rbarooah

9 ms·

31.
by rbarooah 15y ago
I'm glad he wasn't attacking Facebook and Apple in the way it was portrayed. I think a key issue here is that powerful incumbent corporations have always challenged the economic freedoms of smaller players and individuals operating in their
32.
by rbarooah 15y ago
One reason for the downvotes may be that you basically just called him names, rather than making a reasoned point.
33.
by rbarooah 15y ago
I wasn't aware that the palm brought any touch features that weren't in the Newton.
34.
by rbarooah 15y ago
I do now understand what you mean as far as a legal precedent is concerned, but if a ruling were based on the idea that Apple had a monopoly then by definition it wouldn't apply to anyone else. [edit: removed point about Apple not having a
35.
by rbarooah 15y ago
The legal damage would be the fact that each design decision they made around the store would be under court scrutiny. But so far, you haven't explained why this should be done given that Android offers what you ask for. What's wrong with
36.
by rbarooah 15y ago
It sounds like you are saying that you want Apple to be forced to do what Google has already done. Doesn't this mean the the precedent has already been set but Google? That leads back to the original question: Why is it so important for Ap
37.
by rbarooah 15y ago
I'm not sure I see how a successful suit against Apple would have any such effect. Google would simply say "we're open already", and become the dominant platform while Apple was reeling from the legal damage.
38.
by rbarooah 15y ago
Are you agreeing that Android isn't open either? If so, how would suing Apple (successfully) have any effect other than to cede the market to Google?
39.
by rbarooah 15y ago
That wasn't advocacy. I really wanted to know why the original commenter was talking about suing Apple, instead of just buying an Android phone.
40.
by rbarooah 15y ago
I don't think I've ever advocated Android, but I am interested in why it doesn't live up to the promise of being open. When I see comments like the parent's the logic seems to be: "Android isn't properly open, so let's sue Apple."
41.
by rbarooah 15y ago
Why not just buy an android phone?
42.
by rbarooah 15y ago
The fact that this happened on both the App store, and Google Play almost simultaneously raises the suspicion that one of the less reputable competitors lodged some kind of complaint.
43.
by rbarooah 15y ago
I didn't say anything about removing Google. That's a bit of a strawman. We're not talking about marginal websites that, by your reasoning are dependent on Google for survival. We're talking about businesses that have accumulated large amou
44.
by rbarooah 15y ago
I suggest they acknowledge that business realities are driving them to do the same thing but that it would be better for everyone if they could find a way to cooperate. Painting themselves as somehow superior while they engage in the same b
45.
by rbarooah 15y ago
Now that they've shown everyone how valuable data is, probably the only thing they can do is to start to pay for it and take a hit to profitability.
46.
by rbarooah 15y ago
It's only 'under lock and key' if you are Google. For Google it is very much about selling ads. That's their business. The data is obviously worth a lot of money to Google, and yet they want it to be given to them for free. That seems like
47.
by rbarooah 15y ago
That doesn't make it any less hypocritical when they attacking others for doing it. If they think it's a problem they should stop doing it themselves.
48.
by rbarooah 15y ago
I don't need data to back up a commonly held observation - people are influenced by those who they have to answer to. Are you really disputing that? As for the idea that they can and will act as they want - that's obviously not true. For ex
49.
by rbarooah 15y ago
If this data is so valuable, and Google makes enormous revenue out of it, why shouldn't they pay for it?
50.
by rbarooah 15y ago
Brin acknowledges that the data is valuable. It belongs to other people. Google makes enormous revenue from it. Perhaps it's time for them to start paying for it.
51.
by rbarooah 15y ago
All they seem to be being "accused" of is not giving data for free to Google to sell advertising against.
52.
by rbarooah 15y ago
That's a red herring. Google could easily have asked them to desist from this policy while the acquisition was closing. Executives at Motorola know who their new boss is going to be and are acting accordingly.
53.
by rbarooah 15y ago
It is on topic - Google has the exact same openness issues that these other companies have, and yet Brin fails to mention this.
54.
by rbarooah 15y ago
Sure but iDisk was little more than a generic WebDAV service, so you could easily replace it with a service from another provider with the money saved.
55.
by rbarooah 15y ago
Thankfully Apples 'action' isn't true. All that's happened is that they released a new style Airport Utility, with a simpler UI that doesn't support IPv6 yet. They are still supplying a version with IPv6 support, and presumably a point rele
56.
by rbarooah 15y ago
That assumes that the extra money is distributed. That doesn't seem to be happening.
57.
by rbarooah 15y ago
That's going to be a problem as we approach a world where basic human needs are easily met.
58.
by rbarooah 15y ago
You do have the right to tell the retailer what price they must sell your product. It's called a contract. The retailer doesn't have to accept it. Without Apple, the publishers had no meaningful alternative ebook store so Amazon always ha
59.
by rbarooah 15y ago
You might be in favor of dropping DRM, but that would in no way provide publishers with comparable access to the Kindle customers. Kindle customers buy titles using 1-click from their devices or from the Amazon website. How does just 'drop
60.
by rbarooah 15y ago
Sure, but $9.99 and even lower are still options which do in fact get used. Apple didn't set prices, they provided publishers with a range of options that included the old price point.

More ›