Well, that would be the difference between governmental censorship and the censorship that is going on here. It is, by definition, censorship.

Secondly, NO ONE is saying that Apple doesn't have a right to do it (they clearly do), but whether it makes sense or is right for them to do it. Another thread you've missed the point on.

No, I got it.
Here's what you've missed the point on.

It's THEIR business.
THEY can decide what they want.
YOU are not forced to buy anything from them.

It makes sense because that's THEIR business and what THEY want for THEIR business.
Is it right? YES. It's THEIR business.

/thread

I guess that's why the DOJ and FCC are investigating Apple's recent actions.

Clearly it has NOTHING to do with the recent pissing contest with Adobe.

A classic example of arguing semantics with reactionaries.

It was a very stupid move on Apple's part - but not as stupid as what they just did to Google with Admob.

Regarding Adobe specifically,

Apple did the right to exclude Adobe's proprietary Flash software from the iOS. Steve Jobs is right, Adobe is lazy. For instance, the 64-bit version of Flash for Linux runs so shitty that attempting to watch 360p YouTube videos in full screen will either freeze up video or crash the plugin, every time.

Why would a company place so many eggs in another company's basket instead of open, international standards. Especially a company like Adobe.

I can't see logically how the government could build a case against Apple in regards to the Adobe dispute.

To clarify, Apple isn't being investigated for refusing to support Flash content, they're being investigated for refusing to allow developers to build an iPhone app using Adobe tools. Refusing to carry certain products in your store is your right as a businessman; dictating who your suppliers are allowed to do business with is definitely edging towards monopoly.

Yeah, but Apple isn't dictating that developers use one company's product over Adobe's to create iOS apps. They are dictating that developers C, C++ and Objective-C. These languages are either ISO standards, or based upon them. In addition, they use the GCC to compile the code, which is licensed under the GPL, the most liberal, open, and free software license there is.

I'm not saying Apple shouldn't be investigated. Certainly, the iOS Developer Agreement is very restrictive, for example, but let's clear up this dispute between Apple and Adobe.

I imagine that's the distinction that the DOJ/FCC's inquiry will hinge on, but I have to say that kneecapping a big rival is only slightly less of a monopolistic move than kneecapping all possible competitors. Not that Adobe is any better in that regard, of course.

The problem seems to be that

Win!

I'm not saying I agree with what Apple is doing. However, how is any of what Apple is doing now any different than what Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft have been doing for years now.

Comparatively speaking, the bar to entry is still far lower for Apple devices than for an independent developer to attempt to create something for those other platforms.

The reason that window machines rule the market is that anyone can write s/w to run on them. Apple was a closed environment then and remains so today (not as bad) that limited the amount of s/w that other companies were willing to develop. Apple will be slammed by the DOJ for requiring developers to use the iPhone OS 4.0 SDK.

Independent (and that is the key word) developers should not be restricted in the tools that they choose to use to write s/w. Apple can require that s/w meet certain content limits i.e. nothing sexual, satisfy security requirements, and meet levels of testing reliability. But it is the requirement to use only Apples development tools that will bite apple on its ass.

First of all, the statement that Windows dominates because anyone can write software on them and Apple was/is a close environment is flawed and inaccurate on many levels. I'll just deal with Mac OS X for starters. Mac OS X is a BSD-variant of UNIX and fully POSIX compliant. In plain english, this means that the Mac can run any program that was developed to be POSIX-compliant. This is open, international IEEE standard that was in existence long before the Mac OS X appeared on the scene.

Anybody can write Mac OS X applications using any number of development environments. Apple has never restricted software on the Mac, and barrier to entry has been historically lower on the Mac than Windows. Hell, compare the two companies development environments. Apple's Xcode is free! Microsoft's Visual Studio Profession is $800.

The real reason that Microsoft has dominated desktop is through their 1990s monopoly, use of proprietary standards and cost-to-access, not because anybody can write software for Windows and not the Mac.

However, we're talking about iOS development. Let's break down Apple's iOS SDK. It asks to you use C, C++ or Objective-C, which are all open international standards. Xcode is only the development environment (which is nothing more than a sophisticated text editor geared towards coding). The complier is gcc, and as I stated earlier, is licensed under one of the most liberal, open and free software licenses there are. There's not much in terms of proprietary requirements going on here. True, you must use the Apple's API, but how the hell else are you going to talk with the hardware that Apple developed.

According to Apple's Developer Agreement:

There is nothing about Apple's SDK or Xcode. You could write iOS applications in a text editor if you wanted to and compile them using gcc.

Now, let's break down what Adobe is attempting to do that Apple is blocking. Their CS5 suite isn't an alternative to the iOS SDK. It's a meta-environment that creates Flash-like applications for multiple platforms by translating them from their proprietary environment to Objective-C code and then compiles them.

Why is this bad? We're talking about devices with slower processors than desktop computers and limited battery lives. Any seasoned software developer that about algorithm efficiency knows just how important it is to write efficient code, especially with devices like iPhones and iPads. Hand written code will effectively always be more efficient than meta-code generated by a translation package. More so especially considering Adobe's track record.

Adobe's claims against Apple are bullshit.