Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Given Windows ran in 999% of the computers at the time, whatever they distributed was "force feeding". That included bundling the browser and selling Office for highly discounted prices (basically killing the competition). I'm somewhat of a libertarian on that front - I don't think governments should "interfere" for the most part - but I do see the reasoning behind what they decided here

As for iOS, you don't HAVE to buy an iphone today. NO ONE is forcing you to develop on it. In fact, less than 1/3 of the smartphone owners do have one - And THAT's the distinction: choice. Argueing "it's the same thing" puts you on the same boat as that chinese clone manufacturer that sued Apple because they "didn't license their OS for anyone": it's THEIR product, they do whatever they want with it.

As for iOS being a product on itself, you're right - it's just the software that powers Apple's hardware, not an "isolated" product. Same as Kindle OS, WebOS or Bada, not the same as Android and Symbian, which are sold/licensed to third parties...




But same as your reasoning, you didn't have to buy windows either, there were still 1% (maybe more) computers that runs other OSes. By the way, I agreed with you, government should not interfere as long as MS didn't shut competitors out of the platform.

Now, I bought iPhone/iPad because they are the best hardware with some of the best software. I don't REALLY have other choices if I want the same build quality. I don't have a problem that Apple bundles apps for free, I do have a problem when Apple stops me from running software that I really want to have running on my device. Just because he can control everything running on the hardware doesn't mean he can do whatever he wants. Again, whatever this thing should be called, it is far far worse than MS's "monopoly".


(I meant 99%, not 999%)




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: