The article explains, in somewhat emotional and overwrought terms, why Apple would want to there to be an alternative to the major programs people run on Macs, like MS Office and Photoshop. It still does not really explain why it rationally needs these alternatives to be developed in-house, but still.
It also gives a conjectured motivation why Apple should feel that Adobe's IPR limits its ability to develop an in house alternative in the case of image processing. Yes, possibly so. It happens in business. When Apple imposes such restrictions its called 'protecting our IPRs'. What the article does not explain is Apple's apparent felt need to control what apps its users install on their devices, what content they access on their devices, or its apparent need to control what tools developers use. Its like most of the defenses of Apple's conduct: One, the arguments fail to defend the behaviors people find objectionable, two, if they were offered in favor of similar conduct by any other company, they'd be indignantly rejected. Fortunately however the implications of the lock-in and control mania are now hitting the MSM, so lets hope that Apple's free ride on these issues is coming to an end. -- View this message in context: http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/Apples-actual-response-to-the-Flash-issue-tp2075668p2122605.html Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list [email protected] Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
