14 ms·

Antitrust inquiry into Apple over Section 3.3.1

109 points by brownegg 16y ago

tptacek 16y ago
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.
- danh 16y ago
  Depends on your view of what a market is. Apple's app store is pretty dominant in the market for "mobile apps".
  - pedalpete 16y ago
    To further your comment danh, Apple has an absolute monopoly on App Stores on iPhone devices. I can't get an app onto the device without going through them. If i have an xbox, I can get a game from Best Buy or Amazon, etc. Even though those are closed systems. If I have an iPhone, I can only get apps from the Apple store. I'm not positive if this is unique to Apple in the mobile space or not. I know I can get blackberry apps from anywhere, same with WinMo. I'm not sure about Android or Palm.
    - ptomato 16y ago
      If you have an xbox, all games must still be approved by Microsoft before they can be sold.
    - pohl 16y ago
      Apple has an absolute monopoly on App Stores on iPhone devices. That may not qualify as a "relevant market" for determining monopoly status. (The Conclusions of Law from the MS v DOJ case makes interesting reading along these lines). http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f218600/218633.htm http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f218600/218633.htm Whether this zone of commercial activity actually qualifies as a market...depends on whether it includes all products "reasonably interchangeable by consumers for the same purposes." ..."Because the ability of consumers to turn to other suppliers restrains a firm from raising prices above the competitive level, the definition of the 'relevant market' rests on a determination of available substitutes." So if a plaintiff were to try to argue that Apple is the sole supplier of App Stores for iPhones, it would become germane that nothing is charged for access to this service, and that if access became expensive consumers could flee to other smart phones.
- jacquesm 16y ago
  Having a monopoly is not a requirement, all it takes is anti-competitive behaviour and the restriction of free trade.
  - apgwoz 16y ago
    I don't understand how they are being anti-competitive. They control the entire stack from hardware to software. The fact that you can write any software for their platforms is more of a privilege than a right.
    - rayvega 16y ago
      They would be anti-competitive to other competing smartphone manufacturers not to developers on their own platform.
- _delirium 16y ago
  I don't think tying claims need to prove an actual monopoly, just the somewhat lower standard that the seller has sufficient market power in the tying product's market for the tying arrangement to restrain trade in the tied product's market. It's been applied in the past to car manufacturers who tried to corner their own cars' replacement-parts market, even though the manufacturers didn't actually have a monopoly in the car market. It's hard to prove, though, because it tends to require showing that the company did the tying solely or mainly for the purpose of restraining trade, as opposed to for some legitimate purpose. The car manufacturers lost because the courts didn't buy their argument that their attempts to limit the replacement-parts market were for quality-assurance reasons. Apple would have to argue that section 3.3.1 isn't intended mainly or solely to stop cross-platform compatibility, but has some legitimate, non-trade-restraining purpose, like improving the reliability or quality of iPhone apps. Probably even just "it makes it easier for us to review apps if they're all in the same languages" would be a good enough explanation. A bad result would be a leaked smoking-gun email saying "hey we should institute this policy to stop people from porting our apps to Android". Monopoly leveraging is a separate (but related) concept, as far as I understand it, and a bit easier to prove, because there's a much stronger presumption that if it's happening, it's bad, regardless of the reasons. (Edit: edited/expanded a bit for clarity)
  - extension 16y ago
    hey we should institute this policy to stop people from porting our apps to Android Remember when he replied to that blogger saying he agreed with Gruber followed by something sort of like the above? Would be mighty ironic if one if his tiny glib emails ended up taking down the company.
  - roc 16y ago
    3.3.1 is a section of the Terms of Use of developers seeking to use Apple's distribution channel. Apple isn't trying to make middle-ware-built iPhone apps illegal. It just doesn't want them on the app store. An important distinction between the car/part and printer/ink analogies. Forcing Apple to repeal 3.3.1 doesn't allow offending software to be built and sold (as it already can be), it forces Apple to stock its shelves with it and thus take on users' expectations that Apple will support it (by making sure an OS update doesn't break hundreds of apps by running afoul of a popular middleware package).
- dalore 16y ago
  They have a monopoly on iPhone development.
- ig1 16y ago
  Look at the antitrust lawsuits against printer manufacturers for ink refills. You don't have to have a monopoly in a sector (printers) to be subject to anti-trust laws, having a monopoly on consumables designed to work with your product can be sufficient.
  - houseabsolute 16y ago
    Seems to me like the harmful to consumers aspect of the antitrust case will be the hard part to prove here. It seems like people are in near-universal agreement that printer companies were/are price-gouging on their inks in a way that is exclusively harmful to consumers. However, Apple's whole narrative on this TOS section is that doing otherwise would in the long run harm consumers by slowing down the evolution of the platform. Hard to see how the DOJ is going to prove otherwise.
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
    - zach 16y ago
      Great, great point. The impact on the consumer is the bottom line for these laws. It's not the level of competition, how free the market should be, or how easy things are for developers.
  - tptacek 16y ago
    The legal action that I'm aware of about printer ink alleges that HP colluded with Staples, paying them a huge amount of money, to prevent them from carrying a competing product. But, as a counterexample, I'm not aware of a successful suit that challenged HP's use of printer cartridge rights management technology.
- apgwoz 16y ago
  They monopolize their own stack. Hardly a monopoly in my book.
archgrove 16y ago
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). 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.
- houseabsolute 16y ago
  The main way they're different is that people have always expected consoles to be walled gardens. They have expected the same things of phones, but because the developer of this phone is Apple, they thought that the model would be more similar to the way desktop applications are developed. The only significant difference is one of expectations.
  - archgrove 16y ago
    But "I expected it to be different" doesn't seem like a sound legal foundation for anti-trust action. In many ways, the iPhone has been the founding of "open" phone development. Prior to the iPhone, there was virtually no real development allowed on phones that achieved any levels of success (carriers had the platform locked down hard). Post iPhone, we've seen actual competition in this space - the entirely open Android strategy (though their App Store also has restrictions, they just apply them post-release rather than pre-release); the semi-closed iPhone and Nokia Ovi models, the web app model of all the platforms. People claiming that Apple has created a locked-down environment have very short memories - even the closed nature of the App Store via 3.3.1 would have been considered insanely open only 5 years ago. Google have bet that unfettered platform mutability with (almost) totally free development is good for their business model. Great, and more power to them. Apple have bet that allowing a freeforall would cause their business model damage; OK, that's their call. Other platform holders are trying other strategies. The point being, the free market seems to be about allowing them to try these ideas, and fail if consumers don't like them. Whilst Apple are nowhere near a monopoly on smartphones (and they're frankly miles away from one), they should be free to adopt whatever model they think works best for them.
jsz0 16y ago
I'd rather see the market handle it. We have plenty of competition and choice.
jasonlbaptiste 16y ago
This is absolutely retarded. 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. 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. c) The department of justice will probably hire a bunch of people with no real domain expertise to look into the subject. 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.
- fierarul 16y ago
  How do you know something is substandard just because it's made with some other library / language ? Especially with an "yet to be created" library / language ? If you think "the market will figure this out" (which I think in itself is wrong) why don't we let the market figure out which language is better ? If the users don't like some products, they won't buy them. If all Cocoa touch apps make money and all the Flash apps lose money the market will fix itself, no ?
  - glhaynes 16y ago
    It's a question of whether you want regulatory intervention preventing the possibility of there being "closed" systems in addition to there being "open" systems. If you prevent Apple from going their "closed" route, you lose the possibility of any benefits that might come from such a different model. When people say "let the market sort it out", they mean that if Apple's model puts out a significantly worse product than the more open models, they'll be forced to open up or die. So it's a question of whether all platforms have to be open: this would arguably lead to increased competition within each platform, but with less distinction between platforms and would prevent the possibility of exploring different models for whole platforms (and letting those models compete).
    - gte910h 16y ago
malkia 16y ago
Also it's unclear what is getting approved, and what not. And for what time. This can totally destroy small companies that have invested heavily, and are still waiting to be approved. In a sense it reminds of the XBLA slots (commercial Arcade).
rtrunck 16y ago
"[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.
applewhat 16y ago
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.
jheriko 16y ago
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. 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.
gyardley 16y ago
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.
stanleydrew 16y ago
Link to printable format, no ads: http://www.nypost.com/f/print/news/business/an_antitrust_app_buvCWcJdjFoLD5vBSkguGO http://www.nypost.com/f/print/news/business/an_antitrust_app...
rbarooah 16y ago
I think an intervention would be a disaster. 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. 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. 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.
- chc 16y ago
  Your comment is an example of a false dichotomy. We do not have precisely two options: A) He's right and forcing them to allow frameworks will slow computing as a whole B) He's wrong and cool apps will start to appear on all the competing platforms There's also, just as one example: C) He's wrong but large numbers of cool apps will not start to appear only on competing platforms (perhaps because the app markets on all those platforms combined are dwarfed by Apple's App Store)
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - rbarooah 16y ago
    You're right that we may not have precisely two options. However the mere possibility of the competition failing to compete for reasons that are not clearly articulated is the worst possible reason for intervention. If there are other real options that aren't just hypothetical, I would genuinely like to hear them. Both Google and Adobe seem to be saying that they are happy to compete with Apple, and that their approach is better, and there is no shortage of prognosticators who say that Apple's strategy will fail independently of intervention.
Qz 16y ago
Hasn't seemed to hit the stock price.
ErrantX 16y ago
Prediction: this will be a complete farce and probably even impede market correction of the problem. Also; I thought 3.3.1 wasn't in force yet? We still have no practical examples of where Apple will enforce this. Surely that is important before talking about action?
gord 16y ago
Does using vi to edit my program comply with 3.3.1 ?

109 points by brownegg 16y ago

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.

danh 16y ago
Depends on your view of what a market is. Apple's app store is pretty dominant in the market for "mobile apps".
- pedalpete 16y ago
  To further your comment danh, Apple has an absolute monopoly on App Stores on iPhone devices. I can't get an app onto the device without going through them. If i have an xbox, I can get a game from Best Buy or Amazon, etc. Even though those are closed systems. If I have an iPhone, I can only get apps from the Apple store. I'm not positive if this is unique to Apple in the mobile space or not. I know I can get blackberry apps from anywhere, same with WinMo. I'm not sure about Android or Palm.
  - ptomato 16y ago
    If you have an xbox, all games must still be approved by Microsoft before they can be sold.
  - pohl 16y ago
    Apple has an absolute monopoly on App Stores on iPhone devices. That may not qualify as a "relevant market" for determining monopoly status. (The Conclusions of Law from the MS v DOJ case makes interesting reading along these lines). http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f218600/218633.htm http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f218600/218633.htm Whether this zone of commercial activity actually qualifies as a market...depends on whether it includes all products "reasonably interchangeable by consumers for the same purposes." ..."Because the ability of consumers to turn to other suppliers restrains a firm from raising prices above the competitive level, the definition of the 'relevant market' rests on a determination of available substitutes." So if a plaintiff were to try to argue that Apple is the sole supplier of App Stores for iPhones, it would become germane that nothing is charged for access to this service, and that if access became expensive consumers could flee to other smart phones.
jacquesm 16y ago
Having a monopoly is not a requirement, all it takes is anti-competitive behaviour and the restriction of free trade.
- apgwoz 16y ago
  I don't understand how they are being anti-competitive. They control the entire stack from hardware to software. The fact that you can write any software for their platforms is more of a privilege than a right.
  - rayvega 16y ago
    They would be anti-competitive to other competing smartphone manufacturers not to developers on their own platform.
_delirium 16y ago
I don't think tying claims need to prove an actual monopoly, just the somewhat lower standard that the seller has sufficient market power in the tying product's market for the tying arrangement to restrain trade in the tied product's market. It's been applied in the past to car manufacturers who tried to corner their own cars' replacement-parts market, even though the manufacturers didn't actually have a monopoly in the car market. It's hard to prove, though, because it tends to require showing that the company did the tying solely or mainly for the purpose of restraining trade, as opposed to for some legitimate purpose. The car manufacturers lost because the courts didn't buy their argument that their attempts to limit the replacement-parts market were for quality-assurance reasons. Apple would have to argue that section 3.3.1 isn't intended mainly or solely to stop cross-platform compatibility, but has some legitimate, non-trade-restraining purpose, like improving the reliability or quality of iPhone apps. Probably even just "it makes it easier for us to review apps if they're all in the same languages" would be a good enough explanation. A bad result would be a leaked smoking-gun email saying "hey we should institute this policy to stop people from porting our apps to Android". Monopoly leveraging is a separate (but related) concept, as far as I understand it, and a bit easier to prove, because there's a much stronger presumption that if it's happening, it's bad, regardless of the reasons. (Edit: edited/expanded a bit for clarity)
- extension 16y ago
  hey we should institute this policy to stop people from porting our apps to Android Remember when he replied to that blogger saying he agreed with Gruber followed by something sort of like the above? Would be mighty ironic if one if his tiny glib emails ended up taking down the company.
- roc 16y ago
  3.3.1 is a section of the Terms of Use of developers seeking to use Apple's distribution channel. Apple isn't trying to make middle-ware-built iPhone apps illegal. It just doesn't want them on the app store. An important distinction between the car/part and printer/ink analogies. Forcing Apple to repeal 3.3.1 doesn't allow offending software to be built and sold (as it already can be), it forces Apple to stock its shelves with it and thus take on users' expectations that Apple will support it (by making sure an OS update doesn't break hundreds of apps by running afoul of a popular middleware package).
dalore 16y ago
They have a monopoly on iPhone development.
ig1 16y ago
Look at the antitrust lawsuits against printer manufacturers for ink refills. You don't have to have a monopoly in a sector (printers) to be subject to anti-trust laws, having a monopoly on consumables designed to work with your product can be sufficient.
- houseabsolute 16y ago
  Seems to me like the harmful to consumers aspect of the antitrust case will be the hard part to prove here. It seems like people are in near-universal agreement that printer companies were/are price-gouging on their inks in a way that is exclusively harmful to consumers. However, Apple's whole narrative on this TOS section is that doing otherwise would in the long run harm consumers by slowing down the evolution of the platform. Hard to see how the DOJ is going to prove otherwise.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - zach 16y ago
    Great, great point. The impact on the consumer is the bottom line for these laws. It's not the level of competition, how free the market should be, or how easy things are for developers.
- tptacek 16y ago
  The legal action that I'm aware of about printer ink alleges that HP colluded with Staples, paying them a huge amount of money, to prevent them from carrying a competing product. But, as a counterexample, I'm not aware of a successful suit that challenged HP's use of printer cartridge rights management technology.
apgwoz 16y ago
They monopolize their own stack. Hardly a monopoly in my book.

archgrove 16y ago

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). 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.

houseabsolute 16y ago
The main way they're different is that people have always expected consoles to be walled gardens. They have expected the same things of phones, but because the developer of this phone is Apple, they thought that the model would be more similar to the way desktop applications are developed. The only significant difference is one of expectations.
- archgrove 16y ago
  But "I expected it to be different" doesn't seem like a sound legal foundation for anti-trust action. In many ways, the iPhone has been the founding of "open" phone development. Prior to the iPhone, there was virtually no real development allowed on phones that achieved any levels of success (carriers had the platform locked down hard). Post iPhone, we've seen actual competition in this space - the entirely open Android strategy (though their App Store also has restrictions, they just apply them post-release rather than pre-release); the semi-closed iPhone and Nokia Ovi models, the web app model of all the platforms. People claiming that Apple has created a locked-down environment have very short memories - even the closed nature of the App Store via 3.3.1 would have been considered insanely open only 5 years ago. Google have bet that unfettered platform mutability with (almost) totally free development is good for their business model. Great, and more power to them. Apple have bet that allowing a freeforall would cause their business model damage; OK, that's their call. Other platform holders are trying other strategies. The point being, the free market seems to be about allowing them to try these ideas, and fail if consumers don't like them. Whilst Apple are nowhere near a monopoly on smartphones (and they're frankly miles away from one), they should be free to adopt whatever model they think works best for them.

jsz0 16y ago

I'd rather see the market handle it. We have plenty of competition and choice.

jasonlbaptiste 16y ago

This is absolutely retarded. 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. 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. c) The department of justice will probably hire a bunch of people with no real domain expertise to look into the subject. 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.

fierarul 16y ago
How do you know something is substandard just because it's made with some other library / language ? Especially with an "yet to be created" library / language ? If you think "the market will figure this out" (which I think in itself is wrong) why don't we let the market figure out which language is better ? If the users don't like some products, they won't buy them. If all Cocoa touch apps make money and all the Flash apps lose money the market will fix itself, no ?
- glhaynes 16y ago
  It's a question of whether you want regulatory intervention preventing the possibility of there being "closed" systems in addition to there being "open" systems. If you prevent Apple from going their "closed" route, you lose the possibility of any benefits that might come from such a different model. When people say "let the market sort it out", they mean that if Apple's model puts out a significantly worse product than the more open models, they'll be forced to open up or die. So it's a question of whether all platforms have to be open: this would arguably lead to increased competition within each platform, but with less distinction between platforms and would prevent the possibility of exploring different models for whole platforms (and letting those models compete).
  - gte910h 16y ago

malkia 16y ago

Also it's unclear what is getting approved, and what not. And for what time. This can totally destroy small companies that have invested heavily, and are still waiting to be approved. In a sense it reminds of the XBLA slots (commercial Arcade).

rtrunck 16y ago

"[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.

applewhat 16y ago

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.

jheriko 16y ago

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. 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.

gyardley 16y ago

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.

stanleydrew 16y ago

Link to printable format, no ads: http://www.nypost.com/f/print/news/business/an_antitrust_app_buvCWcJdjFoLD5vBSkguGO http://www.nypost.com/f/print/news/business/an_antitrust_app...

rbarooah 16y ago

I think an intervention would be a disaster. 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. 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. 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.

chc 16y ago
Your comment is an example of a false dichotomy. We do not have precisely two options: A) He's right and forcing them to allow frameworks will slow computing as a whole B) He's wrong and cool apps will start to appear on all the competing platforms There's also, just as one example: C) He's wrong but large numbers of cool apps will not start to appear only on competing platforms (perhaps because the app markets on all those platforms combined are dwarfed by Apple's App Store)
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- rbarooah 16y ago
  You're right that we may not have precisely two options. However the mere possibility of the competition failing to compete for reasons that are not clearly articulated is the worst possible reason for intervention. If there are other real options that aren't just hypothetical, I would genuinely like to hear them. Both Google and Adobe seem to be saying that they are happy to compete with Apple, and that their approach is better, and there is no shortage of prognosticators who say that Apple's strategy will fail independently of intervention.

Qz 16y ago

Hasn't seemed to hit the stock price.

ErrantX 16y ago

Prediction: this will be a complete farce and probably even impede market correction of the problem. Also; I thought 3.3.1 wasn't in force yet? We still have no practical examples of where Apple will enforce this. Surely that is important before talking about action?

gord 16y ago

Does using vi to edit my program comply with 3.3.1 ?