4 ms·
It's not the secrecy, it's the monopoly on the sale of iPhone applications. Monopolies are OK as long as...
by nnutter 16y ago
It's not the secrecy, it's the monopoly on the sale of iPhone applications.
Monopolies are OK as long as...
- kprobst 16y ago... Gruber justifies them?
- nnutter 16y ago=)
- ugh 16y agoMcDonald’s has a monopoly on the sale of Big Macs – I don’t think that’s a problem :) All that aside, there is a problem: http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/01/apple-responsible-for-994-of-mobile-app-sales-in-2009.ars http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/01/apple-responsible-...
- nnutter 16y agoHow is this a valid comparison? A Big Mac is an end product not an intermediate. I suppose you could say it is an intermediate product for condiments. In which case McDonald's does not have a monopoly on what condiments you can put on your Big Mac. Even if you did think it was a valid comparison they don't really have a monopoly on the sale of Big Macs. They have a trademark (or whatever) on the name Big Mac but there are plenty of burgers that are very similar and you are free to create a burger that is identical in form to what McDonald's sells.
- ugh 16y agoThere is Google, RIM, Palm. There soon will be Microsoft. Nokia, too. They all will sell mobile apps so I don’t see the problem with Apple being the only one to sell iPhone apps if – and only if – they lose their dominant position in this wider group of those who sell mobile apps. They can keep their monopoly on selling iPhone apps if they want to. I think that’s unfortunate but not something that has (necessarily) to be stopped. As I said: if they lose their dominant position, if you can get perfectly good mobile apps from any of those companies I mentioned.