The whole entertainment industry is 9billion per year. Google brings in more in pure profits per year or income for a single quarter. And Apple could just buy most of the entertainment industry with profits from a single quarter...
If Google were advertising Chrome using their normal advertising channels (those for which third parties can also buy time), I don't think it would be a problem. But, so far as I know, no-one but Google has the ability to put a huge blue button on the main search page saying "Install Google Chrome!".
Do yo know what is the answer to a question - May I install an advertisement of a competitor on your front page or a demo competing package with your software?
We should fine 99% of all opesource support companies that advertise paid support in their software. Or is it OK as long as you are small?
Maybe Google should hide their logo on the front page? You know, that's an advertisement of their brand and should be available to anyone or no one... Their aggressive marketing of Chrome is nothing that could violate anti-trust laws.
iOS SDK tooling does not have an emulator, it has a simulator. Big difference. Everything is compiled into x86 on your machine. If you do low level optimizations, you are stuck with doing all work on the device. My friend works as one of the lead developers for Unity3D mobile engine...
A) Some, not many B) Most of Android devs C) The one's that are protesting don't develop for android at all D) Higher rate of development was expected, but existing apps scale better than expected so people just don't bother....
Monopoly is by the very definition 100% of the market. Not 98%. Google is the dominant search engine, but nothing else. The fact that Bing usage grows(or grew) is the most compelling evidence that Google does not have a monopoly.
Under those conditions, we should fine a LOT of companies that advertise their own software/services thorough their other software/services. Fine a company, if they advertise their support plan for their software. It's so anti-competitive!!!! In short, you have a very strange definition of dominant position abuse.
Hm... So are you for or against EU requirements to ask user which browser to use?
Even in theory they can't force you move to Chrome, because there is Bing.
Microsoft did not force people to use IE, they forced OEM's to bundle IE. That is the difference? Choice vs No Choice.
When Google is in position to force Chrome onto people, then they would be abusing their dominant market position to make people use Chrome.
Let's repeat with Microsoft's counter case - they are not abusing their Windows dominance to force you into buying MS Office. They dive you advertisements about it, they give you a demo even.... But none of that is anti-competitive, because you make the choice.
Reinforcing market share with additional, and to some value added, products is not anti-competitive.
Even if they are pushing Chrome through all and any chink in the armour, the rise of Chrome is definitely due to increased actual usage of Chrome not plain installs.
If it's $0.49 I would be OK with that, but you know these bastards will ask $30-$60 per copy! Not a good deal for a play once game...
It does not have more entertainment value than a visit to your local cinema.
This being Germany, in case if AVM wins I would urge all original authors of the software AVM uses to assert their moral rights to attribution. And file a lawsuit to force AVM to send out all equipment owners attribution notices.
Slashdot Mirror
Google and Amazon slammed the door after the negotiations broke down. Google it! It was all over the news.
The whole entertainment industry is 9billion per year. Google brings in more in pure profits per year or income for a single quarter. And Apple could just buy most of the entertainment industry with profits from a single quarter...
Sorry, but the thin veil you put on your own ad hominem attack is transparent to me; so that removes your immunity from one.
If Google were advertising Chrome using their normal advertising channels (those for which third parties can also buy time), I don't think it would be a problem. But, so far as I know, no-one but Google has the ability to put a huge blue button on the main search page saying "Install Google Chrome!".
Do yo know what is the answer to a question - May I install an advertisement of a competitor on your front page or a demo competing package with your software?
We should fine 99% of all opesource support companies that advertise paid support in their software. Or is it OK as long as you are small?
Maybe Google should hide their logo on the front page? You know, that's an advertisement of their brand and should be available to anyone or no one... Their aggressive marketing of Chrome is nothing that could violate anti-trust laws.
And then I end up charging companies 60EUR per hour for custom Android development. Selling apps is not where the money is.
I personally hate XOOM, but calling it a $700 paperweight is an overstatement made by a fanboi. No wonder your name is macs4all...
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/06/uspto-invalidates-entire-oracle-java.html
iOS SDK tooling does not have an emulator, it has a simulator. Big difference. Everything is compiled into x86 on your machine. If you do low level optimizations, you are stuck with doing all work on the device. My friend works as one of the lead developers for Unity3D mobile engine...
Nokia N9 has a very similar SoC as my Nexus S, and the small bump in performance is noticeable. N9 isn't that much faster.
Latest news: Oracle has only 2 patents left not invalidated by USPTO, that are still being re-validated.
A) Some, not many
B) Most of Android devs
C) The one's that are protesting don't develop for android at all
D) Higher rate of development was expected, but existing apps scale better than expected so people just don't bother....
Monopoly is by the very definition 100% of the market. Not 98%. Google is the dominant search engine, but nothing else. The fact that Bing usage grows(or grew) is the most compelling evidence that Google does not have a monopoly.
Under those conditions, we should fine a LOT of companies that advertise their own software/services thorough their other software/services. Fine a company, if they advertise their support plan for their software. It's so anti-competitive!!!! In short, you have a very strange definition of dominant position abuse.
Hm... So are you for or against EU requirements to ask user which browser to use?
Even in theory they can't force you move to Chrome, because there is Bing.
Microsoft did not force people to use IE, they forced OEM's to bundle IE. That is the difference? Choice vs No Choice.
When Google is in position to force Chrome onto people, then they would be abusing their dominant market position to make people use Chrome.
Let's repeat with Microsoft's counter case - they are not abusing their Windows dominance to force you into buying MS Office. They dive you advertisements about it, they give you a demo even.... But none of that is anti-competitive, because you make the choice.
Reinforcing market share with additional, and to some value added, products is not anti-competitive.
Facebook is Facebook only. Google is everywhere!
Even if they are pushing Chrome through all and any chink in the armour, the rise of Chrome is definitely due to increased actual usage of Chrome not plain installs.
That is how IE became dominant.... Microsoft just did not ask. When asked, people make better decisions than defaulting.
The power of marketing - do not underestimate it.
People seem to use Skype for whatever purposes.
Turn the damn thing off... It's not like instant search is the only way to use Google.
So.... Will this one have native HTML5? Or HTML6?
So.... Will this one have native HTML5? Or HTML6?
It's called life and there are NO SAVES!
If it's $0.49 I would be OK with that, but you know these bastards will ask $30-$60 per copy! Not a good deal for a play once game...
It does not have more entertainment value than a visit to your local cinema.
This being Germany, in case if AVM wins I would urge all original authors of the software AVM uses to assert their moral rights to attribution. And file a lawsuit to force AVM to send out all equipment owners attribution notices.
Egh... GPLv2 specifies that a derivative work is defined by the relevant copyright law. In this case, it's the German Author's rights law.