I don't get this whole accusation that MS is "cheating the consumers" by over charging? If I believe I had a great product, I would definitely try to sell at higher margins also. And if people are willing to pay my asking price, then what's the problem?
I don't get this whole accusation that MS is "cheating the consumers" by over charging? If I believe I had a great product, I would definitely try to sell at higher margins also. And if people are willing to pay my asking price, then what's the problem?
Yeah, the nerve of MS trying to have a high profit margin, Apple would never ever ever do something like that. Oh and that $20 discount, wow, didn't know Apple had a B28GO offer.
"Chicago Public Schools [...] found the tablets were successful in keeping students more engaged in the classroom. "
I think children that are misbehaving (such as not paying attention in class) should not be rewarded by giving them fancy tablets. That's what "more engaged" means right? It means they're not paying attention. Well it's just basic manners to pay attention to the teacher, whether you're interested in what he's saying or not.
You have woefully misconstrued "more engaged" in today's educational setting. In this instance I can speak from direct personal experience. It so happens that a fifth grade grandson of mine is one of those Chicago students who gets to share in the use of an iPad in some of his classes. He's a good student and by no means is he a "misbehaver." I have visited his classes more than once. His classmates are alert and engaged. The faculty members put a great deal of creative effort into their teaching, and the neighborhood parents are intensely interested in their kids' education. iPads are put to use in my grandson's school with a learning purpose. They're not treated as playthings in the classroom.
Those adults who don't spend time at elementary schools have an insufficient understanding and appreciation for the large changes that computers have brought to the learning experience. My other grandson is a fourth grader at a private day school in Northeast Pennsylvania that's more than 170 years old. This fall, he and his fellow fourth grade students all were provided with MacBooks. They typically spend more than an hour a day in computer learning activities, overseen by a teacher using the class LAN.
It would help if you had a bit more first-hand knowledge before sounding off.
So let me get this straight...they got money from MS because MS locked people down and used their dominance to destroy competition, and are using that money for gear from a company that is proving to be far more draconian than MS when given a monopoly...Can you stream Apple TV shows to Google TV? Can you download that itunes purchased movie to your WP 7 phone for a trip?
Microsoft is a monopoly because it controlled more than 95% of the computer operating system market at the time it was sued for abusive monopoly practices.
Apple is a monopoly in Apple products. It is NOT a monopoly in operating systems, smartphones, MP3 players, and computers. It is also not a monopoly in tablets.
At the time Microsoft was sued for being an abusive monopolist, if you wanted to buy a computer your choice was either a Wintel PC or a Mac. And Macs were less than 4% of the market.
If you want to buy a tablet today, your choice is; Apple, Samsung, Acer, Asus, Polaroid, HP, Blackberry, and so on and so forth.
What is YOUR definition of a monopoly?
Quote:
Can any non Apple devices play the Apple DRMed text book files? what about non DRMed output from the ibooks production tool (have they rolled their additions into some new fork of epub or something)?
I keep asking myself why I can't play Wii games on my Playstation 3. Wouldn't that make Sony a monopolist, based on your logic?
Quote:
even with all the pressure from MS, back in the day I could still load my PC with Linux or OS/2 or BeOS or anything else without a legal risk of jailbreak procedure to get at MY OWN DAMN GEAR, I could have used Netscape if I wanted to, and as I recall you could use IE on the Mac at the time of the original complained about action occurred...
The reason Microsoft was a convicted monopolist was not because it prevented you from installing other OS or Netscape on the Wintel PC after you purchased it, but because you were FORCED to purchase Windows when buying the PC (i.e. the Microsof Windows tax). In other words, if you wanted to buy a PC without Windows already installed and without having to pay the Windows tax, you were out of luck. All PC manufacturers were forced to carry Windows on all computers and pass the cost of Windows to consumers. There were instances when Dell was selling PCs with Linux pre-loaded but they still had to pay Microsoft for the Windows license for those PCs (albeit at bulk volume pricing) even though those PCs didn't have Windows installed.
I don't get this whole accusation that MS is "cheating the consumers" by over charging? If I believe I had a great product, I would definitely try to sell at higher margins also. And if people are willing to pay my asking price, then what's the problem?
In Microsoft's case, the problem was that Microsoft controlled 95%+ of the computer operating system market. Basically, more than 95% of all computers being sold at the time it was sued for "cheating the consumers" were carrying the Microsoft Windows operating systems.
You might conclude based on this that the operating system was so good that all PC manufacturers chose it over other competing offerings. Nothing could have been further from the truth. You see, way back in late 1980s, Microsoft told all manufacturers that if they wanted Windows bulk volume license, they had to carry Windows on ALL PCs they manufactured. Otherwise they would not get the bulk volume license and would either be charged full retail price or Microsoft would not sell Windows to them at all (my memory is a bit fuzzy on the actual terms but that was the gist of it).
Microsoft could do this because it was the only company at the time who was willing to license its OS to manufacturers. Apple refused to license its OS. IBM didn't license OS/2 either, if I recall correctly. Linux didn't exist back then. Fast forward to late 1990s. You have a variety of operating systems available (BeOS, Linux, BSD, etc.). But by that time, Windows was so widespread that nobody seriously considered selling any PCs with other operating systems and even if they did, they wouldn't be able to sell Windows PCs, not without paying the Windows tax.
That's where the overcharging came in - MS controlled the OS market and it could charge ANY price it wanted because there was no competition. You couldn't run MacOS on Wintel PCs. Nobody sold PCs with Linux installed and nobody dared to do so.
That's where the "cheating the consumers" came into play. Microsoft charged $XX for Windows that came pre-installed in PCs that consumers bought. This $XX was the monopoly price, not the free-market price because PC manufacturers could not and would not sell PCs installed with other operating systems. So it was argued by the states that Microsoft overcharged consumers by some number and that the estimated free-market price was $YY.
Ok, here is another example of the consumer getting taken buy not Big Business but, state government. The consumer should be the ones that get any refund, they're the ones that were over charged by Microsoft, not the State Government.
One thing I don't understand is why Apple doesn't give educational institutions a bigger discount than their usual, pitiful "educational" discount. Unlike individual students, these places are buying them in large quantities and have to replace them regularly since students are so hard on hardware. We all know that Apple has a pretty high profit margin on these gadgets and they could cut the price quite a bit without actually selling below cost. Yes, I know Apple is already selling as many as it can make and probably doesn't want to lose money. But make it cheaper and easier for schools to buy and it can be yet another way to ensure continued growth of mindshare to lock in future customers. Lose a bit in the short term to gain even more in the long term.
Why do any of you reply to slappys comments? He obviously revels in being an iconoclast.
Thanks for the complement
Dictionary.com defines iconoclast as
1.
a person who attacks cherished beliefs, traditional institutions, etc., as being based on error or superstition.
2.
a breaker or destroyer of images, especially those set up for religious veneration.
We need to think critically about all technology, and not just drink the Apple kool-aid...I say this as an owner of 3 iphones, an iPad and 2 macs...so I am not just some mac basher, I like Apples tech but I dont really like their closed propriatery nature.
The closed and propriatery nature of everything that Apple does was fine when they were not huge, when they were the under dog but I am just saying that one could make the argument that they pretty much have a monopoly of the tablet space and they are abusing it the same way that MS did in the 1990's.
Not only the legal monopoly issue, but technically Apple seems to be using teh old tactic that MS did with format lockin with Office in the 90s, a closed format with no technical documentation for interoprability. This leads to huge issues down the road -- I learned first hand how hard this can be a few years ago when I was tasked with getting some files from the first version of MS Word using Word 2007...it wasnt pretty at all...and how woluld I have openned that doc if MS had moved away from that product? how does one open a claris works file now a days?
Before you gentlemen start setting fire to the Microsoft offices, a few things to consider...
1. Name a school district that is NOT a part of a wealthy neighborhood that has a decent IT infrastructure. The fact is. Not many do. So who's gonna pay for the high speed Internet for all those IPads?
2. Replacement costs - so tell me how long will an iPad last in the Hands of a kid? Remember guys it's got a glass face.
3. Theft - imagine strapping $500 of tech on the backs of kids. Your kid. Tell me theives are too kind hearted to rob kids... Eg Nike shoes
Oh and Microsoft... It's Microsoft Office for MAC that is getting Macs into the office.
1. Name a school district that is NOT a part of a wealthy neighborhood that has a decent IT infrastructure. The fact is. Not many do. So who's gonna pay for the high speed Internet for all those IPads?
And plenty do. No corporation would be stupid enough to buy hundreds of iPads when their schools don't even have Internet.
Quote:
2. Replacement costs - so tell me how long will an iPad last in the Hands of a kid? Remember guys it's got a glass face.
What's this?! Our children will be forced to be responsible for once in their lives?! Forced to take care of their possessions instead of treating them like filth?! There will be CONSEQUENCES for breaking/damaging/jailbreaking these devices?!
HOW HORRIFYING. WE CAN'T HAVE THAT!
Quote:
3. Theft - imagine strapping $500 of tech on the backs of kids. Your kid. Tell me theives are too kind hearted to rob kids... Eg Nike shoes
Who says they get to take them home?
Quote:
Oh and Microsoft... It's Microsoft Office for MAC that is getting Macs into the office.
Blatant lies. iWork is just better software, period. As Steve Jobs said in 1997, even, "Sure, use Excel. There will probably be 20-25 percent of the market that will need Excel, and that's fine. We're selling to the other 75 percent!"
And that becomes ever smaller as Numbers gets features. And Pages gets features. Et cetera. Keynote is already better than PowerPoint will ever be.
So let me get this straight...they got money from MS because MS locked people down and used their dominance to destroy competition, and are using that money for gear from a company that is proving to be far more draconian than MS when given a monopoly...Can you stream Apple TV shows to Google TV? Can you download that itunes purchased movie to your WP 7 phone for a trip?
Can third parties write apps for those platforms that use Apple content?
Can any non Apple devices play the Apple DRMed text book files? what about non DRMed output from the ibooks production tool (have they rolled their additions into some new fork of epub or something)?
even with all the pressure from MS, back in the day I could still load my PC with Linux or OS/2 or BeOS or anything else without a legal risk of jailbreak procedure to get at MY OWN DAMN GEAR, I could have used Netscape if I wanted to, and as I recall you could use IE on the Mac at the time of the original complained about action occurred...
If we have to have one evil monopolist, MS seems like a much more benevolent overload(s) than Apple.
So I guess Microsoft and Sony and Nintendo should all open up their consoles to allow you to play each platforms games on each of the consoles you choose?
You have the right to choose which platform you want.
I imagine the school district did their due diligence and already weighed out all the restrictions of each platform.
The closed and propriatery nature of everything that Apple does was fine when they were not huge, when they were the under dog but I am just saying that one could make the argument that they pretty much have a monopoly of the tablet space and they are abusing it the same way that MS did in the 1990's.
One cannot make any argument about any monopoly of the tablet space by Apple, for the same reasons I had outlined earlier. Apple does not have any control or influence over other tablet manufacturers in the same way that Microsoft had control/influence over the PC manufacturers. For example, Apple is unable to tell Samsung: "If you don't sell all your tablets with iOS installed, I will not license iOS to you" because Apple does not license anything to anybody. So Samsung, Asus, Acer, HP, et al are all free to sell tablets in any form or fashion they want using any operating system of their choice, as long as none of them infringe on Apple's patents and trademarks. THAT is the definition of competition, not monopoly.
The fact that Apple happens to own a huge chunk of the tablet market share simply indicates that the competition sucks, not that Apple is doing anything to prevent competition.
Everyone is holding their breath (or not) waiting for Windows 8 tablets to come out. Do you think that Apple had some kind of a secret deal with Microsoft to delay the Windows 8 tablet launch in exchange for cash considerations? Go ahead and come out with conspiracy theories to support your "Apple is a monopoly!" claims.
Quote:
Not only the legal monopoly issue, but technically Apple seems to be using teh old tactic that MS did with format lockin with Office in the 90s, a closed format with no technical documentation for interoprability. This leads to huge issues down the road -- I learned first hand how hard this can be a few years ago when I was tasked with getting some files from the first version of MS Word using Word 2007...it wasnt pretty at all...and how woluld I have openned that doc if MS had moved away from that product? how does one open a claris works file now a days?
You might want to look up the lawsuit against Microsoft by Novell which ended recently in mistrial. The details of the case are fascinating. The allegation was that Microsoft used its control over Windows to hobble the operation/compatibility of Word Perfect software on Windows PCs. As you might surmise, Word Perfect was a direct competitor to Microsoft Word.
Did Apple do anything to hobble or prevent other mobile operating systems in the similar fashion that Microsoft did to Word competitors, outside of patents?
The intelligent choice would be Android powered devices. The future is with Android. It's growing at twice the rate of iOS. Choosing a platform that is steadily losing its foothold is a big mistake.
I think iOS is going from strength to strength.
The people I?ve spoken to who prefer android tend to fall into 2 categories: those who enjoy spending hours tinkering with code and customising their devices and those who are happy with 60% of the iPhone experience for 60% of the price.
iOS + curated App Store has solved so many fundamental problems that other tech companies have long relegated to the ?too hard? basket?identity theft, malicious code, software compatibility to name a few. Android does not solve any of these problems. That is why the future will not be with them.
Comments
Will they engrave them with "Donated by Microsoft"?
I don't get this whole accusation that MS is "cheating the consumers" by over charging? If I believe I had a great product, I would definitely try to sell at higher margins also. And if people are willing to pay my asking price, then what's the problem?
Yeah, the nerve of MS trying to have a high profit margin, Apple would never ever ever do something like that. Oh and that $20 discount, wow, didn't know Apple had a B28GO offer.
"Chicago Public Schools [...] found the tablets were successful in keeping students more engaged in the classroom. "
I think children that are misbehaving (such as not paying attention in class) should not be rewarded by giving them fancy tablets. That's what "more engaged" means right? It means they're not paying attention. Well it's just basic manners to pay attention to the teacher, whether you're interested in what he's saying or not.
You have woefully misconstrued "more engaged" in today's educational setting. In this instance I can speak from direct personal experience. It so happens that a fifth grade grandson of mine is one of those Chicago students who gets to share in the use of an iPad in some of his classes. He's a good student and by no means is he a "misbehaver." I have visited his classes more than once. His classmates are alert and engaged. The faculty members put a great deal of creative effort into their teaching, and the neighborhood parents are intensely interested in their kids' education. iPads are put to use in my grandson's school with a learning purpose. They're not treated as playthings in the classroom.
Those adults who don't spend time at elementary schools have an insufficient understanding and appreciation for the large changes that computers have brought to the learning experience. My other grandson is a fourth grader at a private day school in Northeast Pennsylvania that's more than 170 years old. This fall, he and his fellow fourth grade students all were provided with MacBooks. They typically spend more than an hour a day in computer learning activities, overseen by a teacher using the class LAN.
It would help if you had a bit more first-hand knowledge before sounding off.
So let me get this straight...they got money from MS because MS locked people down and used their dominance to destroy competition, and are using that money for gear from a company that is proving to be far more draconian than MS when given a monopoly...Can you stream Apple TV shows to Google TV? Can you download that itunes purchased movie to your WP 7 phone for a trip?
Microsoft is a monopoly because it controlled more than 95% of the computer operating system market at the time it was sued for abusive monopoly practices.
Apple is a monopoly in Apple products. It is NOT a monopoly in operating systems, smartphones, MP3 players, and computers. It is also not a monopoly in tablets.
At the time Microsoft was sued for being an abusive monopolist, if you wanted to buy a computer your choice was either a Wintel PC or a Mac. And Macs were less than 4% of the market.
If you want to buy a tablet today, your choice is; Apple, Samsung, Acer, Asus, Polaroid, HP, Blackberry, and so on and so forth.
What is YOUR definition of a monopoly?
Can any non Apple devices play the Apple DRMed text book files? what about non DRMed output from the ibooks production tool (have they rolled their additions into some new fork of epub or something)?
I keep asking myself why I can't play Wii games on my Playstation 3. Wouldn't that make Sony a monopolist, based on your logic?
even with all the pressure from MS, back in the day I could still load my PC with Linux or OS/2 or BeOS or anything else without a legal risk of jailbreak procedure to get at MY OWN DAMN GEAR, I could have used Netscape if I wanted to, and as I recall you could use IE on the Mac at the time of the original complained about action occurred...
The reason Microsoft was a convicted monopolist was not because it prevented you from installing other OS or Netscape on the Wintel PC after you purchased it, but because you were FORCED to purchase Windows when buying the PC (i.e. the Microsof Windows tax). In other words, if you wanted to buy a PC without Windows already installed and without having to pay the Windows tax, you were out of luck. All PC manufacturers were forced to carry Windows on all computers and pass the cost of Windows to consumers. There were instances when Dell was selling PCs with Linux pre-loaded but they still had to pay Microsoft for the Windows license for those PCs (albeit at bulk volume pricing) even though those PCs didn't have Windows installed.
I don't get this whole accusation that MS is "cheating the consumers" by over charging? If I believe I had a great product, I would definitely try to sell at higher margins also. And if people are willing to pay my asking price, then what's the problem?
In Microsoft's case, the problem was that Microsoft controlled 95%+ of the computer operating system market. Basically, more than 95% of all computers being sold at the time it was sued for "cheating the consumers" were carrying the Microsoft Windows operating systems.
You might conclude based on this that the operating system was so good that all PC manufacturers chose it over other competing offerings. Nothing could have been further from the truth. You see, way back in late 1980s, Microsoft told all manufacturers that if they wanted Windows bulk volume license, they had to carry Windows on ALL PCs they manufactured. Otherwise they would not get the bulk volume license and would either be charged full retail price or Microsoft would not sell Windows to them at all (my memory is a bit fuzzy on the actual terms but that was the gist of it).
Microsoft could do this because it was the only company at the time who was willing to license its OS to manufacturers. Apple refused to license its OS. IBM didn't license OS/2 either, if I recall correctly. Linux didn't exist back then. Fast forward to late 1990s. You have a variety of operating systems available (BeOS, Linux, BSD, etc.). But by that time, Windows was so widespread that nobody seriously considered selling any PCs with other operating systems and even if they did, they wouldn't be able to sell Windows PCs, not without paying the Windows tax.
That's where the overcharging came in - MS controlled the OS market and it could charge ANY price it wanted because there was no competition. You couldn't run MacOS on Wintel PCs. Nobody sold PCs with Linux installed and nobody dared to do so.
That's where the "cheating the consumers" came into play. Microsoft charged $XX for Windows that came pre-installed in PCs that consumers bought. This $XX was the monopoly price, not the free-market price because PC manufacturers could not and would not sell PCs installed with other operating systems. So it was argued by the states that Microsoft overcharged consumers by some number and that the estimated free-market price was $YY.
oh the ironing
Yes the ironing. Who would have thought that mess would be straighten out like this.
Why do any of you reply to slappys comments? He obviously revels in being an iconoclast.
Thanks for the complement
Dictionary.com defines iconoclast as
1.
a person who attacks cherished beliefs, traditional institutions, etc., as being based on error or superstition.
2.
a breaker or destroyer of images, especially those set up for religious veneration.
We need to think critically about all technology, and not just drink the Apple kool-aid...I say this as an owner of 3 iphones, an iPad and 2 macs...so I am not just some mac basher, I like Apples tech but I dont really like their closed propriatery nature.
The closed and propriatery nature of everything that Apple does was fine when they were not huge, when they were the under dog but I am just saying that one could make the argument that they pretty much have a monopoly of the tablet space and they are abusing it the same way that MS did in the 1990's.
Not only the legal monopoly issue, but technically Apple seems to be using teh old tactic that MS did with format lockin with Office in the 90s, a closed format with no technical documentation for interoprability. This leads to huge issues down the road -- I learned first hand how hard this can be a few years ago when I was tasked with getting some files from the first version of MS Word using Word 2007...it wasnt pretty at all...and how woluld I have openned that doc if MS had moved away from that product? how does one open a claris works file now a days?
Anyone else notice that 1400 iPads at 479$ doesn't even come close to 3.4 million dollars?
Training, infrastructure setup, software purchases?
1. Name a school district that is NOT a part of a wealthy neighborhood that has a decent IT infrastructure. The fact is. Not many do. So who's gonna pay for the high speed Internet for all those IPads?
2. Replacement costs - so tell me how long will an iPad last in the Hands of a kid? Remember guys it's got a glass face.
3. Theft - imagine strapping $500 of tech on the backs of kids. Your kid. Tell me theives are too kind hearted to rob kids... Eg Nike shoes
Oh and Microsoft... It's Microsoft Office for MAC that is getting Macs into the office.
Otherwise businesses would ignore the Mac.
1. Name a school district that is NOT a part of a wealthy neighborhood that has a decent IT infrastructure. The fact is. Not many do. So who's gonna pay for the high speed Internet for all those IPads?
And plenty do. No corporation would be stupid enough to buy hundreds of iPads when their schools don't even have Internet.
2. Replacement costs - so tell me how long will an iPad last in the Hands of a kid? Remember guys it's got a glass face.
What's this?! Our children will be forced to be responsible for once in their lives?! Forced to take care of their possessions instead of treating them like filth?! There will be CONSEQUENCES for breaking/damaging/jailbreaking these devices?!
HOW HORRIFYING. WE CAN'T HAVE THAT!
3. Theft - imagine strapping $500 of tech on the backs of kids. Your kid. Tell me theives are too kind hearted to rob kids... Eg Nike shoes
Who says they get to take them home?
Oh and Microsoft... It's Microsoft Office for MAC that is getting Macs into the office.
Blatant lies. iWork is just better software, period. As Steve Jobs said in 1997, even, "Sure, use Excel. There will probably be 20-25 percent of the market that will need Excel, and that's fine. We're selling to the other 75 percent!"
And that becomes ever smaller as Numbers gets features. And Pages gets features. Et cetera. Keynote is already better than PowerPoint will ever be.
Otherwise businesses would ignore the Mac.
Uh huh.
Who says they get to take them home?
Cool no more homework.
So let me get this straight...they got money from MS because MS locked people down and used their dominance to destroy competition, and are using that money for gear from a company that is proving to be far more draconian than MS when given a monopoly...Can you stream Apple TV shows to Google TV? Can you download that itunes purchased movie to your WP 7 phone for a trip?
Can third parties write apps for those platforms that use Apple content?
Can any non Apple devices play the Apple DRMed text book files? what about non DRMed output from the ibooks production tool (have they rolled their additions into some new fork of epub or something)?
even with all the pressure from MS, back in the day I could still load my PC with Linux or OS/2 or BeOS or anything else without a legal risk of jailbreak procedure to get at MY OWN DAMN GEAR, I could have used Netscape if I wanted to, and as I recall you could use IE on the Mac at the time of the original complained about action occurred...
If we have to have one evil monopolist, MS seems like a much more benevolent overload(s) than Apple.
So I guess Microsoft and Sony and Nintendo should all open up their consoles to allow you to play each platforms games on each of the consoles you choose?
You have the right to choose which platform you want.
I imagine the school district did their due diligence and already weighed out all the restrictions of each platform.
The closed and propriatery nature of everything that Apple does was fine when they were not huge, when they were the under dog but I am just saying that one could make the argument that they pretty much have a monopoly of the tablet space and they are abusing it the same way that MS did in the 1990's.
One cannot make any argument about any monopoly of the tablet space by Apple, for the same reasons I had outlined earlier. Apple does not have any control or influence over other tablet manufacturers in the same way that Microsoft had control/influence over the PC manufacturers. For example, Apple is unable to tell Samsung: "If you don't sell all your tablets with iOS installed, I will not license iOS to you" because Apple does not license anything to anybody. So Samsung, Asus, Acer, HP, et al are all free to sell tablets in any form or fashion they want using any operating system of their choice, as long as none of them infringe on Apple's patents and trademarks. THAT is the definition of competition, not monopoly.
The fact that Apple happens to own a huge chunk of the tablet market share simply indicates that the competition sucks, not that Apple is doing anything to prevent competition.
Everyone is holding their breath (or not) waiting for Windows 8 tablets to come out. Do you think that Apple had some kind of a secret deal with Microsoft to delay the Windows 8 tablet launch in exchange for cash considerations? Go ahead and come out with conspiracy theories to support your "Apple is a monopoly!" claims.
Not only the legal monopoly issue, but technically Apple seems to be using teh old tactic that MS did with format lockin with Office in the 90s, a closed format with no technical documentation for interoprability. This leads to huge issues down the road -- I learned first hand how hard this can be a few years ago when I was tasked with getting some files from the first version of MS Word using Word 2007...it wasnt pretty at all...and how woluld I have openned that doc if MS had moved away from that product? how does one open a claris works file now a days?
You might want to look up the lawsuit against Microsoft by Novell which ended recently in mistrial. The details of the case are fascinating. The allegation was that Microsoft used its control over Windows to hobble the operation/compatibility of Word Perfect software on Windows PCs. As you might surmise, Word Perfect was a direct competitor to Microsoft Word.
Did Apple do anything to hobble or prevent other mobile operating systems in the similar fashion that Microsoft did to Word competitors, outside of patents?
The intelligent choice would be Android powered devices. The future is with Android. It's growing at twice the rate of iOS. Choosing a platform that is steadily losing its foothold is a big mistake.
I think iOS is going from strength to strength.
The people I?ve spoken to who prefer android tend to fall into 2 categories: those who enjoy spending hours tinkering with code and customising their devices and those who are happy with 60% of the iPhone experience for 60% of the price.
iOS + curated App Store has solved so many fundamental problems that other tech companies have long relegated to the ?too hard? basket?identity theft, malicious code, software compatibility to name a few. Android does not solve any of these problems. That is why the future will not be with them.
LMFAO! I literally belted out a huge, roaring laugh upon reading that headline.
Don't you just Love it.