6 ms·

You mean kind of like how Apple asks for preferential treatment from every other entity? You know, for things like: - Being able to install updates without ask

You mean kind of like how Apple asks for preferential treatment from every other entity? You know, for things like: - Being able to install updates without asking the ISP. - Fast lanes for their services with ISPs. - Special or even FREE rent for their physical store fronts (see Grand Central Terminal and many others.) - Making illegal deals with book publishers so they get preferential pricing. Same for music. The list goes on and on and on. Apple has always tried to work it so they get preferential treatment from every angle.

coldtea 10y ago
>- Being able to install updates without asking the ISP. Why the fuck should they "ask the ISP"?
- a_small_island 10y ago
  I'm also curious what OP meant by that point
- Avernar 10y ago
  I think he meant cell carrier, not ISP. But I disagree with him on this one. I'm glad Apple was able to get "special treatment" for many things from the carriers. They were more draconian than Apple with their rules. Now Android can also install firmware and applications without the carriers saying no so that was a good thing.
  - MBCook 10y ago
    Can Android install firmware without carrier approval? I know that they've structured things so many updates can be installed without a true firmware update but I was under the impression the carrier restrictions still existed in some form.
    - Avernar 10y ago
      For the carrier specific models, yes. But you can get a non-carrier specific one. Nexus models get updates direct from Google. Otherwise you have to wait for the manufacturer to do their customizations. Or you just install one of the many other firmwares out there.
      - MBCook 10y ago
        That's true, but what percent or android phones bought every year our carrier specific models? I'm guessing it's a very high percentage. So for the average user things are restricted by the carrier.
        Avernar 10y ago
        Not disagreeing with you. But those people had a choice and they chose a subsidised and/or cheaper phone that was locked down.
        MBCook 10y ago
        I willing to bet the vast majority of those people don't know that there are options besides those sold in stores and advertised on TV.
- SyneRyder 10y ago
  I think they meant how Apple is able to update iPhones without first getting permission from the phone carriers, whereas on Android & Windows Phone the OS updates for devices can be delayed by the carrier imposing a certification process before it is released. For example, here's an Australian phone carrier / ISP blocking updates to Google Nexus devices on their network: http://ausdroid.net/2014/12/04/yes-telstra-is-blocking-your-nexus-updates/ http://ausdroid.net/2014/12/04/yes-telstra-is-blocking-your-...
  - whamlastxmas 10y ago
    If I had to guess this is only for carrier branded phones in most cases, that article is an exception obviously.
  - MBCook 10y ago
    The meaning seemed clear, I think the question is why requiring carrier approval is a good idea? Ignoring security and other such things, it's only a cost for the carriers to update the software and they sell lots of phones so it's their your best interest to delete all software updates to make you buy a new or phone to get the new features. That's why iPhones get regular updates, the carriers are involved. That's why Google has been moving Android to have most things in a piece of software they can update without actual carrier approval, so the phones don't get stuck in the Stone Age. Is there a single benefit to the carriers getting to choose if an update should be approved?
  - st3v3r 10y ago
    That's entirely Google's fault for not fighting for the same thing.
  - boodm 10y ago
    Is it not true Google pushes updates to their Nexus line without going through the carrier?
    - scarface74 10y ago
      For a time at least not for Nexus phones sold on Verizon. But why should I have to buy a Nexus phone just to receive OS updates and not get crapware?
- WayneBro 10y ago
  I'm not saying that it's RIGHT that carriers block updates for anyone. I'm saying that was a rule that was in place by carriers before Apple came along and made a stink about it. Now they're complaining about Spotify trying to get Apple to change their rules.
  - zepto 10y ago
    Apple didn't make any stink about it at all. They negotiated privately with the carriers and came to a mutually acceptable deal. Spotify is doing another thing altogether by impugning Apple publicly.
    - MBCook 10y ago
      After spending multiple years having agreed to the original deal. In fact Apple IMPROVED the deal this year when they said that for people who have been a subscriber for over year they'll cut their fee to 15%. I believe it may even have been applied slightly retroactively. Spotify's terms with Apple haven't gotten any worse, they've gotten slightly better. But NOW they're loudly complaining. It's not like iOS has become more of a monopoly in the last five years, I'd argue the opposite.
      - canuckintime 10y ago
        > Spotify's terms with Apple haven't gotten any worse, they've gotten slightly better. But NOW they're loudly complaining. It's not like iOS has become more of a monopoly in the last five years, I'd argue the opposite. Actually Spotify has been privately complaining for years. Obviously Spotify are "loudly complaining" NOW because Apple launched a directly competing product to Spotify last year.
MBCook 10y ago
- Being able to install updates without asking the ISP. Sibling comment covers this perfectly. - Fast lanes for their services with ISPs. I haven't heard of this, it just seems like a good idea from the ISPs side given how big Apple is. Do you have any evidence they've actually forced someone to do this? - Making illegal deals with book publishers so they get preferential pricing. Same for music. You mean a pretty standard most-favored-nation clause? The kind that lots of goods are sold with? Or are you talking about getting rid of the right for Apple to undercut the price of the book and force the publishers to eat the loss? It's not like Amazon had a ridiculous giant horrible stranglehold on the eBook industry right?
- WayneBro 10y ago
  > Sibling comment covers this perfectly. Which one? The one that asked if it was wrong for carriers to block updates in the first place? Right vs wrong isn't my concern here. Here is the sum of my comment: Apple used their market pressure to make carriers (and others) change. Now they're whining about somebody trying to make them change. That's all. I didn't say that I have evidence that they force carriers to do anything through any means other than market pressure. > You mean a pretty standard most-favored-nation clause? No. I mean the illegal price fixing that they were convicted of 3 times. You can read the rulings here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Apple_Inc.#Rulings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Apple_Inc.#Ru... The final ruling - "In June 2015, the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals by a 2-1 vote concurs with Judge Cote that Apple conspired to e-book price fixing and violated federal antitrust law."
  - MBCook 10y ago
    I'm not a believer in the idea that breaking up an illegal monopoly by selling books under a reasonable contract the publishers came up with before Apple was involved is a criminal act on Apple's part. That case never made sense except as a way to generate headlines by attacking Apple. Amazon had a TRUE monopoly in eBooks and WAS abusing it.
    - canuckintime 10y ago

coldtea 10y ago

>- Being able to install updates without asking the ISP. Why the fuck should they "ask the ISP"?

a_small_island 10y ago
I'm also curious what OP meant by that point
Avernar 10y ago
I think he meant cell carrier, not ISP. But I disagree with him on this one. I'm glad Apple was able to get "special treatment" for many things from the carriers. They were more draconian than Apple with their rules. Now Android can also install firmware and applications without the carriers saying no so that was a good thing.
- MBCook 10y ago
  Can Android install firmware without carrier approval? I know that they've structured things so many updates can be installed without a true firmware update but I was under the impression the carrier restrictions still existed in some form.
  - Avernar 10y ago
    For the carrier specific models, yes. But you can get a non-carrier specific one. Nexus models get updates direct from Google. Otherwise you have to wait for the manufacturer to do their customizations. Or you just install one of the many other firmwares out there.
    - MBCook 10y ago
      That's true, but what percent or android phones bought every year our carrier specific models? I'm guessing it's a very high percentage. So for the average user things are restricted by the carrier.
      - Avernar 10y ago
        Not disagreeing with you. But those people had a choice and they chose a subsidised and/or cheaper phone that was locked down.
        MBCook 10y ago
        I willing to bet the vast majority of those people don't know that there are options besides those sold in stores and advertised on TV.
SyneRyder 10y ago
I think they meant how Apple is able to update iPhones without first getting permission from the phone carriers, whereas on Android & Windows Phone the OS updates for devices can be delayed by the carrier imposing a certification process before it is released. For example, here's an Australian phone carrier / ISP blocking updates to Google Nexus devices on their network: http://ausdroid.net/2014/12/04/yes-telstra-is-blocking-your-nexus-updates/ http://ausdroid.net/2014/12/04/yes-telstra-is-blocking-your-...
- whamlastxmas 10y ago
  If I had to guess this is only for carrier branded phones in most cases, that article is an exception obviously.
- MBCook 10y ago
  The meaning seemed clear, I think the question is why requiring carrier approval is a good idea? Ignoring security and other such things, it's only a cost for the carriers to update the software and they sell lots of phones so it's their your best interest to delete all software updates to make you buy a new or phone to get the new features. That's why iPhones get regular updates, the carriers are involved. That's why Google has been moving Android to have most things in a piece of software they can update without actual carrier approval, so the phones don't get stuck in the Stone Age. Is there a single benefit to the carriers getting to choose if an update should be approved?
- st3v3r 10y ago
  That's entirely Google's fault for not fighting for the same thing.
- boodm 10y ago
  Is it not true Google pushes updates to their Nexus line without going through the carrier?
  - scarface74 10y ago
    For a time at least not for Nexus phones sold on Verizon. But why should I have to buy a Nexus phone just to receive OS updates and not get crapware?
WayneBro 10y ago
I'm not saying that it's RIGHT that carriers block updates for anyone. I'm saying that was a rule that was in place by carriers before Apple came along and made a stink about it. Now they're complaining about Spotify trying to get Apple to change their rules.
- zepto 10y ago
  Apple didn't make any stink about it at all. They negotiated privately with the carriers and came to a mutually acceptable deal. Spotify is doing another thing altogether by impugning Apple publicly.
  - MBCook 10y ago
    After spending multiple years having agreed to the original deal. In fact Apple IMPROVED the deal this year when they said that for people who have been a subscriber for over year they'll cut their fee to 15%. I believe it may even have been applied slightly retroactively. Spotify's terms with Apple haven't gotten any worse, they've gotten slightly better. But NOW they're loudly complaining. It's not like iOS has become more of a monopoly in the last five years, I'd argue the opposite.
    - canuckintime 10y ago
      > Spotify's terms with Apple haven't gotten any worse, they've gotten slightly better. But NOW they're loudly complaining. It's not like iOS has become more of a monopoly in the last five years, I'd argue the opposite. Actually Spotify has been privately complaining for years. Obviously Spotify are "loudly complaining" NOW because Apple launched a directly competing product to Spotify last year.

MBCook 10y ago

- Being able to install updates without asking the ISP. Sibling comment covers this perfectly. - Fast lanes for their services with ISPs. I haven't heard of this, it just seems like a good idea from the ISPs side given how big Apple is. Do you have any evidence they've actually forced someone to do this? - Making illegal deals with book publishers so they get preferential pricing. Same for music. You mean a pretty standard most-favored-nation clause? The kind that lots of goods are sold with? Or are you talking about getting rid of the right for Apple to undercut the price of the book and force the publishers to eat the loss? It's not like Amazon had a ridiculous giant horrible stranglehold on the eBook industry right?

WayneBro 10y ago
> Sibling comment covers this perfectly. Which one? The one that asked if it was wrong for carriers to block updates in the first place? Right vs wrong isn't my concern here. Here is the sum of my comment: Apple used their market pressure to make carriers (and others) change. Now they're whining about somebody trying to make them change. That's all. I didn't say that I have evidence that they force carriers to do anything through any means other than market pressure. > You mean a pretty standard most-favored-nation clause? No. I mean the illegal price fixing that they were convicted of 3 times. You can read the rulings here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Apple_Inc.#Rulings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Apple_Inc.#Ru... The final ruling - "In June 2015, the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals by a 2-1 vote concurs with Judge Cote that Apple conspired to e-book price fixing and violated federal antitrust law."
- MBCook 10y ago
  I'm not a believer in the idea that breaking up an illegal monopoly by selling books under a reasonable contract the publishers came up with before Apple was involved is a criminal act on Apple's part. That case never made sense except as a way to generate headlines by attacking Apple. Amazon had a TRUE monopoly in eBooks and WAS abusing it.
  - canuckintime 10y ago