3 ms·
Are you arguing that Apple has a monopoly on phones? Even narrowing the category to smart phones doesn't really make enough of a difference for your point to be
by ahlatimer 17y ago
Are you arguing that Apple has a monopoly on phones? Even narrowing the category to smart phones doesn't really make enough of a difference for your point to be valid. Sure, there are plenty of people out there that have iPhones, but there's also people out there with phones running Android and PalmOS. There's people with Blackberry's and WinMos. If you don't like Apple's walled garden, you can easily get a decent experience buying another phone. You want rich media on the web? Well, good luck getting away with that without using Flash.
I'm not arguing for or against the AppStore. I get why Apple is doing it, and I get why people don't like it, but comparing Apple to Adobe in this way is fruitless (no pun intended).
Also, Apple has reversed rejections when the blogosphere cried foul.
- viraptor 17y agoAFAIR they reversed rejections when influential enough blogosphere gave them bad PR. Cases that didn't make it into known bloggers' posts didn't matter (and we probably didn't hear about most of them). Just look at apprejections.com to see how silly the situation still is. Comparing iPhone apps to Android and PalmOS? Sure - just like Flash can be compared to Java embedded/webstart and avi embedding through `<object ...>`. There's almost the same amount of real-world competition in those areas... If you want some app, it's probably already in Flash/AppStore - even if some people push it via other means (avi players/other app markets). I'm not arguing they have monopoly on (smart)phones - just on real-world smartphone apps. And that allows them to be lazy - it's just strange that they call Adobe lazy for doing exactly the same. Apple: "just port it the way we want, or go away", Adobe: "just let us use what we have, or go away", both: "no" :(