3 ms·

anti-trust for what?

by tvon 17y ago

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.
    - GHFigs 17y ago
      Yeah, I cut and repasted that last bit a couple times before posting, but ultimately decided the point would be too easily missed without it. In the process I didn't catch the now-obvious implication that I should have found a better way to make that point. I appreciate you calling me on it.
- tvon 17y ago
  I could have been a bit clearer there... I understood what you were getting at but was looking for a more thorough explanation of how it qualified as "anti-trust" since it seems like a very simplistic interpretation of the law and the situation.

anti-trust for what?

by tvon 17y ago

anti-trust for what?

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.
  - GHFigs 17y ago
    Yeah, I cut and repasted that last bit a couple times before posting, but ultimately decided the point would be too easily missed without it. In the process I didn't catch the now-obvious implication that I should have found a better way to make that point. I appreciate you calling me on it.
tvon 17y ago
I could have been a bit clearer there... I understood what you were getting at but was looking for a more thorough explanation of how it qualified as "anti-trust" since it seems like a very simplistic interpretation of the law and the situation.