I have mentioned before that Apple uses the iPad, iPod, and iPhone to further their profits. Not so surprising since Apple is a corporation out to make money.

However, Apple is acting in a manner that makes Apple look good in the public’s eye while making third-party developers look “bad.”

“Let me explain… No, there is too much, let me sum up…”

According to MacWorld

Marco Arment, developer of the popular Instapaper apps, points out in a post on his blog that iBooks makes use of a significant number of undocumented functions, and that a third-party developer’s inability to do the same makes “all third-party reading-related apps second-class citizens.” iBooks’s ability to let you adjust the brightness of the screen inside the app—without having to jump to the iPad’s Settings application—is an example of functionality not available to third-party programmers.

Two potential problems arise from this disparity: first, as Arment points out, Apple’s own apps create expectations that diminish the production value of third-party software. Since normal users are not well-acquainted with the subtleties of programming, it’s difficult to explain that an app’s inability to match the functionality provided by its Apple’s counterparts is not due to a lack of ability or interest on the developer’s part, but, rather, to the legalities of participating in the App Store. One could also argue that private frameworks give Apple an unfair advantage, especially as its interests expand from the core device functionality into other areas—as with the recent introduction of iBooks.

Most non-tech people say so what? I get what I want, and the third party developers can do other things…

Technically inclined folk may disagree… Why should I, a developer, develop for a device if the Company whose device I am developing for is making my apps appear inferior to their own–not because I do not code as well but because I am prevented from using their function calls if I want them to approve my app…?

If Apple continues, those developers may leave Apple on principle. Most may stay for the cash, but I hope everyone, techy and average citizen, realizes that Apple isn’t caring so much for your desires as Apple is caring for Apple. Sounds like insurance companies, Wall-street types, and politicians–all groups I want to distance myself from at this point in my life.

It is so bad, I bet lawyer jokes are getting a backseat to Apple jokes.

About Lawyers…

I saw a post on MacWorld by one NeoSurge…

I also hear a lot of people whining about this, and this article just makes the circle of whining increase. People that are not engineers, and not informed read this article and spite Apple without fully understanding what Apple is providing.

Apple is the provider, they are providing a stable, reliable environment for applications to thrive on, and a platform that simplifies and facilitates developer to end user sales. As mentioned briefly in this article and by the commenter above, dreyfus, private frameworks are a necessity, the only way to test them is give them some use.

Apple does this by publishing their own applications using these private frameworks.

The bottom line is that Apple wants to (try) to keep the experience for developers and end-users the same, which is a good, clean, reliable experience with all the applications, with the SDK, and guaranteeing forward compatibility. The only way they can do that, is the path they have chosen.

Let me put this in a way that makes more sense to more people… why in this article are you not complaining about Apple’s “Phone” application using private frameworks? Or their Settings app? Well, you might say that it’s because those aren’t on the “appstore” and you would be right, but the bottom line is that Apple is the provider, they need to provide a high quality of service in their platform, their OS, their SDK, their Applications, and to end users. Use an Android for a month and you’ll appreciate that much more about what Apple has done.

Not surprising, I disagree…

I disagree both about the suggestion that “educated” and “intelligent” people already agree with Apple’s practice and about there not being any logic or validity to the comments being made by some, even if the few.

Lets start with Logic… Or the lack of logic…

The suggested argument is that “Apple wants to (try) to keep the experience for developers and end-users the same…..”

Why does that prevent the use of private function calls, private frameworks, or making those private functions/frameworks public? Nobody is arguing that those “non-public” functions/frameworks are unreliable or not capable of being understood by developers… Remember, Apple still has to approve the app, and Apple could deny approval for apps that did not function or that were “confusing.”

There are plenty of applications available for computer OSes that allow users to control settings without using the OS-providers apps while using their underlying programming (altering settings without opening the OS control panel in Windows for example…). This is done in OS/X as well.

People are complaining about Apple not allowing others to use those “private functions/frameworks” that could allow another dialer. Again, if Apple is approving everything, they would control whether the replacement application for the dialer was functional… Rather, Apple wants a unified appearance at the expense of the developer (and some of us technically-inclined and otherwise intelligent users/programmers).

Why the money-chasing lawyers care…

Can Apple act in this way? Sure–not much prevents a firm from tying software to a device at the expense of third-party apps-except … (United States v. Microsoft on Wikipedia; Findlaw Analysis; Law Article; US Court of Appeals Case; and diagram used to illustrate issues) [emphasis added by me...]

United States v. Microsoft was a set of consolidated civil actions filed against Microsoft Corporation pursuant to the Sherman Antitrust Act on May 18, 1998 by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) and 20 U.S. states. Joel I. Klein was the lead prosecutor. The plaintiffs alleged that Microsoft abused monopoly power on Intel-based personal computers in its handling of operating system sales and web browser sales. The issue central to the case was whether Microsoft was allowed to bundle its flagship Internet Explorer (IE) web browser software with its Microsoft Windows operating system. Bundling them together is alleged to have been responsible for Microsoft’s victory in the browser wars as every Windows user had a copy of Internet Explorer. It was further alleged that this unfairly restricted the market for competing web browsers (such as Netscape Navigator or Opera) that were slow to download over a modem or had to be purchased at a store. Underlying these disputes were questions over whether Microsoft altered or manipulated its application programming interfaces (APIs) to favor Internet Explorer over third party web browsers, Microsoft’s conduct in forming restrictive licensing agreements with original equipment manufacturer (OEMs), and Microsoft’s intent in its course of conduct.

According to the posts, it doesn’t appear as if Apple manipulated APIs to favor its software… Smart attorneys find loopholes. People commenting on the issue appear to state that Apple simply did not give developers access to “private frameworks.” The technicality makes no difference to some, but it may make a difference to lawyers.

Summary

I am not making any legal allegations against Apple or their practices, but I, personally, don’t like or approve of their practice. Your mileage, and opinion, may differ. I accept “many” folk will love what Apple does and suggest that they like what Apple does–I don’t mind that actually. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

However, saying people who disagree with Apple (or the majority of the population even–as in politics) over a ’subjective’ issue are “wrong” or “not educated” (or smart) does confound the intellect …

What say you?

I remember sitting down with my mom to watch the series when it first aired.  It was a big deal at our house.

During the commercials, we would talk and discuss the movie and other issues.

I remember seeing Kunta Kinte, played by Levar Burton (a great actor I think), being captured by slavers, also documented in the book and on web-sites dedicated to the book.

I remember thinking it odd that Africans were capturing Kunta and then selling him to the white slavers.

I remember being confused about this as a young child.  I heard my mother’s explanation, but I found it hard to understand.

Slavery has a world-wide history

I think it was Denmark that was the first nation to outlaw slavery

n 1792, Denmark decided that, on moral grounds, it would no longer permit the transportation of slaves from its colonies. This decision was the first of its kind, and Denmark to this day prides itself on being the first European nation to stop dealing in human beings. However, the decision was ambiguous. Though the buying and transporting of slave was made illegal in 1792, a ten-year grace period was allowed, so slave traders could continue in the business until 1802. In addition, no provision outlawed the ownership of slaves on the Danish sugar plantations of the West Indies. As a mater of fact, the 1792 decision prompted the slave traders to export large numbers of African women to the West Indies with the intention of giving the slave owner the change to breed his slaves, thus propitiating his labour force for the generations to come.

The people least happy about the 1792 decision were the Africans chiefs themselves, who had relied on slavery for centuries. When in 1802 Denmark ceased to allow the trade and prevented Portuguese trader from dealing with chieftains around Christiansborg, the Keta tribe – one of the largest in the area – besieged Christiansborg and threatened to destroy the fort. Eventually a Danish warship arrived and bombarded the natives.

Often overlooked in school teachings, there were many people profiting from the slave trade, and there were many opposing the slave trade. These “many people,” on both sides, were of all colors and shades in between.

What we take from this is that people treat others as they would not be treated–for profit or due to their “opinion” as to what is “right.”

Without going into the discussion, let me say that slavery is wrong. Treating others as you would not be treated is wrong.

Why is his so hard to understand?

Because some people focus on teaching children that you have to look out for “number one” because nobody else will. The message some kids get is, “You have to ‘lie, cheat, and steal’ to get ahead.” While not taught using the quoted language, some parents often act in a way that teaches these principals to their children.

Be Fair
We have all heard “life is not fair.”

I’m tired of hearing that, and I hope everyone will do their part to make life fair. Those who act fairly, likely, will be taken advantage of by those whose motto is “Look out for number one.” However, people will see how those people act. People are defined by their actions.

What is the alternative if we don’t start acting better?

Our prophesy of “look out for number one” will become the truism, and any sense of fairness will not be expected.

Think we are far from that day?

Look at the media, politicians, and others spinning data. Want to rethink the idea that we are far from that day?

I think it was yesterday, but I hope I am wrong.

Lots of sites have “talked” about how a for-profit system is a disaster…

I have someone who has submitted to me information and enough proof to justify me posting this…

Mr. Happy has private health insurance through Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina.  He has a chronic disease (diabetes), has had a son born three months premature, and has had his wife undergo surgery.  He has been to the emergency room over 12 times in the past 7 years, and he is…..

Happy with his health care coverage.

He is not broke or in bankruptcy.  Perhaps it is BCBS’s plan that he participates in is so much better than those plans everyone else participates in, but should we, the people, demand that he get the same care we do–perhaps his employer is willing to accept those costs.

You want my suggestion?

Ask your congress person why they don’t propose to cover every USA citizen with the same health plan offered to USA federal employees–you know, the health care options the congress members get to choose to cover their health care needs.

Congress could just as easily pass a new law giving every USA citizen the same health care they enjoy…

Remember, Congress will keep their current plan and not be required to participate in the new proposed health care system.

Why don’t they provide everyone with what they provide themselves? Oh, you don’t know what options they have? See the governments web-site…

I dare you to call and ask…