5 ms·
I'm going to go with "because they're a terrible, monopolistic company that doesn't really care at all about their users." This wasn't always the case.
by beedogs 13y ago
I'm going to go with "because they're a terrible, monopolistic company that doesn't really care at all about their users." This wasn't always the case.
- interstitial 13y agoI'm going to go with they've got nothing to gain, and if they do bring bitcoin to the iOS they will do it there way.
- beedogs 13y agoMy point.
- mwfunk 13y agoNo, it wasn't. That's not what you said.
- ninjac0der 13y agoTry reading what was said without the apple dicks in your ears.
- Steko 13y agoShorter most upvoted comment on HN: Apple is EVIL!!1 shoots self
- GFK_of_xmaspast 13y agoWell, yeah, they haven't traditionally had a monopoly.
- gutnor 13y ago"monopolistic" ? What's that supposed to mean ? They don't have any monopoly, they are not even the dominant player in the smartphone market, and slipping in the tablet one. I guess you mean they use heavy handed control on the apps they allow to run on their devices. But that's like its basic right. If you don't like the concept, don't develop stuff in somebody else ecosystem (i.e don't develop for facebook, google, evernote, dropbox, ...) Ironically, if Apple was a monopoly, then the government could intervene on that basis. Outside that scenario though, I prefer to avoid shit companies on my own and not have the government regulating how the APIs to their service should look like. (disclaimer, I'm a bit sore on that point. Imagine calling Google Map api using EBMS and XBRL, that's the taste of Government Regulated APIs) Now about "how they're a terrible company that doesn't really care at all about their users." That's a popular opinion those days, I'm only moaning about the monopolistic part of it (as its corollary, that somebody should tell them how to manage the plugins for their platform)