They aren't arguing over that. They are arguing over restraint of trade. It may seem that because ads are front and center, but it is the idea of restraining your competition that has brought the heat.
Embrace, extend, extinguish as a business model runs rampant at Microsoft. It's just that the broader world community is aware of it and puts a halt to it whenever discovered. Microsoft's main thrust of embrace, extend, extinguish is targeted to the web, document formats, and open source.
Apple's advertising program has access to far more privacy violating information than the location of the person viewing the ad in other non-Apple programs. We would be a fool not to expect that AT&T and Apple aren't exchanging every piece of information about you, especially since Apple gets around 30 percent off the top.
In most if not all ways you are describing the situation that got Microsoft convicted as a criminal predatory monopolist. It was certainly considered a closed system that certain actions were limited. Microsoft didn't become a monopolist over night but their behavior over time was that of a monopolist, even though it took the courts, years later, to rule them a monopolist. At that time they made the crime retroactive. Apple's behavior is no different.
And, you are absolutely naive about what consumers understand and what they don't.
I wouldn't mind either, but in this case this is Apple's anticompetitive behavior using restraint of trade in order to inflate their market position in mobile advertising, thus making competition non-existent because without analytics advertising is pointless.
This is Apple doing an end run around competition by using their control of the phone OS to restrain trade in order to inflate their position to make their program desirable where, if they didn't restrain trade, they wouldn't be in that market position and thus themselves being undesirable.
No, they DEPEND on it. Without it the advertising program would be worthless. They'd have no idea of whether the money they are spending is worth it and whether it is working.
The vast majority of anti-competitive behavior that is prosecuted in this country has nothing to do with a company having a monopoly. Price fixing is an example; when multiple companies collude to fix the prices.
First, this is Jobs (reality distortion fields envelop those emanating them), so no, they don't have 28%. Not even close. What do the other manufacturers claim they have? RIM is still number one. Android is growing much faster than Apple is, or did.
Second, they don't have a monopoly. Not even close.
I just don't trust the guy. Sleaze-ball comes to mind.
I can't get into his method of profit--selling our private info to others.
I'm careful about my private information. I'm sure others aren't so well versed on what to disclose to Facebook. I like the site, seriously, as it has let met get in touch with so many friends and family
There are other worse things that hinder police than having the citizens film you while you do something illegal.
What, they'll pass a law that says you can't film in your own home? Or on your own property.
This is absurd to think that citizens filming the bad deeds of the police should be criminal. If the police are committing a criminal offense they should be held responsible, just like everyone else. Filming is the only way to prove this beyond a doubt.
If the police or the courts think this is a bad idea then they are not in the right state of mind to be judging the public.
"Judges, juries, and legislatures support the police overwhelmingly on this issue, with only a few cases where those accused of 'shooting' the cops being vindicated through the courts."
What the hell? Since when does the *Jury* want this to stop?
You are talking apples and oranges. What the police in the US want is to have citizens stop filming them. This is different than having the surveillance performed by the State. We want to have our citizens free to film and publish any abuse because when it does happen it really helps to hold the proper parties to account.
If I had even an inkling to buy an ipad it was the 3g version due to the unlimited data. This settles it for me. There is no ipad in my future. Why buy any Apple product when they and their partners sucker you in with bait and switch. I can't fathom why anyone would want one of those now.
I was not really impressed with the film. Sure it was a quality film with a solid message. I didn't feel it was worth an academy award. I'm sure I am not alone.
I guess some people can make the right decisions about making a good movie, but make all the wrong decisions about how to appeal to the audience for the next movie.
Irreparable harm is being done to their next movie. It'll be known as the movie made by those guys that sue their customers.
Slashdot Mirror
Just installed 10.1. Watched one video. Then another. Clicked the back button in Firefox. Crash!
They aren't arguing over that. They are arguing over restraint of trade. It may seem that because ads are front and center, but it is the idea of restraining your competition that has brought the heat.
Embrace, extend, extinguish as a business model runs rampant at Microsoft. It's just that the broader world community is aware of it and puts a halt to it whenever discovered. Microsoft's main thrust of embrace, extend, extinguish is targeted to the web, document formats, and open source.
I don't think Apple is capable of hurting Google in any significant way.
Apple's advertising program has access to far more privacy violating information than the location of the person viewing the ad in other non-Apple programs. We would be a fool not to expect that AT&T and Apple aren't exchanging every piece of information about you, especially since Apple gets around 30 percent off the top.
In most if not all ways you are describing the situation that got Microsoft convicted as a criminal predatory monopolist. It was certainly considered a closed system that certain actions were limited. Microsoft didn't become a monopolist over night but their behavior over time was that of a monopolist, even though it took the courts, years later, to rule them a monopolist. At that time they made the crime retroactive. Apple's behavior is no different.
And, you are absolutely naive about what consumers understand and what they don't.
I agree completely. Apple is inviting federal investigation.
I wouldn't mind either, but in this case this is Apple's anticompetitive behavior using restraint of trade in order to inflate their market position in mobile advertising, thus making competition non-existent because without analytics advertising is pointless.
This is Apple doing an end run around competition by using their control of the phone OS to restrain trade in order to inflate their position to make their program desirable where, if they didn't restrain trade, they wouldn't be in that market position and thus themselves being undesirable.
No, they DEPEND on it. Without it the advertising program would be worthless. They'd have no idea of whether the money they are spending is worth it and whether it is working.
He was giving a fictitious example to make his point. Lighten up.
The vast majority of anti-competitive behavior that is prosecuted in this country has nothing to do with a company having a monopoly. Price fixing is an example; when multiple companies collude to fix the prices.
They run a distribution system which they use to control trade. It is the developer's store.
With enough time, and because of early action on the part of Android/Google, the app store will diminish considerably in importance.
Not true. You can break the law with restraint of trade and still not be a monopoly.
I think he is saying that having a monopoly isn't illegal, but using that monopoly to gain another one is illegal.
Once a court rules you a monopoly the rules change, and there are restrictions placed on you--things you can't do that an ordinary company can
An utterly stupid argument which smacks of extremist fanaticism.
First, this is Jobs (reality distortion fields envelop those emanating them), so no, they don't have 28%. Not even close. What do the other manufacturers claim they have? RIM is still number one. Android is growing much faster than Apple is, or did.
Second, they don't have a monopoly. Not even close.
Third, this is restraint of trade and illegal.
I just don't trust the guy. Sleaze-ball comes to mind.
I can't get into his method of profit--selling our private info to others.
I'm careful about my private information. I'm sure others aren't so well versed on what to disclose to Facebook. I like the site, seriously, as it has let met get in touch with so many friends and family
There are other worse things that hinder police than having the citizens film you while you do something illegal.
What, they'll pass a law that says you can't film in your own home? Or on your own property.
This is absurd to think that citizens filming the bad deeds of the police should be criminal. If the police are committing a criminal offense they should be held responsible, just like everyone else. Filming is the only way to prove this beyond a doubt.
If the police or the courts think this is a bad idea then they are not in the right state of mind to be judging the public.
"Judges, juries, and legislatures support the police overwhelmingly on this issue, with only a few cases where those accused of 'shooting' the cops being vindicated through the courts."
What the hell? Since when does the *Jury* want this to stop?
You are talking apples and oranges. What the police in the US want is to have citizens stop filming them. This is different than having the surveillance performed by the State. We want to have our citizens free to film and publish any abuse because when it does happen it really helps to hold the proper parties to account.
Even if it does become illegal to film a police officer that doesn't mean it will stop.
The police, the courts, and others want it to stop because they keep getting sued and loosing, not to mention the loss of a conviction.
This attempt is nothing more than a self-serving attempt. It isn't in the best interest of the public.
If I had even an inkling to buy an ipad it was the 3g version due to the unlimited data. This settles it for me. There is no ipad in my future. Why buy any Apple product when they and their partners sucker you in with bait and switch. I can't fathom why anyone would want one of those now.
I was not really impressed with the film. Sure it was a quality film with a solid message. I didn't feel it was worth an academy award. I'm sure I am not alone.
I guess some people can make the right decisions about making a good movie, but make all the wrong decisions about how to appeal to the audience for the next movie.
Irreparable harm is being done to their next movie. It'll be known as the movie made by those guys that sue their customers.
You misunderstand, they can sue, even if you wish, and hope and pray it isn't true.
A license or agreement with the developer doesn't immunize Apple from any and all lawsuits, period.