- Journal Archives
- Volume 18
- Volume 17
- Volume 16
- Volume 15
- Volume 14
- Volume 13
- Volume 12
- Volume 11
- Volume 10
- Volume 9
- Volume 8
- Volume 7
- Volume 6
- Volume 5
- Volume 4
- Volume 3
- Volume 2
- Volume 1
Has Apple bitten off more than it can chew? Apple, known for being overprotective of its products, may have taken its application xenophobia too far, as evidenced by a few recent modifications to its App Store developer agreement.
A little background may be necessary: Apple iPhones (without being jail broken — recently found a legally acceptable way to use your iPhone) only allow users to download applications from the “App Store.” The App Store is a application gateway to which Apple can approve or bar applications from being made available for download. In this way, Apple can “protect” iPhone users from “harmful” applications. In reality, Apple uses this application approval system to keep iPhone users from using its competitor’s programs. And this is where it may have gone too far.
Two recent modifications to Apple’s developer agreement (the contract program authors must accede to in order to have their apps hosted in the App Store) have made it increasingly harder for developers to use Apple’s competitor’s tools. The first change essentially barred developers from using Adobe’s development engines to design their applications. The second change limited the type of data that an application could collect, in turn killing any chances of Google advertising in iPhone apps.
The FTC recently opened an investigation into whether Apple is engaging in anti-competitive behavior, to which the European Commission joined. Could this be the beginning of the end of Apple’s iron-fisted reign over who can and cannot develop applications for the iPhone (and iPad)? I think that all iPhone users can agree . . . we hope it is.
– Chris Lantz
Tagged with: Adobe • advertising • anti-competitive • Apple • applications • apps • contract • contracts • courts • creative content • European Commission • financial • FTC • Google • government • intellectual property • internet • investigation • jail broken • lawsuits • legislation • media • program • progress • technology • telecommunications
Recent Blog Posts
- Former Cardinals Executive Pleads Guilty to Hacking, But Will the Cardinals Pay the Price?
- Making a Murder – Technology in Forensic Evidence Questioned
- Is “smart gun” technology the future of gun safety?
- Why High-Profile Athletes’ Defamation Lawsuits Against Al Jazeera Are Nothing More Than a Hail Mary
- Executives of a Chinese Online Video-Sharing Service Provider Stood Trial for Internet Pornography
- The Rise of ‘Swatting’
Tagsadvertising antitrust Apple books career celebrities contracts copyright copyright infringement courts creative content criminal law entertainment Facebook FCC film/television financial First Amendment games Google government intellectual property internet JETLaw journalism lawsuits legislation media medicine Monday Morning JETLawg music NFL patents privacy progress publicity rights radio social networking sports Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) technology telecommunications trademarks Twitter U.S. Constitution