Because I did not make the assertion. Generally, those who make assertions can be asked to support them.
His remarks indicated that the two situations could be distinguished. I asked how he would go about doing it.
They are distinguished because none of the circumstances are similar. If you need a history lesson on Microsoft (and Apple) to see why that's the case, why don't you Google it, you love Google.
The apt analogy here is the trojan horse analogy I posted on today's thread. The idea that you ought to have to allow competitors into your business to spy on you is ridiculous. To use everyone's favorite Coke/Pepsi analogy, that would be like making Coke allow Pepsi to affix tracking tags to Coke cans so Pepsi can see when and where and to whom Coke is selling Coke. In this case, Coke is actually even allowing Pepsi to print ads on the cans, but Pepsi isn't satisfied with that.
In all seriousness, I think they are literally giving the bird to the FTC antitrust division.
There can be no doubt that iOS is a computer operating system of which Apple has 100% market share. That market share is used to limit competition in Apps and Advertising to the detriment of their competitors and at the expense of consumers/advertisers who pay in the form of decreased competition reflecting less innovation and/or higher prices.
Considering they are being looked at from several angles, I am surprised they would open another front.
Particularly at a time when the compare/contrast with other platforms makes them look really bad. (AT&T just launched an Android phone tied to Yahoo)
It only took 24 posts to have someone with sensibility and logic post something.
I didn't want to believe that people could be this blinded by a name/company, yet I've seen it here.
This is obviously anti-competitive behaviour. Apple (and it's ad program) will take usage statistics from consumers, and use that data to make their product better. They've told Google that they can't do this anymore, which by definition is anti-competitive.
For you people who want to put on the blinders, you should get an ethos, or take a course on indoctrination.
This is obviously anti-competitive behaviour. Apple (and it's ad program) will take usage statistics from consumers, and use that data to make their product better. They've told Google that they can't do this anymore, which by definition is anti-competitive.
They've done no such thing - Google is still able to do this on their own platform, which going by their I/O conference is killing the iPhone in every regard... not to mention the rest of the 70% of the mobile application market that is not on the Apple platform.
Apple don't have a monopoly on the mobile applications market:
Apple grabbed nearly one third of the $4.2 billion spent on mobile applications in 2009, according to figures from Gartner, a US technology research firm.
Comments
Since, proving a negative is difficult, why don't you prove that they do exist?
.
Because I did not make the assertion. Generally, those who make assertions can be asked to support them.
His remarks indicated that the two situations could be distinguished. I asked how he would go about doing it.
Because I did not make the assertion. Generally, those who make assertions can be asked to support them.
His remarks indicated that the two situations could be distinguished. I asked how he would go about doing it.
They are distinguished because none of the circumstances are similar. If you need a history lesson on Microsoft (and Apple) to see why that's the case, why don't you Google it, you love Google.
The apt analogy here is the trojan horse analogy I posted on today's thread. The idea that you ought to have to allow competitors into your business to spy on you is ridiculous. To use everyone's favorite Coke/Pepsi analogy, that would be like making Coke allow Pepsi to affix tracking tags to Coke cans so Pepsi can see when and where and to whom Coke is selling Coke. In this case, Coke is actually even allowing Pepsi to print ads on the cans, but Pepsi isn't satisfied with that.
LOL!
You should take lighter puffs on that methane bong
.
hey hey
those secret server farms that apple is growing somewhere in the deep un charted south east america's
should .. umm /// hmm . i forgot what i was aying
damn it ...
apple has creamed me so bad with great great devices that define me and my world for 22 odd yrs
i even bought apple at 13 and almost went belly up 4 x yet selling small bits of aapl saved me and my family
so yes i love appl
but apple 3 yrs ago was not green
green peace slapped apple around and now presto apple is f.ing green
xxxxx
also i read this whole topic and find the comments so stupid that my own stupid post looks great
peace 9
dude
apple use slave red china labor .... sad but true
In all seriousness, I think they are literally giving the bird to the FTC antitrust division.
There can be no doubt that iOS is a computer operating system of which Apple has 100% market share. That market share is used to limit competition in Apps and Advertising to the detriment of their competitors and at the expense of consumers/advertisers who pay in the form of decreased competition reflecting less innovation and/or higher prices.
Considering they are being looked at from several angles, I am surprised they would open another front.
Particularly at a time when the compare/contrast with other platforms makes them look really bad. (AT&T just launched an Android phone tied to Yahoo)
It only took 24 posts to have someone with sensibility and logic post something.
I didn't want to believe that people could be this blinded by a name/company, yet I've seen it here.
This is obviously anti-competitive behaviour. Apple (and it's ad program) will take usage statistics from consumers, and use that data to make their product better. They've told Google that they can't do this anymore, which by definition is anti-competitive.
For you people who want to put on the blinders, you should get an ethos, or take a course on indoctrination.
They are distinguished because none of the circumstances are similar.
Case closed?
No, there really aren't. It just looks that way in your fun house mirror.
Do you argue, or just post semantics. He proved his point, and you say "no it isn't." How is that in any way proving your point.
You need to get a mirror, instead of that opaque Apple logo you look into that you call a mirror.
This is obviously anti-competitive behaviour. Apple (and it's ad program) will take usage statistics from consumers, and use that data to make their product better. They've told Google that they can't do this anymore, which by definition is anti-competitive.
They've done no such thing - Google is still able to do this on their own platform, which going by their I/O conference is killing the iPhone in every regard... not to mention the rest of the 70% of the mobile application market that is not on the Apple platform.
Apple don't have a monopoly on the mobile applications market:
http://www.china.org.cn/business/201...t_19731538.htm
Apple grabbed nearly one third of the $4.2 billion spent on mobile applications in 2009, according to figures from Gartner, a US technology research firm.
Apple don't have a monopoly on the mobile applications market:
http://www.china.org.cn/business/201...t_19731538.htm
"Having a monopoly" isn't a central question.