...However, it is comments like this that indicate how many Apple fans do not fully understand Google's business strategy....
Finally, someone who really gets what's going on in the mobile and search world.
It is interesting to read the other comments from those "on the other side of the pond". While the iPhone is squarely targeted by the dozens of Android devices out there, the FUD coming from Apple radicals is getting more amusing by the day. Like the iPhone can be the only good phone on the planet...come on guys you knew someone would step up competition. Now that competition is there (which if you stop the blathering for a moment you'll realize is good for everyone) and threatening to take over the iPhone (despite the media obsession with the iPhone) its an all out FUD war.
The rise of Android should be no surprise to anyone. Apple has made a couple potentially fatal mistakes. The first one is the AT&T agreement. If Jobs knew what he had, he wouldn't have limited it to one of the worst networks in the US. Now flame if you want, but I've had AT&T *before* the iPhone was popular and I dropped calls even back then. AT&T is an old school business model where the customer comes last and their stock holders come first. If it wasn't for the iPhone, I think it would be safe to say they would not be where they are today. They NEEDED the exclusive agreement, however, this was not what Apple needed.
The second fatal mistake was lack of innovation. Now before the wolves feed on this one, let me explain. The debut of the iPhone was the greatest leap in smart phones we have ever seen. It was fresh, unlike anything else and had the rest of the smart phone manufacturers stumped. And stumped for a long time. However, since the debut of the iPhone, there has not been anything truly innovative that would keep them moving forward while the rest of the smart phone manufacturers tried to catch up to iPhone gen 1. Take a look back and look at the screen from the original iPhone to the 3GS. Besides 3G, take a look at the features and capabilities. Take a look at iPhone OS from 2 years ago to now. Nothing truly earthshattering. I've seen the "advances" because I owned an iPod touch. That coupled with my dumb flip phone carried me until my carrier of choice released a smart phone worthy of replacing my iTouch. That was Android. Now look at the pace that Android is advancing. In a very short time, it went from a newbie to something that Apple is catching up on in features in the next iPhone OS. There is no denying this. As Apple is now catching up, Google is still blazing forward at speeds which are causing the fragmentation of Android that the media is so crazed about.
What Google is catching up on now is the OS polish and computer to device "ecosystem" as everyone calls it. However, not everyone agrees the iTunes strategy is a catch up. While iPhone is heavily tied to relying on a PC or Mac, Android was made to stand on its own. Its a different way of looking at things. Want your music transferred from your computer to an Android device? Copy and paste in your computer's OS. Want to purchase new music? Amazon has an app for that which comes with Android devices (and they embed album art). Want to search and purchase apps? You do that on your phone not your computer!! Some say that the iPhone's dependency on a computer is its downfall. Obviously Google wants to convert some of the iPhone users to Android so is making an ecosystem that is more comfortable to them and to those that need to have that extra hand holding that comes with a platform like iTunes.
I for one am looking forward to competition. After Apple screwed everyone on other carriers by holding out with AT&T (there isn't anything that could make me go to that f'd up carrier) I am happy to see that not only have alternatives cropped up, but ones that in some respects, are ahead.
DoubleTwist? Tried it a few times and really hated it. Doesn't matter on its survival.
I do hope that is a central system using common services for purchasing media contents like musics and videos. Doesn't matter if there's DRM or not. As long as it's not tied to one ecosystem.
Central System that can be adapted or adopted everyone. Basically it can work with all major operating systems. This central system can be managed a consortium of hardware and software manufacturers.
Common services can be any vendor that uses the central system. These vendors can choose to use DRM or not that talk to the central system.
These vendors can be content providers like music labels, TV networks, movie studios, etc. They can dictate their own pricing. Of course if they priced too high, no one would buy. Ideally, the central system can spell out some guidelines on pricing to follow basically what we have now. A song not more than 79c; a TV Show not more than $1.99 (HD included); movies are a bit more tricky. If they charge like $5 to $15 for movies, they should be for life. For life meaning the purchaser can download or stream the movie again when there's an update in video resolution or audio track. Of course all within the DRM specs. I don't think movies will be DRM-free, EVER.
Google could run the central system. Not saying it has to be Google. Microsoft can be a contender too. Or simply someone who can build this ground up. Sorry, Apple will not be a candidate based on their ecosystem.
Now, everyone can go to these common services and buy contents and consume them with any computer system, media devices, smartphones, basically any hardware/software that works with the central system.
The central system can build universal software to handle purchasing and syncing. This central system shouldn't run the service exclusively. You don't want another ecosystem.
If you don't want one company to dominate in delivering media contents, everyone has to work together to come up with something I just thought up above. Of course, I expect Apple to block such a thought if it ever materializes.
With all the Apple bashing at Google it seems that they are trying to replicate some of that walled garden approach that apple has to their platform.
Google shipped out Nexus One because no one could really build a good android phone. That started the HTC - Google partnership, which essentially delivered the hottest android phones to date. This be the hardware - software integration.
Now Google is hiring a UI expert to synchronize the UI for their phones - another form of integration.
With Spotify Google is building a music store (because no one has made a good one so far) another form of integration.
Google is moving more and more to controlled app eco-system, forcing its hardware suppliers to adhere to strict rules, tight collaboration with HTC, new music service so on. This is somthing microsoft tried to do:
1. It was the open plays for sure partner.
2. It became Microsoft only - Windows only Zune.
I think google might face a similar dilema in the future, and it will be interesting to see which way they will go.
You have absolutely no clue as to what you are talking about. If you read any of Google's announcements, they are removing applications from the base OS and making them optional in the app store. How is that moving more and more to a controlled app eco-system? SERIOUSLY?
They are polishing their UI but still allowing third parties to do their own. How is that moving toward a controlled system? SERIOUSLY?
A music store app and desktop software. Yeah, that's moving toward a closed system <sarcasm>. While it may naturally kill off doubleTwist, it is something that probably should have been in place earlier. Again, this doesn't prevent you from using Amazon's app to purchase music or doubleTwist. Google is not forcing anyone to use it, just giving users what they were asking for.
Also, the Android OS allows you to install apps outside of the app store. So again, there's no replication of the walled garden. Google doesn't tell you what apps you can run or not. And pulling stuff for IP infringements or malware isn't a walled garden. A walled garden is someone putting an app out with a new idea that Apple doesn't like or has a competing app for and Apple saying no way. While their verification of apps is nice, the policy of "well I don't like it so I'm not going to let you publish it" when there is no other means the author has to publish it, is a shame. I love the latest one of the picture frame and overlay app that was "too much like a desktop" so Apple pulled it. WTF!!!!!!!! Can Apple be any more of a prick when it comes to approving apps? An iPhone or iPad is not your device....it's Steve's. And he likes it that way.
I appreciate when companies are not afraid to go into uncharted territory. Take risks. Be bold. Display your intellectual prowess. It's saddening to see just how many phones have imitated the iPhone. They have simply replicated the iPhone while expanding on features and specs yet to be introduced. When the iPhone was released, there was nothing like it - now they're all variations of the same phone.
I dunno, I guess I just want to see a different class/category of phones. Apparently, Apple hasn't shown the world how to make one yet.
The iPhone is a great device but saying there was nothing like it is just not true, nothing was as polished as an iPhone. Apple didn't invent anything "new" they just took what was already around and made it much better. Making things simple and user friendly is actually a very hard thing to do.
The important thing to remember about Google is they basically have one revenue source and it's advertising. Going forward they will increasingly need to corner markets because advertisers need to be where the users are. Google's growth is directly tied to growing their advertising business. If another new service or product comes along not serving Google ads or otherwise promoting Google's services it's an attack on their core. It's a troubling future to me because it puts Google into the Microsoft growth model of needing to dominate markets and stamp out competition early and often. We saw this recently with the AdMob purchase. It's rumored they tried to buy both Facebook and Twitter in the past. I'm really surprised with all the controversy over Facebook privacy and Apple's App Store policies few people in the tech media are talking about Google's dark side. We're going to see a lot more of this in the future from Google.
Mind you, there is still a lot of the advertising world that Google does not own which they could buy to continue their incremental revenue story.
For starters, 'anti' is not a word - it's a prefix.
Aside from that, you clearly don't have any concept of what antitrust laws area all about. There is clearly no antitrust issue if Apple were to release iTunes for Android. In fact, the more open they are and the more platforms they support, the LESS antitrust concerns there could be.
The iPhone is a great device but saying there was nothing like it is just not true, nothing was as polished as an iPhone. Apple didn't invent anything "new" they just took what was already around and made it much better. Making things simple and user friendly is actually a very hard thing to do.
At last, somebody pointed out something conclusive. No, matter how many devices are there with how many number of OS'es unless it's simple and easy to use it will be still not worth it. Human nature is to adapt itself , ask people who used older nokia phones & older motorola phones. The real skill is it make things simple for an average and a below average user.
Andriod is the lifesaver for the N number of handset makers who don't have software worth being called UI & want to get out of Microsoft's clutches.
1. I guess no one is evil here as Google wants to earn so as Apple. Google earns by selling private info & Apple earns by selling device.
2. The cost of the phone is same, people wrongly calculate with what apple charges with what other vendors are charging, do remember the andriod phones cost are only the Hardware cost nothing to do with the Software cost (because it's free).
3. Google is not FSF who will have their developers sit and improve the OS without having it generate revenue for itself.
For starters, 'anti' is not a word - it's a prefix.
Aside from that, you clearly don't have any concept of what antitrust laws area all about. There is clearly no antitrust issue if Apple were to release iTunes for Android. In fact, the more open they are and the more platforms they support, the LESS antitrust concerns there could be.
But that openess would have to be both ways. Meaning letting whatever music services android users use be available to iPhone users. If they just made an iTunes android app then they'd be just trying to hoard additional customers increasing their market share and that my friend is an anti-trust violation.
But that openess would have to be both ways. Meaning letting whatever music services android users use be available to iPhone users. If they just made an iTunes android app then they'd be just trying to hoard additional customers increasing their market share and that my friend is an anti-trust violation.
Don't quit your day job - you are absolutely, 100% clueless about the law. Apple can make a version of iTunes for any platform they wish. Your earlier post suggested that simply making iTunes for Android would be an antitrust violation - and that's 100% wrong.
Apple is also free to set rules for what apps are allowed on the iPhone. They have no obligation to carry any app they don't want to - any more than Walmart has any obligation to carry any product THEY don't want.
And I'm not your friend. Friends are people who are important to me - not anonymous Internet trolls.
Don't quit your day job - you are absolutely, 100% clueless about the law. Apple can make a version of iTunes for any platform they wish. Your earlier post suggested that simply making iTunes for Android would be an antitrust violation - and that's 100% wrong.
Apple is also free to set rules for what apps are allowed on the iPhone. They have no obligation to carry any app they don't want to - any more than Walmart has any obligation to carry any product THEY don't want.
And I'm not your friend. Friends are people who are important to me - not anonymous Internet trolls.
I guess I should've written more but in error thought most of you would understand what I was getting at. Apple already dominates music sold online by a big margin, and before u go on a rant I understand that they achieved this by having a better product and not by stifling the competition. They are already being investigated by the DoJ for anti-trust violations. They would without a doubt grab a larger market share if they do indeed make an iTunes app for android. I wasn't implying that WOULD be guilty of anti-trust laws but I'm certain the competition would see it differently. BTW buy bigger panties because the ones you're wearing are obviously too tight. And another thing, this entire article has nothing to do with Apple nor iTunes, if Google wants to sell music then good for them.
Apple is also free to set rules for what apps are allowed on the iPhone. They have no obligation to carry any app they don't want to - any more than Walmart has any obligation to carry any product THEY don't want.
Your analogy is flawed. If you were forced by Walmart to only be allowed to shop there and they would not carry the items you wanted, you would cry BS. In fact, isn't that communist like? In the US you would scream and sue because you couldn't get what you wanted at Walmart. What's more, people that have what you want try to get Walmart to sell it to you but because Walmart doesn't like it, too f'n bad for you. No other stores exists because Walmart won't allow it.
Or how about one step better. GM sells you a car that you can only put GM oil and BP gas into. You want to put in Mobil 1 but because you are only allowed GM oil that you must purchase from GM you can't. Unless you "break the law" and strip off the security features that prevent you from putting in Mobile 1 and purchase it elsewhere, you are SOL. But doing so would then void your warranty of course.
Glad you used the analogy because it clearly shows how screwed up Apple's mentality is. You can try to make Apple look good here but the fact is, their system sucks. They don't allow you to install apps but from their store and control what you can or cannot install. They completely monopolize the whole deal with no access to apps that aren't on Stevie's good list. But hey, if you like people in black turtle necks telling you what's best for you, then have at it.
I guess I should've written more but in error thought most of you would understand what I was getting at. Apple already dominates music sold online by a big margin, and before u go on a rant I understand that they achieved this by having a better product and not by stifling the competition. They are already being investigated by the DoJ for anti-trust violations. They would without a doubt grab a larger market share if they do indeed make an iTunes app for android. I wasn't implying that WOULD be guilty of anti-trust laws but I'm certain the competition would see it differently. BTW buy bigger panties because the ones you're wearing are obviously too tight. .
Once again, it's clear that you don't know what you're talking about.
First, there's a RUMOR that Apple is being looked into by DOJ. No formal investigation has been launched. Even if it does get launched (due to whining from competitors), no charges have been filed.
There is absolutely nothing illegal about dominating music sold online. Nothing. Nor has anyone pointed out a single thing Apple has done that is illegal - by even the broadest interpretation of the law. Apple is allowed to sell what they want in their store.
Your inability to present a logical argument is really demonstrated by your childish rant at the end.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MicroNix
Your analogy is flawed. If you were forced by Walmart to only be allowed to shop there and they would not carry the items you wanted, you would cry BS. In fact, isn't that communist like? In the US you would scream and sue because you couldn't get what you wanted at Walmart. What's more, people that have what you want try to get Walmart to sell it to you but because Walmart doesn't like it, too f'n bad for you. No other stores exists because Walmart won't allow it.
Or how about one step better. GM sells you a car that you can only put GM oil and BP gas into. You want to put in Mobil 1 but because you are only allowed GM oil that you must purchase from GM you can't. Unless you "break the law" and strip off the security features that prevent you from putting in Mobile 1 and purchase it elsewhere, you are SOL. But doing so would then void your warranty of course.
The analogy isn't the same. GM is not a retail store as the iTunes store is. But feel free to cite a specific part of the law that forces Apple to carry songs and software that they don't want to carry.
If you don't like Apple's policies, there are a wide range of other stores out there where you can buy music. That ensures that competition exists - regardless of whether people are choosing to use those stores or not.
Google is hijacking every piece of the Internet real estate. Do you think that its offer of candies is an altruistic act? If you cannot see its design as a gold digger tapping into the thick vein of ads profits to its own advantage, you are sadly myopic in your understanding and judgement of human greed and stupidity.
Why doesn't Apple simply offer an iTunes app for Android (minus the apps)? Could be a good incremental revenue generator.
That sounds like a very good idea. I see no reason why Apple shouldn't have an Android-friendly avenue into the iTunes store. And no reason not to offer a version of iTunes player for Android too.
Apple has all that stuff for Windows computers, so why not Android?
Bottom line, I want the security of that "walled garden". I love it that apple employee spends time to examine every app before it hits the store. This gives me peace of mind that virtually every app is virus free and cannot grab my personal data.
Do you want the security of that walled garden for your Mac too? Would you prefer that no Mac software could be installed unless you you bought it straight from Apple?
Comments
...However, it is comments like this that indicate how many Apple fans do not fully understand Google's business strategy....
Finally, someone who really gets what's going on in the mobile and search world.
It is interesting to read the other comments from those "on the other side of the pond". While the iPhone is squarely targeted by the dozens of Android devices out there, the FUD coming from Apple radicals is getting more amusing by the day. Like the iPhone can be the only good phone on the planet...come on guys you knew someone would step up competition. Now that competition is there (which if you stop the blathering for a moment you'll realize is good for everyone) and threatening to take over the iPhone (despite the media obsession with the iPhone) its an all out FUD war.
The rise of Android should be no surprise to anyone. Apple has made a couple potentially fatal mistakes. The first one is the AT&T agreement. If Jobs knew what he had, he wouldn't have limited it to one of the worst networks in the US. Now flame if you want, but I've had AT&T *before* the iPhone was popular and I dropped calls even back then. AT&T is an old school business model where the customer comes last and their stock holders come first. If it wasn't for the iPhone, I think it would be safe to say they would not be where they are today. They NEEDED the exclusive agreement, however, this was not what Apple needed.
The second fatal mistake was lack of innovation. Now before the wolves feed on this one, let me explain. The debut of the iPhone was the greatest leap in smart phones we have ever seen. It was fresh, unlike anything else and had the rest of the smart phone manufacturers stumped. And stumped for a long time. However, since the debut of the iPhone, there has not been anything truly innovative that would keep them moving forward while the rest of the smart phone manufacturers tried to catch up to iPhone gen 1. Take a look back and look at the screen from the original iPhone to the 3GS. Besides 3G, take a look at the features and capabilities. Take a look at iPhone OS from 2 years ago to now. Nothing truly earthshattering. I've seen the "advances" because I owned an iPod touch. That coupled with my dumb flip phone carried me until my carrier of choice released a smart phone worthy of replacing my iTouch. That was Android. Now look at the pace that Android is advancing. In a very short time, it went from a newbie to something that Apple is catching up on in features in the next iPhone OS. There is no denying this. As Apple is now catching up, Google is still blazing forward at speeds which are causing the fragmentation of Android that the media is so crazed about.
What Google is catching up on now is the OS polish and computer to device "ecosystem" as everyone calls it. However, not everyone agrees the iTunes strategy is a catch up. While iPhone is heavily tied to relying on a PC or Mac, Android was made to stand on its own. Its a different way of looking at things. Want your music transferred from your computer to an Android device? Copy and paste in your computer's OS. Want to purchase new music? Amazon has an app for that which comes with Android devices (and they embed album art). Want to search and purchase apps? You do that on your phone not your computer!! Some say that the iPhone's dependency on a computer is its downfall. Obviously Google wants to convert some of the iPhone users to Android so is making an ecosystem that is more comfortable to them and to those that need to have that extra hand holding that comes with a platform like iTunes.
I for one am looking forward to competition. After Apple screwed everyone on other carriers by holding out with AT&T (there isn't anything that could make me go to that f'd up carrier) I am happy to see that not only have alternatives cropped up, but ones that in some respects, are ahead.
I do hope that is a central system using common services for purchasing media contents like musics and videos. Doesn't matter if there's DRM or not. As long as it's not tied to one ecosystem.
Central System that can be adapted or adopted everyone. Basically it can work with all major operating systems. This central system can be managed a consortium of hardware and software manufacturers.
Common services can be any vendor that uses the central system. These vendors can choose to use DRM or not that talk to the central system.
These vendors can be content providers like music labels, TV networks, movie studios, etc. They can dictate their own pricing. Of course if they priced too high, no one would buy. Ideally, the central system can spell out some guidelines on pricing to follow basically what we have now. A song not more than 79c; a TV Show not more than $1.99 (HD included); movies are a bit more tricky. If they charge like $5 to $15 for movies, they should be for life. For life meaning the purchaser can download or stream the movie again when there's an update in video resolution or audio track. Of course all within the DRM specs. I don't think movies will be DRM-free, EVER.
Google could run the central system. Not saying it has to be Google. Microsoft can be a contender too. Or simply someone who can build this ground up. Sorry, Apple will not be a candidate based on their ecosystem.
Now, everyone can go to these common services and buy contents and consume them with any computer system, media devices, smartphones, basically any hardware/software that works with the central system.
The central system can build universal software to handle purchasing and syncing. This central system shouldn't run the service exclusively. You don't want another ecosystem.
If you don't want one company to dominate in delivering media contents, everyone has to work together to come up with something I just thought up above. Of course, I expect Apple to block such a thought if it ever materializes.
With all the Apple bashing at Google it seems that they are trying to replicate some of that walled garden approach that apple has to their platform.
Google shipped out Nexus One because no one could really build a good android phone. That started the HTC - Google partnership, which essentially delivered the hottest android phones to date. This be the hardware - software integration.
Now Google is hiring a UI expert to synchronize the UI for their phones - another form of integration.
With Spotify Google is building a music store (because no one has made a good one so far) another form of integration.
Google is moving more and more to controlled app eco-system, forcing its hardware suppliers to adhere to strict rules, tight collaboration with HTC, new music service so on. This is somthing microsoft tried to do:
1. It was the open plays for sure partner.
2. It became Microsoft only - Windows only Zune.
I think google might face a similar dilema in the future, and it will be interesting to see which way they will go.
You have absolutely no clue as to what you are talking about. If you read any of Google's announcements, they are removing applications from the base OS and making them optional in the app store. How is that moving more and more to a controlled app eco-system? SERIOUSLY?
They are polishing their UI but still allowing third parties to do their own. How is that moving toward a controlled system? SERIOUSLY?
A music store app and desktop software. Yeah, that's moving toward a closed system <sarcasm>. While it may naturally kill off doubleTwist, it is something that probably should have been in place earlier. Again, this doesn't prevent you from using Amazon's app to purchase music or doubleTwist. Google is not forcing anyone to use it, just giving users what they were asking for.
Also, the Android OS allows you to install apps outside of the app store. So again, there's no replication of the walled garden. Google doesn't tell you what apps you can run or not. And pulling stuff for IP infringements or malware isn't a walled garden. A walled garden is someone putting an app out with a new idea that Apple doesn't like or has a competing app for and Apple saying no way. While their verification of apps is nice, the policy of "well I don't like it so I'm not going to let you publish it" when there is no other means the author has to publish it, is a shame. I love the latest one of the picture frame and overlay app that was "too much like a desktop" so Apple pulled it. WTF!!!!!!!! Can Apple be any more of a prick when it comes to approving apps? An iPhone or iPad is not your device....it's Steve's. And he likes it that way.
I think you mean loss leaders. Unless you are referring to Ballmer, in which case you are correct in all sorts of ways.
Tru dat !
I appreciate when companies are not afraid to go into uncharted territory. Take risks. Be bold. Display your intellectual prowess. It's saddening to see just how many phones have imitated the iPhone. They have simply replicated the iPhone while expanding on features and specs yet to be introduced. When the iPhone was released, there was nothing like it - now they're all variations of the same phone.
I dunno, I guess I just want to see a different class/category of phones. Apparently, Apple hasn't shown the world how to make one yet.
The iPhone is a great device but saying there was nothing like it is just not true, nothing was as polished as an iPhone. Apple didn't invent anything "new" they just took what was already around and made it much better. Making things simple and user friendly is actually a very hard thing to do.
Interesting.
Why doesn't Apple simply offer an iTunes app for Android (minus the apps)? Could be a good incremental revenue generator.
Two words "anti" and "trust"
The important thing to remember about Google is they basically have one revenue source and it's advertising. Going forward they will increasingly need to corner markets because advertisers need to be where the users are. Google's growth is directly tied to growing their advertising business. If another new service or product comes along not serving Google ads or otherwise promoting Google's services it's an attack on their core. It's a troubling future to me because it puts Google into the Microsoft growth model of needing to dominate markets and stamp out competition early and often. We saw this recently with the AdMob purchase. It's rumored they tried to buy both Facebook and Twitter in the past. I'm really surprised with all the controversy over Facebook privacy and Apple's App Store policies few people in the tech media are talking about Google's dark side. We're going to see a lot more of this in the future from Google.
Mind you, there is still a lot of the advertising world that Google does not own which they could buy to continue their incremental revenue story.
Two words "anti" and "trust"
For starters, 'anti' is not a word - it's a prefix.
Aside from that, you clearly don't have any concept of what antitrust laws area all about. There is clearly no antitrust issue if Apple were to release iTunes for Android. In fact, the more open they are and the more platforms they support, the LESS antitrust concerns there could be.
The iPhone is a great device but saying there was nothing like it is just not true, nothing was as polished as an iPhone. Apple didn't invent anything "new" they just took what was already around and made it much better. Making things simple and user friendly is actually a very hard thing to do.
At last, somebody pointed out something conclusive. No, matter how many devices are there with how many number of OS'es unless it's simple and easy to use it will be still not worth it. Human nature is to adapt itself , ask people who used older nokia phones & older motorola phones. The real skill is it make things simple for an average and a below average user.
Andriod is the lifesaver for the N number of handset makers who don't have software worth being called UI & want to get out of Microsoft's clutches.
1. I guess no one is evil here as Google wants to earn so as Apple. Google earns by selling private info & Apple earns by selling device.
2. The cost of the phone is same, people wrongly calculate with what apple charges with what other vendors are charging, do remember the andriod phones cost are only the Hardware cost nothing to do with the Software cost (because it's free).
3. Google is not FSF who will have their developers sit and improve the OS without having it generate revenue for itself.
For starters, 'anti' is not a word - it's a prefix.
Aside from that, you clearly don't have any concept of what antitrust laws area all about. There is clearly no antitrust issue if Apple were to release iTunes for Android. In fact, the more open they are and the more platforms they support, the LESS antitrust concerns there could be.
But that openess would have to be both ways. Meaning letting whatever music services android users use be available to iPhone users. If they just made an iTunes android app then they'd be just trying to hoard additional customers increasing their market share and that my friend is an anti-trust violation.
But that openess would have to be both ways. Meaning letting whatever music services android users use be available to iPhone users. If they just made an iTunes android app then they'd be just trying to hoard additional customers increasing their market share and that my friend is an anti-trust violation.
Don't quit your day job - you are absolutely, 100% clueless about the law. Apple can make a version of iTunes for any platform they wish. Your earlier post suggested that simply making iTunes for Android would be an antitrust violation - and that's 100% wrong.
Apple is also free to set rules for what apps are allowed on the iPhone. They have no obligation to carry any app they don't want to - any more than Walmart has any obligation to carry any product THEY don't want.
And I'm not your friend. Friends are people who are important to me - not anonymous Internet trolls.
Don't quit your day job - you are absolutely, 100% clueless about the law. Apple can make a version of iTunes for any platform they wish. Your earlier post suggested that simply making iTunes for Android would be an antitrust violation - and that's 100% wrong.
Apple is also free to set rules for what apps are allowed on the iPhone. They have no obligation to carry any app they don't want to - any more than Walmart has any obligation to carry any product THEY don't want.
And I'm not your friend. Friends are people who are important to me - not anonymous Internet trolls.
I guess I should've written more but in error thought most of you would understand what I was getting at. Apple already dominates music sold online by a big margin, and before u go on a rant I understand that they achieved this by having a better product and not by stifling the competition. They are already being investigated by the DoJ for anti-trust violations. They would without a doubt grab a larger market share if they do indeed make an iTunes app for android. I wasn't implying that WOULD be guilty of anti-trust laws but I'm certain the competition would see it differently. BTW buy bigger panties because the ones you're wearing are obviously too tight. And another thing, this entire article has nothing to do with Apple nor iTunes, if Google wants to sell music then good for them.
Apple is also free to set rules for what apps are allowed on the iPhone. They have no obligation to carry any app they don't want to - any more than Walmart has any obligation to carry any product THEY don't want.
Your analogy is flawed. If you were forced by Walmart to only be allowed to shop there and they would not carry the items you wanted, you would cry BS. In fact, isn't that communist like? In the US you would scream and sue because you couldn't get what you wanted at Walmart. What's more, people that have what you want try to get Walmart to sell it to you but because Walmart doesn't like it, too f'n bad for you. No other stores exists because Walmart won't allow it.
Or how about one step better. GM sells you a car that you can only put GM oil and BP gas into. You want to put in Mobil 1 but because you are only allowed GM oil that you must purchase from GM you can't. Unless you "break the law" and strip off the security features that prevent you from putting in Mobile 1 and purchase it elsewhere, you are SOL. But doing so would then void your warranty of course.
Glad you used the analogy because it clearly shows how screwed up Apple's mentality is. You can try to make Apple look good here but the fact is, their system sucks. They don't allow you to install apps but from their store and control what you can or cannot install. They completely monopolize the whole deal with no access to apps that aren't on Stevie's good list. But hey, if you like people in black turtle necks telling you what's best for you, then have at it.
I guess I should've written more but in error thought most of you would understand what I was getting at. Apple already dominates music sold online by a big margin, and before u go on a rant I understand that they achieved this by having a better product and not by stifling the competition. They are already being investigated by the DoJ for anti-trust violations. They would without a doubt grab a larger market share if they do indeed make an iTunes app for android. I wasn't implying that WOULD be guilty of anti-trust laws but I'm certain the competition would see it differently. BTW buy bigger panties because the ones you're wearing are obviously too tight. .
Once again, it's clear that you don't know what you're talking about.
First, there's a RUMOR that Apple is being looked into by DOJ. No formal investigation has been launched. Even if it does get launched (due to whining from competitors), no charges have been filed.
There is absolutely nothing illegal about dominating music sold online. Nothing. Nor has anyone pointed out a single thing Apple has done that is illegal - by even the broadest interpretation of the law. Apple is allowed to sell what they want in their store.
Your inability to present a logical argument is really demonstrated by your childish rant at the end.
Your analogy is flawed. If you were forced by Walmart to only be allowed to shop there and they would not carry the items you wanted, you would cry BS. In fact, isn't that communist like? In the US you would scream and sue because you couldn't get what you wanted at Walmart. What's more, people that have what you want try to get Walmart to sell it to you but because Walmart doesn't like it, too f'n bad for you. No other stores exists because Walmart won't allow it.
Or how about one step better. GM sells you a car that you can only put GM oil and BP gas into. You want to put in Mobil 1 but because you are only allowed GM oil that you must purchase from GM you can't. Unless you "break the law" and strip off the security features that prevent you from putting in Mobile 1 and purchase it elsewhere, you are SOL. But doing so would then void your warranty of course.
The analogy isn't the same. GM is not a retail store as the iTunes store is. But feel free to cite a specific part of the law that forces Apple to carry songs and software that they don't want to carry.
If you don't like Apple's policies, there are a wide range of other stores out there where you can buy music. That ensures that competition exists - regardless of whether people are choosing to use those stores or not.
Interesting.
Why doesn't Apple simply offer an iTunes app for Android (minus the apps)? Could be a good incremental revenue generator.
That sounds like a very good idea. I see no reason why Apple shouldn't have an Android-friendly avenue into the iTunes store. And no reason not to offer a version of iTunes player for Android too.
Apple has all that stuff for Windows computers, so why not Android?
Trolls here claim that Google's market share will trump Apple, but really what did that get Microsoft?
Huge profits and gigantic market cap. Hundreds and hundreds of employees becoming millionaires. For decades.
why didn't they call it gTunes?
That would have been very mischievous. And very funny.
Bottom line, I want the security of that "walled garden". I love it that apple employee spends time to examine every app before it hits the store. This gives me peace of mind that virtually every app is virus free and cannot grab my personal data.
Do you want the security of that walled garden for your Mac too? Would you prefer that no Mac software could be installed unless you you bought it straight from Apple?
So Google's just an old, tired whore who takes all customers, huh?
Or maybe like our country's great Public Library system, egalitarian and open to all?
Or maybe they are like a common carrier, like a Greyhound, bound by code to let anybody ride unless they are malicious?