4 ms·
Which kind of gets to the point. The limited capability is only artificial, and only on things that would give users more freedom (and themselves less money).
by croon 5y ago
Which kind of gets to the point. The limited capability is only artificial, and only on things that would give users more freedom (and themselves less money).
It's forced Internet Explorer on Windows, except 100 times worse because it permeates through the entire platform.
You can't get any other storefronts because that wouldn't funnel money to them. You can't get any game streaming apps, because see first point.
They're general purpose devices in anything that makes them money, and nothing else. It's not because they won't spend money to introduce that functionality, but that they specifically spend money on denying that functionality.
AOL won a suit against Microsoft for integrating IE in Windows. How on Earth is Apple any better? Just to make an add-on point they even force every other browser on iOS to use webkit.
- falcolas 5y agoMy thoughts on using devices with "blessed" uses: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28921319 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28921319 Love it, hate it, they have their value.
- croon 5y agoIf iOS devices were Switches, you would have a point. Phones are very commonly peoples only computing device, where they do everything from banking, identification, purchasing to socializing as well as gaming etc which people used computers for before, when the Windows debacle occured. Do you think the ruling in AOL v Microsoft was wrong? You completely dodged that aspect by linking to a comment about games consoles.