[citation][nom]testerguy[/nom]That makes no sense at all...Windows isn't a monopoly, there is Linux, Unix, Mac OS etc available. But that doesn't mean that monopolies can't exist.Take for example a drug company who finds a new miracle cure, and patents it. They would have a monopoly over that cure.[/citation]
Then like I said Apple lied when they called Amazon a monopoly.
[citation][nom]testerguy[/nom]Firstly, you're gonna need to evidence this.Secondly, if it was pointed out in court, then the legal system dealt with it, so the proper consequences will have happened.Thirdly, once again I ask, where's your brain. Whether they did or did not doctor documents, as I already told you, that has nothing to do with being a monopoly.Why did you write this massive lecture of irrelevant drivel? How does Apple doing what you describe constitute anything even remotely resembling a monopoly? It's simply them deciding what they want to offer their customers on their app store. The customers don't seem to mind, as I already explained, since the app store is the most popular. Please provide an example of a functionality the customers have been 'deprived of' for which there isn't an equivalent alternative? And even if you have one, once again, where's your brain? Even if Apple was depriving it's millions of very happy customers of certain apps - that has nothing to do with them being a monopoly. Are you sensing a pattern here?Apple suing a site for whatever reason has nothing to do with suing people who install Mac OS, for example, on their PC's. There is nothing preventing you installing Mac OS on a normal PC, I know because I tried it myself. So you're simply wrong. And once again, I have to ask, where's your brain? Even if your lie about Mac OS being specific to Apple devices were true, that wouldn't have anything to do with whether they are a monopoly or not. Are you seeing the pattern yet?There are more free apps on Android, just like there are more viruses. This is because Apple has quality control in their store, whereas Android does not. I don't know why you think your point has any relevance to a monopoly (the subject of this discussion, in case you forgot), but I also wonder where you believe anyone here said that iOS is better due to being profitable. It's better due to having more, higher quality apps, many of which Android doesn't have. The fact iOS is more profitable is probably related to this. Clearly, the number of free apps on Android isn't doing anyone any favours, since it still has fewer apps, less security, and has less profitability which means developers will always prioritise iOS first. This has been widely documented.Firstly - lets try and learn the pattern here. When you are (mistakenly) accusing a company of making an 'amoral' choice, you are not accusing said company of being a monopoly. So 'biggiebody' was clearly NOT correct (exactly as you are now mistaken). Secondly, how ridiculous to try and attribute any moral rules regarding what a company decides is best for its customers. Is it moral to let your users download apps containing viruses and have their personal information stolen? Or is it more moral to offer them at least a degree of security by checking code before it's approved. As for the OS, as discussed you can perfectly easy install it on any PC but it again is perfectly logical for Apple not to support 'any pc' that they didn't create, if that's what they believe they can do. Again, there is no moral obligation for them to support their own software on other products, you just have a delusion there. As for number of free apps vs paid apps, that's down to the developers, not the marketplace. Higher quality apps for which people are prepared to pay more for are far better than a bunch of useless free apps, and once again this has nothing to do with any moral issues on the part of Apple. Doctoring photos, as discussed, you will need to provide evidence that this was found to be true in court. While, if true, it would be a moral faux pas, the far worse 'amoral' action was Samsung in that case who were found guilty of copying Apple and ordered to make changes.So all in all, you're defending a completely irrelevant point (in the context of monopolies), and your irrelevant point is wrong anyway. Exactly like the original poster. So now, I conclude with 'where are your brains?';-)[/citation]
I never said that doctoring photos was evidence of Apple being a monopoly.
I never said that Apple was a monopoly because of them not allowing certain apps on their devices.
I specifically said that Apple does not support PCs running OSX, not that it can't be done. In fact, my mentioning of the hackintosh outright proves that I know and acknowledge that it can be done. I said that Apple does not provide support for such machines. Apple sued the hackintosh sites because they were sites that showed people how to use an Apple OS without Apple hardware, meaning that instead of making a huge profit, Apple only made a small profit from the sale of the OS. Apple sued them because they showed ways to use OSX without paying for Apple hardware.
I never said that iOS was better because it is more profitable. You said that the App store was better and listed that it was more profitable in your reasoning for that statement and I countered it. Also, instead of viruses, Apple has huge levels of fraud throughout the app store, so there's obviously a compromise there. We have had several reports on this problems by multiple sites and news agencies. Beyond all of that, Android has plenty of high quality apps that the App store lacks. For example, I have a Gameboy DS emulator on my Droid. I have yet to find such an emulator on my friend's iPhone. Using an Android anti-virus app makes the Android more secure than ANY iPhone on the market.
If Apple doctoring photos, being a patent troll, overcharging it's customers by several hundred percent, colluding with eBook publishers, and much more are not amoral choices by your standards, then I question your sense of morality. There's also Apple's betraying Motorola back in the late 20th century, Steve being such an asshole that his own board kicked him out of the company, Steve then destroying Apple's stock prices, Steve then retaking Apple, oh does the list go on...
[citation][nom]Kami3k[/nom]Rooting your phone is not required to use a android phone.You just proved my original comment.[/citation]
Tell that to the millions of people still running Android 2.2 or older..
[citation][nom]blackened144[/nom]Tell that to the millions of people still running Android 2.2 or older..[/citation]
I have 2.2.2 and it's completely usable. I don't need to root my phone to use it. Unlimited calls, unlimited text, unlimited 3G wireless internet (when WiFi isn't available), and it works with every app that I've tried. Would I prefer ICS or at least Gingerbread? Probably, but that doesn't mean the their predecessors are unusable.