This was quite surprising to me, more by its timing than by its content (I didn't expect this kind of backlash so early after Apple announced their iPhone SDK):

http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/03/11/1216211

"Apple's iPhone software development kit is already drawing complaints due to the strict terms of service. Voice over IP apps like Skype that attempt to use the cellular data connection will be blocked. Competing web browsers Firefox and Opera are forbidden. Even Sun is now backpedaling on its recent announcement of a java port, noting that there are some legal issues. Critics are already comparing Apple's methods to Comcast's anti-net neutrality filtering, and Microsoft's Netscape-killing antitrust tactics. Could Apple face government regulators?"

Always knew they were bitches. Mind you, you can expect just about any company to be monopolistic if they can.

Honestly, I don't understand all of this BS spin. Apple gonna be strict with terms on their own product (iPhone), as they always were. Now somebody explains me how this makes them monopolistic? iPhone monopoly sounds like Mac monopoly and both things sound like retardish. Moaning such a way, one should count Wii monopoly, PSP monopoly, X-box monopoly, wait. Just buy another mobile.

 I think you're in the wrong thread. This is about the iPhone/iTouch SDK and it's restrictions.

I'm surprised the European Commission hasn't come down hard on Apple.

 They would have to achieve a monopoly before they could be monopolistic. The iPhone has done well, but it hasn't conquered the smartphone market yet.

Right now I'd say that there's a better case for saying that the iPod + iTunes combo is monopolistic. Even there, nobody is forcing other download services to use the wma format when mp3 works fine with the iPod.

I'm in two minds about things like this. In a way a company should be allowed to say what can and can't be on the device it sells, I mean, if you don't like that, don't buy it. On the other I think that once you own something you should be allowed to mess about with it or put anything you like on it so long as it's not going to interfere with anyone else.

In this case I believe that everyone should just jailbreak the jesus phone and tell Apple that they have had enough of their ridiculous ideas and constraints. Apple are worse than Microsoft, it's just that Microsoft is a bigger and easier target to bitch about. 

This is Apple.  Actually, let me try that again...

THIS IS APPLE! 

Anyone shocked by this is a fool.  Lockins and extreme control over their machines are what Apple does.  After so many years of locking down their own OS, did people really think they'd release a cell phone SDK without legal/technical restrictions?

All that is left is to see how much this actually damages iPhone development.  I get the feeling that most of the core Apple fans (those who already know Objective-C) won't be phased by this.  It's negative, but it's likely immaterial in the long run.

Why?  They're not in the same boat as MS. They're not as big, they don't affect as many people, they don't have any real monopoly yet (ipod+itunes is the best they've done and it's not a monopoly by any stretch).  People's work, by and large, doesn't rely on Apple or anything Apple proprietary.  If Apple was gone tomorrow, business impact would be relatively small.

Don't get me wrong -- Apple is as bad as MS or worse in many ways.  However, Apple is much better at making products people want.  Apple fans are so excited to give Apple money for Apple's next new technological "innovation" -- I say innovation but Apple doesn't actually innovate technology --  and because of this there isn't impetus against Apple.

Apple, like MS but to a more obvious extent, is a sales company.  They make existing products and ideas shiny and convince people they want them.  MS takes existing ideas and products and puts it into their product lines that people *must* use if they want to be part of the business world.  Therein lies the difference, and therein lies the monopoly.  Neither company creates new technology.  MS claims "innovation" by bringing old ideas to new audiences.  Such as online gaming to home users in 2002.  That's a gimped version of online gaming that computer gamers had been enjoying since 1995. 

That isn't innovation, it's sales.  Microsoft has done this from the very beginning -- from when they copied the idea of the GUI and mouse from Xerox (like Apple).  Apple, however, is better at sales than Microsoft. 

Whereas MS has positioned itself such that everyone *needs* Office to work in the business world, and this makes Windows the defacto standard, Apple creates products that people *want*.  Products that are sexy.  MS may have > 90% of the home market, but Apple has the section of the market most zealous for their products, willing to buy them regardless of their short coming or price.   The macbook air takes ideas in Dell and Sony and HP computers for years (or about a year in the case of the flash-based hard drive), puts them into a single package and sells them as new technology.  And yet you'll find Mac fans who think Apple coined the idea of using flash based hard drives and calling them SSD.

Um I love apple and all, but duh. their corporate strategy has been based on a closed vertical control scheme. they let in who they want. I will say they have opened up the OS more than in the past and the iphone is more open, but when they make a change they make it, there is no room to say no to them. even adobe was forced to rewrite their entire product line when apple made core level changes. last time adobe refused, they took primer off the mac, apple bought and improved on finalcut, wich is now used more than primer and is considered a viable option to avid.

side note any console maker is far more monopolistic, controlling the content on their devises. why are there now A/O games. why not let users release games without corporate review like happens on the PC? why because they lose control.