5 ms·

Do I smell the start of an anti-trust suit brewing??? Assuming there's no slight of hands trickery in the demo, the performance is very impressive. I was unde

by wrath 17y ago

Do I smell the start of an anti-trust suit brewing??? Assuming there's no slight of hands trickery in the demo, the performance is very impressive. I was under the assumption that the bulk of the performance issues on Safari were network and cpu related...

fierarul 17y ago
The difference is that Opera Mini uses Opera's servers as some caching and compressing proxy server, it doesn't actually connect to nytimes.com like Mobile Safari in the demo. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opera_Mini http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opera_Mini and especially http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opera_Mini#Privacy_and_security http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opera_Mini#Privacy_and_security
- grimoire 17y ago
  The eye opener for me is the lack of end to end security. I generally avoid doing anything requiring https on my iPhone, but now I know to NEVER do anything that requires security on Opera Mini. Of course, this assumes that it actually gets approved...
  - nailer 17y ago
    Opera Mini is a great product, but they could (and should) make it perform direct connections when in https mode.
EsquireCats 17y ago
Problems with this line of thinking: 1. Anti-trust implies monopoly. No monopoly on phones here. Plus it's Apple's store, you can't have a "monopoly" on your own product. 2. Apple haven't exhibited a consistent pattern of app rejections to imply any particular competitive bias. (They host many applications from their traditional competitors.) 3. Point 2 is moot, as it's still not a monopoly to begin with. If you'd like to see what real monopolistic-competitor crunching behaviour is, then read up on the halloween documents. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Halloween_documents_leak http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Halloween_documents_l... Compare Apple to Microsoft and IBM... Apple don't have the slightest on these mammoths.
- orangecat 17y ago
  Compare Apple to Microsoft and IBM... Apple don't have the slightest on these mammoths. Microsoft indirectly funded legal attacks on Linux; Apple is seeking to destroy Android entirely by abusing the patent system. Microsoft made it slightly more inconvenient to run competing browsers; Apple bans them altogether. Apple may not have the market share of that MS or IBM did, but they certainly have the attitude.
  - EsquireCats 17y ago
    This statement is remarkably light on fact and heavy on sensationalism. Apple have received numerous patent disputes for technologies included in the iPhone. They hardly "threw the first punch." I also wouldn't call this an abuse on the patent system - apple's current action is -precisely- what the patent system is useful for. Abuse would be similar behaviour to IBM in the 80s where they would racket money from start ups threatening them with the weight of their patent portfolio. Also numerous browsers are available for the iPhone. I'd really be more swayed into believing apple were this big evil company - if the other companies weren't as bad, if not worse. I'd say they are all a little rotten, however by far I recognise that Apple is reasonably clean for a company that has had more than 30 years to make big public mistakes.
- mtarnovan 17y ago
  Potential monopolies must be handled with care. By the time a company becomes a monopoly, there's hardly any competition left. Seems like we didn't learn our lesson from when Microsoft crushed everyone else to swallow most of the x86 OS market, which it still dominates today, by a wide margin. "you can't have a "monopoly" on your own product." Of course, you can only have monopoly on a market.
  - EsquireCats 17y ago
    I honestly believe that you don't have a firm understanding of what a monopoly is, nor how they are expressed in the market. A large market share does not automatically make a monopoly. (However a large market share can be a key competitive advantage in establishing a monopoly.) For example, the iPod makes up a large market share of MP3 players sold to date - but this doesn't prevent a consumer from purchasing a music player, music or other services from another company. This is because the iPod(in terms of music) is not a console device. There is nothing apple can do to their iPod product that would prevent (for example) Amazon from being able to sell music. This is why Apple spend much money advertising - their lead is established by brand marketing. There are numerous other devices of various qualities/prices/capabilities which could replace the iPod. Like the Amazon example - there is nothing Apple can do to their app store to prevent a developer from developing software for the Android platform. Apple's strict "quality" policies actually force many developers onto the Android platform. In that example Apple's policies have sponsored increased competition which is the exact opposite of monopolistic behaviour. Just because the only way you get new software onto the iPhone is via the app store does not mean that Apple has a monopoly over their app store. This is simply a closed system - identical to any "console" market. The misconception mostly occurs because the iPhone is almost entirely unique in using this approach for smart phones, versus other manufacturers which allow software to be run in a fashion similar to modern PCs. Microsoft on the other hand forced manufacturers to not support/purchase a competitors operating system software or face grossly increased wholesale prices on their windows OS product. Additionally they were able to abuse their operating system monopoly by leveraging this against competitor's software from unrelated categories. The IE vs Netscape saga is a good example of this. (However MS was found guilty of enacting this behaviour on numerous other companies, including Apple.)
tvon 17y ago
anti-trust for what?
- nailer 17y ago
  Android, WinMo, and other smart phone platforms allow the installation of arbitrary software, including browsers that compete with the vendors. iPhone OS does not. This hurts consumers by removing choice and the economy by removing competition.
  - glhaynes 17y ago
    Here's a just-as-oversimplified claim: "Mac OS X allows the installation of arbitrary software. This hurts consumers by allowing viruses, spyware, and other (including non-malicious) causes of degradation of enjoyment." Everything's a tradeoff. Tens of millions of people, including a large number of which are tech-savvy and completely aware of competing phones, are very happy with the iPhone as a complete product and specifically choose it, often in part because of what they perceive as a better overall experience because of the limitations.
  - GHFigs 17y ago
    Uh oh. If running a closed platform is grounds for anti-trust action, then Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo all had better watch out. Even One Laptop Per Child is in on this--Oh my! I thought they were good guys but it turns out they are evil monopolists!: If you don't have a developer key, and your laptop has firmware security enabled, it will not let you do anything except boot an OLPC-signed operating system, and use the OLPC-provided software. If you insert a USB flash drive or SD card, the boot firmware will only boot from it if the files are tested and cryptographically signed by OLPC. -- http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Activation_and_developer_keys http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Activation_and_developer_keys ...or maybe what you're saying has more to do with your opinion than the law.
    - nailer 17y ago
      I agree with you - I was just trying to answer the parents question. I also would have modded you up until I read the last sentence. Relax, there's no need to be so aggressive.

by wrath 17y ago

fierarul 17y ago

The difference is that Opera Mini uses Opera's servers as some caching and compressing proxy server, it doesn't actually connect to nytimes.com like Mobile Safari in the demo. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opera_Mini http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opera_Mini and especially http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opera_Mini#Privacy_and_security http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opera_Mini#Privacy_and_security

grimoire 17y ago
The eye opener for me is the lack of end to end security. I generally avoid doing anything requiring https on my iPhone, but now I know to NEVER do anything that requires security on Opera Mini. Of course, this assumes that it actually gets approved...
- nailer 17y ago
  Opera Mini is a great product, but they could (and should) make it perform direct connections when in https mode.

EsquireCats 17y ago

Problems with this line of thinking: 1. Anti-trust implies monopoly. No monopoly on phones here. Plus it's Apple's store, you can't have a "monopoly" on your own product. 2. Apple haven't exhibited a consistent pattern of app rejections to imply any particular competitive bias. (They host many applications from their traditional competitors.) 3. Point 2 is moot, as it's still not a monopoly to begin with. If you'd like to see what real monopolistic-competitor crunching behaviour is, then read up on the halloween documents. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Halloween_documents_leak http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Halloween_documents_l... Compare Apple to Microsoft and IBM... Apple don't have the slightest on these mammoths.

orangecat 17y ago
Compare Apple to Microsoft and IBM... Apple don't have the slightest on these mammoths. Microsoft indirectly funded legal attacks on Linux; Apple is seeking to destroy Android entirely by abusing the patent system. Microsoft made it slightly more inconvenient to run competing browsers; Apple bans them altogether. Apple may not have the market share of that MS or IBM did, but they certainly have the attitude.
- EsquireCats 17y ago
  This statement is remarkably light on fact and heavy on sensationalism. Apple have received numerous patent disputes for technologies included in the iPhone. They hardly "threw the first punch." I also wouldn't call this an abuse on the patent system - apple's current action is -precisely- what the patent system is useful for. Abuse would be similar behaviour to IBM in the 80s where they would racket money from start ups threatening them with the weight of their patent portfolio. Also numerous browsers are available for the iPhone. I'd really be more swayed into believing apple were this big evil company - if the other companies weren't as bad, if not worse. I'd say they are all a little rotten, however by far I recognise that Apple is reasonably clean for a company that has had more than 30 years to make big public mistakes.
mtarnovan 17y ago
Potential monopolies must be handled with care. By the time a company becomes a monopoly, there's hardly any competition left. Seems like we didn't learn our lesson from when Microsoft crushed everyone else to swallow most of the x86 OS market, which it still dominates today, by a wide margin. "you can't have a "monopoly" on your own product." Of course, you can only have monopoly on a market.
- EsquireCats 17y ago
  I honestly believe that you don't have a firm understanding of what a monopoly is, nor how they are expressed in the market. A large market share does not automatically make a monopoly. (However a large market share can be a key competitive advantage in establishing a monopoly.) For example, the iPod makes up a large market share of MP3 players sold to date - but this doesn't prevent a consumer from purchasing a music player, music or other services from another company. This is because the iPod(in terms of music) is not a console device. There is nothing apple can do to their iPod product that would prevent (for example) Amazon from being able to sell music. This is why Apple spend much money advertising - their lead is established by brand marketing. There are numerous other devices of various qualities/prices/capabilities which could replace the iPod. Like the Amazon example - there is nothing Apple can do to their app store to prevent a developer from developing software for the Android platform. Apple's strict "quality" policies actually force many developers onto the Android platform. In that example Apple's policies have sponsored increased competition which is the exact opposite of monopolistic behaviour. Just because the only way you get new software onto the iPhone is via the app store does not mean that Apple has a monopoly over their app store. This is simply a closed system - identical to any "console" market. The misconception mostly occurs because the iPhone is almost entirely unique in using this approach for smart phones, versus other manufacturers which allow software to be run in a fashion similar to modern PCs. Microsoft on the other hand forced manufacturers to not support/purchase a competitors operating system software or face grossly increased wholesale prices on their windows OS product. Additionally they were able to abuse their operating system monopoly by leveraging this against competitor's software from unrelated categories. The IE vs Netscape saga is a good example of this. (However MS was found guilty of enacting this behaviour on numerous other companies, including Apple.)

tvon 17y ago

anti-trust for what?

nailer 17y ago
Android, WinMo, and other smart phone platforms allow the installation of arbitrary software, including browsers that compete with the vendors. iPhone OS does not. This hurts consumers by removing choice and the economy by removing competition.
- glhaynes 17y ago
  Here's a just-as-oversimplified claim: "Mac OS X allows the installation of arbitrary software. This hurts consumers by allowing viruses, spyware, and other (including non-malicious) causes of degradation of enjoyment." Everything's a tradeoff. Tens of millions of people, including a large number of which are tech-savvy and completely aware of competing phones, are very happy with the iPhone as a complete product and specifically choose it, often in part because of what they perceive as a better overall experience because of the limitations.
- GHFigs 17y ago
  Uh oh. If running a closed platform is grounds for anti-trust action, then Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo all had better watch out. Even One Laptop Per Child is in on this--Oh my! I thought they were good guys but it turns out they are evil monopolists!: If you don't have a developer key, and your laptop has firmware security enabled, it will not let you do anything except boot an OLPC-signed operating system, and use the OLPC-provided software. If you insert a USB flash drive or SD card, the boot firmware will only boot from it if the files are tested and cryptographically signed by OLPC. -- http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Activation_and_developer_keys http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Activation_and_developer_keys ...or maybe what you're saying has more to do with your opinion than the law.
  - nailer 17y ago
    I agree with you - I was just trying to answer the parents question. I also would have modded you up until I read the last sentence. Relax, there's no need to be so aggressive.