly and C) Even if Apple were able to completely supplant Google Latitude among iPhone users, they're not going to be selling their software on the other 90% of smartphones out there anytime soon.

Antitrust law is a huge area, and covers a wide range of practices and strategies. Saying that they are completely clean because they have no monopoly (which is a fuzzy and relative term anyway) is wrong. If they are found to be anti-competitive they deserve to burn.

Re:I Smell Patent War

[martyros]

I so badly want to see the FTC slap Apple with fines every day until they open the iPhone up to apps sold outside the app store without Apple vetting. That is the only action that sets a strong enough precedent that consumers are in charge of devices that they paid for and have a right to tinker.

Why don't you just buy a different phone, one that allows you to tinker? They do exist.

Re:I Smell Patent War

[awyeah]

What is NOT free is demanding that a government agency force Apple to change their product...

Except in the case of monopoly (which Apple does NOT currently have).

Re:I Smell Patent War

[awyeah]

Is that really true? If I don't pay my AT&T for my BlackBerry, I'm pretty sure I can still use any feature on it that does not require connectivity. I don't miss my payments, but I have used my BlackBerry without the SIM card, and everything seemed to work fine... just offline.

Re:I Smell Patent War

[awyeah]

I am a software engineer: I will write my own software and run it if I please.

I agree 100%. If I want to write an application for a platform, I don't want to be (potentially) held hostage by that platform's manufacturer - even if my application is a piece of shit.

What's even funnier is that many of the other software engineers in my organization have iPhones and they love them. I guess they haven't tried submitting their own apps...

Re:I Smell Patent War

[mr dirtbag]

While I agree that it is in the consumer's best interest to have Apple open the store to all comers I don't agree that the FTC has legal grounds to slap them with fines (I know you didn't SAY that they had it - just sort of implied that maybe they could). Anyway, the lack of open access to the store is why I don't have an iPhone and instead waited and waited and waited and finally got a Droid (which I am thrilled with). It's also why anyone who cares about this type of issue shouldn't get an iPhone. We all talk about voting with our wallets. Some even practice it. But I sure see a lot of iPhones in the hands of folks who really (if they practiced what they preached) should have known better.

How do you feel about people who new better, bought the phone and jail-broke it?

Re:I Smell Patent War

[LBt1st]

Not changing with the times is the doom of many companies. Times have changed.

I for one welcome our new Android overlords.

Re:I Smell Patent War

[arminw]

....everything seemed to work fine... just offline...
I don't know how that works with the iPhone, but if you don't want to pay the monthly charges you can buy an iTouch, which can do everything over WI-FI except make phone calls.

Re:I Smell Patent War

[lsatenstein]

Ahh the patent war. I liken the devices to refrigerators. Now refrigerator manufacturers are going to tell me what I can store inside the box.

Re:I Smell Patent War

[GaryPatterson]

I can't work that out either. If people hate everything about the iPhone so much, why don't they just go for the competing product?

It seems one of those "I want it, therefore I should have it" arguments. I can't imagine how people become so... entitled in their attitudes.

Re:I Smell Patent War

[StripedCow]

i'd feel sorry for them, because they always have to wait longer for their feature updates and security fixes, and they'd always be in fear of the phone companies finding them out and shutting them out.

Re:I Smell Patent War

[cl0s]

Well if they were 'voting with your wallet', their idiots and don't know any better, as you claim. Also, Apple just sees it as more people have iPhones so more people approve of what Apple is doing to limit the iPhone as in the better interest of the 'user experience'.

Re:I Smell Patent War

[cl0s]

Yea because my phones blowing up with callers who all have malware infested Android devices because of their open app store and ability to install apps from 3rd parties with-out even going thru Androids appstore (which doesn't even require approval).

Google does remove apps from their app market though on occasion because of report of malware or just the carrier doesn't like it. But I always have the option of just browsing to an apps url and installing it that way, with no intervention at all from any carrier or Google.

Re:I Smell Patent War

[hazydave]

Same here... I did not care to let Apple dictate which apps I could run or could not run. After years of being on Verizon, where they did a similar thing even on their "dumb" phones (like cutting down the Motorola OS on the RAZR until it was pretty much just another "freebie" phone, in terms of features), I curiously found the phone I was looking for, in the DROID... on Motorola and Verizon. Who woulda thunk it?

But these are both clear reasons Android will relegate Apple to something more or less akin to their place in the PC world: small share of the market, but still with enough users to sell their gear way above the accepted profit margins. They're probably comfortable with that, but they have no alternative. The reality of open applications on Android and the fact that every major cell phone maker other than Apple, RIM, and Palm are working on something with Android (not to mention the places it's showing up beyond the phone, like on Archos internet tablets and eBooks like the B&N nook), pretty much guarantee it's ascendancy over Apple. And everyone else. It's gravy for some of us that, as well, the OS is open source. That's also a key to why every phone vendor is using it, of course.

This will happen faster with education. Many regular users don't know just how much Apple is censoring applications. They should be educated about this, in the mainstream, not just in the corners of the internet inhabited by geeks.

Re:I Smell Patent War

[hazydave]

Based on the dates, Google certainly had something in testing long before Apple's patent application. And it doesn't seem there's any conflict, anyway... the rejection is clearly based on Apple wanting to offer a service in the future that might overlap with something Google is offering today.

There's another thing about patents.... there is a very fine art to filing them. Patent lawyers are very clever about revealing prior art only though very well documented sources... largely, the patent office. So, it's quite likely that Google, perhaps knowing all of the prior art that came out of the Dodgeball project, had no real hope of filing a patent (you are legally required to report all of the prior art you know, though in many of the patents I have read, this was clearly not done). Apple, having no hard core first hand knowledge of this that could be proven in a court of law, and having found no patent exactly like it, filed their patent.

Now comes the examination process. Your patent is purposely written in as vague terms as possible, but when examined, should seem to be pretty restrictive. Once granted, you immediately find that it covers just about everything.

The field of software patents is especially bad, and it's often very difficult to know what prior art is embedded deep within other programs you have not written. Patent lawyers use this very effectively. Some years back, a company I was working for was hit with a bunch of patents from IBM. One of them was a patent, from 1984, that claimed to cover cut and paste between text buffers in a word processor. I claim, it was impossible, in 1984, to be a software engineer and not have run across this before. I first used it in Emacs (CMU's version of TECO Emacs, decended from the MIT version some years before) in 1979. And in fact, we were being called on this patent since our computer came with a version of MicroEmacs, which did cut and paste between text buffers, using exactly the same set of keystrokes that worked in 1979. Argh!

Re:I Smell Patent War

[jeff4747]

Yea because my phones blowing up with callers who all have malware infested Android devices because of their open app store and ability to install apps from 3rd parties with-out even going thru Androids appstore (which doesn't even require approval).

They've just started releasing 'good enough' Android phones. Just wait for the market share to move up and the malware will come.

Prior art

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, if someone had prior art to my IP, i'd bury it too.

Re:Prior art

[n1ywb]

Sounds a hell of a lot like APRS

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_Packet_Reporting_System
http://www.aprs.org/
http://ibcnu.us/ -- aprs iphone app

single good thing?

[Darkness404]

Has there been a single good thing to come out of software patents? It seems like every single day there is a story posted about a patent that has clear prior art or is trivial and doesn't innovate or invent anything. The US needs to stop software patents if they want to let technology innovate.

Re:single good thing?

[tgd]

Considering that it generally costs $30-$40k to file a reasonable software patent, even if you're only filing it for potential defensive purposes (which is wise, these days... believe me... BTDT)... its a pretty damn good thing for the patent attorneys.

Not so much for the rest of us.

Re:single good thing?

[ColdWetDog]

Looking at the actual patent language (not just the abstract) I cannot find one little bit where a) it's not obvious and b) there is any real creativity or difficulty in the overall concept. The hardware and programming end of it of course can be difficult but that is not what is covered here.

How did this stinker end up as a patent rather than having the actual implementation of said obvious idea?

Re:single good thing?

[Bigjeff5]

That's my biggest beef with most software patents - the whole idea of the patent is to lay down HOW to do some revolutionary new idea. That's supposed to be the cost of getting your limited monopoly. Software patents usually only give you the what, not the how, and in my opinion should be null. How can I be violating his patent if he never describes how he does it? Or, if it's so simple that they did not need to describe how it is done, how the hell did they get a patent in the first place?

These patents should be loaded with pseudo-code to achieve the stated goals, and if someone comes along who can significantly improve the design of the pseudo-code then they should get a patent too, just like with physical inventions.

That's my opinion. I wouldn't mind software patents if they were treated the same as hardware patents, but they aren't.

Re:single good thing?

[vague disclaimer]

How did this stinker end up as a patent...

Because companies can afford much more expensive IP lawyers than the Patent Office can.

Re:single good thing?

[mjwalshe]

agree this is like MS or IBM saying you can only run non competing software on windows or MVS

Times change

[Qwavel]

Back in the day we (including myself) used to get mad at MS for all the anti-competitive things they did.

Now Apple comes along with stuff that MS never dreamed of (or could have got away with) and everybody loves them. Now I get to listen to my friends talk about what a wonderful and cool company Apple is and how they invented everything.

What is going on here?

Re:Times change

[MBCook]

I've got an iPhone. I generally like Apple. I'll admit some of this stuff seems a little ridiculous. I'm not that mad at this, here's why.

Apple tends to make good interfaces, so the Apple app will probably be good. It's not like Google's app is being denied to be replaced with some horrible piece of junk. It could be worse.

But the real thing is while Apple is doing this, it's WAY better than the pre-Apple cell phone world. I can buy a game (like Bejewelled) that connects to Facebook for $3. Games used to cost $3 per month. And it wasn't full featured, it was one little mode. Google Maps is free. Cell companies used to have terrible programs for an extra $10 a month.

Compared to desktops, the situation is poor. Compared to where cellphones were, it's great; so I'm willing to accept it. As more competition comes around (Android gaining steam) Apple will be forced to improve.

Apple has been in the cell phone market for 3 years now. Apps have been available for 2 years.

Basically I'm not impatient yet. If nothing changes in the next year or two, I will be. But for now, my cell situation is so much better than it was 2 years ago, I'm happy enough.

Re:Times change

[Anonymous Coward]

>> MS has a monopoly and Apple doesn't.

That is a piss poor excuse for any corporate to get away with anti-competitive behavior. But that's the only thing apple fanbois can come up with.

MS - I have to use it at work and I let it be that way. But I have never own an apple product and never will. They are so much worse than MS.

Re:Times change

[bhunter736]

I've noticed the same thing. I love that they are the only company with "Time Machine" because MS uses "System Restore" which is clearly a different name. However, if you try and explain to an Apple fan that they are essentially the same only "System Restore" has been around a lot longer, they just move right along with conversation like you didn't say anything. It is amazing. If you try and point out that Apple is basically selling them an expensive UI on a free OS platform, they insist that Apple invented it. If you point out that all the hardware is now PC compatible components, they again insist that they are not the same. The only difference I see is the blessing and Apple logo on the box. I figure it just takes a few years for a cult to really gain momentum. Now, I don't think Apple is evil. Lots of companies charge extra for their label. Car companies have entire divisions that are the added frills for twice the price - Honda and Acura, Toyota and Lexus come to mind. You do get a little more for the extra money, but not enough to justify designer prices for standard components in a shiny box. IMHO.

Re:Times change

[Burdell]

My crappy little free phone can run Google Maps and any of a half-dozen or so other GPS mapping programs that I can download for free. The people that write them don't need my phone manufacturer or cell provider's permission. They can compete with the GPS app that came with the phone. The same is true for web browsers and so many other things. Why is it that when Apple is afraid of the slightest bit of competition and locks it out at every opportunity, people accept it (even for one minute, much less for two years)? Apple's app may be the best thing every made, but if that is the case, it'll be more widely used than Google's on its own merits, not because Apple is afraid to let Google compete with them.

Re:Times change

[nurb432]

Not everyone is ok with this. I have been an apple fan since day 3, ( since i wasn't out on the west coast back then to have heard of them, it wasn't on day 1 ) and I'm appalled by what is going on.

Re:Times change

[dangitman]

The big difference is really that Apple does pretty much everything on its own turf - its own OS, running on its own hardware. Microsoft's empire, on the other hand relies on third-party 'partners' and OEMs. And Microsoft has abused those relationships time and time again - and has had the power to destroy companies if they don't behave the way Microsoft tells them to.

Apple does shitty things, but isn't in a position of direct power over other companies - Apple plays with its own toys.

Re:Times change

[maccam]

The facts of this charge of anti-competitiveness against Apple are hardly clear, yet you have tried and convicted Apple of the crimes of MS? Shouldn't we wait for the whole story, before condemning Apple?

Re:Times change

[maxume]

Apple is clearly working to limit certain competition on the iPhone. It just isn't illegal.

Re:Times change

[dgatwood]

They're not even close to the same thing. For one thing, if your hard drive crashes, you can restore from a Time Machine backup drive, but your System Restore checkpoint was destroyed along with the rest of your data. For another, because SR uses the same disk, it is very limited in terms of how far back the backups go.

Yes, the concept of rolling back to a previous version is the same, but then again, the concept of checkpoints/snapshots/restore points has been around for at least a couple of decades in the database world. The way that these tools provide that functionality is pretty radically different.

Re:Times change

[MemoryDragon]

That is exactly what happens with most designer brands, they have cheap productions in the third world and then charge premium prices for their goods. I recently saw a doc that the customs office has harder and harder times to identify falsely branded designer stuff, guess why, because in many cases it is the same junk even from the same factories which run night inofficial night shifts.

As for Apple, sometimes maybe even often they have a higher build quality for their products even if they use run of the mill stuff, but the times they have not and you are stuck with a problem it can take ages for them to acknowledge their mistake if you are lucky if you are unlucky they wont even react.

Re:Times change

[Gadget_Guy]

Apple does shitty things, but isn't in a position of direct power over other companies

What was the topic of this story again? Oh yes, that Apple denied Google's app from the app store because it would compete with Apple's own offering. Sounds like power over other companies to me.

But the whole "Microsoft is a monopoly" argument never really worked for me. If both Microsoft and Apple do something that is morally wrong, then more people will be affected by Microsoft. But this doesn't make it less morally wrong for Apple. Not being the monopoly is not a "get out of jail free" card.

Re:Times change

[negRo_slim]

it's WAY better than the pre-Apple cell phone world

Personally I preferred when phones were just phones.

Re:Times change

[MBCook]

I'm willing to trade "Apple-yness" for the experience they bring. They're not a monopoly, you can always go WinMo or Android or Symbian. I'm also aware of how much the market has changed as a result of their appearance, much for the better.

Apple came in and took over the cell phone market. Everyone wants to better Apple, the iPhone, the App Store. They are "the" cell phone company right now, so people like to take pot shots at them whenever possible.

OK, the BB/Android/WinMo is more open. Until Apple came along, software for BB/WinMo was more expensive and harder to find. Cellphone/smartphone apps didn't have nearly the market it has now.

Apple has 4% of the cell phone market in the US. It's not like they're the only choice.

And it's not like this kind of behavior is new for Apple. Apple has been trying to do things themselves for years, often annoying former partners in the process. Think Adobe was happy with Aperture?

Re:Times change

[bhunter736]

That is good to know. I did not realize that "Time Machine" was more than a settings backup. However, the combination of a full backup to secondary media and system restore points contained therein would amount to basically the same. Again, this combination has been around a long time. In fact, simply dating the backup tapes, disks or otherwise can accomplish the same. Apple put a nice interface and a cool name on it. I like the cool name and always appreciate a clean interface.

I don't like calling something by a new name and claiming it is unique as if there is no other comparable option for getting the same result. There are also many third party software programs that have been around many years on the PC side to do this job, however lacking a cool name and slick interface.

Re:Times change

[Swift2001]

And that is evil because...?

Obviously, the Droid has a pretty cool, free navigation app cooked in with its Google Maps. Are they offering that to other platforms? Just askin'. I'm thinking they might, eventually, after they use their competitive advantage to wipe out Tom Tom and Garmin and Magellan... or "take money away from" these companies. In the old days, giving something that cool away for free (under the cost of production, that's for sure) would have been called "unfair competition." Oh, but Google never does anything like that. They are NOT EVIL. They are OPEN.

Re:Times change

[Tokerat]

What was the topic of this story again? Oh yes, that Apple denied Google's app from the app store because it would compete with Apple's own offering. Sounds like power over other companies to me.

Apple is preventing Google from adding a feature to Apple's device only. It still sucks, but Apple is not finding ways to prevent Google from creating, selling, or marketing Latitude in any other form, and that is the big difference.

Also, there is a lot less wrong with Apple's products out of the box. Apple's 3-4 incidents of ACTUALLY acting like a heavy-handed monopolistic tyrant and the number of daily inconveniences their users suffer as a result PALES in comparison to even today's Microsoft, let alone 10-15 years ago.

Re:Times change

[Swift2001]

In this free country, you are free not to buy an Apple product. You might try one sometime, though. You'll probably like it more than you allow yourself to.

Re:Times change

[nilbog]

I think the people you are referring to exist only in your own mind. Sure, people love Apple - but if you describe to them how their app store policies hurt developers, innovation, and competition pretty much everyone is going to agree that's a bad thing.

Re:Times change

[Gadget_Guy]

You're chasing a red herring, because Google knew exactly what it was getting into when it signed up to sell applications in the App Store.

It is still power over another company (and direct power if you want to call it that). Why should it matter that they knew that it was a possibility? Do you think that the people who have been screwed by Microsoft didn't know that might happen? Really you are splitting hairs trying to make a distinction.

Any company who is betting their livelihood on a guarantee that their apps will not be rejected by Apple is making a foolish business decision.

That is not practical. Mobile platforms are a perfect market for small developers. Unfortunately they have no choice but to rely on Apple letting them include their software in the official application repository. How can they hope to follow Apple's rules if one of them is to not conflict with unannounced future Apple products?

Compare with the Microsoft situation...

No. As I said, it doesn't matter what Microsoft does because it doesn't change what Apple should do.

Anti-trust laws aren't about morality as far as I can see, they are about the economy and marketplaces.

Well yes, that is my point. We should hold Apple and Microsoft to exactly the same standards, despite Microsoft's larger market share.

Re:Times change

[Buelldozer]

Apple didn't invent this!!!

My WinMo smartphones had applications and games available from places like handango years before the iPhone came along.

The app store is not new, it just seems so to johnny come latelys. It's the same with most of iPhones technology. It just seems new to people who weren't paying attention.

Re:Times change

[Gadget_Guy]

Apple is preventing Google from adding a feature to Apple's device only. It still sucks, but Apple is not finding ways to prevent Google from creating, selling, or marketing Latitude in any other form, and that is the big difference.

Apple have created the iPhone, tied it closely with their App Store and then created rules to limit competition. Being excluded from the App Store hugely diminishes visibility to the potential users. Sure, Google are big enough that they can find other ways of getting their apps out there, but smaller companies would find their potential market would become unviable.

I just don't accept the argument that Apple should be able to get away with this sort of stuff because Microsoft have done worse in the past.

Re:Times change

[toriver]

Mobile platforms are a perfect market for small developers. Unfortunately they have no choice but to rely on Apple letting them include their software in the official application repository.

I am sure that would cause developers to shun the platform, or abandon it in droves for more open platforms like Windows or Android.

Oh, except the iPhone now has such a large user-base of people willing to pay for apps that they accept Apple's peculiarities as something they are willing to endure when the alternative is to try and find some way to get their apps sold to owners of those other devices. Without the ubiquitous iTunes and already established associated Store combo...

Re:Times change

[jim_v2000]

>Until Apple came along, software for BB/WinMo was more expensive and harder to find. Cellphone/smartphone apps didn't have nearly the market it has now.

Utter nonsense. There have been dozens of sites with hundreds, if not thousands, of free/cheap Windows Mobile apps for a long time...long before the iPhone came along.

Re:Times change

[jim_v2000]

>If Windows or IE or Office were good enough to justify their market share, hardly anyone would complain. The problem is that they're not; they're inferior to competing products

I love how people like yourself love to knock MS Office, when it is, hands down, the best office suite out there. Nothing comes close. When you say things like that, it instantly kills the credibility of anything else you might have to say. And for Windows, there's a reason that it has ~90% market share...and it's not because it's a terrible/inferior product. It's a great OS, especially for businesses.

>For a lot of people, Apple's offerings just work better than competing offerings from other companies.

And for a lot of people, Windows "just works". The crash/virus nonsense is way overplayed.

Re:Times change

[drerwk]

Apple did more than put a good UI on Time Machine. The AFS knows what files have been changed in a way that would be hard for 3rd party software. I have a 1TB main drive and hourly backups from Time machine take 20 seconds running in the background if I have only a few meg of changed files. Hourly, daily, weekly etc and then prunes in a reasonable way. Time Machine make backups nearly automatic and invisible.

Re:Times change

[bhunter736]

Sounds like rsync on a cron job. Or a timed batch file backup with "changes only" option selected. I haven't set one up like that since the 486 days, but it certainly isn't new or Apple only. I had a setup like that configured to backup a law firm I used to do contract work for; every night the modem would call my system and download changes only to my backup device. This created an off site backup and only took about 5 min a night. We didn't have broadband everywhere back then, around 1990.

Re:Times change

[dangitman]

It is still power over another company (and direct power if you want to call it that).

Actually, I take it back - it's not any kind of power over another company. It's not like Apple is forcing companies to do things in the way Microsoft did. It's power over Apple's own store - other companies simply are not being coerced in this situation.

That is not practical. Mobile platforms are a perfect market for small developers. Unfortunately they have no choice but to rely on Apple letting them include their software in the official application repository.

What? I know plenty of small developers that don't develop for the iPhone at all. They could develop for Android, for Symbian, Windows Mobile, Palm or develop for desktop PCs and not mobile devices at all. How does a small developer have no other option than to develop for the iPhone?

No. As I said, it doesn't matter what Microsoft does because it doesn't change what Apple should do.

Right, and what's wrong with anything Apple is doing (from a legal standpoint)?

Well yes, that is my point. We should hold Apple and Microsoft to exactly the same standards, despite Microsoft's larger market share.

I agree. But Apple has never done anything remotely like Microsoft's flagrant abuses of the law and ethics. If Apple ever does, I'll be ready with the pitchforks. But so far, all we have is a bunch of haters whining about Apple and making spurious comparisons that don't hold water.

Re:Times change

[dangitman]

P.S:

Do you know what Apple could have done to avoid any issues of power over developers, or treating developers unfairly? They could have not opened the App Store in the first place, and only made first-party apps for the iPhone. Which scenario do you think would have profited small developers more - an "unfair" App Store, or no App Store or third-party APIs at all?

If Apple had thought that being able to vet applications would result in legal issues or being forced to distribute every app made by anybody, they might not even have bothered at all.

What amuses me the most, is how quickly people (particularly pundits and industry commentators) go from "Ha, dumb Apple, that's a stupid idea that will never work!" to "Waaaah, why won't Apple let me play their game?"

Re:Times change

[Achromatic1978]

Alright, fine - how about Shadow Copying which has been in Windows since XP?

Re:Times change

[bingoUV]

It's not like Apple is forcing companies to do things in the way Microsoft did

When did Microsoft force some companies to become PC OEMs?

Your solution for iphone developers to be not screwed by Apple is "other option than to develop for the iPhone". Similarly, a company had other options than becoming PC OEMs.

I know plenty of small developers that don't develop for the iPhone at all. They could develop for Android, for Symbian, Windows Mobile, Palm or develop for desktop PCs and not mobile devices at all.

I know plenty of companies that are not PC OEMs at all. They could look for oil under sea, they could run a recreational resort, they could earn money by advocating for some company on Slashdot like you do for Apple.

Re:Times change

[bingoUV]

Do you know what Apple could have done to avoid any issues of power over developers, or treating developers unfairly? They could have not opened the App Store in the first place, and only made first-party apps for the iPhone

Do you know what else Apple could have done? They could have made it easy to get apps from places other than the Apple App Store. Like Symbian does. I guess Android too. Conveniently forgot about it, did you?

Re:Times change

[dangitman]

They could have made it easy to get apps from places other than the Apple App Store. Like Symbian does.

Yeah, that's worked out really well for them, hasn't it? So many people eager to be Symbian developers. So much profit for Symbian. So many high-quality applications.

Re:Times change

[dangitman]

Your solution for iphone developers to be not screwed by Apple is "other option than to develop for the iPhone". Similarly, a company had other options than becoming PC OEMs.

Firstly, nobody is being "screwed" by Apple here.

More importantly, selling apps for the iPhone is just a little bit different in scale and character than just about the entire PC hardware industry. One is eligible for anti-trust protection, the other is not.

If the iPhone application market went away, what would be the harm to society? If the PC industry went away, what would be the harm then?

Re:Times change

[bingoUV]

What has scale got to do with it? You said Microsoft forced companies to "do things in the way Microsoft did". I asked for a clarification, because I missed the news when Microsoft forced a company to go into PC OEM business. You cannot clarify, because you had lied in the GGP post about Microsoft forcing companies in a way Apple didn't. End of story, unless you can clarify it now.

I never said anything about scale, character or "harm to society". What authority do I, or you have to decide the amount of "harm to society" anyway?

Re:Times change

[bingoUV]

1. Diversionary tactics again. Profit/high-quality applications is irrelevant to the point of discussion. In the GGP post, you made it appear that the only way App store could be fair to developers is by closing down the App store altogether. I pointed out another way the App store could have maintained its fairness. End of story, unless ... well I don't see how you can explain that omission. Maybe you will try.

2. For a substantial part of its lifetime, Symbian worked as a mobile OS company such that :- Nokia (48%) and many other mobile phone companies: Sony Ericsson, Panasonic, Seimens etc. held most of its equity. Now Nokia is the major stakeholder (or it was going to be, not sure). So the job of Symbian during this period, can be said to be to do the bidding of Nokia and other mobile phone OS companies and help them increase their profits. As of FY 2008, Nokia alone had more profits (5.0 billion)* than the whole of Apple put together (4.83 billion)** . I say "whole of Apple" because iphone is just a small part of Apple's business, whereas Symbian phones is a major part of Nokia's. Add to it the possible increase in profits Symbian provided to its other (erstwhile) stakeholders and you can rest assured that iphone App Store cannot boast its superiority on the basis of profits in the least bit. Another of your lies exposed. How many more will you try?

*: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia
**: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc.

Re:Times change

[dgatwood]

You can make a backup of the files in a shadow copy, thus ensuring that your backup is a self-consistent snapshot of the filesystem at a particular point in time, but AFAIK it is not a backup in and of itself.

Re:Times change

[drerwk]

How large was the FS you were backing up?
I think rsync has to scan the whole file system looking for changes. In the case of Time Machine, the file system keeps a log of changes as they happen and so no scanning is done. As I said, it takes less than 20 seconds on a drive that has about 500 Gig of stuff. Incremental backups on the 500 Gig used to take something like 20 minutes to scan, likewise thanks to the fact that you can change a file modified time, if you want to be sure you have to check sum the files.
So, before Time Machine I was only realistically able to do nightly backups, not hourly. With hourly backups - worst case I loose an hour of work, not a whole day.

Re:Times change

[jellomizer]

Well what apple is doing now is just Short Sighted... However the reason a lot of people still likes Apple is the fact for the most part (Please note Most Part means more often then not and there do exist exceptions that I do not want to hear) make there products very good, and quite balanced for what the market wants. That is why people are not ranting and raving like they did to Microsoft... Sure MS had anti-competiive stuff going on but in reality most people doesn't care about that. What they cared about was the fact that their products were bad and they didn't have any alternatives.

Right now apple products are relatively good, although there is a lot of anti-competive stuff apple is in no way in a safe spot... Google just may beat out apple for the phone/mobile market. The MP3 Player market is relatively old tech so the iPod dominance is dwindling very slowly, hence why they went to the phone market. Last decade was good for apple. We will have to see about this decade.

Microsoft even after taking a beating this decade is still strong and markets there is still no full replacement.

Re:Times change

[Reality Master 101]

So buy a phone that's just a phone. No one is stopping you. Personally, I had been waiting a LONG ASS time for a useful pocket computer that happened to have a phone, and the iPhone finally delivered.

Re:Times change

[dangitman]

I asked for a clarification, because I missed the news when Microsoft forced a company to go into PC OEM business.

When did I ever say that Microsoft forced any company to go into the OEM PC business? What they did, was use their monopoly to coerce already existing businesses, exerting illegal control over almost an entire industry. That's in violation of anti-trust laws, while what Apple is doing with the App store is not. If you can't see the difference, you are either blind or ignorant.

Re:Times change

[bingoUV]

Such poor memory. 2 of your statements in your post:

It's not like Apple is forcing companies to do things in the way Microsoft did.

I know plenty of small developers that don't develop for the iPhone at all. They could develop for Android, for Symbian, Windows Mobile, Palm or develop for desktop PCs and not mobile devices at all

You were confronted with the fact that Apple is "forcing" iphone developers to comply to arbitrary and unwritten rules for not rejecting their apps. Same as Microsoft "forced" PC OEMs to do what Microsoft wanted (which you agreed with, first quote above). You said (second quote above) that Apple does not force iphone developers to remain iphone developers; and hence apple is not forcing anyone. Obvious implication is, that Microsoft forced PC OEMs to remain PC OEMs, because you maintain that Microsoft "forced" PC OEMs in a way Apple doesn't.

If Microsoft "forced", so did Apple. If Apple did not force (by giving the freedom to do other business e.g. Android, symbian ...), Microsoft didn't force either (by giving the freedom to do other business e.g. oil-exploration, resorts ...).

Re:Times change

[dangitman]

Obvious implication is, that Microsoft forced PC OEMs to remain PC OEMs, because you maintain that Microsoft "forced" PC OEMs in a way Apple doesn't.

But those companies were already in the business before Microsoft became so powerful, and did not know what was coming. Developers who sign up for the App Store know exactly what the terms are.

But moreover, Apple doesn't have a monopoly status to abuse.

If Microsoft "forced", so did Apple. If Apple did not force

But Apple oes not have a monopoly position to abuse. To violate anti-trust law, one needs the ability to control the market.

Your example of the companies going into some other business like oil exploration is absurd. I gave the example of options the developers have in the same industry segment. If Apple were the only smartphone vendor, it might be a different matter. In Microsoft's case, Windows was at least 95% of the market - so vendors had nowhere else to go, except out of business.

It's not difficult to understand, I think you must be deliberately playing stupid.

Re:Times change

[Eighty7]

Morals have nothing to do with it. The illegal bit is distorting the market. Without a huge market share, you simply don't have the market distorting power. It's annoying, true, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal.

Re:Times change

[MBCook]

I know. I had a Dell Axim X50v. It was a great little handheld, but the software was all over the place. You couldn't go down to the store and buy more than a tiny handful of programs. That left you with a dozen sites all claiming to have tons of software and sketchy reviews, on sites plastered with ads that often looked like link bait.

It was a massive pain compared to what Apple made with the App Store.

And how do you download it? Do you download version A, that installs directly on your WinMo device? Or version B that installs with an installer onto Windows and through there the WinMo device? Is there even a version A? Often there isn't, so there is no "I need this now".

Apple has revolutionized the ability to find and get software for these devices, in my experience.

Re:Times change

[MBCook]

Remember each carrier sells 6 dozen phones. The iPhone 3G has 4% of the market, which is the largest share any device has. Next is a BlackBerry series with about 3.5%.

If you only look at smart phones, the 3G has 30% of the market, more than any BB line.

Re:Times change

[bingoUV]

But those companies were already in the business before Microsoft became so powerful, and did not know what was coming. Developers who sign up for the App Store know exactly what the terms are.

1. OEMs could quit before agreeing to new terms from Microsoft.

2. I can assure you that there are at least some developers who trusted on the reasonability of the App Store rejection and started creating iphone apps full time. Then their app got rejected unreasonably and their dreams were shattered. To these people you very easily say that they could now start "Symbian, Android, or not mobile phone applications at all". Why not to PC OEMs to start other business? It is not my business to tell them what new business they could start so I gave wild ideas, but there are plenty within their own field of expertise if they are so averse to new genres of business:

2a. PC OEMs could together form/acquire a company to create new OS. Like mobile phone companies used Symbian.
2b. If that is too much work, instead of new OS, they could adapt already available free OSes like *BSD, linux etc. to their purpose.
2c. They could go with other operating systems. Since it is "before Microsoft became so powerful" we are talking about, Amiga, OS/2 and various other proprietary OSes were not so beyond hope like they now are.
2d. Think for a change. It is not my business to think for them, is it? You are not doing the thinking for "displaced" iphone developers either.

3. "Microsoft became so powerful". Do you know why Microsoft became so powerful? Because its initial abuse of power was tolerated. Just like you are tolerating Apple's abuse of power. Whatever power Apple currently has on developers.

To violate anti-trust law

1. Law is not under discussion at all, so stop dragging it in. We are talking about companies "forcing" others.
2. "Before Microsoft became so powerful", anti-trust law would not have applied on them either, right? This is the period when their abuse of whatever little power they had on PC OEMs should have been resisted. But people like you supported Microsoft then, because you know, anti-trust law does not apply to them. Microsoft is not a monopoly, so let them do whatever they want.

Re:Times change

[cerberusss]

Personally I preferred when phones were just phones.

CHAPEL HILL, NC–Area resident negRO_slim does not own a negRO_slim, a fact he repeatedly points out to friends, family, and coworkers–as well as to his mailman, neighborhood convenience-store clerks, and the man who cleans the hallways in his apartment building.

"I, personally, would rather spend my time doing something useful than use a smartphone," negRO_slim told a random woman Monday at the Suds 'N' Duds Laundromat, noticing the establishment's wall-mounted TV displaying an iPhone ad. "I don't even own one."

According to Melinda Elkins, a coworker of negRO_slim's at The Frame Job, a Chapel Hill picture-frame shop, negRO_slim steers the conversation toward smartphones whenever possible, just so he can mention not owning one.

"A few days ago, [store manager] Annette [Haig] was saying her new contacts were bothering her," Elkins said. "The second she said that, I knew negRO_slim would pounce. He was like, 'I didn't know you had contacts, Annette. Are your eyes bad? That a shame. I'm really lucky to have almost perfect vision. I'm guessing it's because I don't peer into a smartphone all day. In fact, I don't even own one."

According to Elkins, "smartbrick" is Green's favorite derogatory term for smartphone.

"He uses that one a lot," she said. "But he's got other ones, too, like 'dumb-phone and 'mobile phonebooth.'"

Elkins said negRO_slim always makes sure to read the copies of "Smartphone & Pocket PC" lying around the shop's break room, "just so he can point out all the models and apps he's never heard of."

Re:Times change

[dangitman]

1. OEMs could quit before agreeing to new terms from Microsoft.

So, you're saying that the PC hardware industry should have just imploded? And there is was "agreeing to new terms," it was flat-out bullying, nothing that was in a contract agreement.

I can assure you that there are at least some developers who trusted on the reasonability of the App Store rejection and started creating iphone apps full time. Then their app got rejected unreasonably and their dreams were shattered.

That doesn't make any sense. The terms of the contract stated that Apple could reject applications for any reason whatsoever. It was a foolish business decision base your business on selling iPhone apps full-time, based on this assumption that they wouldn't reject applications for arbitrary reasons.

The talk of "shattered dreams" is absurd. I dream of having a three-way with Lucy Liu and Foxy Brown. If they refuse my request and shatter my dreams, then I have no recourse against them. One's dreams are not guaranteed, and very rarely come true.

To these people you very easily say that they could now start "Symbian, Android, or not mobile phone applications at all". Why not to PC OEMs to start other business?

1. Because an iPhone application is easily portable to another platform.

2. Because there was no other viable OS for third-party PC manufacturers. Microsoft owned the market, and Linux was not a viable alternative at the time.

3. Because Apple does not control the smartphone market like Microsoft controlled the PC OS market.

2c. They could go with other operating systems. Since it is "before Microsoft became so powerful" we are talking about, Amiga, OS/2 and various other proprietary OSes were not so beyond hope like they now are.

No, there wasn't any other viable OS that was sold independently of hardware. Amiga and OS/2 were dead. Microsoft owned the entire market from the mid 90s, apart from a few percent of machines which were sold by Apple (with Apple's own OS).

1. Law is not under discussion at all, so stop dragging it in. We are talking about companies "forcing" others.

WTF? Law has been the issue all along. The initial question is "why is Apple treated with leniency, while Microsoft is treated as being bad?" - the answer is that Apple has not violated the law, while Microsoft has.

If you want to go beyond the law, then the answer is that Apple has never coerced anybody in the way that Microsoft has.

2. "Before Microsoft became so powerful", anti-trust law would not have applied on them either, right? This is the period when their abuse of whatever little power they had on PC OEMs should have been resisted.

They didn't abuse their power to the fullest extent, until they had massive power to abuse.

But people like you supported Microsoft then, because you know, anti-trust law does not apply to them. Microsoft is not a monopoly, so let them do whatever they want.

What? I've never supported Microsoft. But they should be allowed to do whatever they want, within the limits of the law, whether I support them or not. Personally, I think they've acted shitty for a long time - but there's a difference between acting shitting and breaking the law.

In the same way, I think that Apple is acting shitty with the App Store - but there's no legal reason why their actions should be prohibited at this time.

Re:Times change

[AVee]

What is going on here?

Marketing.

Re:Times change

[bingoUV]

1. OEMs could quit before agreeing to new terms from Microsoft.

So, you're saying that the PC hardware industry should have just imploded?

Depends on the definition of PC, PC hardware industry, and "imploded". But I said it much more clearly, without so many ambiguous words. Why would I say it in this less clear manner?

And there is was "agreeing to new terms," it was flat-out bullying, nothing that was in a contract agreement.

What do you mean "flat-out bullying".
1. Microsoft sent gunmen? I doubt it.
2. Threats to not do business with those PC OEMs? This is exactly you solution for iphone developers too: don't do business with Apple. So, what is the difference?

It was a foolish business decision base your business on selling iPhone apps full-time, based on this assumption that they wouldn't reject applications for arbitrary reasons.

It was a foolish business decision to sell only Microsoft OS loaded PC hardware too. So? Whatever the threats from Microsoft, they could have taken one of the 4 approaches that I listed in my GP post. PC OEMs didn't and just complained. Similarly, some App store developers didn't move to other businesses and just complain. What is the difference?

1. Because an iPhone application is easily portable to another platform.

2. Because there was no other viable OS for third-party PC manufacturers. Microsoft owned the market, and Linux was not a viable alternative at the time.

3. Because Apple does not control the smartphone market like Microsoft controlled the PC OS market.

Whether or not iphone applications are easily portable, Apple has a power over those developer's livelihood similar to the power of Microsoft on PC OEMs. Iphone developers invested in a Mac, learned new development tools, invested in the App Store one time fee, maybe yearly fee, I am not sure. PC OEMs invested in Microsoft fee, bulk license, developed expertise in Microsoft OSes to sell hardware loaded with them. Both can/could move away. Yet both complain instead of doing something. What is the difference?

2c. They could go with other operating systems. Since it is "before Microsoft became so powerful" we are talking about, Amiga, OS/2 and various other proprietary OSes were not so beyond hope like they now are.

No, there wasn't any other viable OS that was sold independently of hardware. Amiga and OS/2 were dead. Microsoft owned the entire market from the mid 90s, apart from a few percent of machines which were sold by Apple (with Apple's own OS).

Repeated for you in bold. Hope you can at least read bold font. Also, there were 3 other options I mentioned along with this one. You missed the other 3. I am not repeating them.

WTF? Law has been the issue all along. The initial question is "why is Apple treated with leniency, while Microsoft is treated as being bad?" - the answer is that Apple has not violated the law, while Microsoft has.

What is the point of your/my discussing law on Slashdot? I am just saying that Apple is forcing iphone developers in the same way as Microsoft did PC OEMs. I earlier had been, and will from now on again, ignore all your statements about law. I only mentioned it once to make it clear that I don't intend to discuss law on Slashdot but you seem to have a mania for discussing law.

They didn't abuse their power to the fullest extent, until they had massive power to abuse.

Exactly. Which is why everyone should condemn Apple now, rather than wait until/unless they have "massive power to abuse".

What? I've never supported Microsoft

I didn't say you are supporting Microsoft. I said people like you supported Microsoft. Just like you are supporting Apple now.

Re:Times change

[cl0s]

com'n... foxy brown??

Re:Times change

[hazydave]

The people who don't hate Apple are the ones who haven't been paying close attention.

Sure, Apple doesn't effect as many folks as Microsoft, it being trivial to stay out of the way of any Apple product (while, with Microsoft, you often have no choice but to at least run their OS, given that the apps you need are unavailable anywhere else). So it's easy to get angry at Microsoft. And yeah, back in the early days of the PC, they did some pretty evil things, later declared illegal, which won them their position. And, of course, it also helped when so many others were doing The Big Stupid, whether in tech or in marketing that tech, which helped Microsoft just as much.

But in terms of the very evil, Apple has been worse than Microsoft for at least a few decades. Imagine the hellstorm there would have been if MS had, after years of fostering the PC market, decided that they were no longer going to openly sell MS-DOS or Windows? That's just what Apple did with MacOS licensing. They've also torpedoed, at various times, developers and users, by leading them on to spend time and money on features that just arbitrarily vanish. They've sent their 800lbs. gorilla lawyers to shut rumors posted on seriously Apple-butt-niffing fanboy sites. They were, for awhile, intentionally not allowing other OSs to run on their Mac hardware. And of course, all of their DRM and other proprietary things, which should send any computer-savvy person to run on ANY other platform.

But yeah, people still like them. That's the power of the combination of good marketing and big legal teams to shut down the bad news fast. And there may be some truth in that whole "reality distortion field" story, too...

Re:Times change

[hazydave]

Apple didn't even take over the market, they just evolved it. And yeah, in a generally good way.

Part of that was the big hole left by everyone else. WinCE/PocketPC/WinMo whatever you want to call it was never sold as a consumer OS, at least in a proper way. They had the "build it and they will come" mentality of the PC. But you need some better way of selling applications to the end user, and MS never even had a clue about that until they got it from Apple. Also, you can't expect tiny apps to cost as much as desktop PC apps, another problem. They have little compelling to offer consumers, and in general, don't function as well for business as RIM and the Blackberry. It's no wonder most of the folks making WinMo handsets are jumping with both feet into Android, even if they haven't quite shut the door on WinMo just yet (HTC and Motorola are two prime examples here... HTC is still making WinMo phones, but has already said half of their phones will run Android... Moto has something like 300 people working on Things Android).

Palm had a few things right a couple of decades before Apple entered the phone business. They didn't really get the store done themselves, but there were some "one stop" Palm app stores, and the prices were much more in line with what you got. They just never when the final way and lost the tether to the PC, which was of course a leftover from the PDA-without-a-network days. And they stopped really doing much of anything new for five years, which is a lifetime in this business. Apple took much of what Palm did right, and pushed to the next level.

RIM had some very good tools for a business that wants to centrally enforce policies and push email to employees in a very reliable way. They have yet to offer anything real that a consumer would want in a smart phone. They have done a little consumerism of some of their phones, sure, but it's not really competitive.

Android so far is, IMHO, doing everything right... which explains the DROID phone sitting on the desk next to me. You can kind of tell how wrong everyone else has been doing things by the fact that there are now like 30 different Android phones on the market, a year after the G1 first shipped, and the Android Marketplace is second only to iTunes in the number of apps available... and growing faster than anyone. It's also telling that practically everyone in the phone business is doing something with Android... and it's expanding beyond just the phone business. Also, the web-centrism of Android (and probably Palm's WebOS, too) makes perfect sense for many things. Since you're always networked anyway, there's little point in docking to a PC, other than perhaps for reasons of speed. If I edit something on my calendar or contacts, it should just sync, period. Which it does, on my DROID. The only time I dock it for MP3/MP4 high speed transfers.

Nokia has been the 500lbs gorilla of smart phones.. but they never figured out how to sell here in the USA. And right now, they're a bit confused, with both Linux/Maemo and Symbian phones on the market. And they're doing something with Android on a tablet. And who knows, they were also rumored to be working on a WinMo product, though maybe that was just hopeful thinking among the WinMo fans.

Apple shot straight to the consumer, which hadn't really been done. And there were plenty of gripes a year or so ago about all the stuff the iPhone didn't do for business or even techie users (not from me... I would not buy an Apple product, but I have been surrounded by iPhone users). But they did manage to leverage the iPod stuff, which was really the key here... the iPod's hand-holding of the PMP worked as well for the phone, which gave Apple a leg up on the smart phones that evolved from other areas, particularly given the usual consumer tech expertise, their tapping a well understood consumer habit, and an already strong market. There was no magic here, it was mostly just "duh"... obvious stuff.

Even the "all screen" iPod had been widely rumored for years, not because most pe

Re:Times change

[dangitman]

I am just saying that Apple is forcing iphone developers in the same way as Microsoft did PC OEMs.

That is why this whole argument is moot. Your contention is complete and utter bullshit. The two situations are not even remotely similar.

Aside from the "forcing" issue, you don't see Apple behaving anything like the way Microsoft did to earn their reputation - such as relentlessly spreading FUD, buying out companies just to eliminate the competition, lying in court, attempts to sabotage competing software ("DOS ain't done 'til Notes won't run" etc).

Re:Times change

[bingoUV]

The two situations are not even remotely similar.

Yeah, that is why you are unable to point out the differences where I asked for them in my GP post.

Aside from the "forcing" issue

Exactly. That is what I am saying for 2 days. Obviously they are different companies. Next, you will start pointing out that Apple and Microsoft are different because spellings of company names are different! What I took exception to was that by idiotic reasoning, you were trying to make it appear as if Apple was not forcing others like Microsoft forced others. That iphone developers can switch to other business, this somehow makes Apple's "forcing" different from Microsoft's. The 2 instances of "forcing" are alike in the following aspects:

1. People have greater than zero investment (time/money/energy) in them (Apple/Microsoft) before they are "forced".
2. Only option to not be forced is to not do business with them (Apple/Microsoft) anymore losing the aforementioned investment.

I know that Apple starts with an A, and Microsoft starts with an M; thank you very much.

Re:Times change

[jo_ham]

I find it amusing that you think anyone who is an Apple fan believes any of the things you just attributed to them. Not everyone who uses Apple products is a tech-clueless fashionista with a small dog in a handbag and impossibly stylish shoes.

Also, System Restore the same as Time Machine... oh my. They may do the same job, but have you ever compared the way they do that job?

Flashy UI is one thing, and your supposition that OS X is just an "expensive UI on a free OS" (because Apple haven't contributed anything to Darwin at all, right?) is interesting, but I would say that the UI is the primary experience for the end user, in the same way as driving a car (hey, I just had to use a car analogy). I know that you can buy a cheaper computer, and a more expensive OS (Vista) or a free OS (any Linux flavour), but I prefer using OS X.

In the same way will try out different cars, some of which cost more than others, until I find one I enjoy driving, I will use the OS and hardware combo I prefer.

I love that I can put my iMac into its original box in about 2 minutes if you include the time it takes to unplug it and carry it like a suitcase when I take it over to a friend's place. I love the way OS X works (mostly), so I keep using it. I don;t constantly think to myself "damn, this intel box with an Apple logo on the front cost me more than if I'd bought a dell or a whitebox machine" since it was worth the cost to me. It doesn't mean I think that the Apple machine I use has some special unique parts that make it cost more. It costs more because Apple sets the price and people still buy them. The price may not be worth it to you - and more power to you, I'm not judging you for your computer choices, but I'd ask that you extend the same courtesy to me and others like me.

Apple gets a lot of flak for popularising things - the iPod (mp3 music players) and iPhone (smartphones) are the two current ones - in no stretch of the imagination did they "invent" either technology, but they do seem to have a knack for marketing that annoys people who liked the tech before it was "cool".

Re:Times change

[jo_ham]

Time Machine is a remarkable implementation and combination of ideas that have been around for a long time, and is one of these great examples of Apple doing something with pre-existing ideas and tech and making it work so well - it is so much more than mere system restore, in terms of how it performs, what it does and the ease of use it presents to the user.

If you have a Mac and an external HD, you're good to go. It's extremely fast (after the initial backup of everything of course, but it does that in the background) and does the incremental changes very quickly and unobtrusively.

Where the flashy UI comes in is when you are browsing your backup, since you can just fly through each window into the past (and select files and make it jump to the previous change, or a whole folder and ask it to fly backwards to the last change point). It doesn't need all the fancy graphics, but they do offer something of a visual indication of time (eg if you tell it to jump to the last change and it very obviously flies backwards really far in a motion that makes it instantly clear to your brain about time difference compared to looking at a window that just pops up with an earlier date on it with no animation).

It's not new by any means, but it is easy enough for anyone to use and navigate, and it promotes the creation and use of backups - something that really needs to be pushed more than ever now that computer use is really moving front and centre in the home.

Apple's page on it gives some idea: http://www.apple.com/macosx/what-is-macosx/time-machine.html
but to really get a sense of just how seamless and intuitive it is, you really need to actually try it. It should be priority number 1 for porting to Ubuntu!

Obviously?

[mliu]

"Obviously if Apple is working on their own version of Google Latitude (or owns the IP rights to this functionality), they'd be hesitant to put an app with the same functionality on their devices from another company."

That's not obvious at all to me. It harms the vibrancy of their marketplace, it harms the goodwill of the developer community, and ultimately, it would appear to harm the competitiveness of the device by hindering competition for improved functionality. The only reason they can get away with this BS is because they're Apple, the 900 lb gorilla of the new generation smartphone market at the moment.

Re:Obviously?

[MBCook]

... the 900 lb gorilla of the new generation smartphone market at the moment.

If Apple is a 900 lb gorilla, then Google is a 2 ton elephant. Aren't there already apps on the store that do this kind of thing? I think this is more of a "We can't let Google win" thing. Would they deny Joe Bob Software's "Find-My-Friend" app?

We'll see how this all sorts out, especially with competitive pressure from others companies. People keep saber rattling about getting investigations into this (and we saw that start with Google Voice). Something will have to change.

Re:Obviously?

[stilldead]

Apple is valued at ~190 Billion and Google at ~196.5 Billion

1900/1965 != 900/2000 last I checked.

Maybe if a 100 billion dollars ~= a ton in weight then we have two 2 ton elephants in the same (hopefully well built) room.

Re:Obviously?

[MemoryDragon]

Maybe in the US but they are not really the 900lb Gorilla not even remotely worldwide, the Gorilla still is Nokia... They just have the most press coverage with Android currently being close second!

Re:Obviously?

[stilldead]

good call

Re:Obviously?

[hazydave]

Apple has absolutely no problem with harming the functionality of the device if they believe that serves their needs.

Same reason the iPhone will always be a second class citizen on the net... they are never going to support Java, they are never going to support Flash, etc. The reasons are the same... those are alternate means of adding "applications", even if they're just web apps, to the phone... without Apple's permission.

In fact, it's kind of surprising they've gone so far as to offer fast JavaScript... after all, most Palm WebOS apps are written in JavaScript (along with HTML and CSS, of course). Pretty dangerous stuff.

This is also the same reason they did not allow the Commodore 64 emulator on the iPhone. After all, 8-bit applications from the early 80s, and your ability to program in Commodore BASIC 2.0 is a clear affront to Apple's ability to sell applications though the iTunes store.

So, don't place any bets on "Apple won't do this, it will hurt the iPhone"... they will, if they believe it serves their interests, and you won't have much you can do about it, if you're an iPhone user.

Like multitasking... the presence of perfectly functional multitasking smart phones has put the kebash on Apple's claim that they only allow one external app to run at a time (of course, any number of Apple apps can run at the same time) out of security or power concerns. They just don't want application providers to have the same level of control over the phone as they do, plain and simple.

Fortunately, this is not the case on Android.

The evil of a closed platform

[KingSkippus]

I have an iPhone, and it's a wonderful device, but as soon as my contract runs out (maybe sooner), I'll be moving to a different platform, and this is exactly why.

As long as the iPhone is a closed platform with the only way to get apps through the app store, you will be dealing with this. Apple isn't going to allow competing applications on the device because they simply don't have to. They give a good song and dance about how closed the device is being about the "user experience," but the simple truth is that they don't want competition from other sources. That's their business model, it's how they work.

It's a crying shame, because Apple really is a good company when it comes to style and design, and especially in figuring out exactly what scratches consumers' itches. But this is almost historically identical to what happened with the Macintosh a couple of decades ago. They kept it so closely-held and closed that when the PC came along, which allowed users to shrug off proprietary and use it how they wanted to instead of how some company told them to, Apple damn near went out of business.

I really do hate to see them rebuild their reputation (and market value) again, just to throw it all away like they did last time, but damned if it doesn't look like that's exactly what they're trying to do.

Re:The evil of a closed platform

[onefriedrice]

I really do hate to see them rebuild their reputation (and market value) again, just to throw it all away like they did last time, but damned if it doesn't look like that's exactly what they're trying to do.

Actually, you've got it exactly backwards. Apple nearly went out of business because they went more open and allowed Mac clones. Now that they are (arguably) more closed in that respect, they are extremely successful.

Re:The evil of a closed platform

[Strange Attractor]

Right! The last Apple product that i bought was an early Mac. Writing code for it was unnecessarily difficult because Apple was protecting the secrets of the "OS". I used SUN products for a while after that, but since really open systems became available I've used them exclusively. I will do the same thing with phones.

Re:The evil of a closed platform

[Suffering Bastard]

I think you're overreaching here. While I agree that having a closed App Store is another manifestation of Apple's control freakiness, and that this does some disservice to its customers and developers, I don't see this as anywhere near the bumbling that got them to death's door in the 80s and early 90s. Steve has mellowed out a bit (just a bit), enough to be flexible when it counts. I'll very likely join you in the chorus of anti-Apple's-anti-user policies, but it's quite clear that Apple has the ingenuity to create great computing products while being a benevolent dictator of their platform, very much unlike MS, which has been a raging bully from day 0.

It's been pointed out before that Apple doesn't crackdown on jailbreakers, which would not be the case if they were the self-imploding Big Brother some accuse them of being. I also greatly appreciate the way they allow me to control my OS X Macs, whether it's working with plist files, easy containment of apps and app resources, using Automator/folder actions for basic customized behaviors, or using the ever-lovin' command line to access a plethora of open source apps all eager and ready for my input. This is all very different from the early days of the Mac OS, when we had to use ResEdit and a bunch of cheesy shareware apps to get anything to work outside the Apple-defined paradigm.

So long as Apple continues to produce truly elegant technology for the masses, and continues to support it well (this point may be debatable), they will thrive despite any user-unfriendly policies, due precisely to their stated reason of controlling the user experience for the better. Look at Windows to see what a mess can happen when you allow mob rule to infest your platform. While I don't agree on principle with many of Apple's policy choices, I think they are doing exactly what they should do to remain a vibrant and successful technology company.

Re:The evil of a closed platform

[Rockoon]

yes. Many people just don't know this about Apple. In the mid to late 80's Apple was well known for being extremely obtuse about low level programming information and tools for the Mac. Not only did they refuse to give out development tools for free, but they also refused to allow others to have enough information to develop their own .. at any price.

Apple has been asshats since the first Mac, but somehow in the 90's they managed to turn popular opinion around while remaining asshats.

Re:The evil of a closed platform

[Rockoon]

It's been pointed out before that Apple doesn't crackdown on jailbreakers

You mean besides bricking jailbroken phones?

Re:The evil of a closed platform

[Bigjeff5]

It's been pointed out before that Apple doesn't crackdown on jailbreakers

Other than occasionally pushing out updates with little purpose other than to brick jailbroken phones, you mean.

Besides that, you're right...

Re:The evil of a closed platform

[MemoryDragon]

The assheadness always had a lot to do with the CEO... Apple was open when the designes came from Wozniak he always opted for open system, they then closed everything with the Mac, guess who was at the helm.
Apple again became more open when the CEO was ousted, and now they have become more and more closed again.
As much as I love their OS and their computers, but their attitude becomes worse and worse every year :-(

Re:The evil of a closed platform

[aftk2]

What a ridiculous argument. You seem to forget that this CEO –the one so supposedly hateful of all things open –helmed a software company based significantly on open source technology, and brought it back to the Mac when he took over again!

Re:The evil of a closed platform

[gad_zuki!]

>I have an iPhone, and it's a wonderful device, but as soon as my contract runs out (maybe sooner), I'll be moving to a different platform, and this is exactly why.

Same here. Im leaning towards an android phone bought without subsidy and getting on T-mobile's non-subsidized plan for 59.99 unlimited text/data and 500 minutes. Thats about 30 dollars less a month than the equivalent plan on ATT and Im only going to pay an extra 200 dollars down, which pays for itself in less than one year.

>They give a good song and dance about how closed the device is being about the "user experience," but the simple truth is that they don't want competition from other sources.

Turns out history was right: There's no such thing as a benevolent dictator. Turns out centralization from an unaccountable group leads to abuse. Apple is just a thug in the market and with its controlled devices, its helping no one but its bottom line.

Re:The evil of a closed platform

[gad_zuki!]

No, by the time they went to clones, that damage was already done. The Mac was this very expensive solution that didnt do much more than a PC that cost $1,000 less. They couldnt compete and decided to sell clones.

Re:The evil of a closed platform

[Qwavel]

Actually, I think it was the success of the iPod that revived them more then the switch back to a closed hardware platform.

But either way, I would argue against the implication that Apple MUST maintain such a closed platform in order to be profitable. I think we all accept that Apple is very good at marketing and execution and that they have the most valuable/cool brand in technology. Yes, the ways that they keep their platform closed and under tight control produce a little extra gravy for the bottom line, but I think they could still be very profitable without out all of the negative stuff.

Otherwise, it seems to imply that all of the companies that implement the open and fair business and technology practices that we espouse here will fail. That they have to be nasty to win. I hope not.

Re:The evil of a closed platform

[pydev]

Steve Jobs doesn't "hate" using open source. For example, he tried to keep the Objective-C extensions to GCC closed source in violation of the GPL; it took a lot of legal saber rattling by GNU to get him to comply.

Apple is somewhat better now than they were 20 years ago, but they are still taking much more from the open source community than they are giving back. Without FOSS, Apple would be out of business; but even if all of Apple's contributions to FOSS disappeared overnight, people would hardly notice.

Re:The evil of a closed platform

[Swift2001]

They're not closed. Anybody can submit apps to the store. I'd say you have a better chance getting noticed BECAUSE of the fact that every iPhone owner plugs in his phone to the App store for charging every night. They carry the advertising, the bandwidth, etc. All they've got is a flavor of Unix, and their software development tools are pretty great. If you know your stuff, you can make an app very quickly.

And the iPhone, well, it connects to the 3G network, to Wi-Fi, to Bluetooth, and keeps on expanding its ways of connecting with other things. But you focus on one thing, the App Store, and of that, the highly-publicized cases, a tiny minority, where their judgment is open to question.

Is Microsoft open? No. They have a larger share of the market, so sometimes it SEEMS open. To other Windows users.

Is Linux open? Even though it's free, its market share is miniscule. Yes, it's open, but the open-source nature of it seems to need some work done on it until it becomes "open" to the great unwashed.

Re:The evil of a closed platform

[Swift2001]

But they immediately, on the return of Jobs, began opening the platform. They adopted USB, which was Intel's, and Wi-Fi, and they phased out proprietary protocols like Appletalk and so on. The "i-Mac" was the "Internet Mac," so hooking up with other computers became a priority. I worked an Intel Mac on an all-Windows network, and it worked, straight out of the box, and did all the basic communications. The Exchange interoperability on the iPhone is serious, though still limited to MS's licensing. The root layer of the OS is Darwin, which is an open source variant of Berkeley UNIX. They regularly release the newest versions of that, and the CUPS printing project, and WebKit, etc. Their OS has no serial numbers, and you can practically install it a million times, and though they ask you to pay a premium for multiple installations, there's no tattling to the Apple servers.

And yet, those who are dead set on seeing Apple is "closed" can always settle on one detail or other.

Look, the formerly close partnership between Apple and Google is getting a little sharp, no? It's inevitable, because Google was deciding not only to compete with Windows with an OS and Google Gears and so on, but with Apple in phones. Great, more competition makes for better phones.

Can I install my Mac software on that Google phone? No? Hey, it's not open! Google is a tyrant! I've already paid for my seven screens of iApps! Why does Google want to FORCE me to buy their software...

Re:The evil of a closed platform

[Swift2001]

And the clones were sucking money from the platform without any benefits to the mothership. They got a minute amount of marketshare at the cost of a huge cut in profits. What the hell was that about? Dunderhead accountants were running the company. They had essentially stopped the development of the Mac, going for a profusion of lackluster models that had nothing much going for them.

When Jobs came back, within 6 months it was a going concern.

Re:The evil of a closed platform

[Swift2001]

Who the hell are the majority of sales of iPods to? To Windows users! They made a Windows version of iTunes and Quicktime. They even switched to the crummy USB interface, so Windows users wouldn't have the tsuris of buying a 1394 card.

Hey, I want to try out a Zune. Where the Apple software for that? None? Well, how about the Linux hardware and software? Well, wait a minute. Let me get my compiler fired up and write a few scraps of python.

Re:The evil of a closed platform

[Swift2001]

Though Jobs is more closed that Woz, hell, the whole world is. The "openness" of the various colored water salesmen who ran Apple nearly drove it into the ground. Jobs made a huge success by OPENING it. He apparently learned from his mistakes.

Yeah, "assheadedness", right. CEO of the Decade.

Re:The evil of a closed platform

[Swift2001]

Ah, the martyr.

You SAY the update had little to do with anything but bricking jailbroken phones. Prove it. Which one?

Jailbreaking depends on finding a way to crash the phone, so you can circumvent it and install other code. Those are called vulnerabilities. Naturally Apple will fix these security holes, because if a benign jailbreaker can get in, a nasty guy will.

I hope you change the password on your ssh software that came with the jailbreak.

Re:The evil of a closed platform

[dissy]

As long as the iPhone is a closed platform with the only way to get apps through the app store

Minor detail in the grand scheme of things, but it is not the _only_ way. It is just the only non-contract-violating way.

Running one app on your computer while the phone is connected is all that is required to jail break these days.
Then you have access to both other apt repositories of software, and other app stores.
I even run my own apt repository of software that can even be restored through a full phone wipe and restore!

Not that I am excusing apples overall behavior. I too wish the phone came stock this way (Hell, I wish Microsoft would hurry up and steal apt, it would make using Windows so much less painful!)

But thinking that there is one and only one way to use your iPhone just because Apple said so is not being honest, even if they would love for everyone to believe that.

Re:The evil of a closed platform

[Suffering Bastard]

Good point, I should have clarified my meaning of "crackdown" as not litigating, despite PR statements against it.

Yours in comment purgatory,
-SB

Re:The evil of a closed platform

[sahonen]

All you're saying is that Apple integrated open platforms and standards into their own products. That doesn't make it an open platform. Call me when I can buy a bunch of parts from NewEgg and install MacOS on them without breaking any laws or having to hack anything.

Re:The evil of a closed platform

[indiechild]

Now yours is a troll post if ever there was one.

Re:The evil of a closed platform

[garaged]

the sad thing is that if there were a way for apple to completle stop jailbreaking by sotfware or even legal means, they would have rolled it by now.

I have an iphone and a macbook (none of them actually mine, work) and I pretty much love the jailbreaked iphone, the laptop is kind of nice after you manage to make it behave like a real *nix box, but I dont think I will be spending any money on other apple products any time soon (I own an itouch) and apple need to make something really good next year or its market share will shrink again as it did 20 years ago.

Re:The evil of a closed platform

[kybred]

In the mid to late 80's Apple was well known for being extremely obtuse about low level programming information and tools for the Mac.

Not sure what you mean by 'low level programming info', but they had the Inside Macintosh series that documented the Mac OS. If you're referring to hardware specs, well yes, they held that info closely.

Not only did they refuse to give out development tools for free, but they also refused to allow others to have enough information to develop their own .. at any price.

No OS company has to give out dev tools for free. It seems like it would have been a good idea to encourage apps to be developed, though.

What about Lightspeed/Think C? Apparently THINK had enough info to develop tools for Mac OS.

Re:The evil of a closed platform

[MemoryDragon]

Actually he closed Apple sort of, and being an asshead does not mean you cannot run successfully a company ;-)
Just read up about the Apple III fiasco this gives a good picture about Jobs, I would not want to work for him.

Re:The evil of a closed platform

[Rockoon]

Thats not low level stuff.

Certainly they didn't have to release low level programming specs, and thats actually the point. They not only didnt have to release low level programming specs, they didn't release any at all (for any price.)

This gave rise to various groups protesting the situation, such as the Free Tools Associetion (a demo group that reverse engineered a lot of the capabilities of the Apple IIgs line)

Re:The evil of a closed platform

[hazydave]

Which software company was that?

Certainly not NeXT... they were closed source. Sure, they used some freeware underpinnings, like CMU's Mach Kernel and BSD... but BSD isn't open source, it's public domain. So they didn't have to give anything back. Display Postscript was commercial, licensed from Adobe. NeXT didn't give out their source code. The whole point of open source versus public domain was to prevent just this behavior.

Years later, there was OpenStep, which was a collaboration between Sun and NeXT. This wasn't actually open, in the open source sense, but open in that it didn't depend on any specifics of the Mach kernel. So it ran on Solaris, and there was even a port to Windows NT.

It wasn't until the independently implemented GNUStep that there was an open source version of NextStep.

So, maybe it was Pixar? Well, no, not them either. They may well have used lots of open source software within the company, but the loophole in the whole GNU license is that you only have to release source code when you release object code. So folks who take in open source code but only use it internally don't have to release the changes. Pixar sold the closed source Renderman for thousands, and they released films. I do not know of any open source software from them... maybe I missed it. There was (is?) an open source clone of Renderman, called Pixie, but it doesn't seem to exist anymore... or it's moved somewhere obscure.

As with NeXT, Apple built today's MacOS from public domain and closed sources... in fact, today's MacOS started with a redesigned version of OpenStep, as I hear it. They put a bit of the low-level stuff, the kernel (what they made of the Mach kernel... CMU stopped that project back in the mid 80s, though there was a Mach 4 project somewhere in Utah, and it's also part of the GNU Herd) and the BSD stuff out in open source as the DarwinOS, but that's not making Apple any money. Perhaps a bit of good will from developers... they can't study how the middleware works, but they can at least look at the OS at the source level.

Not everybody

[Anonymous Coward]

There are many of us who view this stuff poorly. I have not, do not, and will not own any Apple products. I simply do not like their closed platforms and anti-competitive nature, and I certainly won't pay more for the privilege of being restricted. Yes they have some nice hardware, but that in itself cannot overcome their approach to doing business.

Fundamental principle

[QuoteMstr]

No manufacturer has the right to prohibit person A from installing on a device he owns software written by person B: any legal or technological measures to this end are immoral, and ought to be barred by consumer protection laws.

Re:Fundamental principle

[IANAAC]

any legal or technological measures to this end are immoral, and ought to be barred by consumer protection laws.

Or just let the free market take care of it. Unfortunately (in my opinion) this is what the market/consumers want, or at least will tolerate.

Re:Fundamental principle

[QuoteMstr]

Also, installing *any* software on a device is extreme.

Desktop computers have been "extreme" for 25 years then?

*Any* software could potentially allow the "user" to reverse engineer some of Apple's multi-touch programming etc

There's nothing stopping them now. When you outlaw debuggers, only crackers will have debuggers.

I'm sure you'd love it if someone managed to do this

Jailbreak. The world hasn't ended.

and there was an actual iPhone clone out there that could be had for $50 without a 2 year commitment

There are plenty of touchscreen devices out there now. Competition is a good thing. If Apple really has something unique, it can work within the patent and copyright system. Restricting software installation doesn't help defend Apple's works, and hurts users. All it does is pad Apple's bottom line.

but that's still IP theft.

"Intellectual property" isn't property, and violating copyright and patent law isn't "theft".

Re:Fundamental principle

[Ectospheno]

I'm not sure what exactly is "Insightful" about your post. It is a nice dream and perhaps the world would be a better place if things worked that way.

But it doesn't, never has, and never will. It is an ideological dream that won't exist in our current reality no matter how much you wish for it or try to legislate it. Sad but true.

Re:Fundamental principle

[vague disclaimer]

No manufacturer has the right to prohibit person A from installing on a device he owns software written by person B: any legal or technological measures to this end are immoral, and ought to be barred by consumer protection laws.

No-one is preventing you doing anything. You can do exactly what you like with it. You just void your warranty. That is exactly the same as if you modify your car (put, say, an induction kit on a new car then try to get it fixed under warranty).

Re:Fundamental principle

[Anonymous Coward]

No manufacturer has the right to prohibit person A from installing on a device he owns software written by person B: any legal or technological measures to this end are immoral,

Hmmm, so it's immoral that Windows software can't natively run on Linux? Should the developers of Linux be forced to make Windows .EXE applications compatible, and vice versa?

Fail troll is fail.

The parent was talking about purposefully prohibiting the running of software that would otherwise run. Obviously if there are technical limitation (such as the fact that the software was designed for a different OS) that's an entirely different situation.

The issue here is not that there's a technical limitation stopping the software from being run, but rather, there's an arbitrary block put in place by the developers of the OS.

Re:Fundamental principle

[dangitman]

Desktop computers have been "extreme" for 25 years then?

Since when has every desktop computer OS been able to run every piece of software written for every other OS? Since when has every desktop computer been able to run every OS?

There are plenty of touchscreen devices out there now. Competition is a good thing. If Apple really has something unique, it can work within the patent and copyright system. Restricting software installation doesn't help defend Apple's works, and hurts users.

That may well be, but how is it not within Apple's rights to decide what software to sell in its own store? The terms and conditions of selling in the App Store are well known to developers up-front when they sign the contracts.

"Intellectual property" isn't property, and violating copyright and patent law isn't "theft".

How is intellectual property not property?

Re:Fundamental principle

[QuoteMstr]

Since when has every desktop computer OS been able to run every piece of software written for every other OS? Since when has every desktop computer been able to run every OS?

You're engaging in semantic shifting. There's a difference between being able to run third party programs written for your operating system and being able to run programs written for other operating systems.

Also, intellectual property really isn't property.

Re:Fundamental principle

[selven]

Don't like it, don't buy it, nobody's forcing you - Apple doesn't have anything close to a monopoly.

That's my fundamental principle.

Re:Fundamental principle

[dangitman]

You're engaging in semantic shifting. There's a difference between being able to run third party programs written for your operating system and being able to run programs written for other operating systems.

But you said that preventing software from running via technological measures was immoral. You did not specify that it only applied to software that would otherwise run.

You have to be very careful when proposing things to be codified into law/morality. Because if there was a law or moral code written the way you wrote your proposal, you can bet your bottom dollar that there's a lawyer out there who will argue that not making your OS compatible with his clients software, is a technological measure designed to prevent his software from running.

I'm sure you mean well, but you have to be more precise. It's similar to the whole "net neutrality" issue - if you aren't very precise about your definitions, you end up with people turning things upside-down.

Also, intellectual property really isn't property [guardian.co.uk].

What, because Cory Doctorow says so? This position is stupid. You may not want intellectual property not to property, but the fact is that it is.

is it not possible to own a patent or copyright? Is it not possible to sell a copyright or patent to someone else? Of course it is. So how is that not property? Anything else that can be bought, sold or have ownership transferred is considered property.

The problem Cory's argument has is that he's getting the property part wrong. The property is the exclusive right to distribute (or in the case of patents, manufacture), not necessarily the content itself.

Re:Fundamental principle

[Swift2001]

You realize that legally, that puts a virus on a legal footing.

Re:Fundamental principle

[ralphrmartin]

If I made, say, radiation therapy machines, or aircraft, I'd certainly demand a right not to let 3rd party software operate them.

Re:Fundamental principle

[QuoteMstr]

No it doesn't. Software installation still requires A's consent.

Re:Fundamental principle

[QuoteMstr]

Why? The burden is on your users to not remote your safety features. If they do so, you're absolved of liability, so why should you care?

Re:Fundamental principle

[pclminion]

So, you think that people should not be allowed to engineer devices as they see fit? If you have the right to install whatever software you want on your device, then why does the manufacturer of that device not have the right to make that as difficult as possible for you? The answer is not legislation, the answer is to take your money elsewhere if you don't like it. Screw your fanatical ideology, I want freedom in the market.

Re:Fundamental principle

[ralphrmartin]

Because people will get killed? Because the product will get a bad name? There are lots of reasons to care. It's not just about blame, you know.

Re:Fundamental principle

[hazydave]

I think the average consumer is ill informed about this. It's not as if there has been any Apple competitor taking on the iTunes store (and by extensions, Apple's policies) directly. The only one really butting heads at all with Apple has been Verizon (they mention in passing that the DROID is open, but unless you already understood that, the ads did nothing), and most of their ad campaign has been against AT&T's lack of 3G coverage (every Verizon cell is a 3G cell, so they can boast more coverage, so AT&T's fight backs are very carefully phrased, after they lost a court case to get Verizon to pull those ads).

In general, consumers support behavior that seems good, and oppose behavior that seems bad. But if you're the only spin doctor in the room, your stuff generally smells like roses.

The problem with this particular conspiracy theory

[kithrup]

is that it requires that the app approvers know what patents Apple has in the process.

This is of course a possibility; it's also a possibility that there's an IP lawyer looking over every submitted (or even ever just-about-to-be-approved) app, for just that kind of thing. But that doesn't really fit with the workflow descriptions that have come out into the open, so I don't think it's very likely.

(It's also possible that he reviewers are given general directions occasionally, such as, "All Google-submitted apps must be sent to such-and-such for review" or "Any app that uses location services in a social network context must be approved by upper management." Obviously, I made those up :).)

Re:Same as a computer

[mehrotra.akash]

You have to jailbreak a computer??

Re:Same as a computer

[calmofthestorm]

More like reflash to factory condition before returning. Jailbreak analogy is to installing linux.

Re:Same as a computer

[Pederson]

uhh you don't have to 'jail break' a computer. Also, this is quiet extreme for most people to accomplish simply because they want something like Latitude on their phones. Not to mention I'm sure it's only a matter of time before Apple figures out how to catch people on warranty matters like this (think about the 'tobacco smoking' thing a few months ago). I have yet to buy anything Apple (besides an old iPod Shuffle when they had the 'square' form factor, unbeatable in terms of a gym device) and yeah, I certainly recommend Apple products to the less than tech-savvy people that come to me for purchasing help. But all in all, Apple is sad.

Nokia Friend View

[dwater]

DidnMt Nokia have such a product long before Google?

Re:The problem with this particular conspiracy the

[RattFink]

is that it requires that the app approvers know what patents Apple has in the process.

...or far more likely it could mean that approves have a list of gidelines in which they refer to when approving apps, and those gidelines forbid certain kinds of apps, such as those that allow tethering or ones that show the presence of friends on a map that Latitude offers. I don't see why it would require anyone to be in the know of internal app development there.

Looks Like APRS

[DrTime]

This looks like an application specific front end (with compass) like APRS works for ham radio.

See aprs.fi and enter the call sign of a ham radio equipped with a GPS (like the Yaesu VX-8R).

It just opens the door to anyone and maybe adds a friends list.

Re:The problem with this particular conspiracy the

[mliu]

I don't think it necessarily has to be the way you're describing.

Seems to me the easiest way to implement such a policy at Apple would be to draw up a set of rules for reviewers to follow, something like this:
1. If an app is a dialer, deny it because it duplicates dialer functionality
2. If the app contains Apple logos, deny it because it infringes our trademarks
etc.
with an entry for
X. If the app contains a way to place the user's friends on a map, deny it because it duplicates functionality.

No need for reviewers to know about about patents, no need for lawyers to look at each submission.

Re:Get ready for fanboys

[Concerned Onlooker]

That's alright. They probably balance out those who come to bash Apple with no excuses at all.

My device

[Andy Smith]

"they'd be hesitant to put an app with the same functionality on their devices"

But, you see, it's my device. I bought it. I'd like to be able to choose between the Google product and the Apple product and use the best one.

Re:My device

[Errol backfiring]

But it's their store. And if everything that you want on your device has to come from their store, just maybe you should have thought of that first.

Re:My device

[Ecuador]

Except you already made the choice, when you bought the iPhone... Too late now! ;)

Re:My device

[bhunter736]

Your wanting to have choices is exactly the point. Buy Apple and you are afforded all the choices THEY offer/filter/censor. Buy another product and be limited to all of the choices available that are compatible, not filtered or censored. Currently, you have more choices with the Apple product, however they may not have quality functionality for most of them - Flashlight, Finger Hold Game, etc...

These are choices but I prefer to use products that warn me of potential difficulty and allow me to make mistakes.

Re:My device

[ShinmaWa]

But.. you see.. it's their store. They paid for it. They can choose what they want to sell.

If the device is tightly bound to the store and you knew that ahead of time (as well you should have), then it's rather your fault for purchasing the device, isn't it. Caveat emptor, and all that.

Re:Because monopolies are bad

[dangitman]

What does this have to do with monopolies? It's not like Apple controls the market for mobile phone software. There are plenty of alternative choices.

disgusting

[pydev]

Apple has really outdone themselves in terms of disgusting patent applications. Patenting sending my location to someone else?? That has many years of prior art.

We really need a patent system in which companies like Apple can be sued for stiff punitive damages when filing bad patents like this.

Re:disgusting

[Swift2001]

Good luck on keeping any American tech corporation in business.

Re:Non-misusers of "begs the question"

[93 Escort Wagon]

Words and phrases change meaning over time.

Yup. It's also interesting how on a site like Slashdot, where people regularly mock the wider world for many things that all more or less boil down to resistance to change, there is apparently a sizable group of people who continually fail to accept this - the most obvious example being the "hacker" vs. "cracker" debates that repeatedly played out here over the past few years.

Words change meaning. Languages grow, morph, and sometimes die. Deal with it, guys.

wrong diagnosis

[pydev]

Actually, you've got it exactly backwards. Apple nearly went out of business because they went more open and allowed Mac clones. Now that they are (arguably) more closed in that respect, they are extremely successful.

Apple's woes had nothing to do with allowing clones; Apple nearly went out of business because MacOS was a bad, proprietary platform and because Apple was bleeding money at an enormous rate.

Apple is successful now because they have been piggy-backing on open source technologies (Mach, gcc, tons of libraries) and therefore been saving development costs and delivering a better product, and because they are tightly controlling expenses (including R&D expenses).

Re:wrong diagnosis

[Swift2001]

Note: just because other problems existed doesn't mean the ones you're seeking to discredit didn't contribute.

Re:wrong diagnosis

[pydev]

No, it doesn't necessarily mean that. But there is not a shred of evidence that allowing clones caused Apple any problems whatsoever, whereas Apple clearly got skewered for the technical problems and bad product strategy they had back then.

Not for the iPhone

[Rix]

But you know that.

Re:Not for the iPhone

[dangitman]

Again, what does that have to do with monopoly? You don't seem to know what that word means. It's like saying Toyota has a monopoly on making Toyota Corollas. It's nonsensical and meaningless.

Re:Not for the iPhone

[Swift2001]

Quick, you go ahead and make something you call an "iPhone." The legal system will take you apart in seconds, leaving your bones for the sharks. That's not "monopoly," that's IP.

Re:Not for the iPhone

[Mr2001]

Quick, you go ahead and make something you call an "iPhone." The legal system will take you apart in seconds, leaving your bones for the sharks. That's not "monopoly," that's IP.

It's both. "IP" is a monopoly. It's a government-granted monopoly on making and distributing particular arrangements of parts (patents) and/or bits (copyright).

Re:Not for the iPhone

[awyeah]

It's been a while since I took economics, but I thought that to be a monopoly, there couldn't be any equivalent products - or close substitutes - on the market. Thing is, even though BlackBerry, Palm, or Android don't have a hundred thousand apps available, I'd say that they still make close substitutes.

Re:Not for the iPhone

[hazydave]

You don't have to have complete control of a market to have a monopoly. You do need substantial control of that market. Thus, Microsoft was judged to have a monopoly in the computer OS market (primarily the desktop PC market), despite the existence of Apple and various FOSS solutions.

Apple does not have anything close to a monopoly in either the "cell phone" or "smart phone" markets. Nor do they have anything that might amount to monopoly powers. Others may copy the iPhone... that's not a monopoly power. If Apple had the power to force Verizon or Motorola or some other big player to do something they profoundly did not want to do, whatever that is, that's a monopoly power. But simply doing well enough to cause others to seek better positions of competition, that's not a monopoly power.

Look at phones... Apple sells about 20 million iPhones a year, as of 2009, and yeah, that number has been growing every year. So who knows, this might be 40 million in 2010 (look at their numbers carefully, since Apple groups both iPhones and iPods Touch together, it can seem they sell more iPhones than they do). But world-wide, there are over a billion cell phones sold every year (1.21 billion in 2009). There were about 130 million smart phones sold in 2008, an estimated 170 million sold in 2009.

Based on cash rather than unit volume, smart phones were actually just over 50% of the global market. And, while Apple was recently called out as the most profitable cell phone maker (at least in the USA), that's fairly obvious when you see that smart phones account for nearly 2/3 of the global profits in cell phones. But still, Apple had a healthy but small share of that 170million unit market in 2009. They did not have any sort of monopoly.

This is pretty clear given that the USA is by far Apple's strongest market, and yet, they're only available AT&T, and even with their help, AT&T is not the largest cell network provider. This is the other big piece of the cell phone business, the network, and there's far more money there than in the actual hardware. This is another reason why Apple's power is limited in the cell phone market.

And again, as I'm sure others have pointed out, you can't have monopoly powers over a partial market, only a whole market. So sure, Apple makes all iPhones... but the iPhone is not a whole market, it's just one of many smart phone markets on the planet. They call compete with one another. The big news in this past year wasn't even Apple and iPhone, but Android... that being, finally, an open, multi-vendor OS that's actually getting big support from both hardware and application vendors. Windows Mobile and Symbian both largely failed at this, while RIM and Apple have always been proprietary and closed, with Palm technically open but effectively proprietary (eg, you need real vendor support other than from one or two companies) and open, software-wise.

Apple's big contribution was demonstrating the right way to sell smart phone applications... make then cheap and easy to buy. Who would have guessed?

Re:Not for the iPhone

[Mr2001]

It's been a while since I took economics, but I thought that to be a monopoly, there couldn't be any equivalent products - or close substitutes - on the market.

Depends on context. If you say "Apple has a monopoly on iPhones", that's true no matter how popular the iPhone is or whether there are any competing smartphones - Apple is the only one selling iPhones. Likewise, Toyota has a monopoly on the Corolla even though there are other small sedans, and Britney Spears (or her record label) has a monopoly on the song "Toxic" even though there are other pop songs.

Whether those monopolies are abusive, on the other hand, depends on the state of the market.

Re:Not for the iPhone

[Mr2001]

Apple's big contribution was demonstrating the right way to sell smart phone applications... make then cheap and easy to buy. Who would have guessed?

Even that was no innovation: Apple's app store doesn't do anything that Verizon's "Get It Now" store wasn't already doing for dumbphones (although the process is a little easier for developers).

Re:Non-misusers of "begs the question"

[MaggieL]

"Resistance to change" is no vice when the change isn't an improvement.

"Begging the question" has a perfectly good meaning that doesn't particularly need to be displaced out of ignorance, entropy and illiteracy.

When your socks develop holes, you don't praise them for "morphing".

Re:Because monopolies are bad

[Swift2001]

The only monopoly that Apple has is the monopoly they have on ownership rights of their own production, and they have every right to that. They've decided to go this way. Are they using "market power" to control the market? I don't see how they do. They aren't even the top-selling smartphone, and they don't dominate the cell phone market in any way. Is their "market power" crowding out competitors by coercion? No, the only monopoly they have is with all those who buy iPhones VOLUNTARILY. Are they forcing cell phone manufacturers to keep only iPhones in stock? No.

Your definition of "monopoly" is legally incompetent. Psystar had just this definition, and they lost, big-time.

By the way, how many suits has Apple launched against jailbreakers? Um, none. Against hobbyist cloners of the Mac OS X to run on generic Windows machines? I believe the answer is, uh, none. They have forced some takedowns which were a little too obvious. But there's no suits against piraters of OS X hacked for Windows. Hell, they don't even put serial numbers on their OS.

Re:Non-misusers of "begs the question"

[Swift2001]

All three definitions are essentially the same thing. The "obvious question" you invite in the first definition is the assumption that something is true when you're trying to prove that it is. It's a way of evading the issue of the question you're begging by raising a question you have not dealt with.

It's the most basic form of logical fallacy in political discourse today. If they couldn't beg questions, the GOP would collapse.

Re:Non-misusers of "begs the question"

[Swift2001]

No. Definitions of words change. Maxims don't, though perhaps with the end of literacy, people just find it too laborious to understand what the saying means.

Re:You're being willfully dishonest

[dangitman]

Umm, would you care to argue how I'm being willfully dishonest? What exactly I've said that isn't true? I'd really like to know, but you don't even seem to be attempting to make a logical argument.

No one has said anything about the phone market

[Rix]

There's no denying that Apple has a monopoly on applications for the iPhone, though, whether legally or not.

Re:No one has said anything about the phone market

[Dog-Cow]

I deny it.

I also deny the idea that you have any ability to reason as a human being. You are beyond stupid. Far, far beyond.

Re:No one has said anything about the phone market

[hazydave]

Except, "applications for the iPhone" does constitute a whole market. There are other smart phones that compete with the iPhone, and other applications that run on those smart phones. You cannot be said to have a monopoly over just a piece of an otherwise competitive market, even if you control that one piece completely.

This is also why you can't win an anti-trust suit against Apple for having a monopoly on hardware that runs iPodOS or MacOS. That's not even remotely what's meant by a monopoly... it is completely legal to have a protected market. It's up to the larger market to decide if they want open or closed application markets.

Sometimes, that pressure makes those with closed markets change their tune. For example, there was enough pressure against DRMed music for Apple to have given up DRMed music sales on the iTunes store, which was actually a competitive advantage for them (if you bought a DRMed music library for your iPod, you were prevented from jumping to another MP3/AAC player only due to that DRM). Of course, Apple hasn't done likewise with video, yet.

And sometimes the market speaks. Most pundits are expecting the Android market to surpass the iPhone market,. first in hardware sales, then in application sales. Probably not in 2010, though it's not impossible. But it's seen by many as inevitable. It's very difficult to hold onto a proprietary market in the fact of an open market that's equally (or better) supported with the critical components (in this case, hardware and software choices).

Equivalency

[Powys]

What if Microsoft were to ban the installation of OpenOffice, LotusNotes, Word Perfect, etc. because they compete with their Office? I bet this would be a whole different conversation.

Re:Equivalency

[toriver]

Yeah, it's not like Microsoft explicitly aded code to DOS to prevent Lotus 123 from running under the motto "DOS ain't done until Lotus won't run". Oh wait, they did.

These days they stick to FUD instead of code, thankfully. Maye because they were one presidential election away from an antitrust conviction back when Bush Jr. came into the office?

Re:Same as a computer

[Swift2001]

I guess I'm an old coot, because I sure as hell DON'T want Latitude on my iPhone. Why the hell would anyone want this privacy-sucking monstrosity? I tried the web app, and cleared it off in minutes.

Anticompetitive behavior

[mysidia]

Obviously if Apple is working on their own version of Google Latitude (or owns the IP rights to this functionality), they'd be hesitant to put an app with the same functionality on their devices from another company."

If this were Microsoft, we'd be talking about how evilly they were using their monopoly power, to quash a competitor.

How interesting that we say Obviously Apple would do this...

In other words, we have already taken for granted that Apple is an even more evil monopolist than MS.

Microsoft tilted the playing field by giving their software an advantage (such as private APIs), but they never (that we know of) "blocked" competing application programs altogether from their platform, for the purpose of ensuring they were the first to market...

Re:Anticompetitive behavior

[pipedwho]

1. Apple is not a monopoly, so you have a choice to buy another phone and not be hindered by market forces pushing you in Apple's direction.

2. Microsoft spent much effort back in the DOS and early Windows days making life hard for companies that competed with their office products. eg. Lotus, Word Perfect for Windows, etc. It used to be a running joke that DOS ain't done until Lotus won't run.

However, Microsoft's real abuse was when they started pressuring hardware vendors to include only their products or pay the penalty. You can only do that if your market share is so great that simply denying your product to a vendor will guarantee they can no longer viably sell their own product.

Re:Anticompetitive behavior

[jeff4747]

If this were Microsoft, we'd be talking about how evilly they were using their monopoly power, to quash a competitor.

That's 'cause Microsoft is a monopoly. Apple isn't.

Don't like Apple's policies? Buy an Android phone. Or a Nokia. Or a Windows Mobile.

Re:Anticompetitive behavior

[mysidia]

In fact, Apple is a monopoly for various products involved.

Don't like the terms required to use Windows '98/NT? Buy an IBM OS/2 system. Or buy an Amiga box.

Don't like the terms required to drink a Coke Cola? buy a Pepsi Cola.

Same arguments.

Despite the argument, they still have a monopoly.

If only one company manufactured pure Orange Juice, they would still have a monopoly, even if there were THOUSANDS of other companies manufacturing juice drinks of all types, some of them orange flavored, some of them containing orange juice and pulp (but none of them pure orange juice).

It's not enough that some other companies make a similar product, to prevent Apple from having a monopoly.

Until a competitor's phones can run a like-kind OS to the iPhone, and match their functionality in a robust way (sufficient to compete directly), Apple has a monopoly. They have sufficient control over the product to significantly determine the terms under which others have access to it.

You can't switch to a "Nokia brand iPhone" that provides equivalent functionality to Apple's iPhone, and therefore provides robust competition against the iPhone.

Instead, you can only switch to a Nokia phone that runs significantly different software, and has significantly different functionality, and therefore, is only an indirect competitor to Apple's iPhone product.

It's like saying (before AMD) that Intel isn't a monopoly, because you can always use an IBM PowerPC or ARM processor for your PC, instead.

Android, Nokia, and Windows Mobile, can't run the iPhone OS software stack.

So they aren't competitors to Apple's iPhone hardware.

Except in the view of a complete change to a completely different architecture, and a completely different user experience.

Re:Anticompetitive behavior

[Swift2001]

Interesting concepts that you pulled out of your ass there. Hmm, Apple would have to release all patents free of charge to all competitors or men on the street in order to be 'not a monopoly."

No, they don't, by any real world law whatsoever. They made a phone that works very well. The OPENED the platform to tens of thousands of developers, and they came rushing in. There's been no huge flight from the platform. Apple provides the developers with a software kit that makes developing these apps a snap, relatively speaking. They take 30% of the sales, exactly as they do with music, because of their cost structure, but in turn, a developer who makes an app that gets millions of downloads, and millions in profit, doesn't have to deal with the expenses of making sales on his website and paying for the massive bandwidth that millions of downloaders would make them pay. In return, they get advertising and some pretty valuable shelf space in iTunes.

You're basically using the Psystar arguments, which a federal judge rejected as, well, stupid. Want to try for two? Yes, Apple has the right to proprietary software. And no, refusing clone makers the "right" to resell their software in a way they don't want is not monopolistic or anti-competitive. Lose, lose, lose. Read some law on the Sherman Act. To say otherwise actually takes the right of innovation away from companies. Why innovate when you'll have to give up the secrets immediately anyway? Oh, some guy on /. won't like it. Okay, here's all the code.

If some company invents a device that is a genuine advance in the market, and that sells very well, they are entitled to those sales. There's nothing "anti-competitive" about making a product that becomes popular. Yes, they have a monopoly on manufacturing their own product, of their design, with their OS on it. Monopoly law in NO WAY dictates that we all have to run linux on generic boxes, or that OSes HAVE to be open. You may disagree about "closed" OSes, and maybe it won't be popular and won't sell. Only there's zero evidence of that so far.

All you have to do is make something that is an iPhone killer by investing great heaping gobs of money and work at developing your own stuff. If someone made a phone that took commands from your thought waves and sold for $50, the iPhone would disappear. Until then...

Coca-cola has a secret formula, a logo that is their property, and so on. They sell a lot of coke. They don't have to give up their logo or their formula to stop being a monopoly, which they aren't anyway, because they don't sell like 90% of the soft drinks in the world. A lot of people prefer Pepsi. Coke doesn't threaten merchants that they'll lose their Coke sales if they dare to stock Pepsi. Apple certainly isn't selling their product below the cost of development in order to keep others from the market.

Re:Anticompetitive behavior

[jeff4747]

Until a competitor's phones can run a like-kind OS to the iPhone, and match their functionality in a robust way (sufficient to compete directly), Apple has a monopoly.

Done.

You can't switch to a "Nokia brand iPhone" that provides equivalent functionality to Apple's iPhone,

However, you can switch to a Nokia brand smartphone, which provides equivalent functionality to Apple's iPhone. In fact, Nokia has a larger smartphone market share than the iPhone.

How exactly can Apple have a monopoly when they don't have the largest market share in their own market segment?

Re:Anticompetitive behavior

[mysidia]

Coca-cola has a secret formula, a logo that is their property, and so on. They sell a lot of coke. They don't have to give up their logo or their formula to stop being a monopoly, which they aren't anyway, because they don't sell like 90% of the soft drinks in the world.

There's nothing wrong with being a monopoly, as long as they don't abuse their position, by taking up anti-competitive practices, but Coke is undeniably a monopoly. They may not quite sell 90% of the soft drinks in the world, but they are very close. They have been found guilty of anti-competitive practices in the past and fined.

In fact, they have crossed the line before with monopolistic practices, and been spanked. That tends to discredit the idea that Coke is not a monopoly.

Apple would have to release all patents free of charge to all competitors or men on the street in order to be 'not a monopoly."

No they wouldn't. You're making a straw man.

For the iPhone application platform to not be an Apple monopoly, they would just need to license their software stack, at a fair price.

Just like Microsoft would only need to license all the Windows APIs (to be used in other systems) at a fair price, then competitors' platforms could run software built using Windows' frameworks, and Windows would no longer be a monopoly.

Also, if Android phone makers were to be able to develop a framework to run iPhone Apps, then the iPhone OS would no longer be an architecture monopoly.

As-is. There is no competitive smart phone option your customers can buy to run your iPhone app, and that makes Apple a monopoly.

A more likely reason?

[toriver]

Google's app was probably full of Googlish "we will scrape all info we can find on your device and send to or servers just in case" features that Google fans seem to find a shedload of excuses for.

I completely disagree

[KingSkippus]

Is Microsoft open? No.

I can distribute any Windows application I want to whomever I want in a multitude of ways to choose from with or without involving a third party in doing so. Is Microsoft open? No, but in that sense, it's a hell of a lot more open than Apple is.

Anybody can submit apps to the store.

Actually Apple's vetting process for developers is just as stupid as it is for apps. I paid my $99 to Apple to join their developer program. They demanded documentation that I was who I said I was. I sent them some more paperwork in addition to what I had already filled out. Then they demanded that I send them notarized documentation of my identity, I shit you not. It's not like I have a very common name or have been the victim of ID theft in the past. It's not like I've ever had a problem establishing who I was with anyone in the past.

After several months of trying to satisfy them, I finally said to hell with it, I want my $99 back, and told them that I'll be developing on non-Apple platforms from now on.

So yeah, I would completely disagree with your assertion that anyone can submit apps to the app store. Aside from the obvious (TFA that this submission is about), Apple makes you jump through as many hoops before you can even get to the point where you can submit an app.

Re:I completely disagree

[MemoryDragon]

Well Apple is like that, they recently lost about 10.000-20.000 dollars on future sales by simply having refused an applecare repair on my bosses machine because they said it had a dropping damage (the damage was unrelated to it) needless to say that Apple machines will be on the way out in our company.

Re:Same as a computer

[KingSkippus]

The point is for you to have the choice.

"Bricking"

[weston]

You mean besides bricking jailbroken phones?

For one thing, before people started gratuitously applying the word "bricking" to iPhones, that used to mean an action that rendered a device useless beyond repair, which I've never seen happen to an iPhone. As messed up as it may get, you can almost always get back to a known working state.

For another -- unsurprisingly, updates that expect a given phone state are often unkind to phones in a modified state. Failing to test for and accommodate a hacked phone state is a bit inconvenient, but if it seems like a "crackdown" to you, I don't know what to tell you.

BS

[weston]

yes. Many people just don't know this about Apple. In the mid to late 80's Apple was well known for being extremely obtuse about low level programming information and tools for the Mac. Not only did they refuse to give out development tools for free, but they also refused to allow others to have enough information to develop their own .. at any price.

I just want to run a quick sanity check here: do you actually know what Apple's toolsuite was called back then? Also, can you name, say, three different third-party Mac development tools circa 1989? Without consulting Google or Wikipedia? I'm gonna guess based on your claims that the answer is no, because I could name three third party dev environments of the top of my head (MacASM, Lightspeed/Think C, Macintosh Common Lisp) and possibly point you to a circa 1980s manual for most pieces of information you're looking for.

Expensive, maybe, certainly not free, and generally not a joy to develop for (well, MCL was cool), but they gave developers -- even third parties producing dev tools -- plenty to work with.

Re:BS

[R3d M3rcury]

Agreed. Hell, as an old-time Mac developer, I still have my copies of "Inside Macintosh" circa 1986 or 1987. I even had the "Phone Book Edition" that they put out in '85 or so--unfortunately, I've lost it somewhere in my travels.

That said, he's right that Apple was pretty closed about certain low-level interfaces--mostly because they were subject to change and using them would break stuff.

Actually, one interesting thing I always liked to point out back in the 1990s as a difference between Microsoft and Apple had to do with openness. I was the Mac developer in a lot of PC shops and I always noticed that pretty much everybody used Microsoft programs. They used Internet Explorer, Word, Excel, Visual C, Outlook, etc. Whereas, on my Mac, I used Netscape Navigator, Word, Excel, Metrowerks C, and something from Claris (whose name escapes me), but I switched to Netscape's e-mail application.

So in the Microsoft world, you bought your computer from whoever and you bought your operating system and all your applications from Microsoft. In the Apple world, you bought your computer and operating system from Apple but you bought all your applications from elsewhere.

Re:BS

[MemoryDragon]

Well lets say it that way, the Microsoft only thing came basically from Windows 3.1 when they shot out every competition by illegal tactics (sort of what Intel currently does) and ended somewhere around 2003-2004, the ending has mostly to do with Microsoft having screwed their own users left and right most notably by most with the IE and Vista! But I agree around 1995 it was enough that Microsoft proposed vaporware to kill off competition, people in the PC world were like drones, even if Microsoft had the shittiest solution (MFC being the prime example, word Pre 2003 the other one) it was enough that they had it that no one considered alternatives.
This broke also Nexts neck to some degree (speaking of Jobs again), they had the superior OS for the PC but no one bought it because Microsoft was babbeling about a component based OS they were coming out with (Cairo) which never saw the light of day! Microsoft could not pull it off with their OLE/ActiveX garbage!

Do tell.

[garote]

They give a good song and dance about how closed the device is being about the "user experience," but the simple truth is that they don't want competition from other sources.

Apple embeds an email client into the device. It's not some extra you have to pay for. It's included.
They would lose no money by allowing a company to sell a replacement email client via the store.
They would in fact MAKE MONEY by allowing a company to sell a replacement email client via the store, in the form of transaction overhead.

Same with the web browser. Same with the iPod app. Same with the phone "app". And the SMS "app". And the "app store" app.
Yet they will not allow these to be replaced.

On the other hand, Apple has turned a blind eye to third-party recreations of the clock app, the camera app, the voice recorder app (retroactively), the notes app, the calendar app, and the calculator app. Re-creations of those abound, because they do not constitute "core" highly-cross-integrated functionality.

Clearly their regard for user experience is more than just a "song and dance". Take your "simple truth" back to the pound, because that dog won't hunt.

Re:You're being willfully dishonest

[Dog-Cow]

You're willfully being a stupid piece of shit. Actually, you probably can't help it.

*splat*

[garote]

Gee, that sounds an awful lot like how jailbreaking voids your warranty, DOESN'T IT. What were you complaining about again?

Which ones?

[weston]

with little purpose other than to brick jailbroken phones, you mean.

To be a bit pedantic, there simply never has been an update that bricked a phone.

But even allowing a little latitude for the word "brick" -- which updates didn't do anything other than interfere with the functioning of jailbroken phones?

So name a single competitor

[Rix]

Point. Match. Game.

I am a linguistics professor. Give up, please.

[kklein]

Hi there. I'm a language/linguistics professor at a major university.

Language is not really bound by external rules; the "rules" are really just patterns that we have noticed and have used to describe the features of language after the fact.

The simple fact of the matter is this: "Begging the question" has been used to mean "raising the question" for so long and by so many people that it is pointless to even suggest that they are not equal. They are. This belongs in the same bin as "don't end a sentence with a preposition." It's a rule that no one follows and which makes no real sense.

As a bit of "action research," I quizzed some of my colleagues on this. No one--and this is a group of people with advanced degrees in linguistics--knew that using "begging the question" to mean "raising the question" was, in fact, incorrect.

In fact, I just did a search of the Corpus of Contemporary English. Do you know how many instances of the so-called "correct" usage of this phrase I found? --In this 400+-million-word linguistic resource? Wanna guess?

Zero.

Hang it up. You have lost.

Re:I am a linguistics professor. Give up, please.

[Mr2001]

The simple fact of the matter is this: "Begging the question" has been used to mean "raising the question" for so long and by so many people that it is pointless to even suggest that they are not equal.

"It's" has been used to mean "its" for quite some time, too, and "there" has been used to mean both "their" and "they're". Are you going to say those are equally valid as well?

Re:Catchif already did that

[gler]

yeah, a very cool app!

Re:Communism is not incompatible with democracy

[arminw]

....People have every right to implement "communist" policies if they so wish....

As long as they do it only for themselves and not force it upon others, it would be fine. Unfortunately that is not how it works. If I work hard, I do not necessarily want to share the fruits of my labor with a lazy person. I think that to rob the rich to feed the poor is wrong. If people would get along in peace and ALL work together, there are more than enough resources for everyone.

I have nothing against taking care of the poor, if they are poor through no choice of their own. When somebody's house burned down about six months ago through no fault of their own, our community rallied around them and helped them get into another house. They had no insurance, because they could not afford such. Why should I be forced to pay the medical bills of someone who takes drugs or smokes like a chimney, slowly killing themselves? Whatever happened to individual responsibility?

Apple sells good products that millions of people freely spend their hard-earned cash for. Anybody that does not like what they make and how they restrict it, is not forced to buy their products. Even Microsoft, in their worst days ever, did not force anyone to buy a computer. People lived without computers, cell phones, DVD players and all the modern technological accoutrements. Most of the natural laws upon which all this modern technology is based, were discovered by scientists with not much more than pencil and paper.

Re:Because monopolies are bad

[Mr2001]

By the way, how many suits has Apple launched against jailbreakers?

They may not have filed any lawsuits yet, but they have petitioned the DMCA rulemaking committee to declare it illegal.

Re:Communism is not incompatible with democracy

[Belial6]

There is no "Stealing from the rich". If the "rich" don't like our consumer laws then they have every right to keep every iPhone they produce for themselves. Once they decide to do business within our borders, then just like the rest of us, they have to follow the law. If the people have convince the elected officials to make one of those laws that you cannot lock out competitors from using your products, then that is what they have to do. Even on their worst days, Bush, Obama, nor any of the people that elected them forced Apple to sell anyone an iPhone.

You are a perfect example of someone who has bought into the corporations are a higher caste than individuals. You say that people don't have to buy iPhones, so if they do buy one, they have to follow the rules of the corporation. I say, that corporations don't have to sell iPhones to people, so corporations have to follow the rules of the people.

Re:Because monopolies are bad

[awyeah]

I wish I had mod points for this one. Someone please mod the parent up.

Freedom for some, but not others?

[Rix]

If you don't like the terms we set for living in our community, you can leave at any time of your choice. You stay by your own choice just as much as people buy Apple products. No one is forcing you to be here. Whatever happened to individual responsibility?

Apple is perfectly free to decline to do business in our community if it doesn't like our terms for doing so.

Re:Communism is not incompatible with democracy

[arminw]

...so corporations have to follow the rules of the people...

I agree with that totally. What government has made rules that say Apple or any other business is not allowed to include and exclude certain functions? Does a shoe store have to sell every brand of shoes that exists on earth or even in a given country in which they do business? If not, then why should the app store from Apple be forced to sell anybody's and everybody's software? Should they not have the right to sell whatever programs they wish?.

If you want to jailbreak your iPhone, Apple won't sue you. If you want to install OS X on the Dell, you can do that even though it is against their EULA whichIn most places does not have the force of law or is even a valid contract that does carry the force of law behind it. On the other hand if you want to do what Psystar did, who violated Apple's copyright in order to do their business, Apple rightfully had a court of law squelch that idea.

Re:Communism is not incompatible with democracy

[Belial6]

What government has made rules that say Apple or any other business is not allowed to include and exclude certain functions?

The argument that it is not illegal, thus no one should voice the opinion that it should be illegal is a self flogging absurdity at best.

As for, should they be required to sell everybodies shoes? If that is what the people decide is the rule for a corporation to have the privilege of doing business in our society, then yes. We are not talking about making Apple sell all software. We are talking about Apple using their overwhelming clout in a high barrier to entry market to try to prevent other players from competing with them in a different low barrier to entry market. I have no complaints with the way that Google handles their app store. I don't care if they don't carry every piece of software because I can install any software without their store. I can even set up my own store to compete with them if I want to.

If you want to make a shoe store analogy, then you would have to say that it is like one of the three main shoe stores in town has bought up most of the residential property in town, and putting terms in the resale requiring that if the next purchaser wants to walk on the floors of the house they bought, they can only buy shoes from them, and when they decide to start carrying their own line of any particular style, they will stop carrying any other brands. So, if you want to use sneakers in "their house", then you have to buy the shoes they approve of.

Really, it comes down you believe that people are in a lower caste than corporations, and that people trying to set any kind of rules on corporations is theft. I get it.

Re:Communism is not incompatible with democracy

[arminw]

...Really, it comes down you believe that people are in a lower caste than corporations....

In every modern society, money is power. In the Soviet Union, none of the bosses were poor and none of the poor were bosses. In this world, money and power are hand in glove. If Steve Jobs actually owned Apple, rather than managing running it, would that make any difference? In all of human history, have rich people or groups of rich people collectively, oppressed poor.

What is a corporation anyway? Does it not come from the word corporate which means body, a body of people, a group?

(...I have no complaints with the way that Google handles their app store...)
Great! Now you can choose to buy programs and devices that have a walled garden of their own, even if the wall is only a foot high, rather than the 10 foot high wall with barbed wire on top that Apple has erected. Evidently, there are millions of people who are OK with a wall that will keep out varmints and predators. Microsoft is an example of no wall or even a fence around their garden. That is why their garden is crawling with varmints and predators. You may not, but there are millions of people who appreciate the fact that Apple has gone to great lengths to protect the devices made by them from the world's software criminals.

Re:Communism is not incompatible with democracy

[Belial6]

There we go. We have fundamental differences in views. You are either ultra wealthy, or have accepted your place as a surf. Ok.

Great! Now you can choose to buy programs and devices that have a walled garden of their own

This makes absolutely no sense though. How is being able to install whatever software I want a walled garden? As far as I can tell that whole paragraph is the rambling of an broken slave.

Of course you can

[Rix]

In the same way a traditional phone company could have a monopoly, even though there was a competitor the next town over.

Whether it's legal or not is irrelevant. Monopolies are not expressly illegal.

Re:Of course you can

[hazydave]

AT&T, "Ma Bell", etc. had a real, legally valid, and legally supported monopoly. They were allowed to have a legal monopoly, and no, it doesn't have to be absolute, but AT&T certainly had a monopoly. The government didn't break them up, and in return, they were required to hook in anyone who wanted phone service, regardless of the cost of wiring them in. And their pricing for basic service was regulated... all things that would not have happened without that bargain (you see this with high speed internet and pay TV... the carriers cherry pick areas they service to maximize profits, and ignore other areas).

The AT&T breakup was the end of that government granted monopoly. Technology had risen to the point that there were no technical issues in merging networks. Local service did rise a bit, but was somewhat help in check via competition. Long distance, which used to be very high as it subsidized local service, fell dramatically. It was all good, but it wouldn't have been in the early days.

Re:Of course you can

[hazydave]

And sure, monopolies are not inherently illegal.

Abuse of monopoly powers are. You have to have both the monopoly and the abuse of power in order to be acting illegally. Nothing Apple can do in any market constitutes abuse of monopoly powers, simply because they don't have any recognizable monopoly.

AT&T sure did, and flirted with troubles several times. The first anti-trust suit was filed against AT&T in 1912, based on violations of the Sherman Act. They had been been buying up most of the independent phone companies, and also bought a controlling interest in Western Union (the telegraph people), effectively securing a monopoly in wired communications.

But due to the technical problems... that of independents being able to offer long distance independently, and a few other issues, AT&T and the government entered into the "Kingsbury Commitment" in 1913 (named after a AT&T VP). Under these terms, AT&T divested from Western Union, agreed not to take over other independent companies, other than under special rules (eventually this was eliminated by the government, failing independents were not able to be bailed out by AT&T), AT&T agreed to network with independents (sort of.. the indies could call Bell customers, Bell customers could not call the indies), and they agreed to the universal service deal.

They got sued again, in 1949, but didn't make it to court until 1956. In this one, AT&T was prevented from entering markets other than telecommunications, as part of its obligation as a government approved and regulated monopoly. This was actually a move to prevent the split of Western Electric from AT&T, which is what the suit originally called for.

The final suit was started in 1973, with MCI starting a skirmish with AT&T. At the time, AT&T was the world's largest company. This eventually led, in 1982, to a settlement in which the bulk of AT&T would be broken up into AT&T and 7 separate RBOCs.. Regional Bell Operating Companies. I was working at Bell Labs, Holmdel NJ, in the summer of 1982, just before they started sticking little "Death Star" logos over the ID cards of those employees sticking with AT&T, rather than moving (eventually, most went to the Lincroft offices). But this was something AT&T actually helped engineer... once the breakup took place, they were no longer limited to telecommunications.

Of course, those separate companies were sliced and diced and merged and purged, leaving just Verizon and "the new AT&T" standing today. That old Bell Labs building in Holmdel, which housed around 10,000 employees, is probably getting turned into a mall, er, quaint collection of shops and offices (you can't say "Mall" in Holmdel)... I was there just this past fall. Kind of sad, no one's used it for the last two years.

What the...?

[RichiH]

Obviously if Apple is working on their own version of Google Latitude (or owns the IP rights to this functionality), they'd be hesitant to put an app with the same functionality on their devices from another company.

I don't you about you, but for me, this is far from obvious. It might be a common practice amongst companies like Apple, but it's thankfully/hopefully not the logical thing to do.