Quote:
Originally Posted by Regorium
I don't think you even read my post. I'm saying that with the lines being blurred between hardware and software with these new classes of devices (like smartphones/iPad etc.), the level of scrutiny for competitiveness needs to be at the same level as what was done to large single-function companies before.
Basically, it's been shown that it doesn't matter that you own the software, you need to provide an option for competitors to use your software - Apple is just taking this a step further by saying "Well, this is my hardware so na-na-na can't touch this," even though the two situations are extremely similar and absolutely IS a loophole.
As has been shown, ported apps MAY be lower quality, but if you're going to approve every app that comes through anyways, why even bother with the clause? Just deny it based on low quality, rather than shutting out a large portion of developers.
As for your DVD player comparison: I would have accepted your analogy if Apple completely closed off their system and only developed iPhone apps in house. However, the second they opened up their platform to developers, the comparison with a DVD player is not valid, and we're starting to move towards computing devices.
|
Nothing Apple is doing is preventing competitors from entering the marketplace. Apple going the freetard model and opening up does not encourage phone makers to enter the market nor does their current model keep companies out.
Even if they owned 100% of the smart phone (or music) market they would be a monopoly but monopolies are not illegal. If they were creating barriers of entry like controlling the supply chain of parts, punishing retailers for carrying competitive products, that would be anti competitive.