11–20 of 101 posts
Why isn't Apple forced to the same deal with iOS? Not only do browsers not have the same prominence but they actually have to use WebView for rendering. Not to mention the other apps Apple refuses to approve because of "duplication".
Why isn't Apple forced to the same deal with iOS? Not only do browsers not have the same prominence but they actually have to use WebView for rendering. Not to mention the other apps Apple refuses to approve because of "duplication".
I remember seeing this on TV and not understanding why microsoft was threatened with a fine if they ship IE by default on their products. Actually I still don't. Nobody ever stopped me from downloading another browser on windows, anyone who wants to do it will do it. So people did have a choice, they just didn't know they had it, and it's their problem, not microsoft's! Could someone explain this to me?
Think of it this way, it's akin to a car manufacturer selling cars with labels that state that anything other than XYZ branded gasoline will cause damage and void the warranty. Sure, maybe it won't cause damage and sure it may not stand up in court that it voids the warranty, but most people aren't in the position to know that, nor should they need to be in the position to know.
We ... the community of technology savy ... are very frequently remiss to ignore that not everyone can be, nor should have to be well informed about technology. Think of if Martha Stewart claimed that her recipe will only turn out if you use Greenest Pastures Milk when you are trying to hobble together a cake to impress your family. Are you informed enough about the intricacies of milk that you would know that you can use other milk brands?
Sure, you may scoff and say that you know enough about milk to know that it's not true, but do you know that some brands don't have additives or certain types of fat that may collapse your batter?
I remember seeing this on TV and not understanding why microsoft was threatened with a fine if they ship IE by default on their products. Actually I still don't. Nobody ever stopped me from downloading another browser on windows, anyone who wants to do it will do it. So people did have a choice, they just didn't know they had it, and it's their problem, not microsoft's! Could someone explain this to me?
Because Opera, and before that the company behind Real Player, are anal like that and the EU went and agreed with them for some silly reason. They never did go after Apple, or Google / Android, or whatever for doing the exact same thing (pre-installing a media player / browser). I guess you could argue that Microsoft was singled out because their browser was an inherent component of their OS, but at the same time you…
(Again, not advocating, just explaining)
Why isn't Apple forced to the same deal with iOS? Not only do browsers not have the same prominence but they actually have to use WebView for rendering. Not to mention the other apps Apple refuses to approve because of "duplication".
I don't necessarily agree with such policies. For example the EU is thinking of breaking up Google because supposedly local players cannot compete, with inferior products in a market that Google created, but that's not mentioned.
Of course, iOS does suck because of its restrictions and I sold my iPhone 6 that I received as a gift. So I just exercised my right to vote with my wallet, which imho is more effective.
Why isn't Apple forced to the same deal with iOS? Not only do browsers not have the same prominence but they actually have to use WebView for rendering. Not to mention the other apps Apple refuses to approve because of "duplication".
The anti-trust laws are for when that power gets abused -- when one uses their monopoly power as leverage over another market. In the case of Microsoft, by bundling IE with Windows, they were using their OS monopoly to crush a competitor in the market for web browsers.
None of this applies to Apple because they have nothing close to a mobile monopoly. If they did, the lawsuits would be over their position as gatekeepers of the entire market for mobile apps.
I remember seeing this on TV and not understanding why microsoft was threatened with a fine if they ship IE by default on their products. Actually I still don't. Nobody ever stopped me from downloading another browser on windows, anyone who wants to do it will do it. So people did have a choice, they just didn't know they had it, and it's their problem, not microsoft's! Could someone explain this to me?
If a dominant player bundles their browser (as a component) in their OS, people become less and less aware of the browser as a possible and separate "product", and will of course use the dominant one as default - this is (and effectively was!) bad for competition and evolution(any web developer can tell you the pain this caused and still causes today).
I remember seeing this on TV and not understanding why microsoft was threatened with a fine if they ship IE by default on their products. Actually I still don't. Nobody ever stopped me from downloading another browser on windows, anyone who wants to do it will do it. So people did have a choice, they just didn't know they had it, and it's their problem, not microsoft's! Could someone explain this to me?
Well... you know what a browser is (and you also know that there are alternatives). Most people don't. Most people don't open the browser, they "go to the Internet"; the browser is the "Internet". If a dominant player bundles their browser (as a component) in their OS, people become less and less aware of the browser as a possible and separate "product", and will of course use the dominant one as default - this is (a…
I remember seeing this on TV and not understanding why microsoft was threatened with a fine if they ship IE by default on their products. Actually I still don't. Nobody ever stopped me from downloading another browser on windows, anyone who wants to do it will do it. So people did have a choice, they just didn't know they had it, and it's their problem, not microsoft's! Could someone explain this to me?
It's because not everyone ... actually the vast majority of users ... is aware of other browsers and even if they would be, they may have then only known about Firefox even though there are many many more browsers. Think of it this way, it's akin to a car manufacturer selling cars with labels that state that anything other than XYZ branded gasoline will cause damage and void the warranty. Sure, maybe it won't cause d…
Other stereo manufacturers, who sell stereos got mad, and basically convinced the government that Ford has a monopoly and should be forced to offer consumers a choice in stereo.
Microsoft never warned people that using another browser would "cause damage" or void warranty. They simply gave away something for free, that was previously a paid product. Their dominant market position gave them leverage to essentially wipe out the competition. This, depending on your market philosophy was either the right move to protect consumers, or an example of special interests influencing government to effect markets (IMHO it was probably both).
I remember seeing this on TV and not understanding why microsoft was threatened with a fine if they ship IE by default on their products. Actually I still don't. Nobody ever stopped me from downloading another browser on windows, anyone who wants to do it will do it. So people did have a choice, they just didn't know they had it, and it's their problem, not microsoft's! Could someone explain this to me?
It's because not everyone ... actually the vast majority of users ... is aware of other browsers and even if they would be, they may have then only known about Firefox even though there are many many more browsers. Think of it this way, it's akin to a car manufacturer selling cars with labels that state that anything other than XYZ branded gasoline will cause damage and void the warranty. Sure, maybe it won't cause d…