thrang

gc_uk said:

thrang said:

It would be insane to force Apple to subvert its own solution. It never made any sense to me why people cannot see that.

There is complete transparency as to what you get when you buy and iPhone, which includes the ecosystem as designed. a VAST majority of people WANT this walled garden. You have to be blind not to see that. I DONT want an iPhone that has holes opened for others. 

If one does not like what the ecosystem offers, get an Android. It's that simple. 

Apple and other companies would be crucified if their phones were compromised by un-vetted Apps. 

Forget it.

Their success proves without doubt what people want. Whatever few tweaks you would gain by opening up the ecosystem, you would potentially lose far more.

Apple is offering a protected solution, in a world where most others want to secretly leverage who you are. Don't ever forget that.

So when Cydia was around, were you afraid your iPhone was less secure because someone else had a jailbreak phone? Or didn’t it affect you in any way?

Sure does. Apple would need to build that on ramp into the OS, and then people start sharing appz, or appz start sniffing contact data data from a user's phone, etc...

It would be insane to force Apple to subvert its own solution. It never made any sense to me why people cannot see that.

There is complete transparency as to what you get when you buy and iPhone, which includes the ecosystem as designed. a VAST majority of people WANT this walled garden. You have to be blind not to see that. I DONT want an iPhone that has holes opened for others. 

If one does not like what the ecosystem offers, get an Android. It's that simple. 

Apple and other companies would be crucified if their phones were compromised by un-vetted Apps. 

Forget it.

Their success proves without doubt what people want. Whatever few tweaks you would gain by opening up the ecosystem, you would potentially lose far more.

Apple is offering a protected solution, in a world where most others want to secretly leverage who you are. Don't ever forget that.

This is like a house-thief taking a homeowner to court to say the improved security on their house make it impossible for him to earn a living...

flydog said:

jdw said:

Sorry, but when you are in business, you seek to limit your competition.  Label it Anti-trust or Anti-competitive if you like, but it's only reasonable to buy Instagram as a matter of good business.  And what may be a near Monopoly within the USA is most assuredly not in China, which is a massive country everyone needs to ponder.  China gains when America loses.  And America is not gaining by breaking up its big tech firms.  What you see in the news on this topic is merely a game of envy and revenge and the illusion of "protecting the little guy and increasing competition for the good of all consumers."

It's clear that you have zero understanding of even the fundamental concepts of antitrust law.

FaceBook is not being sued because it tried to limit competition.  FaceBook is being sued because it used illegal means to limit competion, and harmed consumers as a result. 

I can't find any concrete details of "illegal means" so far.

I'm no fan of Facebook, don't have an account, and think the big issue of user data and the opaque nature of how that's manipulated and sold is the real issue that should be addressed.

If there is evidence that Facebook "forced" otherwise independent companies to sell to them, or illegally harmed them in some other way, that's one thing. But most start-ups WANT to be noticed and bought out. That's their payday, their lifelong goal. It doesn't make any sense that the NY AG was warbling about Facebook "buying up" the competition... (and the big acquisitions were government approved as Facebook points out).

So would the government propose PREVENTING small companies from selling themselves to larger companies in the name of some greater good? Better they go out of business? Should companies not offer people more money to jump ship and join them (poach, to use a negative phrase). Thus, should be telling individuals your income potential will be limited for some greater good?

I'm dubious until we see a lot more evidence presented.

Bought three - two due before Christmas, one in early January (the green color for my wife) - other two colors were Silver and Grey  (for my adult children) and show about a week out or so...

Let's see...can always return them....!