151–160 of 168 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The network effects of software compatibility proved sufficient to maintain their dominance. Before that point it was common for software to be ported to all the major platforms, so I don't think that caused their dominance, it just helped reinforce it.
You didn’t own a Mac back then did you? By 2000 there were only two major platforms for desktop operating systems - Macs and Windows.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, and I know several of my friends and family who shop in different supermarkets for that reason. How many do you know that have both an iPhone and an Android phone?
Plenty, I am one of them, I am Windows/Android user, and get Apple gear from work. And I also know a few that still use and buy feature phones with their OEM only apps, with "by invitation only SDKs". Which makes the choice bigger than two actually, when one looks at the actual market distribution, something that a judge will care about.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
GrapheneOS.org
The developer of GrapheneOS seems unhinged. Accusing Mozilla of orchestrating 4chan and all that. [1] I don't trust it's stability. 1 - https://twitter.com/DanielMicay/status/1264528965127024644
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Plenty, I am one of them, I am Windows/Android user, and get Apple gear from work. And I also know a few that still use and buy feature phones with their OEM only apps, with "by invitation only SDKs". Which makes the choice bigger than two actually, when one looks at the actual market distribution, something that a judge will care about.
are anecdotes data, now? does fortnite run on feature phones? how many cases have you tried in federal court?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Used to have windows phone as a choice, but never ever did google cooperate in getting something as major as YouTube on that platform. (Yet Roku and more do.)
I left Windows Phone several years ago due to lack of apps. Recently I found the old phone in my home and played with it a bit. WP UI was awesome, I miss it. It was so clean, so easy to use, so beautiful. But the lack of apps really killed it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He was still at Google, but sidelined from Android into the robotics division, shortly after which he quit. Sure, it's speculation, but perhaps it was precisely because he disliked and objected to the direction Android was taking. Of course the timing isn't proof, but this article was written at nearly the exact time that he was shifted off of Android.
He disliked the direction Android was going and then started a company to sell Android phones?
Regardless, my point stands: At the time that Android was undergoing this shift, Rubin was moving away from Android. Without specific evidence of his seal of approval on a more closed-source Android, painting him as a hypocrite amounts to malign assumption. Without evidence to the contrary, giving a benefit of the doubt doesn't seem unreasonable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That really doesn't go against what I said: At that time anyone could still fork Android, and if they wanted the open source versions of apps replaced by closed source ones they could use the source code for those old apps were perfectly serviceable alternatives to the closed-source ones Google replaced them with. In fact the article mentions two very prominent examples of successful break-aways of Android from Googl…
So if you wanted to sell a phone in China, where you couldn’t use Google Play Services anyway, or you were one of the world’s most valuable companies who could afford to rewrite all of Google Play dependencies, you were set? Are you also as lenient about iOS? Since the core of it is open source? WebKit? The EU doesn’t agree with you. They ruled against Google for its practices. Google wouldn’t let a manufacturer both…
The EU's issue with Google has nothing to do with whether or not Android is an open system: Their issue with Google is that Google was trying to stifle competition. In fact the precise issue there arose because Android can be forked. The fact that Google tries to stomp on competition doesn't change that. It's no different than when Microsoft did similar things to stop OEM's from offering desktop Linux: It didn't make Linux less open.
And you know very well that iOS isn't in a similar position to Android in this respect. You can't fork iOS, never could, certainly not the way you could with Android earlier on, and not even like you can now. Parts of iOS derive from open source, but it was never an open source OS. Also it's strange to bring up WebKit, which has been successfully forked a number of times.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>If what you wrote in the comment would become a law, this would remove motivation to do investments like that. IPhone sales are profitable as they are, and always were. Of course not having iOS walled would lower their profits, but that's the whole point, as this profit comes from a detriment for everyone else. Android allows sideloading, yet making those phones is still reasonably profitable. PCs were expensive too…
> IPhone sales are profitable as they are The numbers don’t add up. Apple sold 6 million of iPhone 1 in 2007-2008 season before app.store launch. Assuming the average price was $550 that generated $3.3B turnover. According to rumors spread by Bloomberg and other sources, Apple spent $2.6B on R&D of iPhone 1 from the moment the initial research began. Not a good business at all, this means Apple paid most of manufactu…
Apple doesn't rely on the royalty revenue to make iPhones profitable (and shouldn't be allowed to).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You didn’t own a Mac back then did you? By 2000 there were only two major platforms for desktop operating systems - Macs and Windows.
I'm thinking more DOS era. E.g. all of the different Another World ports.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And because of the great effectiveness of the American government, MS lost their dominance in the PC operating system market and rank nowhere near the top five most valuable companies in the US like they did 20 years ago.
You say it like it’s a bad thing. Perhaps if MS had remained so all-powerful, we would not have seen the rise of other US companies, including Google. If Google lost its monopoly stranglehold on Search and mobile, what interesting and useful innovation might emerge?