They may not have a monopoly in the mobile OS side, but the argument could be made that they are abusing their monopoly position in search. According to Microsoft, Google has 95% of the search market in Europe. If they leverage that into the mobile OS realm, it gives them a significant lead against Bing or other search platforms. Their domination in the search market is the key to any action brought against them. The US regulators likely won't touch Google, but I expect the EC would be much more receptive to competitors' claims.
There is certainly an argument to be made to support your point, but I would say that is not the case. If Google told people that if they wanted to continue using their search engine they?d have to also use an Android phone instead of any other mobile OS then that would be an abuse of their market position.
Ignoring that the scenario makes no sense as it can?t be enforced, what Google is doing is nothing more than what HP/Palm, MS, Apple or others have done. They want to control the OS. If anything I?d think bait-and-switch would be most apropos but I don?t know how that would be dealt with legally since it?s free. I can?t see developers doing a class action lawsuit for the time and money lost in supporting an open OS that is now closed.
Maybe Google planned this from the start, and maybe they planned this switch for a time when they had a heathy marketshare but well below any monopoly share. If they did that it?s not the ?Do no evil? company they say they are but I don?t think it?s illegal and would be hard to prove if that is what they planned from the start.
(Why this silly desire to want to compare to mobile OSes and not the complete product? You?re just setting yourself to get your ass handed to you again today, but maybe you like you like to get beaten down like a rag doll on forums. So let?s begin, I?ll start off gentle and then work into a slaughter in future posts.)
Neither OS is for SALE!!!!
The iPhone is outselling any other vendor?s phones utilizing Android OS.
Again, tell us why Apple cares about OS marketshare over profits and why HTC is happy Moto is taking their business for the same mobile OS?
AL has been disappearing from medical English for decades (I should know, I write medical dictionaries), and there is no rhyme or reason as to when something is pathologic or pathological, physiologic or physiological, microbioogical or microbiologic (you get the point). I suspect eventually somebody will bury "AL" and we won't even have a funeral.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
That sounds illogic.
Exactly. To be consistent, the poster will have to start writing "medic dictionaries" for a living.
Quote:
Originally Posted by christopher126
I know Apple has had missteps recently...but they don't seem to be so contrary to their fundamental principals.
Surely you mean "their fundamental princips." Although you actually meant "principles," unless that is, you were (correctly, if indirectly) referring to Jobs, Ive and Cook as the fundamental principals of Apple, Inc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul94544
Open/Closed whatever.
a new word - Android is Clopen
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmovie
Did you just make that up?
Great.
I'm adding it to my other new vocabulary word of the month — "fugly".
Because customers don’t benefit from a healthy company that can afford to support their products and customers without fear of going under¡
Not to mention a company with the resources to do real R&D can make real improvements to their products, instead of just putting the latest parts in a box and calling it a day.
Google can improve Android if it chooses; you'll notice none of the low margin handset makers bothered to come up with something like the iPad. Because low margins don't fund that kind of work. Now, of course, they're all rushing to put the latest parts into an iPad shaped box, but in a world with only low margin parts assemblers (the kind the OP apparently thinks are good for consumers) that never happens, because there was never anyone with a business model that allows them to look up from doing what everybody else is doing.
Look, make up whatever arbitrary divisions you need to come up with whatever math makes you feel good.
The bottom line is that when Android premiered many here (I believe that would include yourself) said it would never catch up to iOS. When it eclipsed iOS last year suddenly the only conversation you want to have is about individual manufacturers, but slice and dice as you may the proof is in the pudding:
After 20 years of trying Apple has barely 10% of the computer market, and we are now seeing iOS growth begin to level off as Apple settles into a minority position in the emerging mobile market as well.
Let's reconvene here this time next year and see if you're so full of swagger then....
I notice you still can't answer the simple question: "What benefit does HTC derive from Motorola selling a phone with supposedly the 'same' OS (though not really)?" Each manufacturer has nothing to show for the sale of some other manufacturer's phones with their proprietary iteration of "Android" other than a lost customer.
This is the same situation as in the PC market, only worse. At least Windows is actually the same on all those landfill-bound e-waste beige boxes. Imagine if every manufacturer had its own proprietary modifications which made them incompatible with all the others. You think "Windows" would still have 90% of the market? Hell, maybe they would?but who would benefit from this other than Microsoft?
The only ones benefiting from the market spread of hundreds of different versions of "Android" are Google and the spamsters they deliver your eyeballs to. Enjoy your triumph while the handset manufacturers trapped in this vicious cycle go bankrupt, just like in the PC race to the bottom. I thought the Stockholm Syndrome among Windows fanboys was bad, but you Fandroids are something else!
After 20 years of trying Apple has barely 10% of the computer market, and we are now seeing iOS growth begin to level off as Apple settles into a minority position in the emerging mobile market as well.
Let's reconvene here this time next year and see if you're so full of swagger then....
"Leveling off"? You do get that the iPad is an iOS device, right? And that Apple keeps selling more iPhones every quarter? A great many more iPhones?
And that it seems pretty unlikely that the iPad represents the final introduction of an iOS device that Apple will bother with?
By all means lets reconvene in a year and see where we're at.
The bottom line is that when Android premiered many here (I believe that would include yourself) said it would never catch up to iOS. When it eclipsed iOS last year suddenly the only conversation you want to have is about individual manufacturers, but slice and dice as you may the proof is in the pudding:.
I?ve been saying since day one that Android should trounce iOS in marketshare because it?s a free OS used by dozens and dozens of manufacturers. I?ve even wondered why it?s taking so long to beat iOS because of this fact that you constantly ignore.
Quote:
After 20 years of trying Apple has barely 10% of the computer market, and we are now seeing iOS growth begin to level off as Apple settles into a minority position in the emerging mobile market as well..
Here?s where your logic fails again and again and again. Apple?s been trying to make a profit? just like any other for-profit company, yet you keep saying they?ve only been trying to capture marketshare. if that were true then why does Apple 1) singlehandedly take ⅓ of all PC profits for the world, and 2) not simply license or even give away their OS to any and all that want it?
You livability to understand basic concepts is what prevents you from understanding the difference. Or you are smarter than the words you write but are purposely trolling. I tend to assume you are merely a troll as it?s the nicer of the two assumptions.
"Leveling off"? You do get that the iPad is an iOS device, right? And that Apple keeps selling more iPhones every quarter? A great many more iPhones?
And that it seems pretty unlikely that the iPad represents the final introduction of an iOS device that Apple will bother with?
By all means lets reconvene in a year and see where we're at.
If MacRulez wasn?t trying to act like such an asshat* all the time he might actually find some relevant data to show that an Adnroid-based handset is doing well against the iPhone.
Take the Verizon HTC Thunderbolt v. Verizon iPhone. It may actually be outselling the iPhone.
If MacRulez wasn?t trying to act like such an asshat* all the time he might actually find some relevant data to show that an Adnroid-based handset is doing well against the iPhone.
Take the Verizon HTC Thunderbolt v. Verizon iPhone. It may actually be outselling the iPhone.
* I did not call him an asshat, but referred to his actions as such
I'm not surprised. I always knew all the predictions about how iPhone sales would explode if it was available on Verizon were so much hooey. I can well believe that an iPhone is much more noticeably crippled on their primitive network than some less sophisticated phones would be.
Who would pay that kind of money for a phone that can't do voice and data at the same time? And who really believes one of these criminal organizations (cellphone carriers) is any better than the others? Gullible people, I guess.
If MacRulez wasn’t trying to act like such an asshat* all the time he might actually find some relevant data to show that an Adnroid-based handset is doing well against the iPhone.
Take the Verizon HTC Thunderbolt v. Verizon iPhone. It may actually be outselling the iPhone.
* I did not call him an asshat, but referred to his actions as such
And they will continue to do well against the iPhone, for reasons you've well articulated (although perhaps not in quite the way Google had in mind).
However, "iOS" is a platform that Apple appears ready to bet the company on. There isn't another vendor so positioned to combine a desktop and mobile OS with carefully integrated hardware across a vertically integrated system.
Android, as a phone OS, has obvious advantages: baked in Google services, free, ubiquitous, and coming on the scene just as the (Apple initiated) smartphone explosion was taking off. As we've discussed, I'd wager the majority of Android handset sales are going to people who barely know what that means, just that they need a new phone and that's what's available.
However, as mobile moves out from phones to become the new personal computing, the market changes and different assets become more valuable. I'd argue that Apple has those assets in spades, and while Google certainly isn't without resources, easy and pleasant to use computing experiences have not historically been among them. It's a much different thing to build a real computing environment than it is to make a thin Google services client-- as Honeycomb is demonstrating.
I'm not surprised. I always knew all the predictions about how iPhone sales would explode if it was available on Verizon were so much hooey. I can well believe that an iPhone is much more noticeably crippled on their primitive network than some less sophisticated phones would be.
Who would pay that kind of money for a phone that can't do voice and data at the same time? And who really believes one of these criminal organizations (cellphone carriers) is any better than the others? Gullible people, I guess.
I will surprised if a single model, modern smartphone running Android outsells the iPhones for that year. This is the difference MacRulez simply can?t understand. If you want Mac OS or iOS you have to get a Mac or iPhone, and since the models are very limited Apple should be selling more units per model when you compare it to other high-end devices, but they should not be selling more units when you compare all devices using a single OS because they keep the OS for themselves.
I can see it outselling it for a short time frame when it?s brand new (like MS did with stating the Zune?s sales for some odd time frame) but HTC has the same problem as all the other Android-based phones have; they are competing against each other first and foremost.
So far it?s an analyst?s speculation. Verizon?s best selling 1 day launch was the iPhone 4. If the Thunderbolt beats that I?m sure we?d hear about it from Verizon in a press release. Even if the Thunderbolt doesn?t beat that record it?s inconsequential compared to an non-iPhone phone beating the iPhone 4 in total unit sales, especially if it?s for a single carrier. This is all good for Verizon because this year they?ve shown to have two popular phones covering the two most popular modern mobile OSes. AT&T needs this T-Mobile buyout out Verizon is likely to pull ahead each quarter from Sprint, T-Mo, and, pulling up the rear, AT&T customers jumping ship.
Personally, I?m with you. My issues with AT&T are so bad that I?d give up the features W-CDMA offers over EV-DO. It?s just not worst it to me. I do wonder what will happen with the iPhone 5 will come out. Will they offer both model types at the same time or stagger them. I think Apple has gone to extremes to make the iPhone appear and work similar as possible to each other so the only variant, as seen by the customer, is carrier-based. For this reason I think we?ll get them at the same time.
PS: I think Apple could have used a better CDMA/EV-DO HW in the iPhone 4, not the Qualcomm Gobi chip which appears considerably less efficient than chips not designed for ?world mode? use. They could have given the ?3G? talk time on that model several more hours as we?ve seen with other such phones. So why go with the Gobi if you aren?t going to add the antennas for it? To test the waters for when you do make a true, single model ?world mode? iPhone and/or to make the batteries last the same along all tests to help maintain that artificial similarity in the customers? eyes?
Profits only benefit shareholders. For consumers, where do you think that money comes from?
That ol' chestnut. Seeing as how you raised the issue of consumer benefits, how about you tell us how Apple's profits are bad for consumers? Especially in light of them having the most affordable 10" tablet on the market.
You can buy into the technical arguments made for why they are banned all you want. It's just a big smoke screen for the real reasons, seeing as there was no "technical" reasons apple banned google voice or apps that are "political satire."
Really? If Apple really shared your concerns then they really fucked up by including Safari in the iOS.
Indeed, they must be colossally stupid since they did such a good job with mobile webkit that every other phone except for possibly WP7 uses it.
That's a pretty schizophrenic smokescreen
Quote:
Right. Why don't you recall what apple did to their TOS back in 2009 and how the FTC formally set them straight? It isn't out of kindness of their heart that they allowed Google voice and third party dev tools back in.
Link to "how the FTC formally set them straight" please.
No, not like Windows. They never allowed a line of source code out of their doors... unless they were compelled to during a court case.
That's not true. There are custom versions of Windows where organizations from governments to private companies paid MS big $$$ to get the source code and create custom versions or just do their own source code review. Many ATMs run custom versions of Windows.
An example.. Rather disturbing one - I went looking for the reference to them providing it to our government. Ugh...
How myopic - you don't think profits allow companies flexibility in their operations?
Or are we on the "companies that make money are evil" class warfare crap that seems to be permeating our society these days?
Quote:
For consumers, where do you think that money comes from?
That has to be one of the stupidest questions I have seen in a long time. Of course it comes from us. But then again, no one is holding a gun to our collective heads. Apple gets and commands a premium on their traditional Mac OSX computers because they offer an experience that people deem to have enough advantages that it's worth paying more for. That's choice! Your almost acting like we are talking about the mis-use of funds collected through taxes or something.
On phones, tablets and MP3 players price isn't even an issue since Apple is not just showing price parity, but so far they are delivering better products cheaper than their competitors. That Apple makes more profit is a combination of them running their company better and just about all of their competitors sucking that much worse. That doesn't mean consumers are getting taken for a ride. If you want to see the definition of being taken for a ride, just look at the state of "tablets" for the decades before Apple introduced the iPad.
Apple being successful doesn't equate consumers loosing. In fact, it's just the opposite. Apple's current success allows them greater opportunity to develop that "next big thing" that as a consumer I benefit from. The mere existence of Apple provides new and unique alternatives and choice. If you don't think so, perhaps you should re-evaluate and consider why is it almost the entire tech press that criticizes Apple for not operating just like everyone else?
Don't like the Apple way? Great! There are plenty of other choices out there - have at them!
Comments
What the heck does everyone here have against Android? What did it do to you!?
An android killed my dog.
I use Macs because for me they are better than Windows. Not because it's "cooler".
Chicks dig a guy with a Mac.
They may not have a monopoly in the mobile OS side, but the argument could be made that they are abusing their monopoly position in search. According to Microsoft, Google has 95% of the search market in Europe. If they leverage that into the mobile OS realm, it gives them a significant lead against Bing or other search platforms. Their domination in the search market is the key to any action brought against them. The US regulators likely won't touch Google, but I expect the EC would be much more receptive to competitors' claims.
There is certainly an argument to be made to support your point, but I would say that is not the case. If Google told people that if they wanted to continue using their search engine they?d have to also use an Android phone instead of any other mobile OS then that would be an abuse of their market position.
Ignoring that the scenario makes no sense as it can?t be enforced, what Google is doing is nothing more than what HP/Palm, MS, Apple or others have done. They want to control the OS. If anything I?d think bait-and-switch would be most apropos but I don?t know how that would be dealt with legally since it?s free. I can?t see developers doing a class action lawsuit for the time and money lost in supporting an open OS that is now closed.
Maybe Google planned this from the start, and maybe they planned this switch for a time when they had a heathy marketshare but well below any monopoly share. If they did that it?s not the ?Do no evil? company they say they are but I don?t think it?s illegal and would be hard to prove if that is what they planned from the start.
Profits only benefit shareholders. For consumers, where do you think that money comes from?
Because customers don?t benefit from a healthy company that can afford to support their products and customers without fear of going under¡
Do you honestly believe iOS is currently outselling Android?
If so, you might want to try this link first.
(Why this silly desire to want to compare to mobile OSes and not the complete product? You?re just setting yourself to get your ass handed to you again today, but maybe you like you like to get beaten down like a rag doll on forums. So let?s begin, I?ll start off gentle and then work into a slaughter in future posts.)
Neither OS is for SALE!!!!
The iPhone is outselling any other vendor?s phones utilizing Android OS.
Again, tell us why Apple cares about OS marketshare over profits and why HTC is happy Moto is taking their business for the same mobile OS?
Quote: Originally Posted by jcsegenmd
AL has been disappearing from medical English for decades (I should know, I write medical dictionaries), and there is no rhyme or reason as to when something is pathologic or pathological, physiologic or physiological, microbioogical or microbiologic (you get the point). I suspect eventually somebody will bury "AL" and we won't even have a funeral.
That sounds illogic.
Exactly. To be consistent, the poster will have to start writing "medic dictionaries" for a living.
I know Apple has had missteps recently...but they don't seem to be so contrary to their fundamental principals.
Surely you mean "their fundamental princips." Although you actually meant "principles," unless that is, you were (correctly, if indirectly) referring to Jobs, Ive and Cook as the fundamental principals of Apple, Inc.
Open/Closed whatever.
a new word - Android is Clopen
Great.
I'm adding it to my other new vocabulary word of the month — "fugly".
Who says English is a dead language?
Last I heard, unlike French, English is still an open source language, in fact the most open language on the planet. Anyone can alter the source code...
...using the "Creative Commoners" license of course.
Because customers don’t benefit from a healthy company that can afford to support their products and customers without fear of going under¡
Not to mention a company with the resources to do real R&D can make real improvements to their products, instead of just putting the latest parts in a box and calling it a day.
Google can improve Android if it chooses; you'll notice none of the low margin handset makers bothered to come up with something like the iPad. Because low margins don't fund that kind of work. Now, of course, they're all rushing to put the latest parts into an iPad shaped box, but in a world with only low margin parts assemblers (the kind the OP apparently thinks are good for consumers) that never happens, because there was never anyone with a business model that allows them to look up from doing what everybody else is doing.
Dude, you're getting increasingly weird.
Look, make up whatever arbitrary divisions you need to come up with whatever math makes you feel good.
The bottom line is that when Android premiered many here (I believe that would include yourself) said it would never catch up to iOS. When it eclipsed iOS last year suddenly the only conversation you want to have is about individual manufacturers, but slice and dice as you may the proof is in the pudding:
After 20 years of trying Apple has barely 10% of the computer market, and we are now seeing iOS growth begin to level off as Apple settles into a minority position in the emerging mobile market as well.
Let's reconvene here this time next year and see if you're so full of swagger then....
I notice you still can't answer the simple question: "What benefit does HTC derive from Motorola selling a phone with supposedly the 'same' OS (though not really)?" Each manufacturer has nothing to show for the sale of some other manufacturer's phones with their proprietary iteration of "Android" other than a lost customer.
This is the same situation as in the PC market, only worse. At least Windows is actually the same on all those landfill-bound e-waste beige boxes. Imagine if every manufacturer had its own proprietary modifications which made them incompatible with all the others. You think "Windows" would still have 90% of the market? Hell, maybe they would?but who would benefit from this other than Microsoft?
The only ones benefiting from the market spread of hundreds of different versions of "Android" are Google and the spamsters they deliver your eyeballs to. Enjoy your triumph while the handset manufacturers trapped in this vicious cycle go bankrupt, just like in the PC race to the bottom. I thought the Stockholm Syndrome among Windows fanboys was bad, but you Fandroids are something else!
After 20 years of trying Apple has barely 10% of the computer market, and we are now seeing iOS growth begin to level off as Apple settles into a minority position in the emerging mobile market as well.
Let's reconvene here this time next year and see if you're so full of swagger then....
"Leveling off"? You do get that the iPad is an iOS device, right? And that Apple keeps selling more iPhones every quarter? A great many more iPhones?
And that it seems pretty unlikely that the iPad represents the final introduction of an iOS device that Apple will bother with?
By all means lets reconvene in a year and see where we're at.
The bottom line is that when Android premiered many here (I believe that would include yourself) said it would never catch up to iOS. When it eclipsed iOS last year suddenly the only conversation you want to have is about individual manufacturers, but slice and dice as you may the proof is in the pudding:.
I?ve been saying since day one that Android should trounce iOS in marketshare because it?s a free OS used by dozens and dozens of manufacturers. I?ve even wondered why it?s taking so long to beat iOS because of this fact that you constantly ignore.
After 20 years of trying Apple has barely 10% of the computer market, and we are now seeing iOS growth begin to level off as Apple settles into a minority position in the emerging mobile market as well..
Here?s where your logic fails again and again and again. Apple?s been trying to make a profit? just like any other for-profit company, yet you keep saying they?ve only been trying to capture marketshare. if that were true then why does Apple 1) singlehandedly take ⅓ of all PC profits for the world, and 2) not simply license or even give away their OS to any and all that want it?
You livability to understand basic concepts is what prevents you from understanding the difference. Or you are smarter than the words you write but are purposely trolling. I tend to assume you are merely a troll as it?s the nicer of the two assumptions.
"Leveling off"? You do get that the iPad is an iOS device, right? And that Apple keeps selling more iPhones every quarter? A great many more iPhones?
And that it seems pretty unlikely that the iPad represents the final introduction of an iOS device that Apple will bother with?
By all means lets reconvene in a year and see where we're at.
If MacRulez wasn?t trying to act like such an asshat* all the time he might actually find some relevant data to show that an Adnroid-based handset is doing well against the iPhone.
Take the Verizon HTC Thunderbolt v. Verizon iPhone. It may actually be outselling the iPhone.
* I did not call him an asshat, but referred to his actions as such
If MacRulez wasn?t trying to act like such an asshat* all the time he might actually find some relevant data to show that an Adnroid-based handset is doing well against the iPhone.
Take the Verizon HTC Thunderbolt v. Verizon iPhone. It may actually be outselling the iPhone.
* I did not call him an asshat, but referred to his actions as such
I'm not surprised. I always knew all the predictions about how iPhone sales would explode if it was available on Verizon were so much hooey. I can well believe that an iPhone is much more noticeably crippled on their primitive network than some less sophisticated phones would be.
Who would pay that kind of money for a phone that can't do voice and data at the same time? And who really believes one of these criminal organizations (cellphone carriers) is any better than the others? Gullible people, I guess.
If MacRulez wasn’t trying to act like such an asshat* all the time he might actually find some relevant data to show that an Adnroid-based handset is doing well against the iPhone.
Take the Verizon HTC Thunderbolt v. Verizon iPhone. It may actually be outselling the iPhone.
* I did not call him an asshat, but referred to his actions as such
And they will continue to do well against the iPhone, for reasons you've well articulated (although perhaps not in quite the way Google had in mind).
However, "iOS" is a platform that Apple appears ready to bet the company on. There isn't another vendor so positioned to combine a desktop and mobile OS with carefully integrated hardware across a vertically integrated system.
Android, as a phone OS, has obvious advantages: baked in Google services, free, ubiquitous, and coming on the scene just as the (Apple initiated) smartphone explosion was taking off. As we've discussed, I'd wager the majority of Android handset sales are going to people who barely know what that means, just that they need a new phone and that's what's available.
However, as mobile moves out from phones to become the new personal computing, the market changes and different assets become more valuable. I'd argue that Apple has those assets in spades, and while Google certainly isn't without resources, easy and pleasant to use computing experiences have not historically been among them. It's a much different thing to build a real computing environment than it is to make a thin Google services client-- as Honeycomb is demonstrating.
I'm not surprised. I always knew all the predictions about how iPhone sales would explode if it was available on Verizon were so much hooey. I can well believe that an iPhone is much more noticeably crippled on their primitive network than some less sophisticated phones would be.
Who would pay that kind of money for a phone that can't do voice and data at the same time? And who really believes one of these criminal organizations (cellphone carriers) is any better than the others? Gullible people, I guess.
I will surprised if a single model, modern smartphone running Android outsells the iPhones for that year. This is the difference MacRulez simply can?t understand. If you want Mac OS or iOS you have to get a Mac or iPhone, and since the models are very limited Apple should be selling more units per model when you compare it to other high-end devices, but they should not be selling more units when you compare all devices using a single OS because they keep the OS for themselves.
I can see it outselling it for a short time frame when it?s brand new (like MS did with stating the Zune?s sales for some odd time frame) but HTC has the same problem as all the other Android-based phones have; they are competing against each other first and foremost.
So far it?s an analyst?s speculation. Verizon?s best selling 1 day launch was the iPhone 4. If the Thunderbolt beats that I?m sure we?d hear about it from Verizon in a press release. Even if the Thunderbolt doesn?t beat that record it?s inconsequential compared to an non-iPhone phone beating the iPhone 4 in total unit sales, especially if it?s for a single carrier. This is all good for Verizon because this year they?ve shown to have two popular phones covering the two most popular modern mobile OSes. AT&T needs this T-Mobile buyout out Verizon is likely to pull ahead each quarter from Sprint, T-Mo, and, pulling up the rear, AT&T customers jumping ship.
Personally, I?m with you. My issues with AT&T are so bad that I?d give up the features W-CDMA offers over EV-DO. It?s just not worst it to me. I do wonder what will happen with the iPhone 5 will come out. Will they offer both model types at the same time or stagger them. I think Apple has gone to extremes to make the iPhone appear and work similar as possible to each other so the only variant, as seen by the customer, is carrier-based. For this reason I think we?ll get them at the same time.
PS: I think Apple could have used a better CDMA/EV-DO HW in the iPhone 4, not the Qualcomm Gobi chip which appears considerably less efficient than chips not designed for ?world mode? use. They could have given the ?3G? talk time on that model several more hours as we?ve seen with other such phones. So why go with the Gobi if you aren?t going to add the antennas for it? To test the waters for when you do make a true, single model ?world mode? iPhone and/or to make the batteries last the same along all tests to help maintain that artificial similarity in the customers? eyes?
Profits only benefit shareholders. For consumers, where do you think that money comes from?
That ol' chestnut. Seeing as how you raised the issue of consumer benefits, how about you tell us how Apple's profits are bad for consumers? Especially in light of them having the most affordable 10" tablet on the market.
You can buy into the technical arguments made for why they are banned all you want. It's just a big smoke screen for the real reasons, seeing as there was no "technical" reasons apple banned google voice or apps that are "political satire."
Really? If Apple really shared your concerns then they really fucked up by including Safari in the iOS.
Indeed, they must be colossally stupid since they did such a good job with mobile webkit that every other phone except for possibly WP7 uses it.
That's a pretty schizophrenic smokescreen
Right. Why don't you recall what apple did to their TOS back in 2009 and how the FTC formally set them straight? It isn't out of kindness of their heart that they allowed Google voice and third party dev tools back in.
Link to "how the FTC formally set them straight" please.
What a tosser...
No, not like Windows. They never allowed a line of source code out of their doors... unless they were compelled to during a court case.
That's not true. There are custom versions of Windows where organizations from governments to private companies paid MS big $$$ to get the source code and create custom versions or just do their own source code review. Many ATMs run custom versions of Windows.
An example.. Rather disturbing one - I went looking for the reference to them providing it to our government. Ugh...
Profits only benefit shareholders.
How myopic - you don't think profits allow companies flexibility in their operations?
Or are we on the "companies that make money are evil" class warfare crap that seems to be permeating our society these days?
For consumers, where do you think that money comes from?
That has to be one of the stupidest questions I have seen in a long time. Of course it comes from us. But then again, no one is holding a gun to our collective heads. Apple gets and commands a premium on their traditional Mac OSX computers because they offer an experience that people deem to have enough advantages that it's worth paying more for. That's choice! Your almost acting like we are talking about the mis-use of funds collected through taxes or something.
On phones, tablets and MP3 players price isn't even an issue since Apple is not just showing price parity, but so far they are delivering better products cheaper than their competitors. That Apple makes more profit is a combination of them running their company better and just about all of their competitors sucking that much worse. That doesn't mean consumers are getting taken for a ride. If you want to see the definition of being taken for a ride, just look at the state of "tablets" for the decades before Apple introduced the iPad.
Apple being successful doesn't equate consumers loosing. In fact, it's just the opposite. Apple's current success allows them greater opportunity to develop that "next big thing" that as a consumer I benefit from. The mere existence of Apple provides new and unique alternatives and choice. If you don't think so, perhaps you should re-evaluate and consider why is it almost the entire tech press that criticizes Apple for not operating just like everyone else?
Don't like the Apple way? Great! There are plenty of other choices out there - have at them!