Too often, their position can be summarised as 'my way, or the highway'.
--
Apple is not part of this. Developers need to play within the bounds of the App Store license terms
No - Apple needs to be accountable to an impartial regulatory body.
Well, it is their platform and their store. If you think the rules are unfair then you can also develop for other platforms.
First, Apple had ZERO problems with approving VLC and getting it on the store. The app is gone now, but that is not because Apple changed their position, they simply responded to an alledged copyright/license issue reported by the original owner of the code.
The reason that the app has been removed is because the VLC developers, specifially Rémi Denis-Courmont, has requested Apple to remove the app from the store because of what license conflicts.
They would respond in exactly the same way if the GPL were not involved.
Seriously, Apple is currently working in the best interest of the claimed rights holder of VLC: it removed the app so that VLC and Applidium can figure this out.
This is not a case of Apple Against GPL: As soon as Applidium and VLC think they can actually work with the terms of the GPL and App Store then they can send that message to Apple and resubsmit the app.
I sure hope they do, but from what I've seen so far, the VLC folks seem to be extremely anti-Apple. We all lose. Thanks VLC.
I often hear this rhetoric provided as the de facto reason for why Apple (and other corporations governing IP-marketplaces) should be able to do whatever they like.
If this was true - why can't a telecommunications company operate in whichever way they choose? Why do we have regulatory frameworks which address the problem of monopolies or the formation of cartels?
Because sometimes corporations aren't working in the interest of the public at large; and they need to operate within a larger framework which has been put in place for the benefit of society.
To enable them to do so effectively - traditionally, regulatory bodies are put in place to oversee good practice.
I hope the same happens to regulate these new IP-focused marketplaces.
--
[..] If you think the rules are unfair then you can also develop for other platforms.
I don't think this is necessarily true.
People (customers, developers and businesses) have to invest a great deal of time, effort and money when they choose to develop for (or make use of) a specific platform.
Switching is expensive - and eventually common sense dictates that its more likely that those who have invested, are likely to put up with rules and regulations which they might otherwise see as unfair.
Also, once a developer has produced their iOS-based product - they are forced to sell through one marketplace; the Apple AppStore - which is also cause for concern in my opinion.
It's not the same as in IP-marketplaces, or any other kind of marketplace for that matter. As long as they are not violating any law, the government should not try to regulate them, it doesn't matter how invested society is in it.
It's not the same as in IP-marketplaces, or any other kind of marketplace for that matter. As long as they are not violating any law, the government should not try to regulate them, it doesn't matter how invested society is in it.
But why? - this is an opinion, not a fact.
Apple is acting as a self-governing private regulator of a marketplace - digital technologies have allowed this situation to become viable .. in the past markets have been inherently more 'free' due to their non-digital nature.
"The world is changing; I believe that as we become more dependent on digital technologies, new legal frameworks need to be discussed and evolved."
This might be the case, and I partially agree with you. But as it stands now, Apple are not doing anything wrong.
It's complicated - I realise where the law currently stands; however, I feel that the law might need to be amended.
I believe the AppStore is a privately regulated marketplace operating within the free-market. This type of scenario is likely to become more commonplace in the future.
I can understand how the subject of the free-market (and possible government intervention) is at odds with a lot of people's politics, but I think the potential for abuse from the private sector is too great to ignore.
Although it's a very extreme example - a sweatshop is often opt-in. There are circumstances where opt-in means nothing.
No no, not "a marketplace". It is "their marketplace" and it is an "opt in" marketplace at that.
There is zero reason to invite any kind of regulation into that.
It seems quite obvious to me why this can prove to be problematic in many scenarios, but I understand why many would disagree.
They know that going in. Nobody's putting a gun to their head and forcing them to write iOS apps. If they finish their app and only then figure this out, they're too stupid to be writing software.
It's a risk. But then, there's also a risk that someone else will put out a better equivalent app first and win all the mindshare. Or that many different equivalent apps will ship first, and their app will have a hard time getting noticed.
I think that this situation is less than desirable. Apple (and corporations in general) shouldn't be able to artificially influence how a (sub)market functions.
If this is accepted, I think the only logical way to stop these situations from occurring is via legislation or regulation.
It's not an ideal solution, but then - the alternative (of doing nothing) is even less ideal in my opinion.
Yes, and I hope that is what is going to happen...
> I sure hope they do, but from what I've seen so far, the VLC folks seem to be extremely anti-Apple. We all lose. Thanks VLC.
VLC has been on the mac platform since the very early days of OSX and was for a long time the only solution to play DVDs on Mac. VLC folks are not anti-Apple...
The problem is that each copyright holder has the right to do what he wants, because developers keep their authorship rights...
That is a ridiculous assumption.
Other industries (telecommunications for example) have regulatory bodies which oversee good practice.
I don't see why it's ridiculous to imagine a regulatory body overseeing good practice for privately created IP-focused marketplaces.
Telecommunications (in the USA) used publicly-owned airwaves and in too-many cases have de facto or de jure monopolies. Neither applies to Apple.
Consider that the government concern with Microsoft in the 90s wasn't its monopoly position in "Windows," which is tautological, but PC operating systems broadly, which includes Linux and Macs.
The smartphone and tablet computer markets are among the most competitive in the country right now. By definition this means no one has a monopoly.
Apple is not a monopoly. It has a monopoly over those who choose to be its customers and those who choose to be its developers, but that is no different than saying that Levis has a monopoly over the black jeans that Steve Jobs wears.
Things become different when someone can show that Apple has a monopoly position over an entire market, or that Apple's product or service is an essential product or service.
For example, although there is plenty of competition amongst landlords for apartments, most jurisdictions have specific laws that limit the enforceable provisions of a lease.
At this moment in time, I don't personally see Apple enjoying a monopoly position in its market, not do I see video player applications as an essential good or service.
I agree, regulation has traditionally been put in place to deal with the creation of monopolies.
Personally - I think the question of whether Apple's AppStore constitutes a monopoly is a grey area. They are the only company authorised to sell applications developed for iOS. Supporters of Apple's current policy would argue that other application platforms are available.
To this, I would offer the counter-argument that prior investment (time/money/effort) encourages developers and customers to stick with (and put up with) most rules Apple decides to enforce. Choice is (theoretically) available, but many developers and users will be placed in a situation where there they aren't.
--
These IP-marketplaces are new - and, as with most things that are digitally-based, a great deal of power is available to whoever is in charge. More power, provides more scope for abuse.
I think that some kind of regulation - either through new legislation or a regulatory body needs to be provided.
--
Lastly - as Apple isn't providing a free-market to those who sell through it's AppStore, isn't it a little ironic that a desire for free-market economics is provided as a reason against regulation?
Not even close to a grey area unless you want to argue that Nike has a monopoly on athletic shoes that have the Nike 'swoosh.'
To this, I would offer the counter-argument that prior investment (time/money/effort) encourages developers and customers to stick with (and put up with) most rules Apple decides to enforce. Choice is (theoretically) available, but many developers and users will be placed in a situation where there they aren't.
How is that different from pretty much every other market where some business decides to create a product that relies on another business' product?
In what way is Nike's swoosh comparable to Apple's AppStore?
I think the situation is much more complex; we're talking about a privately regulated marketplace within the free-market.
--
How is that different from pretty much every other market where some business decides to create a product that relies on another business' product?
A single company can be in complete control of a marketplace - this isn't so possible in non-digital market without help from an organisation like the Mafia.
If you, as a developer, or user, don't like those rules, then thankfully we have superb open source operating systems, such as Linux, and OpenBSD that give you almost 100% freedom to build, sell, and use the applications of your choice.
In fact, if you have a jail-broken IOS device, then you can even purchase apps for those devices from places other than Apple's curated store.
The Droid, RIM, and WP7 platforms also provide varying degrees of freedom.
If, in fact, Apple had a defacto monopoly, then their behavior might come under some form of legislative oversight - but, they certainly don't have a Monopoly on the mobile computing platform, and we really don't need some external body providing regulatory oversight as to what/how Apple should approve applications landing in the store.
There is a huge difference between a digital and non-digital market. In a digital market - one company can control (or curate) everything that occurs. This kind of control has only been made possible by digital technology.
--
"If you wanted to go sell products in Costco, or Walmart, you would have to play by their rules."
Costco or Walmart purchase products which they later resell. The AppStore provides an economic space where people can sell direct to the consumer. There's a distinction.
If I produce a product that can be sold in Costco or Walmart - and I don't like their policies, I can take my product and sell it elsewhere.
If I produce a product for sale via the AppStore, and I don't like their policies I have to redevelop my product to sell it via a different marketplace.
--
"If you, as a developer, or user, don't like those rules, then thankfully we have superb open source operating systems, such as Linux, and OpenBSD that give you almost 100% freedom to build, sell, and use the applications of your choice."
We're talking about the emerging IP-marketplaces, which are currently only viable for a handful of commercially operated platforms. The problem isn't that commerce is allowed to take place - it's that the rules of commerce can be artificially influenced by a corporation.
--
"In fact, if you have a jail-broken IOS device, then you can even purchase apps for those devices from places other than Apple's curated store."
This isn't a desirable scenario for many users, and isn't an economically viable market for many developers.
--
"The Droid, RIM, and WP7 platforms also provide varying degrees of freedom."
The problem is, there are no safeguards in place to stop these other platform vendors from artificially influencing the economic sub-markets associated with their own platforms.
A situation could quite easily develop where platform vendors unanimously agree to progress in a direction that inhibits developer (and/or user) freedoms. What happens then?
There is definitely a barrier to entry to the platform vendor market - because a huge amount of capital is needed get a business into a position where it can compete with the larger players.
--
"If, in fact, Apple had a defacto monopoly, then their behavior might come under some form of legislative oversight - but, they certainly don't have a Monopoly on the mobile computing platform, and we really don't need some external body providing regulatory oversight as to what/how Apple should approve applications landing in the store."
I think we need a body regulating the behaviour of all emerging curated IP-marketplaces. Digital commerce is very open to abuse - measures need to be put in place now while the stakes are relatively low.
They requested Apple to (a)change the policies of the store or (b)remove the software from it, and they got exactly that. Then they complained.
A) The ones who ported VLC and posted it on the App Store. B) The ones who complained about the terms of the App Store. C) The ones who are complaining now.
I'm sure there is some overlap, but I don't see how you can criticize members of group C who are not in group B.