On Feb 17, 2011, at 12:45 PM, Arthur Gaer wrote: > > On Feb 17, 2011, at 3:20 PM, Benjamin Krueger wrote: >> >>> Think about it this way -- when Barnes & Noble sets up a book store, do >>> they allow competing book store chains to come in and set up their own shop >>> inside and then force those customers to check out only at the non-B&N >>> registers? >> >> iPads and iPhones are not Apple's property. They do not belong to Apple. >> They are not storefronts. They are privately owned consumer devices that >> Apple maintains an undeserved deathgrip on thanks to the epic legislative >> catastrophe known as DMCA, which consumers only put up with because Apple >> makes some great software. Apple has taken great measures to ensure that >> there is no distribution competition on these devices, and we now know why. >> It was a malicious ploy to ensure that Apple can hold the users of those >> devices ransom to other potential competitors. > > I don't see the problem here. > > People are absolutely free to buy devices that aren't from Apple. There's > supposed to be more Android phones out there than iDevices, the Androids > having an entire bazaar of stores, app and otherwise. There's blackberry's > with their own store and distribution method. There's whatever the Windows > phone OS du jour is with their app store. Doesn't Nokia have their own > thing, too?
You are suggesting that if my app is available on Android, but not iOS as I'm blocked from iOS because of Apple's 30% tithing demand, consumers will simply buy an Android tablet in addition to an iPad just so they can get my app? This suggestion is ridiculous. > Though didn't the app store concept, or at least the first fully functional > implementation everyone else is desperately trying to copy, start with Apple? > Hmmmm..... Not only is that irrelevant, it's also untrue. App stores aren't new and they weren't invented (or even made "fully functional") by Apple. > People are absolutely free to buy a smartphone, tablet, whatever, from > someone else. In fact, more have bought the non-Apples than have bought them > from Apple. And they're absolutely free to use whatever half functional > attempt at cloning Apple's app store/distribution/sales mechanism their other > device maker allows them to access. Including a bazaar rather than a > cathedral. You repeat yourself. As I noted above, this suggestion is ridiculous. Be careful though; comments like "half-functional attempt at cloning Apple's app store", among others you've made, might lead the reader to believe that you harbor some sort of emotional bias for Apple and against their competitors, which may undermine your argument. > What's that you say, Apple has a "deathgrip" on their customers by totally > controlling the software distribution to their devices? AND consumers only > put up with because Apple makes some great software? AND both software > developers and content providers are desperately developing for the Apple > devices that happen to make make them more money and get them more cultural > recognition? > > Think there just might be some kinda correlation there? If there is a correlation, it's irrelevant. Just because you're good at making hardware, writing software, and jealously guarding your customers doesn't mean you get a free pass on anti-competitive and illegal activity. -- Benjamin
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
