Amusing, but only until you really think about it.
Java was always a restricted platform. Sun's lawsuit with Microsoft established that.
Google is hypocritical, but they haven't even come close to the "evil" of Microsoft in the glory days of "The Evil Empire." Microsoft used to have secret monopoly agreements with people. Google are openly disclosing their agreements and taking the flak.
Apple isn't a monopoly unless your definition of monopoly is "Controlling their own platform." Do they monopolize the Internet? No. Do they monopolize the market for phones? No. For phones that can access the Internet? No. Apple doesn't hold a monopoly and definitely hasn't done anything to abuse their so-called monopoly.
For example, MSFT shipped IE for free and killed Netscape. Apple shipped iTunes for free on the Mac and killed... Who exactly? Not even the celebrated Panic was killed as a company, just one product for a niche computer. Now Apple won't allow Flash on the iPad. Let me know when Adobe closes its doors.
Finally, the word "underdog" is not synonymous with the phrase "also-ran." Does anyone really think the bully that has gotten fat and can no longer beat up the new kid in the neighbourhood is now an underdog?
Yes but Microsoft's motto was always "a computer on every desktop". Nothing in there about "don't be evil".
For example, MSFT shipped IE for free and killed Netscape
I was working in the industry at the time, and I know exactly what killed Netscape. My then employer spent substantial amount of money, on behalf of itself and its clients, on Netscape server products. It sounds unthinkable now, but there really was a time when people would spend 6 or 7 figures on web, or mail, or directory server software. Version 2 of Enterprise Server to this day I still say was one of the best webservers ever written. Version 3 was a dog, and we, along with everyone else, went elsewhere.
Remember that Netscape Navigator was always free for most users...
Like I said, Google is hypocritical. But still not even close to Microsoft's behaviour during its glory days. I dislike a number of choices the company has made, but there's only one thing it has done that I consider really evil. And no, the Net Neutrality proposal isn't it.
Google is more than hypocritical, Here's an example from a domain where they have effectively monopoly market control.
Their lack of transparency with AdWords. I know several people who believe they were the victim of click fraud, but complain that Google effectively does nothing. Why should they, there is no other viable search ad market, and they make money from click fraud.
And regarding monopolies, you're right that Apple is not one, but your test for being a monopoly is wrong. It's not about putting companies out of business. For example, Adobe makes money from multiple products. They could lose all of their Flash business today, and still be a viable company.
The problem with Netscape wasn't IE. It was that they couldn't make money with their business model.The Netscape browser didn't generate revenue for them, so losing marketshare there did relatively little to hurt them, except their ego.
And I think the term underdog for MS comes in a couple of areas where they never were the bully. Smartphones, even when they had a strong market presence, they never pushed hard in it. And search. In both of these cases, I think underdog is an accurate description.
Do you know how hard it is to effectively investigate click fraud? What do you want Google to do? There's no way for them to know if that IP address was an intentional click or not. As far as I know they already recognize obvious patterns like massive inundation from a single IP. Other than that and similar measures, how do you expect Google to derive intent from clicks? They can't do it, they pretty much just have to assume that clicks that fit the "innocent" profile are innocent, even if a competitor is going to all of his friends' houses and clicking the ad over and over again to jack up your rates.
How hard is it for Google to respond to email regarding suspected click fraud. Again, one example from someone I who vented at a conference relayed was they actually found a program that did click fraud that targeted a page where his ad often occurred. Sent it to Google with really weird charge patterns. No response. Another email, a call to a rep. The only thing he ever got was an over the phone, "thanks for the info... we'll take a look".
And this is a pattern I've heard a lot. It's not like people are just saying, "we're paying too much", but they actually do some of the legwork for Google. It would be great for Google to at least communicate the difficulty they're having, because I'm sure some of these people would go the extra mile to figure out what is going on.
It may be frustrating as a customer, but there's no solution to the "human customer service not scaling" issue when you reach certain number of customers or too high of a growth rate.
and if we went by their stringent definitions, most of us shouldn't be (ethically, by their terms) using computers.
Both the Microsoft and Oracle lawsuits and associated ickiness are about implementing things you call Java or run Java. I can't think of a case of anyone running into a legal restriction merely for using one of the many Java implementations however they please. I do remember the JDK license telling you not to use Java to control a nuclear reactor, is that what you have in mind?
OpenJDK appeared in November 2006, 11 years after its introduction.
Not an ISO standard. The JCP is really a closed process, and OpenJDK is just a bone thrown to the community ... if you want to get anything in Java, Sun has to agree with it, and because the trademark is owned by them you're not allowed to create a fork and still call it Java.
Also having a certified open-source Java implementation that is not derived from OpenJDK is not possible, leaving projects like Apache Harmony in the dust: http://www.apache.org/jcp/sunopenletter.html
> Both the Microsoft and Oracle lawsuits and associated ickiness are about implementing things you call Java or run Java
No, the Microsoft lawsuit was for a breach of contract. Google never said Dalvik is a JVM implementation. They did their own VM with a very distinct architecture + a compiler that converts JVM bytecode to Dalvik.
Are you going to tell me that compilers that convert source-code from one platform to another are illegal under any license or law?
Then projects like ikvm.net (jvm to .net translator), or Cobol2Java, or Mainsoft (which allows running .net projects on top of Java), or in fact any compiler that converts source-code to C, or why not the Scala compiler (it's not a JSR) ... should also be illegal?
That's right. It should be Apple is evil, Google is trying unsuccessfully to be as evil as Apple, and Microsoft's confused attempts at being anything at all are clearly failing :-)
Apple actually annexed the open podcasting community with the podcast section of its iTunes store. They also managed to become a near-monopoly in the MP3 player market.
There have always been lots of non-Apple MP3 players. They never had a monopoly or anything close. A majority market share, presuming Apple even had one which is not a forgone conclusion, is not the same thing as a monopoly. It was not a "near-monopoly", whatever that means.
There have always been a lot of operating systems besides Windows too. Lots of browsers besides IE. It's not choice that is the question, it's influence. For example, if Apple blocked Ford from being able to hook up iPods/iPhones to their cars would that be a problem? I think so.
Seriously? Who buys cars based on their MP3 player hookup? It's a nice feature but it's certainly not something that's going to "be a problem" for Ford, at least not in my opinion. Whether Apple could realistically block Ford from providing that functionality is iffy anyway.
Apple does not and did not have a monopoly or near-monopoly on any market. There's a difference between having influence and power and controlling a monopoly. Apple is powerful in a few markets now, namely phones and portable music players, but that's not the same thing as a monopoly. Other music players existed, prospered, and their developers retained influence and power in the market as well.
Let me give another example then, where the company being discriminated has more at stake. What if Apple said that artists from the MCA label couldn't play on their MP3 players. Now all of a sudden you have a music label that is being blocked from being played on the most dominant MP3 player in the world. Apple, with its monopoly power, could not effectively control which labels flourish and which don't. Of course, they don't do such a thing, and it would be near impossible to implement, but the example shows their strength.
And it doesn't matter that other players existed and prospered (although I'd argue that none prospered before the iPod). It's simply a question of market power at this point in time, not 10 years ago. It would be like MS arguing that the Commodore OS used to be the desktop operating system (when the C64 reigned supreme).
By that logic, no monopoly has ever existed anywhere. Even the biggest, baddest monopolies don't hit 100% saturation. There are always other entries, just none that have any hope of competing with the monopoly.
What's funniest about your comment is you're arguing with hyperbole on twitter.
>>> Amusing, but only until you really think about it.
When I really think about it I think, What great use of the twitter character limit for up-to-date populist rhetoric. When I read your comment I think, True believers are so predictable. ;)
Java was always a restricted platform. Sun's lawsuit with Microsoft established that.
Google is hypocritical, but they haven't even come close to the "evil" of Microsoft in the glory days of "The Evil Empire." Microsoft used to have secret monopoly agreements with people. Google are openly disclosing their agreements and taking the flak.
Apple isn't a monopoly unless your definition of monopoly is "Controlling their own platform." Do they monopolize the Internet? No. Do they monopolize the market for phones? No. For phones that can access the Internet? No. Apple doesn't hold a monopoly and definitely hasn't done anything to abuse their so-called monopoly.
For example, MSFT shipped IE for free and killed Netscape. Apple shipped iTunes for free on the Mac and killed... Who exactly? Not even the celebrated Panic was killed as a company, just one product for a niche computer. Now Apple won't allow Flash on the iPad. Let me know when Adobe closes its doors.
Finally, the word "underdog" is not synonymous with the phrase "also-ran." Does anyone really think the bully that has gotten fat and can no longer beat up the new kid in the neighbourhood is now an underdog?