I can wait for them to go after Apple with all their anti competitive practices, Itunes, Ipods, non-clone CPUs, OSx all of which are relatively closed platforms, whats good for the MS is good for apple, ca-ching
"I can wait for them to go after Apple with all their anti competitive practices, Itunes, Ipods, non-clone CPUs, OSx all of which are relatively closed platforms, whats good for the MS is good for apple, ca-ching"
And the minute that happens watch all the same people cheering this suddenly think that it is now totally unfair.
Yeah but who cares about Apple and the 10 people that use their products? This is figuratively speaking in comparison to MS, of course.
The point is that they're going to go after the 'monster' that they know will have to pay them. Kind of like targetting BMW vs. BMX.
If they go after Apple...Steve could easily say, "oh yeah?...no more Apples for you" and let that be that - it wouldn't hurt Apple as much as it would hurt MS.
They already have gone after Apple for iTunes and the iPod.
The difference is that Apple, unlike Microsoft, doesn't tell governments to piss off.
Oh and the other difference is that if you don't like the iPod, you can easily buy another product. Or, if you have another product, you can easily get music for it. And finally, the competition, as in Microsoft and wma, is just as proprietary as fairplay.
You idiots comparing this situation to Apple don't have a f*cking leg to stand on. I might remind you guys that monopolies in themselves are not illegal. Leveraging your monopoly power to stifle competition IS illlegal. Microsoft has been convicted of these practices here in America and abroad.
And stop with this nonsense about Apple being a monopoly because they tie their operating system to their hardware. There is nothing monopolistic about this. You can't have a freaking monopoly on your own product. If that were the case, every device in the world, including cell phones, gaming consoles, PDAs, microwaves, toasters, would be monopolies. Apple isn't the only company in the world that creates the operating system that comes exclusively with their devices.
@ Clak If the issue in the artical is microsoft not giving competing product developers information on their source code. Im sorry, does Apple allow Itunes music formated with its copy protection to play on other devices? Or do you have to pay extra for a MP3 or buy an ipod? Last time i checked there are alternatives to Windows like OSx , linux, lindows, exc so as you said anyone can bulid for those products. So how is Apples restrictions on their platforms any different?
For those looking for a device strictly for reading, the new Kobo is a nice little option. It's small enough to slip into a pocket, can do more with a PDF than the competition, and at $129, it's $10 cheaper than both the Nook and Kindle WiFi.
The most commented posts on Engadget over the past 24 hours.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
I can wait for them to go after Apple with all their anti competitive practices, Itunes, Ipods, non-clone CPUs, OSx all of which are relatively closed platforms, whats good for the MS is good for apple, ca-ching
Should be can't
Dont hurt me =D But if there's company that shouldnt be in the position where Microsoft is has to be Apple.
"I can wait for them to go after Apple with all their anti competitive practices, Itunes, Ipods, non-clone CPUs, OSx all of which are relatively closed platforms, whats good for the MS is good for apple, ca-ching"
And the minute that happens watch all the same people cheering this suddenly think that it is now totally unfair.
I fully Agree. I've said for a while if MS is a Monopoly, then Apple should be. Apple is all about keeping everything closed to their own products.
Yeah but who cares about Apple and the 10 people that use their products? This is figuratively speaking in comparison to MS, of course.
The point is that they're going to go after the 'monster' that they know will have to pay them. Kind of like targetting BMW vs. BMX.
If they go after Apple...Steve could easily say, "oh yeah?...no more Apples for you" and let that be that - it wouldn't hurt Apple as much as it would hurt MS.
They already have gone after Apple for iTunes and the iPod.
The difference is that Apple, unlike Microsoft, doesn't tell governments to piss off.
Oh and the other difference is that if you don't like the iPod, you can easily buy another product. Or, if you have another product, you can easily get music for it. And finally, the competition, as in Microsoft and wma, is just as proprietary as fairplay.
You idiots comparing this situation to Apple don't have a f*cking leg to stand on. I might remind you guys that monopolies in themselves are not illegal. Leveraging your monopoly power to stifle competition IS illlegal. Microsoft has been convicted of these practices here in America and abroad.
And stop with this nonsense about Apple being a monopoly because they tie their operating system to their hardware. There is nothing monopolistic about this. You can't have a freaking monopoly on your own product. If that were the case, every device in the world, including cell phones, gaming consoles, PDAs, microwaves, toasters, would be monopolies. Apple isn't the only company in the world that creates the operating system that comes exclusively with their devices.
@ Clak
If the issue in the artical is microsoft not giving competing product developers information on their source code. Im sorry, does Apple allow Itunes music formated with its copy protection to play on other devices? Or do you have to pay extra for a MP3 or buy an ipod? Last time i checked there are alternatives to Windows like OSx , linux, lindows, exc so as you said anyone can bulid for those products. So how is Apples restrictions on their platforms any different?