7 ms·
My point is that the "competitive market" you'd applauding was designed by the carriers with the specific goal of preventing anyone from ever doing what Apple d
by irons 16y ago
My point is that the "competitive market" you'd applauding was designed by the carriers with the specific goal of preventing anyone from ever doing what Apple did.
That Apple was able to do it was marvelous, but it was also stupendously unlikely: a combination of the willingness to enter an unpromising market, the ability to pull it off, and the timing to convince a weakened Cingular to let them produce a phone without undue interference. It had never happened before, and Android doesn't make it more likely to happen again -- quite the opposite, really.
- guelo 16y agoSo your argument is that the only company capable of creating competition is Apple. Strange.
- irons 16y agoMy argument is that "Markets! Yay!" is not an argument. Most markets require some regulation, and some luck, to function optimally. This particular market needs more of both.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- evgen 16y agoNot true. Google could have done the same thing with the remaining carriers when it first introduced Android. The iPhone was dominating to the extent that it was actually shifting subscriber numbers, if Google had really wanted to pull off the same trick as Apple it could have done so. It simply lacked the balls necessary to complete the task and now it is probably too late.
- wtallis 16y agoGoogle's strategy with Android is to surrender complete control to the carriers. This is a consequence of them using an open source license that doesn't have GPLv3 style protections to ensure continued openness. Apple is the only company that we have seen in recent years do anything to weaken the carrier oligopoly. They probably aren't the only ones who have tried, but they are the only ones who have succeeded publicly. Thus it is entirely fair to say that Apple is the only company capable of creating competition in this market, so far.