or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Tulkas

Let's stop pretending that Google collecting and analyzing this data is any worse than dozens of other companies doing the same thing. Locking one door and opening dozens of other doors and windows doesn't make your house more secure. Dozens of companies that are smaller and quieter and do what they do without notice will be given access, by Apple, to this information. Companies that get caught doing things they ought not to be doing, only when they try to be smart-asses...
Of course they would. One of the problems with their app market is the lack of oversight. They would have no reason at all to bar Safari from Android. Just as the allow Opera or Dolphin.OMG! Kettle, meet Pot.Given the opt-in is required, how does keeping one player out equate to a "dramatic improvement". That's like saying getting rid of a few coal burning plants, but allowing the others to increase the emissions to compensate, would be a dramatic improvement in air...
The problem with the premise of the first quote is that if "Apple doesnÂ’t trust the benevolence of Google, developers, and other third parties involved in the iOS platform" then they wouldn't allow anyone to collect and analyze this information. The fact is, they only bar Google from doing so and will be doing it themselves. It has nothing to do with wanting to protect that info from others and from being analyzed. At best, it is to protect it from Google. Which in and of...
Do you ever even read your own posts to see how little sense they make?Do you understand that the Apple Maps is a first party app on the iPhone and that google could no more access and update it than you could? Do you understand that the Apple iPhone Maps app is not meant to do real time, turn by turn navigation? Do you understand how stupid it is to then suggest it is google's fault for not updating the Apple iPhone Maps app to support turn by turn navigation? It is...
We aren't. Actually, we aren't even really disagreeing. Just some miscommunication.
Sanctioned monopolies are just an example of legal monopolies. Other monopolies are not in and of themselves illegal.
As you wrote, "It seems that certain monopolies are indeed per se illegal, depending upon other factors." As Milmoss has pointed out, that is the critical point.
I think it was my writing "While the language of the Sherman act seems to forbid monopolies of any kind, courts, including the US Supreme court, have interpreted it to mean coercive or abusive monopolies are illegal, but not monopolies in and of themselves." that caused the confusion.Which, on reading the language, it certainly gives the impression that monopolies are illegal. That's why I used "seems" and further stated that the courts have said this is not the correct...
Actually, other companies are allowed to collect and use user/device information (with consent). Only Google/AdMob is prohibited from doing so.
Huh? Isn't that what I said? Monopolies are not illegal. Abusive Monopolies are illegal.
New Posts  All Forums: