Slashdot Mirror


Adobe Calls Out Apple With Ads In NY Times, WSJ

Hugh Pickens writes "Businessweek reports that Adobe has taken out newspaper advertisements in the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times today and posted an open letter to call out the tablet-computer maker for stifling competition. 'We believe that consumers should be able to freely access their favorite content and applications, regardless of what computer they have, what browser they like, or what device suits their needs,' the letter states. 'No company — no matter how big or how creative — should dictate what you can create, how you create it, or what you can experience on the web.' The letter is part of a widening rift between Apple and Adobe. Two weeks ago, Apple Chief Executive Officer Steve Jobs wrote a 29-paragraph public missive panning Adobe's Flash as having 'major technical drawbacks.' US antitrust enforcers also may investigate Apple following a complaint from Adobe, people familiar with the matter said this month. Adobe has also launched a banner ad campaign to let you know that they love Apple. The two-piece banner ads are composed of a 720x90-pixel 'We [heart] Apple' design, followed by a 300x250-pixel medium rectangle that reads: 'What we don't love is anybody taking away your freedom to choose what you create, how you create it, and what you experience on the web.'"

43 of 731 comments (clear)

  1. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  2. Oh Shiznacho! by Pojut · · Score: 5, Funny

    It done been brought!

    1. Re:Oh Shiznacho! by ByOhTek · · Score: 4, Funny

      Horrible imagery there. Please don't say that again.

      Thank you.

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
  3. We Want to by PixieDust · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Be able to open massive security holes in any device or platform! - Adobe

    1. Re:We Want to by brundlefly · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I never used to harp on security either. Then one day I got a virus while using Firefox and browsing www.theatlantic.com web site. Some loser in the Yahoo! ad network decided to build a Flash ad that allowed scripting access from domain:*. My browser... screwed.

      Thanks, Adobe. Thanks for giving every idiot web dev alive an automatic weapon with no safety training.

    2. Re:We Want to by PixieDust · · Score: 4, Insightful

      LOL I can't stand Apple personally. But Flash? Adobe has destroyed something that was once a very cool thing. And they did it with shitty code and a development philosophy that completely ignored security concerns and opened one more door for attackers to use that requires no retardation ont he user's part.

      All that's required is an adserver that doesn't do a very good job of screening ads that serves ads to a lot of sites and viola.

      Instant system compromise.

    3. Re:We Want to by zeroshade · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What do you think Apple's motivation is for blocking flash? They still make all their money on hardware sales. The app store only exists to encourage people to develop for their products. The only reason that makes any sense is that Apple wants a higher quality product.

      The point of blocking flash is to encourage people to ONLY develop for the iPhone. Development costs generally prohibit most apps from getting cross developed for multiple platforms. Sometimes things like Flash facilitate cross-platform development. If they get developers to only create apps for the iPhone instead of cross-platform, then people have more reasons to buy the iPhone hardware as the apps they want would only exist on the iPhone. Great business plan, horrible for consumers.

  4. Hypocritical assholes... by jx100 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Fantastic how they're crying for "openness" a mere day after they announce Selective Output Control DRM in Flash.

    http://arstechnica.com/media/news/2010/05/adobes-new-flash-drm-comes-with-selective-output-control.ars

    1. Re:Hypocritical assholes... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Don't you understand? "Open" means "Able to Run Flash as God intended" not some piffle about "does what its owner wants it to"...

  5. The choice is Apple's to make by Space+cowboy · · Score: 4, Informative
    And yes, I know that's not going to sit well with the /. crowd, but it remains a truism. If Apple allowed flash onto the iPhone right tomorrow
    • It would be just as buggy and crash-prone as it is right now on the Mac. Unless you believe the demo was one that "shouldn't have been shown", and that seeing a U-tube video made behind closed-doors with as many takes as it needs to get right is in any way comparable to running it on nearly every darn page on the web. For adverts.
    • Because it's on every darn page on the web - for adverts - it'd be running almost constantly as the user uses Safari; so the other down-side comes into play - it's a huge battery hog. Suddenly Apple's quotes of 10 hours battery life on the iPad are reduced to 5 hours (or whatever). Uninformed users (you know, the 99% majority out there) say Apple is lying about it's battery times. Now every manufacturer lies about it's battery times, right ? Oh, wait, no they don't. Apple's battery-life figures stand alone (as far as I can tell) as a reasonable guide to how long you'll get out of your machine. That's worth a lot, to Apple.

    I'm not going to pretend there aren't advantages to Apple in requiring people to use Apple's API to code on Apple's hardware (yeah, yeah, I know you bought it, I know it's *yours*, but you know what I mean). Of course there are. That doesn't invalidate the concerns above. I'm sure 'the Steve' sees it as a bonus.

    Knowing people who work at Apple, they're a focussed bunch. They care passionately about making things easy to use, and frankly about making the very best (whatever) possible. There's very little of the jaded cynicism I've found in other companies over the years - they're more willing to "++?????++ Out of Cheese Error. Redo From Start." than anywhere else I've ever seen, and I (personally) can easily see the above being sufficient reason to abandon Flash as a platform if they think it's beyond saving.

    Simon

    --
    Physicists get Hadrons!
    1. Re:The choice is Apple's to make by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The choice is Apple's, but that doesn't make it a good thing.

      It would be just as buggy and crash-prone [zdnet.com] as it is right now on the Mac... Because it's on every darn page on the web - for adverts - it'd be running almost constantly as the user uses Safari; so the other down-side comes into play - it's a huge battery hog.

      Granted, yes, Flash sucks. As a user, I'm not sure I'd install it.

      But that should be up to the user, not Apple. If Apple allowed Flash on the iPhone right tomorrow, would you be required to install it? I suppose iPhone users are used to Apple making their decisions for you, but think about that -- what if they actually made it your choice?

      Forget the browser for a moment, though. They're banning it and all other third-party frameworks in an effort to prevent cross-platform applications, even if they compile to Objective-C, which is downright evil. More evil than anything Microsoft ever did. To claim that this has anything to do with battery life or crashing is moronic -- Apple already presumably checks things like this before they approve apps, right? And Adobe was offering to compile to Objective-C, so most of the bugginess and battery-draining would hopefully go away. In either case, it seems downright fascist to ban a tool because it might make the experience suck, instead of evaluating the resulting app and see if it does make the experience suck.

      Now, I agree that this is good for Apple, in the short term. It's also good for the Web, in the short term, because it forces people to start using HTML5. But in the long term, I think it will come back to bite them, and in any case, don't pretend it's a good thing for either iPhone/Pad developers or users.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    2. Re:The choice is Apple's to make by tepples · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because it's on every darn page on the web - for adverts - it'd be running almost constantly as the user uses Safari; so the other down-side comes into play - it's a huge battery hog.

      What makes you think advertisers won't just use HTML5 <canvas> to make their seizure-magnets?

    3. Re:The choice is Apple's to make by mini+me · · Score: 4, Interesting

      instead of evaluating the resulting app and see if it does make the experience suck.

      There are already Flash apps in the App Store, published before the updated agreement. Perhaps Apple determined that they did, in fact, suck?

      The one thing that nobody ever talks about is, we know that Apple has been doing a lot of automated processing on the binaries to ensure they are in compliance with other areas of the SDK upon submission. What if they determined that output from other compilers were breaking their system and the restriction was made to ensure that developers do not waste a lot of time writing software that is going to automatically be rejected by the automated systems in the future?

      Developers have been pushing for faster approval times since the App Store opened. Automated compliance testing is the way to make that happen. Is it better to use any tool you want, but wait months for approval? Or use Apple's own tools and have it approved almost instantaneously?

  6. They looove Apple... by Megane · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But they still have to be dragged kicking and screaming to rewrite their products (Flash isnt their only product) to stop using APIs from two deprecations ago. They apparently love Microsoft even more than Apple.

    --
    #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  7. Re:Can't run Java on iPhone either... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    WHAT?! Tons of people complain about that. It's a fucking cell phone, it should be able to run J2ME apps, and the fact that it can't is solely due to Apple's need to make sure they get paid for every app their stupid devices can run.

    Look, I don't care if Apple decides not to include Flash by default. Fine, whatever.

    The fact that you can't CHOOSE to install Flash and you can't CHOOSE to use another, more powerful browser, on the other hand - that I care about. THAT'S an asshole, anti-competitive move. Apple deserves to be smacked down for that.

    Imagine if, along with bundling Internet Explorer with Windows, Microsoft FORBID anyone from running any other browser on their OS at all, and required EVERY app to be approved by Microsoft before it could be allowed to run. Apple's doing EXACTLY THAT.

    It's a fucking computer. I should be able to use whatever language I want and whatever libraries I want to target it. As long as something can create code that the computer can run, who the fuck is Apple to say whether or not I'm allowed to write software using it?!

  8. Re:Right on Adobe! by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm so sorry that you won't be able to cross-compile ('cross contaminate' in Apple lingo) your app for Android and iPad/iPod/iPhone/iDontKnow. But that's OK because according to a recent news article Android is now a bigger market to shoot for anyway.

  9. Re:Pot, kettle! by Ash-Fox · · Score: 4, Informative

    Adobe doesn't have any business telling Apple that they're acting too proprietary because they refuse to open up the Flash spec.

    Flash spec

    There you go. I guess they do have a right now, right?

    --
    Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
  10. Sweet! by DrgnDancer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Dear Adobe:

    I recently read your open letter to Apple and let me just say that I cannot agree more. I particularly liked this bit:

    "We believe that consumers should be able to freely access their favorite content and applications, regardless of what computer they have, what browser they like, or what device suits their needs. No company -- no matter how big or how creative -- should dictate what you can create, how you create it, or what you can experience on the web."

    Since my platform of choice is [64 bit Linux, Solaris, Irix, HPUX, any of the Various BSDs...] I cannot wait for your forthcoming (very soon I expect) release of Flash for this platform! I realize that my platform of choice is not the most popular one out there, but your message gives me hope! Given your support of openness, and in full understanding that my platform is rather obscure, perhaps you could simply release most of the slient code as open source and allow me to port it myself. That would be even better.

    Thanks
    Users of various platforms that Adobe does not support.

    --
    I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
    1. Re:Sweet! by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 4, Informative

      Or at least full and complete Flash documentation (Where is an official RTMPE specification, not the clean-room reverse engineered one that Adobe has sent DMCA takedown notices to anyone trying to implement said spec.), not a partial spec which is not sufficient to implement a fully compliant player.

      Oh yeah, and a promise not to sue those who add RTMPE support to third-party players would be nice too.

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
  11. Mental Masterbation by StylusEater · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I find it very disheartening that both companies are going to great lengths to show just how "OPEN" they are, when neither of them are even close to being "open" or really staunch supporters of all things "open." Both companies have jockeyed, in open and/or behind closed doors, to make standards their bi*ches and now they complain because their "industry standards" are being threatened.

    This in turn has caused people to complain loudly about "freedom!!!" I want my freedom? I ask, freedom from what? You're now encountering what Stallman et al have been talking about for ages! You're only free as far as a company's whims says you are... Ohh, now I'm supposed to feel sad for those that hooked their toolset to Adobe? or to Apple for that matter? Why not focus on developing truly standards compliant applications with Open tools and let the companies come to us for a change rather than us bowing to them for the next release? We are all masters of our own domains, now "buck up" and act like it.

  12. Re:Right on Adobe! by darien · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Terrible analogy. Adobe may not help you, but they certainly won't do anything to stop you. Very different to what Apple wants to do.

  13. Freedom by RazorSharp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't think this is the type of freedom our founding father's had in mind when they wrote the Bill of Rights. I think the type of freedom they had in mind would be Apple having the freedom to not support Flash on their device and consumers having the freedom to not buy an Apple product if this design decision is not to their liking. It's not like Apple is locking out Adobe to push their own proprietary standard, there is no anti-trust issue here.

    Adobe is the next Sun. They're going to keep faltering and faltering until they're bought out by some giant. Open source and open standards are going to kill them. Eventually Gimp will work well enough to replace Photoshop, Flash will be dead, an open source WYSIWYG will replace InDesign/Dreamweaver, and this trend will continue with all their products. I think the folks at Adobe realize the impact that open source will have. They know that keeping the web running on Flash is their only hope to survive as a company.

    Adobe is like if Microsoft only had Office and IE. Look at what OpenOffice, Firefox, Chrome, and Google Docs are doing. Software as a product is a failing business model, software as a service is the future. IBM and Google know this, that's why they're so ahead of the curve.

    --
    "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
  14. Re:Kill CS for Mac by cordsie · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Because blowing a gaping hole in their foot isn't going to help them either.

  15. ISO by Itninja · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Why not push for ISO certification for Flash? It worked with the PDF.

    --
    I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
  16. Soooo, Adobe loves open markets? by GeLeTo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Great! Now if they would be kind enough to adjust the European prices for their products so that they are not 2 times more expensive than in the US.
    Observe:
    http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Creative-Suite-Master-Collection/dp/B003B328TE/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=software&qid=1273768517&sr=1-3 - $2,450.99
    http://www.amazon.de/Adobe-Creative-Master-Collection-deutsch/dp/B003FSSL3M/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=software&qid=1273768468&sr=1-5 - EUR 3,688.00 = $4,683.39

    And thanks to some european laws that Adobe strongly supports and enforces (with the help of BSA) it is illegal for an european company to use software bought in the US.
    Yay for open markets.

  17. Re:Kill CS for Mac by RazorSharp · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Why doesn't Adobe just get really tough and drop all production of the Creative Suite for Macintosh? I bet that would get Steve's attention PDQ.

    And watch Apple come out with their own competing product and lose a giant chunk of their user base? Apple does software very well. Look what happened to Adobe Premiere in the face of Final Cut. Look what happened to ProTools in the face of Logic. Apple has a knack for making professional creative tools. They're much better at it than Adobe and they also build the OS.

    If Adobe cut support for Apple then they'd be out of business in two years.

    --
    "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
  18. Re:Pot, kettle! by schmidt349 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Not even close. The spec doesn't document Sorenson Spark or On2, so tons of SWFs that embed video are out. Until very recently you weren't even allowed to look at the spec unless you signed an agreement saying you wouldn't develop player software (only export filters), and it's still about as far from an implementation white paper as you can get.

    Moreover, Adobe controls the format, not an open standards body, so they're free to add new things and not tell other developers how to do them later on to give themselves an advantage (which they've done in the past with major releases like v9 and 10).

    If Flash were completely open, why isn't there a 100% compliant open-source player out there? Gnash is the closest but it has serious problems with later versions of the spec (probably due to underdocumentation).

    "But look! They released a spec! It must be an open standard!" Yeah, I've heard that before.

  19. Re:Kill CS for Mac by Bemopolis · · Score: 4, Funny

    Don't discount the entertainment value of that for us end-users.

    --
    "I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain
  20. Re:Right on Adobe! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Android may be a bigger market, but the iPhone I'm targeting with my app resides in the deeper pockets of people demonstrably more easily parted with their money for less reward, my friend.

    FTFY

  21. Re:New corporate slogan by dc29A · · Score: 4, Insightful

    To prevent horrible, battery-sucking shovelware from showing up on the iPhone/iPad.

    You never looked in the AppStore right? For every decent app there are at least 500 garbage apps out there.

    Apple does not want its users having unsatisfactory experiences playing their Flash games, and then subsequently blaming Apple for the bad UI.

    Because iTunes for Windows and the plethora of crapware in AppStore is such an amazing user experience?

    You can debate the morality of what Apple is doing (personally, I think it sucks) but the reasons are pretty clear

    Apple is lying why they don't want to allow cross compilers. The reason is simple: lock in users to maintain the very high profit margins on iDevices. Nothing to do with quality of cross compiled and/or flash apps nor user experience.

    Disclosure: I have an iPhone 3Gs.

  22. Re:New corporate slogan by 605dave · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is insightful? What's the insight? Do you know anything about HTML5? Apple is helping build an open web that proprietary devices from any company can connect to. How is an open standard such as HTML an Apple only web experience? The reality is exactly the opposite. Right now we have a situation where one company, Adobe, determines what web experience (if you're talking about Flash) you get on any given device or platform. Compare that to an open HTML5 rendering engine (webkit), and a push towards open web standards. In what universe does that add up to that being an Apple only experience?

    --
    Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a difficult battle. - Plato
  23. Adobe -- you are wearing no clothes! by bradbury · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If Adobe Flash (which Adobe did not even develop BTW) were an really usable product, e.g. open source, able to be enhanced by the end-user, GREEN(!) and secure they would have a case to stand on (in critiquing Apple).

    But Apple has a very good point with respect to their two main products -- the iPhone and the iPad. These are *battery* based devices and power consumption is a major concern. Right now I've got a "single process" [1] chrome session with the libflashplayer.so sub-process running and playing *NOTHING* the Flash Process is sucking down 25+% of my CPU (Pentium IV Prescott) [2]. This isn't just chrome, one sees the same behavior in Firefox its just more difficult to see because it runs as a single process.

    GREEN programs take steps to minimize their CPU consumption, recognize when they are doing nothing and adapt, allow the O.S. to go into various power saving modes (ACPI, P4-clockmod adjustments, suspend to ram, etc.) and as far as I can tell Flash is designed so as to prevent that. If one strace's the chrome flash plugin process one discovers that in 10 seconds it issues 56,000 system calls -- 53,000 (95%) of them are useless gettimeofday() calls. Maybe Flash hoping that someone has requested that it play something... Seems like Adobe doesn't know what a "poll()" call is useful for.

    So I'll do my best to avoid Flash entirely on the basis of its CPU use and CO2 emissions footprint and not even bother to open the potential security problems can-o-worms.

    1. A "single process" chrome session is more often a 4-5 process session (given extensions, plugins, etc.) but it is far better (from a memory use standpoint) than the typical 35-process sessions one gets under Linux once one has exceeded the Google/Chrome "imposed" process limit.
    2. Fortunately one can either "kill -s STOP" or entirely kill the libflashplayer.so plugin and chrome will keep right on functioning (with the possible informational messages in certain tabs/windows that there was a problem with Flash. Often times it isn't even clear that those tabs/windows were using Flash.

    1. Re:Adobe -- you are wearing no clothes! by AMuse · · Score: 4, Funny

      If one strace's the chrome flash plugin process one discovers that in 10 seconds it issues 56,000 system calls -- 53,000 (95%) of them are useless gettimeofday() calls

      Per my co-worker: That's probably why flash sucks so bad on MacOS. Apple won't give them the time of day!

  24. Re:New corporate slogan by loraksus · · Score: 5, Funny

    Adobe: We Bitch and Moan until we Get Our Way(TM)

    Yes, but we do it very, very slowly. Pegging processor cores and making browsers run like shit along the way.

    --
    1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcfv gbhnjmk,l.;/
  25. Re:Right on Adobe! by zeroshade · · Score: 4, Informative

    According to that article, Android, on all devices, is barely beating out iPhone OS on one device. iPhone OS is sold on three distinct devices (iPhone, iPod touch, and iPad), of which the latter two were not included in the numbers. Android has a long way to go.

    Actually, the study involved smartphone market share in the US. The iPod touch and iPad are not smart phones, which explains why they weren't included. As far as Android having a long time to go, quadrupling market share in only 6 months is a damn long way it's already come. =)

  26. Re:Right on Adobe! by MaerD · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... If that statement were applied to your desktop you'd be seeing red and you know it. Let's change it a little:
    "Microsoft is only trying to 'stop' you when you use their OS. They aren't trying to stop you from using Firefox or Chrome or whatever on some other OS"...
    If the above were the case instead of "limited" device like an ipad or iphone, far more people would have an issue with it.

    --
    I put on my robe and wizard hat..
  27. Re:Pot, kettle! by Ash-Fox · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The spec doesn't document Sorenson Spark

    And it shouldn't, that would be the job of Sonsoren Media who have licensed the technologies to both Apple and Adobe. Same thing goes for On2, since it's a On2 Technologies technology and not Adobe. This is not Adobe's fault, it's not like there was "better" technologies at the time they licensed these technologies.

    Moreover, Adobe controls the format, not an open standards body

    True. On the other hand, your original post did not care about that, only "open up the Flash spec", which Adobe did. However, now I just consider you to be purposely changing your argument because it's convenient for you to keep your stance rather than legitimate reasons.

    If Flash were completely open, why isn't there a 100% compliant open-source player out there?

    For the same reason new PDF specs aren't supported in most applications - Developers haven't simply done it yet or have no interest in doing so.

    With FFMPEG working with these codecs which is essentially part of almost every FOSS media player out there, do you really think projects like Gnash couldn't use it?

    --
    Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
  28. Re:Adobe make a statement and drop Photoshop for M by ducomputergeek · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Last time this happened, when they dropped Adobe Premiere, Apple bought Final Cut Pro and turned it into a good replacement with version 3 vs Premiere 6 and with Final Cut Pro 4 blew Premiere out of the water for a good number of years. Even though Premiere is back on Mac, I don't know anyone in the industry that uses it on Mac. They all still use FCP.

    My guess would be Apple's response would be to fork or support programs like GIMP and Inkscape and throw developers at them and overhaul their UI's to Apple's standards. What better way to spite Adobe than create free tools to replace their cash cow. Adobe already bought out and killed the only competition in professional web & graphics tools (Macromedia).

    --
    "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
  29. Re:Can't run Java on iPhone either... by Frequency+Domain · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's a fucking computer.

    That's where you've got it wrong. The world has moved beyond the point where everything with a CPU is a computer. The iPhone is an appliance. It does all the things it was designed to do. No manufacturer is obligated to make their appliance do anything other than what they claimed it would do when they sold it to you. If you want a different appliance, feel free to vote with your wallet. If there is nothing that does what you want and you can convince some venture capitalists you're right, make a competing product. But Apple doesn't owe it to you to design appliances that work the way you wished they did.

  30. Adobe DRM by Graham+J+-+XVI · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm curious how Adobe can claim "consumers should be able to freely access their favorite content" just after they implemented support for Selective Output Control in their proprietary DRM.

  31. It's revenge for the notorious G4 recommendation by daemonenwind · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I remember back during the megahertz wars how Adobe came out telling its customers that, based on benchmarks, they could no longer recommend Apple products. (This was back in early 2003)

    Of course, that was when Adobe was pretty much the killer app that kept Apple breathing. If Apple lost Adobe during late OS9/early OS X, they lost everything. Furthermore, if the G5 flopped (which has been argued both ways), Apple would have to do something drastic. I believe the move to Intel is their response, and Adobe was very likely the catalyst.

    So Steve Jobs, having a good memory and being somewhat egotistical, seems to me to be getting some revenge here by taking on one of Adobe's flagship product, now that Apple doesn't need Adobe anymore. It's hard to say that Adobe's creative suite is the bedrock of Apple profits these days, so there's not much to lose from his perspective.

  32. Re:Right on Adobe! by BasilBrush · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Actually, the study involved smartphone market share in the US. The iPod touch and iPad are not smart phones, which explains why they weren't included.

    That is indeed the reason. There was nothing wrong with the study, only the implications people are taking from it. iPhone OS authors collect from the very same app versions running on all three devices. Android developers have to release different versions of their app for different Android phones.

    And of course it's international sales that matter.

    Also it's obviously wrong because the size of the market for apps is: "apps sold", not "devices sold". Developers are dojng far better on iPhone than Android for versions of the same app. Orders of magnitude better.

    Thus it's wrong to say that Android sales topping iPhone sales on that study means it's a bigger market. Wrong in several different ways.

  33. Re:Right on Adobe! by recoiledsnake · · Score: 4, Informative

    Very true. Look at how Apple fleeces the iPhone users:

    1) Profit on selling the device itself (either unlocked to consumer or to AT&T)

    2) A nice MONTHLY cut of around $18 from AT&T from the subscribers min. of $70/month. (This is the real reason iPhone is exclusive to AT&T inspite of shitty service all around, notice how this isn't mentioned much here on /.?).

    3) A FORCED 30% cut of all third party software sales for the iPhone/iPod Touch/iPad.

    No wonder Apple is wallowing in money, they found an almost perfect way to part fools with their money.

    --
    This space for rent.