On Feb 18, 2011, at 3:41 AM, Brandon S Allbery KF8NH wrote: > Could you explain where I said anything like that? On rereading my message, > it continues to say the opposite — and in fact raises that legal option > precisely as a warning why *not* to do it.
Let's go back to the original message I posted, and re-read the entire quote, as opposed to the stuff you deleted: > On Feb 17, 2011, at 11:08 PM, Brandon S Allbery KF8NH wrote: > >> What they're doing does make a lot of sense for the end user, but developers >> are going to be waving torches and pitchforks at Apple for a while... > > Then let them wave torches and pitchforks, and maybe Apple will decide to do > something to appease them. > > But that's Apple's decision to make, regarding how they handle the > development and content delivery systems for the ecosystem they built and > continue to maintain, to the tune of operations cost measuring billions of > dollars per year. > > > If you want to suggest that we should have harsh restrictions on the things > that multi-billionaires and multi-billion dollar multinational companies can > do with the ecosystems that they've built and that they continue to spend > billions of dollars per year to sustain, I can certainly see that argument. In those first two paragraphs there, in case you missed it, I'm largely agreeing with you. This isn't a legal issue, or a restraint of trade issue, it's a matter of what Apple gets to do with their own ecosystem. However the developers and content providers for that ecosystem are likewise totally within their rights to protest how Apple is going about that process, if Apple does something they don't like. In that last paragraph there, I'm suggesting that if someone wants to change the system and turn this into a matter where the government gives itself the right to restrict what companies can do with the ecosystems that they have built, then I have identified other targets that I would be much more interested in pursuing. But that's going way beyond the actual current issue. The misleading part is where you cut out those first two paragraphs of my response and you attribute that third paragraph to what you were suggesting. This is where I have to wonder if you're the one with the axe to grind and you are being intentionally misleading, or if maybe you just misread and misunderstood what I wrote. For the moment, I'm inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt -- something that you don't seem to be willing to do for me. -- Brad Knowles <[email protected]> LinkedIn Profile: <http://tinyurl.com/y8kpxu> _______________________________________________ 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/
