5 ms·

That doesn't make it anything short of disgusting -- it's worse than anything MS ever did.

tptacek 17y ago
REALLY. Saying "no alternate compilers on our hardware" is worse than using the threat of yanking OEM licenses for the then-monopoly desktop OS if they dared to feature another company's browser on the desktop?
- vetinari 17y ago
  How many another companies' browsers are there for iPhone/iPad? Exactly.
  - lukev 17y ago
    Uhh... http://www.opera.com/press/releases/2010/03/23_3/ http://www.opera.com/press/releases/2010/03/23_3/
    - vetinari 17y ago
      http://my.opera.com/community/countup/ http://my.opera.com/community/countup/ In other words: no, you can not use it. It is verboten. Imagine what would happen, if Microsoft had veto over Lotus 123, Ami Pro, Netscape, Apache, Mozilla, etc.
- orangecat 17y ago
  Arguably yes. Microsoft never tried to stop users from running whatever software they wanted on Windows, they just made it more inconvenient in some cases to get that software.
  - tptacek 17y ago
    "I will use my operating system monopoly to put you out of business if you don't assist me in putting an unrelated competitor of ours out of business" is worse to you than "you may only use Objective C to develop on this device"? I don't like Objective C either, but I don't take it that far.
    - akmiller 17y ago
      Microsoft, as all companies would, is going to use their successful product(s) to push other products that they create. They had 95%+ of the OS market and simply wanted to push the use of their browser to those individuals. That doesn't and never has seemed like a dirty tactic to me. Apple pushes its own products over its competitors on the iPhone. You won't see Opera on the default dock bar on the iPhone anytime soon...it may never even be approved to be in the app store. Microsoft may have made it tough for their competition (and I'm sure they crossed the line many times as you mention) but they certainly aren't telling the folks at Mozilla now that Firefox must be re-written in .Net or they aren't going to allow it to run on their platform!
      - MichaelGG 17y ago
        Well, Windows Phone 7 only allows verified CLI bytecode apps, which practically speaking means Firefox won't be compiling for it anytime soon. But MS doesn't care how you compile, just as long as the bytecode checks out safe.
        rbanffy 17y ago
        And Windows Phone 7 is not a dominant player in any segment.
      - rbanffy 17y ago
        > Microsoft, as all companies would, is going to use their successful product(s) to push other products that they create Please, keep in mind that if the successful product is effectively a monopoly, then this conduct is not only immoral. It's also illegal.
    - skywalker 17y ago
      "I will use my operating system monopoly to put you out of business if you don't assist me in putting an unrelated competitor of ours out of business" is worse to you than "you may only use Objective C to develop on this device"? What about this: "I will use my mobile operating system prestige to put your mobile company out of business if you don't assist me in putting a competitor of ours, Adobe, out of the mobile app business". The word "monopoly" doesn't add much. People could develop for MacOS back then when Microsoft did that, but nobody used MacOS. Likewise, people can develop for Android now, but nobody uses android.
- CamperBob 17y ago
  Yes, it is. My in-house process is none of Apple's (or Microsoft's) business.
  - tptacek 17y ago
    As you have just found out, it in fact is. Maybe I'm wrong, but my guess is: they win this issue, and they still keep the overwhelming lead in app development.
    - CamperBob 17y ago
      True, I can't see it having any material effect... at least not on the iFart-class apps that Apple seems to court. More sophisticated apps tend to rely on more sophisticated toolchains... 3D games being a prime example. As long as Apple stays #1 in developer mindshare, all that will happen is some pissing and moaning (as we're seeing). It's way too expensive to stand on principle and jump ship for Android. But Apple has managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory before. If the day ever comes (again) when they desperately need loyal developers, this bit of contractual bushwhacking will be remembered.
subbu 17y ago
2 differences between MS and Apple in this context. MS was very supportive of developers in its ecosystem. And they were never this arrogant.
- allenbrunson 17y ago
  Unless, of course, you were a developer at Stac Electronics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stac_Electronics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stac_Electronics ... or one of the many other companies that produced something that Microsoft decided would be better if it was bundled with the OS. I'm not defending Apple here, but come on, be realistic.
  - cookiecaper 17y ago
    Bundling something with the OS isn't wrong. Linux distributions come bundled with tons of software. Is that wrong? There are lots of competing softwares for Linux, usually only one for each purpose is included. You can still develop and sell a competing application, you'll just get less traction because people already get an application with similar functionality for free. Apple has killed off a whole class of developer tools with this and stated that if you don't use the software they want, they'll revoke your license. An equal analogy would be MS revoking the right to sell Windows software for anyone that refused to browse with Internet Explorer.
    - allenbrunson 17y ago
      did you read the linked article? i'm guessing not. if all microsoft did was write a clone of stac's product and bundle it with the OS, then that would be questionable, but not too bad. But no, what Microsoft did was pretend they were interested in buying Stac, gained access to all their source code as part of their "due diligence," then "changed their minds" and created a nearly identical product "from scratch." Stac was able to get the courts to agree that this was dirty pool, and it cost Microsoft over 80 million dollars.
rbanffy 17y ago
> it's worse than anything MS ever did. Perhaps for some values of "ever". Now, seriously, this is a boneheaded, monopoly-exploiting, move. If Apple wanted to one-up Microsoft, they would demand that every cell-phone operator that sells iPhones to drop all Android phones. On a second step, they would demand telcos to stop selling phones from manufacturers that offered Android-based phones. That would be a truly Microsoftian move.
- Jeema3000 17y ago
  ...and then we wake up the next day and Google search and YouTube have "mysteriously stopped working" in all Safari browsers...
  - rbanffy 17y ago
    It would be fun to watch those three trying to out-evil each other...

REALLY. Saying "no alternate compilers on our hardware" is worse than using the threat of yanking OEM licenses for the then-monopoly desktop OS if they dared to feature another company's browser on the desktop?

vetinari 17y ago
How many another companies' browsers are there for iPhone/iPad? Exactly.
- lukev 17y ago
  Uhh... http://www.opera.com/press/releases/2010/03/23_3/ http://www.opera.com/press/releases/2010/03/23_3/
  - vetinari 17y ago
    http://my.opera.com/community/countup/ http://my.opera.com/community/countup/ In other words: no, you can not use it. It is verboten. Imagine what would happen, if Microsoft had veto over Lotus 123, Ami Pro, Netscape, Apache, Mozilla, etc.
orangecat 17y ago
Arguably yes. Microsoft never tried to stop users from running whatever software they wanted on Windows, they just made it more inconvenient in some cases to get that software.
- tptacek 17y ago
  "I will use my operating system monopoly to put you out of business if you don't assist me in putting an unrelated competitor of ours out of business" is worse to you than "you may only use Objective C to develop on this device"? I don't like Objective C either, but I don't take it that far.
  - akmiller 17y ago
    Microsoft, as all companies would, is going to use their successful product(s) to push other products that they create. They had 95%+ of the OS market and simply wanted to push the use of their browser to those individuals. That doesn't and never has seemed like a dirty tactic to me. Apple pushes its own products over its competitors on the iPhone. You won't see Opera on the default dock bar on the iPhone anytime soon...it may never even be approved to be in the app store. Microsoft may have made it tough for their competition (and I'm sure they crossed the line many times as you mention) but they certainly aren't telling the folks at Mozilla now that Firefox must be re-written in .Net or they aren't going to allow it to run on their platform!
    - MichaelGG 17y ago
      Well, Windows Phone 7 only allows verified CLI bytecode apps, which practically speaking means Firefox won't be compiling for it anytime soon. But MS doesn't care how you compile, just as long as the bytecode checks out safe.
      - rbanffy 17y ago
        And Windows Phone 7 is not a dominant player in any segment.
    - rbanffy 17y ago
      > Microsoft, as all companies would, is going to use their successful product(s) to push other products that they create Please, keep in mind that if the successful product is effectively a monopoly, then this conduct is not only immoral. It's also illegal.
  - skywalker 17y ago
    "I will use my operating system monopoly to put you out of business if you don't assist me in putting an unrelated competitor of ours out of business" is worse to you than "you may only use Objective C to develop on this device"? What about this: "I will use my mobile operating system prestige to put your mobile company out of business if you don't assist me in putting a competitor of ours, Adobe, out of the mobile app business". The word "monopoly" doesn't add much. People could develop for MacOS back then when Microsoft did that, but nobody used MacOS. Likewise, people can develop for Android now, but nobody uses android.
CamperBob 17y ago
Yes, it is. My in-house process is none of Apple's (or Microsoft's) business.
- tptacek 17y ago
  As you have just found out, it in fact is. Maybe I'm wrong, but my guess is: they win this issue, and they still keep the overwhelming lead in app development.
  - CamperBob 17y ago
    True, I can't see it having any material effect... at least not on the iFart-class apps that Apple seems to court. More sophisticated apps tend to rely on more sophisticated toolchains... 3D games being a prime example. As long as Apple stays #1 in developer mindshare, all that will happen is some pissing and moaning (as we're seeing). It's way too expensive to stand on principle and jump ship for Android. But Apple has managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory before. If the day ever comes (again) when they desperately need loyal developers, this bit of contractual bushwhacking will be remembered.

subbu 17y ago

2 differences between MS and Apple in this context. MS was very supportive of developers in its ecosystem. And they were never this arrogant.

allenbrunson 17y ago
Unless, of course, you were a developer at Stac Electronics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stac_Electronics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stac_Electronics ... or one of the many other companies that produced something that Microsoft decided would be better if it was bundled with the OS. I'm not defending Apple here, but come on, be realistic.
- cookiecaper 17y ago
  Bundling something with the OS isn't wrong. Linux distributions come bundled with tons of software. Is that wrong? There are lots of competing softwares for Linux, usually only one for each purpose is included. You can still develop and sell a competing application, you'll just get less traction because people already get an application with similar functionality for free. Apple has killed off a whole class of developer tools with this and stated that if you don't use the software they want, they'll revoke your license. An equal analogy would be MS revoking the right to sell Windows software for anyone that refused to browse with Internet Explorer.
  - allenbrunson 17y ago
    did you read the linked article? i'm guessing not. if all microsoft did was write a clone of stac's product and bundle it with the OS, then that would be questionable, but not too bad. But no, what Microsoft did was pretend they were interested in buying Stac, gained access to all their source code as part of their "due diligence," then "changed their minds" and created a nearly identical product "from scratch." Stac was able to get the courts to agree that this was dirty pool, and it cost Microsoft over 80 million dollars.

rbanffy 17y ago

> it's worse than anything MS ever did. Perhaps for some values of "ever". Now, seriously, this is a boneheaded, monopoly-exploiting, move. If Apple wanted to one-up Microsoft, they would demand that every cell-phone operator that sells iPhones to drop all Android phones. On a second step, they would demand telcos to stop selling phones from manufacturers that offered Android-based phones. That would be a truly Microsoftian move.

Jeema3000 17y ago
...and then we wake up the next day and Google search and YouTube have "mysteriously stopped working" in all Safari browsers...
- rbanffy 17y ago
  It would be fun to watch those three trying to out-evil each other...