191–200 of 235 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please show me where I can get Android installed on my iOS device.
Since you asked: http://lifehacker.com/5693309/how-to-install-android-on-an-i...
As others are pointing out, yes, it's reasonable to not publish an API that you've chosen not to invest in supporting forever. But it still feels like this is wrong even though we know the above. The reason it feels wrong comes back, as it always does, to Apple's walled garden. If we could 'use it at our own risk' as we might with an unpublished Android API or an unpublished Windows API, everyone would be fine with i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While it's comforting to apply the word's meaning to all different kinds of things, the word "monopoly" is by definition tied to a size and scope of entire markets, types of goods, and services. It doesn't really apply to services within services unless those services are entire markets, and even then it's iffy at best. To say 'I have a monopoly on my toilet', while technically I control all access to it, is incorrec…
Ask this question: Can you identify a group of customers who cannot reasonably obtain the product or service (i.e. distribution of software) from anyone other than Apple? The answer is yes. People who already own Apple iOS products. Because Apple prohibits anyone from selling to them other than through its own store and having to replace the customer's entire device to change that is not reasonable. This is different…
But it's not reasonable. A major selling point of iOS devices is that it's a walled garden. You knew that (or had a chance to learn it) when you bought your iOS device and you had a reasonable alternative (Android) without this limitation.
You want to have your cake and eat it too. That's all well, but the fact that you can't doesn't make Apple a monopoly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are fundamentally misunderstanding a monopoly position.
And you are fundamentally misunderstanding that anti-trust law is about more than just monopolies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having an unsupported API method is one level of "cheating". Hardcoding bundle names and only allowing certain applications to call your unsupported API method takes it to a new level.
What if the code was just in an unreleased static lib that was linked to each app. Isn't Apple allowed to make shared code for just its apps? Putting it in the supported frameworks is just an easier way to make sure that it eventually gets released for everyone -- otherwise lots of useful code might just languish inside apps and private libs.
Then it would be fair game. Your argument ignores an important difference: app-space code - which every developer can do; and OS code exposed as private API - which only Apple can do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple has a monopoly on operating systems which work on apple hardware.
I don't think your understanding how a Monopoly applied in the situation with Microsoft. Microsoft's Anti-trust suite was because of its web browser's dominance, IE was during the anti-trust suite upwards of 95% of all browsers on the Internet, this was because of bundling and defaults. While other OS's may not execute on Apple's own hardware, other hardware exists (other smart phones) that directly compete with Appl…
I thought it was because it tried to use its dominance in the desktop OS market to get dominance in the we browser market. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp...:
"The issue central to the case was whether Microsoft was allowed to bundle its flagship Internet Explorer (IE) web browser software with its Microsoft Windows operating system. Bundling them together is alleged to have been responsible for Microsoft's victory in the browser wars"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While it's comforting to apply the word's meaning to all different kinds of things, the word "monopoly" is by definition tied to a size and scope of entire markets, types of goods, and services. It doesn't really apply to services within services unless those services are entire markets, and even then it's iffy at best. To say 'I have a monopoly on my toilet', while technically I control all access to it, is incorrec…
Ask this question: Can you identify a group of customers who cannot reasonably obtain the product or service (i.e. distribution of software) from anyone other than Apple? The answer is yes. People who already own Apple iOS products. Because Apple prohibits anyone from selling to them other than through its own store and having to replace the customer's entire device to change that is not reasonable. This is different…
A monopoly means that there's no choice for the whole product category. Back in the bad old days, if you wanted a home computer, then you were buying a Microsoft operating system whether you wanted to or not. That's what a monopoly looks like. (Yes, there were a couple of other niche players out there, like Apple. They didn't have any significant portion of the market, though. You can argue that they matter, but if so, then you're arguing that Microsoft didn't have an OS monopoly because of these competitors, which kind of reinforces my point.)
I believe the practice of requiring products to be purchased together is called "tying" and it's also problematic, but a different concept from a monopoly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ask this question: Can you identify a group of customers who cannot reasonably obtain the product or service (i.e. distribution of software) from anyone other than Apple? The answer is yes. People who already own Apple iOS products. Because Apple prohibits anyone from selling to them other than through its own store and having to replace the customer's entire device to change that is not reasonable. This is different…
> who cannot reasonably obtain the product or service But it's not reasonable. A major selling point of iOS devices is that it's a walled garden. You knew that (or had a chance to learn it) when you bought your iOS device and you had a reasonable alternative (Android) without this limitation. You want to have your cake and eat it too. That's all well, but the fact that you can't doesn't make Apple a monopoly.
You're the one trying to have your cake and eat it too. You want a walled garden, which is a monopoly, and then want to claim it isn't one.
Like others, I'm fairly convinced that this is simply not enabled because Apple haven't done the necessary amount of work to ensure that the UIPopoverController on an iPhone is stable, API-compliant, and well-tested. Specific use-cases under their control can be extensively tested, and it may be the case that e.g. iBooks only uses a subset of the functionality. More to the point, there's nothing to be gained from thi…
I was with you until here. I'd much rather just use the same 1st party component on a universal app, rather than a 2nd or 3rd party approximation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ask this question: Can you identify a group of customers who cannot reasonably obtain the product or service (i.e. distribution of software) from anyone other than Apple? The answer is yes. People who already own Apple iOS products. Because Apple prohibits anyone from selling to them other than through its own store and having to replace the customer's entire device to change that is not reasonable. This is different…
People who already own Apple iOS products can easily obtain apps from companies that aren't Apple. They just have to buy an Android device first. And while I agree that this is a barrier, it doesn't sit right with me at all to cry "monopoly" in a situation where other companies sell products with the same capabilities (indeed, in greater number than Apple sells them) and there's nothing that inherently prevents you f…
> People who already own Apple iOS products can easily obtain apps from companies that aren't Apple. They just have to buy an Android device first.
The problem with claiming that Android apps are competition for iOS apps is that to get competition for a $1 app you have to replace a $500 device. That isn't reasonable. It's like claiming Google Fiber is competition for Comcast because you can move to Kansas.