Genuine question: How are the restrictions placed by Apple on what's allowed in the App Store any different then the restrictions placed by console owners on what's published for the XBox or PS3? For example, the XBox XNA community games system requires people to use .Net - there's no technical reason for this (the XBox is clearly capable of running native code). However, Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo still seem to be allowed to place pretty heavy licensing requirements on game publishers (so strict you can't actually know them without handing over a lot of cash).<p>I tend to agree with antitrust action most of the time, but it seems that platform owners should be able to have some say over their platform direction, if they honestly think that doing so is good for their business. Whilst they don't have a monopoly in the market, and there is plenty of choice for consumers, what benefit does the public get from forcing people trying the "Closed is better" business model to open up to direct competitors (who, depending on what you believe, might seriously damage the experience for end users)? If the market dislikes the closed system, it will fail. If it grows to be dominant, then sure - anti-trust seems reasonable. But whilst competition is thriving, it seems heavy handed to rule out certain business models.
This is absolutely retarded.<p>a) The market will figure this out. If developers don't want to code in just Cocoa touch or make apps for other platforms a priority because the language is easier, they will.<p>b) Things are in such a nascent stage. Android is growing like a weed. A suit like this might make some partial sense a few years down the road if there was enough data there.<p>c) The department of justice will probably hire a bunch of people with no real domain expertise to look into the subject.<p>d) The potential precedent set could be scary. @archgrove mentioned the xbox example. So now, microsoft might HAVE to allow us to build XBLA games using any tools out there. If I were microsoft, I wouldn't want sub standard crap getting in there.
Since Apple doesn't have anything resembling a monopoly in any market it operates in, and since all DoJ can do is file a suit that is predicated on them having one, this is unlikely to go anywhere.
I think an intervention would be a disaster.<p>If Steve Jobs is right, and the progress of the platform is really slowed by cross platform toolkits, then intervention would literally slow down the progress of computing, and possibly set a precedent that slows progress indefinitely. If by being right, Apple ends up in a more dominant position, that won't prevent Google and Microsoft from altering their own strategies to compete. Both of them still have massive market power they can leverage.<p>If he's wrong, then surely he's handing a serious competitive advantage to Google, Microsoft, RIM, Nokia etc, and as all the cool apps start to appear on all of these platforms along with a plethora of interesting and cool devices, Apple will shrink back to a minority player differentiated only by style.<p>I think it would be a terrible for both sides of this debate if the outcome is determined by judges and Apple is not allowed to take this risk.
"[O]nly Apple's programming tools." This is completely wrong. Apple isn't restricting anyone from using, e.g., Textmate, they are requiring use of c/c++ and objective-c. These languages run on many other platforms, obviously.
The antitrust issue should really be about how apple is selectively enforcing this issue. I think the market can flush out the root issue in 3.3.1, but apple picking and choosing which companies can break the rule is really where the DOJ should come into play.
I wonder if we'll also see an inquiry into 3.3.9, which is about data collection and impacts mobile ad networks. If Apple's own mobile ad network can leverage data for targeting that other ad networks can't, I really can't see those ad networks just acquiescing without exploring their legal options.
Prediction: this will be a complete farce and probably even impede market correction of the problem.<p>Also; I thought 3.3.1 wasn't in force yet? We <i>still</i> have no practical examples of where Apple will enforce this. Surely that is important before talking about action?
Link to printable format, no ads: <a href="http://www.nypost.com/f/print/news/business/an_antitrust_app_buvCWcJdjFoLD5vBSkguGO" rel="nofollow">http://www.nypost.com/f/print/news/business/an_antitrust_app...</a>
Also it's unclear what is getting approved, and what not. And for what time.<p>This can totally destroy small companies that have invested heavily, and are still waiting to be approved.<p>In a sense it reminds of the XBLA slots (commercial Arcade).
As much as I would like to protect the world from Apple with law... I don't think Section 3.3.1/Anti-trust are the way to go.<p>I just don't see the connection... Apple aren't encouraging programmers to choose between Apple or other platforms - just the ones inept enough to need the crutch of Flash (or similar) to call themselves programmers to start with. Writing cross platform code is precisely as possible as it was before 3.3.1 - its just not so easy that every idiot can do it and submit their rubbish to the App store.