31–40 of 84 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
2. should read ??? because 3. will never happen (see China).
This seems like a non sequitur. Care to elaborate more on China's current state and how it's analogous to Russia's future?
GNU Emacs also abuses its dominant position in the editor market by shipping all this bundled Lisp code. Over twenty years ago I was a making killing, hand over fist, selling a Usenet news reading add-on for Emacs. Then those anti-trust bastards included some Lisp code which does that, and I went down the tubes. I mean, what gave them the right , you know? It's as if not only did they disrespect my sense of entitleme…
I'm assuming this is a sarcastic post. It's an interesting thought experiment to extrapolate antitrust ideas onto free software. If Linux grew big enough could it attract antitrust lawsuits despite not being the product of any single company? My first impression was to draw the line at organizations that make money, but that leaves the possibility for free software growing so big as to hinder progress, which isn't ne…
But this is about Google.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> My only question is why can't we go after Microsoft for locking down hardware in the same way. Microsoft's hardware (e.g. Surface Pro) is less locked down than the competition's version of the same (e.g. iPad). Why must ever topic devolve into Microsoft bashing?
I should clarify that here I'm not talking about Microsoft's hardware like the Surface. I'm talking about being able to buy a computer from a manufacturer without having to pay $99 for an installation of Microsoft Windows that I explicitly do not want . Some effort was made to stop this practice (of MS paying manufacturers not to offer machines without Windows), but it clearly didn't go very far in solving the proble…
You can. You are not limited to specialty outfits as well, nor are you required to pay a lot for it, or any of the other numerous criteria you try to add on as well. Being able to buy a PC without paying for Windows or paying for an Apple product is incredibly easy for the average person today.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
the main theme in Russia today is "replacing of imported goods and services with domestic ones". The strategy consists of 3 stages: 1. prohibit, bash, etc... foreign goods and services 2. ... 3. enjoy quality replacement by domestic manufacturers and providers. right now the stage 1 is at full swing.
2. should read ??? because 3. will never happen (see China).
I'm curious How a ruling like that gels with the fact that on an iPhone (the other half of the market) all services and apps are dictated by Apple and can not be altered, while on Android not only they can be but the whole OS is free, Yandex could have commissioned their own hardware like many others do and they curiously haven't complained about Apple.
Same goes for the search allegation,the argument there is that Google should feature results from other search engines on their own site! Which is mind Boggling, no one is convinced Facebook or twitter or anyone should include content from other website but somehow Google is different. Google isn't the network layer that one must go through it to interact with the web, they are no "gatekeeper" not technically or metaphorically yet somehow politicians are convinced they are.
This seems like field distortion to me that somehow regulator were sold on to (even excluding this Russian example).
Filled in February 2015 and ruled in September 2015? Russian justice is very fast, and the results are really shocking and surprising
http://www.thenational.ae/news/world/europe/russias-99-convi...
But really, it's 'Abusing Dominant Market Position without Permission.'
Absolutely this. In Russia especially, it's all about getting permission for this kind of behavior.