Category: Mass Communication Law

Adobe vs. Apple would be a good thing

If the tea leaves are correct, Adobe may be suing Apple over their recent iPhone OS license change.  I think this would be a really good thing for both companies, as well as innovation generally.

It is clear that Apple wants incredible control over the applications and media types that are used on devices using the iPhone OS. From their perspective, this is a way to make sure that the device “just works.” However, their choice is becoming costly…

  • for companies, who for example, need to re-encode video for html5,
  • developers, who will need to spend the time re-engineering applications for multiple platforms,
  • and for users, who need to bend their wishes to fit inside these constraints and who ultimately will pay ($$) for the increased demands on companies and developers.

Yet, more important than being costly, I think what Apple is doing is surprisingly anti-competitive. Instead of building their platform on existing standards, they are using their market advantage to squeeze their developer/user-base into their wishes.

A lawsuit from Adobe might result in either an agreement or judgment that loosens some of this control–hopefully in a way that drives both companies to think about how they play together in a more innovative and cooperative way.

So, unless things change drastically between Apple and Adobe in the next few weeks, from what I’m hearing you can expect to see Adobe taking Apple to court over the issue. It’s not going to be pretty.

via Adobe vs. Apple is going to get uglier | ITworld.

Apple – closed for business

It’s becoming increasingly clear that Apple wants to run a tight ship when it comes to the openness of the iPod/Phone/Pad platform.

This Slate article by Tim Wu provides an excellent historical context, arguing that Woz’s penchant for openness has been all but lost since he left the company, only to be replaced by Jobs’ desire for control over the user experience. It seems to me that the yin/yang between these two might have laid a good foundation for the company in its early days.

Steve’s closed-mindedness was all but confirmed on Thursday with the release of a new developers agreement. Perhaps the most important change: apps cannot be developed for multiple platforms. This appears to be a direct shot at Adobe’s beta product that allows apps developed for Flash to be ported to the iPhone.

That unifying creed is this: Open platforms promote innovation and diversity more effectively than proprietary ones.

In the words of one of the Web’s brightest theorists, Jonathan Zittrain of Harvard, the Web displays the “generative” power of a platform where you don’t have to ask permission to create and share new ideas.

I personally agree with these statements (from a recent Times article). By constraining their platform to such a large degree, Apple is effectively 1. scaring away developers, 2. constraining the ability to innovate based on open standards, and 3. further walling off the iPhone into it’s own network (thus decreasing network effects). It’s possible that Apple has enough momentum that these factors won’t matter, but it is definitely a move that involves some risk.

I remember the days when the question of whether an application was “for Windows or Mac” was a dealbreaker.  These days, it’s still a valid question, but open platforms like Java and the web have made it less of an issue.  Apple seems to be taking a big step backwards.

Ethical fault lines

Teaching About the Web Includes Troublesome Parts – NYTimes.com.

Here’s an interesting article about a curriculum to help teachers educate kids about how to act online. While the professor who created the program refers to these as “ethical” fault lines, it is surprising how many are also legal fault lines. Perhaps by framing them as ethical, he is embracing the fact that none of these issues are entirely clear (or bright line) from a legal standpoint.

Common Sense’s classes, based on research by Howard Gardner, a Harvard psychology and education professor, are grouped into topics he calls “ethical fault lines”: identity (how do you present yourself online?); privacy (the world can see everything you write); ownership (plagiarism, reproducing creative work); credibility (legitimate sources of information); and community (interacting with others).