151–160 of 167 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If they get to the point of hurting competition, why not?
Hurting competition? Console manufacturers have had stricter requirements and more onerous developer restrictions than any mobile platform since the 80s.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On iOS, it is about the browser, as Apple is acting anti-competitive by not allowing any other browser engines but their own. Browser makers can't compete with Safari by making a faster browser for example, because they won't be able to deploy it on iOS device. All applications go through the App Store, and the App Store forbids any browser engines not made by Apple. Regarding the app stores, it seems like lawmakers…
There is one key requirement of a mobile phone that doesn’t apply to a desktop scenario: the device MUST adhere to carrier-specific requirements, some of which may block access to telephony-associated hardware, or require that a manufacturer be able to provide a minimum standard of performance. Do you see AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile or other carriers complaining about having only one browser engine per device?
The requirements of carriers are orthogonal to browser choice post-sale.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can't regulate capable competition into existence. PalmOS and Windows Phone/Mobile/10 both died because their parent companies screwed up. PalmOS was a painfully out of date design by the time it got stuck on phones. No amount of regulation was going to solve the clusterfuck of Palm and PalmSource. Nor was regulation going to make Cobalt actually ship and work as advertised. Regulation also wasn't going to stop M…
Nobody's talking about regulation. And I think you're confusing WindowsPhone for WindowsMobile by the way. My main issue was that these two OS's Palm and WP had a mountain to climb facing off against iOS and Android and it wasn't helped by the tech press poo-pooing their efforts at every turn, often gleefully so. I think it's a shame that we will never see a third player in this space.
My point is these platforms were not able competition to even early iOS and Android. The tech press were excited about Android and iOS because they were good and showed how bad those previous systems were. The tech press was also excited that someone (Apple, later Google) actually made a smartphone for consumers. Consumers were stuck with feature phones with little to no Internet connectivity and smart phones were aimed primarily at business users.
At the end of the day the tech press did not control PalmSource or Microsoft. It was up to those companies to make their platforms better and actually compete against iOS and Android. While both might have had the technical talent capable of doing so neither had the vision or leadership and so both failed. The mountain both platforms had to climb was built mostly through mismanagement and hubris.
Don't be disappointed in the tech press or consumers wanting iPhones and Android phones. Be disappointed in Palm/PalmSource, Microsoft, and RIM for not having any vision and throwing away their lead in the space. They were all trying to make bigger and better Exchange clients when a vast majority of people wanted real web access and media functionality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If they get to the point of hurting competition, why not?
Hurting competition? Console manufacturers have had stricter requirements and more onerous developer restrictions than any mobile platform since the 80s.
Will this set a precedent for car infotainment systems or even TV extra's? When is a device with a general purpose cpu something that can be upgraded or modified with other software and when isnt it?
2 companies control the actions of 4-10 billion devices and through them the access of billions of people no car company has that reach. no video game platform has that reach. hence they're not held to the same standard
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not that Apple ships a browser engine that is the problem. It's that they don't allow you to publish apps that use a different browser engine. Big difference.
I still don't see the problem. Apple is a minority player in this market. Android presumably allows whatever you want, right? If you want the customized experience, use that.
In the phone market?
Maybe by units. Certainly not by revenue. Either way, they have a monopoly on "iPhone apps" and their distribution. You can argue whether that's a market in itself. But lawyers and regulators can make an argument too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you delete an Apple app and redownload it it will put itself on the homebar or first app page pushing your other apps away. Comman, they dont let other apps do that!
It was Apple Music and they have fixed that in the most recent update.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>that Apple's browser engine ban on iOS in anti-competitive and distort the browser market Isn't this a good thing? Without this distortion, what is preventing the web from becoming fully dependent on the Chrome engine?
Competition from Apple? Why would people use Chrome if Safari is as good or better?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What percentage of that 60% is because safari is the only browser on IOS? I use safari on Mac because it has all more passwords as 90% of my web browsing is on my phone. With auto generated passwords it forces me to use safari.
You can use 1Password or other password managers. At least 1password works like a charm on both mac and iPhone across browsers just as good as keychain.