LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksRead more.The decision to ban development on platforms not approved by Apple may be judged anti-competitive.
Read more.The decision to ban development on platforms not approved by Apple may be judged anti-competitive.
Finally. And then can we ban iTunes and Safari? Only to be fair, y'know.
Not ban them, that would be a stupid knee jerk reaction (not that I have any love for iTunes or Safari), but forcing Apple to open them up more would be the best bet.
Making the iPod protocol open for other apps and devices would be great.
You know what I mean
I still find it amazing that it's legal for them to tie a device with a monopoly to a music service with a monopoly (and then pretend that it's okay because people can get their own MP3s and use them on their iPod).
about damn time, when you look at apples share of the personal music player market, and their share of online music sales, its just not fair.
That said, I wouldn't give a crap if we had the Zune over here, with that nice streaming license too......
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
Apple 2010 = Microsoft 1990s
whilst i have an iphone and would love to have flash and java etc etc and not use itunes and remove all the restrictions (these being the primary reason why i don't recommend people by apple products, and yes i'm a hippocrite as i have an iphone), i don't think that it's right that companies can spend millions on creating products for others to come along and profit from them creating devices or software etc
if apple want to let people develop software or hardware, then fair enough, and it's understandable why they would want to set rules as it's their brand and equipment being used. whether it's a monopoly or not is irrelevant, people buy the products through choice/brainwashing/advertising, so they wouldn't buy into itunes and apple etc if they didn't want it
i don't think they should be forced to open up the software/hardware against their will. apple should open up the hardware/software so people can do things like they can on other hardware, like drag and drop and moves files back and forth and play flac etc, and not have to use itunes, but they shouldn't be doing it because they are forced to legally. they should do it to benefit the consumers who want it. those who don't want the open-ness won't lose out, but those who do will gain, and apple may gain a larger marketshare by those who refuse to buy goods due to the enforced restrictions. it stops it being driven underground so people don't have to jailbreak and use cydia for apps instead of the appstore and play a cat and mouse game when the firmware is updated and then needs jailbroken and unlocked again
Just as a thought exercise, what would happen to MS if they pushed out a critical windows update, that required all code to be signed by MS to be able to run?Originally Posted by uni
As such they decided no Java code, no other browser but IE......
Companies once they have a user base can not use that to keep people locked in, this is a monopolistic behaviour, there comes a point when they have made a reasonable return on their investment and have to behave in a more altruistic fashion.
Given the number of iPods out there, I think that time has come.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
Rephrasing the above:
"Companies once they have won have to give away their advantage to their competitors."
Much as I hate lock-in, I hate the way anti-trust and monopoly rules penalize a company for it's own success.
But is it fair to gain success using anti competetive tactics?
that's not a suitable comparison, as windows operating systems have always been there for people to run whatever software they wanted on it. the big difference is that has never been the case with the iphone or ipod
another not so great comparison, but it's a bit like saying that xboxes should be allowed to run ps3 games or vice version
it's wrong to lock something down after it's been open, such as the removal of the linux option from ps3, but when options were never available at any time before, why should a company be forced to have them?
the companies should be able to choose what options they want to offer customers (as long as they are clearly within the law - in that nothing breaks copywrite or safety laws for example)
and i'll be very clear that it would be fantastic if ipods and iphones can be unlocked from the restrictions, but i don't think it's fair that companies who spend a lot of time and money investing in products for others to to able to capatilize and force them into doing things they don't want to do and never have done
If the xbox becomes dominant, I am sure there will be anti-competitive issues and they will get regulatory scrutiny.
There are laws in place about anti-competition. They were therefore before Apple entered the European market and they know about this.
Yes, it sucks for the company when it becomes so successful that it has the ability move the market (without regulatory intervention) but that is the cost of entering the European market (i.e. You can't be a big bully now even if you were a little weakling when you started).
It's actually good for everyone to have a competitive environment.
Last edited by usxhe190; 04-05-2010 at 01:24 PM.
I wouldn't mind if Apple were a bit more open.
Back when I had an iPod though, it was hell. I can only use my iPod if I install iTunes? Whaaaat? And all other software that emulates iTunes is patched out and barred out for life.
And they were very sneaky about making people think they had to use iTunes to populate their iPod by utilising the irrelevant AAC format, quickly accelerating them together to the forefront of the market. Now with the Flash stuff it's just further proof that they're exploiting their position.
Since Microsoft and Intel have both been severely punished for exactly the same types of things (Microsoft's much less severe), I don't see why Apple have got away with it so far. I don't know how much I agree with competition law, but I do know that it should be one rule for all.
I think Apple have got away with it for so long because they haven't used bullying tactics in connection with the supply and pricing of parts or software.
For example, MS was hammered for charging more for Windows if OEMs put other browsers or media players on PCs. Intel get kicked about because they were withholding component shipments if OEMs were also buying from AMD. I think they were also charging some more for certain parts of they weren't playing ball.
Apple haven't been doing this because they control their whole eco-system, no third parties are really involved. But they are getting to the stage where the EU cannot ignore them for much longer.
Err no.
You could buy from the likes of Novel a suite which was to aid in multi-targetting. If your spending £30k developing software would you like it to run on just one brand? Or on Android, WM, Apple, RIM, Symbian....
So thats what they did, thats what has been stopped.
Adobe spent a lot of resources developing their tool to allow native compilation of flash. That has now been stopped in its tracks.
So that part of it is wrong, just plain wrong.
Now when you consider its considered anti-competitive to bundle a browser with an OS........
(that bit I don't think is quite so immoral imho)
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
but those other companies opted to let other people develop, and they in turn will have their own rules, or lack of them, as they wish. if a company wants to make a product and restrict what other companies can do on the hardware, what's wrong with that?
apple have made it clear that they don't want flash on the iphone, yet adobe still keep trying to make it work. adobe opted to spend the money developing something that the company that owned the hardware made clear they didn't want, yet you think that apple are in the wrong for not wanting something to run on their hardware that they spent millions creating, far more than adobe spent porting flash to run on something that the makers didn't want
i don't think MS should have been stopped from bundling IE either. they write the software, so they should be able to bundle what they want with it, firewalls, anti virus, browser etc etc. after spending billions creating the most commonly used systems in the world, yet not being allowed to sell the software in a fully usable state for most peoples daily requirements is just ridiculous
the companies should be allowed to add or not include what they want. the customers can vote with their pockets
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
