Linked by Eugenia Loli on Tue 28th Jul 2009 06:13 UTC
Apple The news just broke that Apple has rejected the official upcoming Google Voice application, and stopped distributing the third party "GV" application, an app that was previously authorized. Read on for a quick commentary, from the point of view of not an Apple or Google fangirl, but from someone who genuinely appreciates VoIP SIP (even if Google Voice itself is not VoIP, read on). For those who have read my blog over the years, would probably remember my VoIP-related rants since 2005. UPDATE: A more direct, more personal, reply from me to Apple and AT&T.
Order by: Score:
kragil
Member since:
2006-01-04

.. have to die! A computer or a cell phone should just run all software the customer desires and every widely used service should provide interoperability.

We still live in the dark ages of computing. No doubt about that. We need more standards and especially more customer/consumer power.

Reply Score: 14

Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

.. have to die! A computer or a cell phone should just run all software the customer desires and every widely used service should provide interoperability. We still live in the dark ages of computing. No doubt about that. We need more standards and especially more customer/consumer power.

The thing is: if you want an "iPhone-like" device that supports background processes and runs official Google apps, then get an Android handset. Simple.

But agreed with your point. The ironic thing is, Microsoft Windows Mobile is currently the most open* smart phone OS in common use**. It's just a pity that WM has one of worst smart phone UI (obviously this last bit is personal opinion)


* That's "open" as in free of vendor lock ins rather than "open" as in open source.
** by "common use", I mean available in your average high street phone stores - which OpenMoko wasn't.

Edited 2009-07-28 09:20 UTC

Reply Score: 5

spiderman Member since:
2008-10-23

Symbian?

Reply Score: 2

Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Symbian?


Things may have changed, but last time I checked, Symbian developers didn't have as low level OS control as WM developers do.

Plus WM apps can be prorammed in more languages than Symbian apps can (though I have a feeling that WM apps have to be compiled in Visual Studio - so this might be a moot point)

Edited 2009-07-28 13:15 UTC

Reply Score: 2

modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

WM 6.5 is very good. They are getting completely away from the Windows desktop paradigm and moving toward the icon paradigm.

Looking at UI features of 6.5 on my friends Omnia and looking at an android phone and an iphone, there is little difference.

Reply Score: 2

middleware Member since:
2006-05-11

The reason why I have much less interesting or passion in smart phone application development (or hacking) than I have in personal computer OS is there are much more constraints in the former. Smart phones don't have free development tool set, comparing to JDK, GCC, make, Xcode. Smart phones' function exposure to its vendor and to ISVs are too asymmetric (Android still discourage the use of native API).

This situation is not made by one company but by all the vendors in the market. Apple is a smart company in it is always just a bit more close than the average. It is the overall atmosphere make Apple willing and dare to do so. If S60 had not relied on Visual Studio but GCC, or Android exposes full-feature C APIs, then Apple just would not have dared to make its iPhone as close as it is, just like Apple never dare to impose any restriction on application development and deployment on OS X.

Reply Score: 2

spiderman Member since:
2008-10-23

J2ME ftw!!

Reply Score: 2

chrish Member since:
2005-07-14

iPhone development is free, just download XCode. You have to 'sign up' for an iPhone developer account, but that's free.

Publishing things on the App Store is $100, but I think that's a one-time fee.

- chrish

Reply Score: 1

suryad Member since:
2005-07-09

Not if you dont have a Mac as far as I know...but then again one could buy the OS and install it in a vm and then download xcode in there and work through a vm but its not free because you have to shell out some cash whereas Android truly is free.

Reply Score: 2

chrish Member since:
2005-07-14

It's free, it costs $0. Only running on OS X is irrelevant unless you don't have a Mac. ;-)

Android is definitely the most accessible to any developer though, assuming their dev environment will run on Windows, OS X and Linux. Bet they don't support my FreeBSD system though. *sob*

- chrish

Reply Score: 1

brain dead hippie Member since:
2007-02-09


Publishing things on the App Store is $100, but I think that's a one-time fee.

- chrish


nope - the $100 is yearly and it's true you can download the dev toolkit for free, you have to pay the $100 if you want to install your programs on your iphone/touch

Reply Score: 1

chrish Member since:
2005-07-14

Actually you and 100 other people (I think, haven't looked into it) can install the app without forking over any cash to the App Store. This is how people test their apps.

- chrish

Reply Score: 1

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

You might like the Nokia tablets. Not fully a smartphone (lacks the cell radio) but the platform is a Debian fork which is very open to third party hacking. The next version of Maemo is rumoured to be fully open also so even the last holdouts, NIC binary blob etc, should be open source.

Mind you, the device runs Debian, Ubuntu or Android with a little effort also.

(hm.. Skype is great but I could due with Maemo Skype supporting the webcam. I'll have to look at Google Chat again as it's the Nokia recommended app.)

Reply Score: 2

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Yes, I might like a Nokia Tablet too. If they weren't out of stock everywhere. Nokia says they've been on backorder for a couple months. I think they're just discontinued. The rumor mill has it that they're going to be reborn as full fledged phones. I wish I could just have one at $300 without begin required to get an expensive data plan.

Reply Score: 2

smeat Member since:
2006-07-27

Android does expose C and C++ APIs, please keep up on the topics you are trying to sound like an expert on.

http://developer.android.com/sdk/ndk/1.5_r1/index.html

Reply Score: 1

middleware Member since:
2006-05-11

I have already known of that. I didn't say C++ API not exist, but it is discouraged and not full-feature. You can see NDK doesn't work without SDK and it's use is recommended to be restricted by Google.

Reply Score: 1

modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

VS Express can do WM development... completely free.

Reply Score: 2

Adurbe Member since:
2005-07-06

every vendor wants standards, they just want the standard to be THEIRS

Reply Score: 2

v People are morons
by tyrione on Tue 28th Jul 2009 07:16 UTC
RE: People are morons
by Soulbender on Tue 28th Jul 2009 07:31 UTC in reply to "People are morons"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Really? Google asked Apple to reject the official GV app?
Please provide some evidence.

Reply Score: 11

RE: People are morons
by Johann Chua on Wed 29th Jul 2009 09:38 UTC in reply to "People are morons"
Johann Chua Member since:
2005-07-22

So you mean people like you?

Reply Score: 2

Comment by iampivot
by iampivot on Tue 28th Jul 2009 07:16 UTC
iampivot
Member since:
2005-08-09

Sooner or later, this will result in a lawsuit. Apple is threading into monopolistic behaviour by blocking "duplicate functionality" applications.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by iampivot
by David on Tue 28th Jul 2009 07:37 UTC in reply to "Comment by iampivot"
David Member since:
1997-10-01

I do think that Apple ought to be sued for damages by some of its iPhone developers, but it's not going to be because of any kind of monopoly. As popular as the iPhone is, there are a lot of alternatives out there, and there always will be. As a consumer, if you don't want to put up with Apple's app store tyranny, you need to use another device. Personally, I'd like to send Apple a message. Problem is, not only am I locked into a contract with AT&T, but I just love the iPhone too damn much. I'm so conflicted!

Reply Score: 3

Free ride
by Blackhouse on Tue 28th Jul 2009 07:36 UTC
Blackhouse
Member since:
2005-07-06

Why Skype gets a free ride on the iPhone?!?

From what I understand about economics and enterprise politics, very little is gained for free: Skype probably came with an offer Apple couldn't refuse.

Edited 2009-07-28 07:36 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: Free ride
by jrlah on Tue 28th Jul 2009 07:46 UTC in reply to "Free ride"
jrlah Member since:
2005-08-09

Skype calls on iPhone work only when you are connected to a WiFi network. If cellular network is all that is avvailable, you have no choice than to use AT&T or whatever is your mobile provider in the rest of the world. Some providers like German T-mobile even tried to block Skype via WiFi.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Free ride
by jhoo on Tue 28th Jul 2009 12:23 UTC in reply to "RE: Free ride"
jhoo Member since:
2006-03-24

Skype calls on iPhone work only when you are connected to a WiFi network.


Are you sure that is the case? I think in the UK you can use Skype over the cellular provider (O2). Perhaps it is different in the UK because Three is promoting their unlimited (and very cheap*) Skype service very heavily.

* i.e. you buy a pay-and-go phone and you can use Skype forever without paying a penny more.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Free ride
by jrlah on Wed 29th Jul 2009 06:33 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Free ride"
jrlah Member since:
2005-08-09

Yes, I am sure. It is a feature of the iPhone version of Skype application, and the limitation was requested by Apple.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Free ride
by jrlah on Wed 29th Jul 2009 08:37 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Free ride"
jrlah Member since:
2005-08-09

Just to elaborate: this limitation (voice only over WiFi) holds only for iPhone - you CAN use Skype for other mobile platforms (Windows Mobile, Nokia) on cellular networks.

The same voice-over-WiFi-only limitation holds for Fring application on iPhone - and NOT for Fring on other mobile platforms. It is by Apple's dictate.

Reply Score: 1

spiderman
Member since:
2008-10-23

The iPhone is lagging behind every other phones in the same price range. Look at the "new" iPhone 3Gs. It can record videos! At $300, it sure should better take high quality videos like so many phones do at cheaper than $100!

Well, I know what people think, that safari is like the second coming of jesus christ and that pinching is so cool and all, but I think some people are watching too much adverts.

In my opinion, the people who buy the iPhone are not likely to use Google Voice anyway. They're not into saving money.

Reply Score: 7

Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

I use an iPhone, and I need Google Voice. I got the iPhone unlocked, using AT&T's "pay as you go" service. I don't have a contract because I don't need it (I use the cell network very little, I mostly use landlines). I use the iPhone because I love its UI, it has the most usable UI than any other smartphone.

So both iPhone and Google Voice are not mutually exclusive.

Reply Score: 4

drstorm Member since:
2009-04-24

For the moment it seems they are...

Reply Score: 1

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Interesting ... I didn't know the Iphone was availibe pay as you go.

Do you think it would work to buy it, swap in my att sim card? I might consider the iphone, if I wasn't forced to pay for the data plan. My regular att cell plan is fine.

Also, anyone know if you can block the data service so it will only ever use wifi?

Reply Score: 2

testman Member since:
2007-10-15

Also, anyone know if you can block the data service so it will only ever use wifi?

That would just be an iPod Touch then.

Reply Score: 2

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

No. It would be an Iphone touch with cell phone capabilities, but no non wifi data services. If no wifi, no email or web or app store ( just like the touch), but it would still have cell phone service and be able to make calls.

Seeing as how the phones are discounted because of the crazy monthly plan, I don't think att would approve of this.

Reply Score: 2

FunkyELF Member since:
2006-07-26

Why would you buy an iPhone in the first place?


You can't.
You can only rent them from Apple.
These renters are sheep.

Stop complaining. It won't do anything. Apple hates developers. Apple hates users who are anything more than mindless consumers (sheep).

Do something about it and buy an Android phone. Once enough people buy an Android phone Apple will allow VoIP applications and all of the Apple FanBoi's (who are not surprisingly missing from comments on this article probably because it makes too much sense) will be able to pretend like it was there all along and start bashing Android.

But seriously, keep buying Apple stuff. I need AAPL to hit $163.00 so I can sell the 6 shares I bought for $160 in January 2008 and break even after fees. I was just kidding. Apple is great. You're not sheep. You're hip and cool.

Edited 2009-07-28 19:02 UTC

Reply Score: 2

NexusCrawler
Member since:
2009-02-11

I think you're missing the point.

Today, all the VoIP stuff on mobile devices are set back not by device vendors but by telecom operators.

They just don't want you to make a call "for free" or at least for cheaper while you could use your telecom's voice credit at full cost.

So of course Apple doesn't say "we're restricting you because your operator wants to make money/doesn't want you to spend less money", they make some bad excuses like "the feature is duplicated with the phone's voice capability, hence there is no need for this app".

For instance in France, most if not all operators simply prohibit VoIP on their 3G networks.

Another commenter told us about Skype for iPhone: as he said, the app can only be used over Wifi. You cannot use Skype on iPhone over 3G.

Reply Score: 4

jhoo Member since:
2006-03-24

I think you're missing the point.

Today, all the VoIP stuff on mobile devices are set back not by device vendors but by telecom operators.

They just don't want you to make a call "for free" or at least for cheaper while you could use your telecom's voice credit at full cost.


In the UK (and Europe as a whole), that isn't the case. It costs an operator more for you to make a call to another network than they charge for it. They rely on the cost they charge other operators for inbound calls to make up the difference (and also the cost they may charge you for making calls within the network). So they would be quite happy for you to make no outgoing calls, it is more of a problem for you if you don't receive any calls from other networks. They amounts that they are allowed to charge each other (and land line providers) is set by the regulator. So if anything it is the regulators who is setting back VoIP adoption (to the detriment of the consumer) - not the operators or device manufacturers.

Having said that, VoIP isn't a particularly attractive option for most UK mobile users because of the charges for data. The biggest problem that I see is the mis-match between the 'in allowance' and 'out of allowance' charges. Taking O2's 10GB/Month tariff as an example; In allowance MBs cost 0.3p each. Out of allowance MBs cost 19.6 each. This means that your first 10GB costs £30, your second 10GB costs £1960.

The one exception to the rule is Three. Being much smaller operator than all the others, calls costs them a lot of money. Their users are much more likely to make calls outside of their network, so the more of their users they can get using VoIP the better. They also have the advantage that their entire network is 3G, so their data is always cheap for them.

It is quite ironic that the best our regulators can manage to do is ensure that the rules generally work in favour of the larger operators and always against the consumer.

Reply Score: 2

modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

But Google Voice is an in-bound call to the network.

Reply Score: 2

Not again
by fx__ on Tue 28th Jul 2009 10:10 UTC
fx__
Member since:
2006-03-31

If only Apple was more open when it comes to approving apps. It's one of the few things I dislike about my iPhone. Lot's of cool stuff I can not use because of the stupid appstore-approval-process.

Allowing specific (well-coded) apps to run in the background would be really nice aswell. Atleast on the 3GS which has the memory for it.

I really hope they allow Spotify, but I am sceptical...

Reply Score: 1

RE: Not again
by Bobthearch on Tue 28th Jul 2009 13:36 UTC in reply to "Not again"
Bobthearch Member since:
2006-01-27

You might be interested in this story that CNN linked yesterday.

"Teen whiz shakes up Apple's world"

Summary:

Ari's latest feat - an online collaboration with six other inventive teenagers who have never met face to face - is the creation of software enabling Apple iPhone owners to download free, unauthorized applications.

More so than the others, Ari has not shrunk from the fame or the infamy of "jailbreaking." In hackerspeak, the term refers to circumventing the iPhone's restrictions in order to customize it for a multitude of other uses, from playing non-Apple games to accessing the Internet through a laptop.

The practice appeared shortly after the iPhone's introduction in June 2007. Ari and his confederates were able to jailbreak Apple's newest model, the iPhone 3GS, within two weeks of its June 19 release.

More than 250,000 people have gone to the Web site Purplera1n.com to download the programs that open their iPhones for modifications.

"It's really cool to have people using my software to do awesome things with their phones," said Ari, who is about to begin his sophomore year at Germantown Friends School.

Ari, who has consulted family friends who are lawyers, contends that providing unauthorized applications for iPhones is legal under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

"My theory is that, basically, since I paid a lot of money for this device, I should be able to put any application on it," he said.


http://www.philly.com/philly/business/technology/20090727_iPhone_ic...

Reply Score: 2

It's Simple Really
by segedunum on Tue 28th Jul 2009 10:53 UTC
segedunum
Member since:
2005-07-06

VoIP and SIP (any voice over a network basically), especially over any free WiFi network, SERIOUSLY and FUNDAMENTALLY threatens the current mobile operator status quo and their license to print money. As Apple currently relies on those operators the this was always going to get rejected.

It's just a matter of time though.

Reply Score: 3

RE: It's Simple Really
by slight on Tue 28th Jul 2009 11:59 UTC in reply to "It's Simple Really"
slight Member since:
2006-09-10

While there's doubtless pressure on Apple from the networks, it's not enough to explain the situation. I can run SIP and Skype (not limited to wifi) on my Windows mobile phone with no problem. I suspect the same is true of Android.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: It's Simple Really
by segedunum on Tue 28th Jul 2009 12:50 UTC in reply to "RE: It's Simple Really"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

The biggest problem with Google Voice is that it strategically terrifies the operators because it crosses over firmly into their territory. Google have the ability to make calls and texts (you can send free SMS messages) fundamentally cheaper forever and it encourages you to use your Google Voice number as opposed to your AT&T one, effectively disabling your relationship with AT&T. If it's cheaper then guess what people are going to use?

The latter was probably the real killer as it puts Apple's premium from AT&T at risk and the ending of the SMS cash cow in particular has them really worried.

Edited 2009-07-28 12:52 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: It's Simple Really - still paid for
by jabbotts on Tue 28th Jul 2009 13:17 UTC in reply to "It's Simple Really"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

A few people have made that same point so I have to ask, isn't that VOIP time still paid for? Transferring data over the 3G network is not a free service so the parasite.. er.. service providers are still getting paid for one's use of VOIP when not on a wifi connection.

Reply Score: 2

segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

It's a lack of control. Google Voice encourages you to use your GV number but it's probably the prospect of free text messaging that is spooking them the most.

Reply Score: 2

daveak Member since:
2008-12-29

Not if your plan includes unlimited data.

Reply Score: 1

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

I had thought of that one. The unlimited data plans around these parts are not usually a cheap monthly fee so the phone company is still getting it's pound of flesh. Unlimited data would definitely help and it blocks the phone companies long distance fees along with the double billing that happens between phone carriers. Lack of control in the comment above is probably closer to accurate.

Reply Score: 2

Ballot time!
by Eddyspeeder on Tue 28th Jul 2009 11:51 UTC
Eddyspeeder
Member since:
2006-05-10

Hey let's also put a ballot up for the iPhone, so you can choose between iPhone native, Skype or Google Voice.

Oh no, wait, Google Voice is completely unavailable in Europe, or anywhere else outside the US.

Reply Score: 2

Somewhere in a little town near you...
by fretinator on Tue 28th Jul 2009 17:09 UTC
fretinator
Member since:
2005-07-06

Our favorite space alien, ET, pulls out his iPhone and attempts to contact his home planet via Google VOIP (voice over inter-planetary protocol). Unfortunately, it is blocked by Apple/AT&T.

"ET phone home... no answer"

ET dies of old age and is buried in the backyard in an old Dell computer box.

Edited 2009-07-28 17:11 UTC

Reply Score: 4

It will all be free .... :)
by dindin on Tue 28th Jul 2009 17:43 UTC
dindin
Member since:
2006-03-29

Don't worry folks. Eventually all of this will be enabled and people will be bale to make their SoIP/SIP/X calls and be happy about it .... until they see the bill and find out that after the carriers loose revenue on minutes based billing they will switch to bytes based billing.

After all they bought the spectrum for a huge price. Someone is going to pay for it.

Reply Score: 2

Your Grandma
by Chezz on Tue 28th Jul 2009 17:54 UTC
Chezz
Member since:
2005-07-11

Hey just add your grandma to your fav and you're all set!

Reply Score: 2

...
by Hiev on Tue 28th Jul 2009 18:47 UTC
Hiev
Member since:
2005-09-27

I think Apple is right and you all lack of vision.

Reply Score: 1

... and we're suprised by what exactly?
by deathshadow on Tue 28th Jul 2009 18:47 UTC
deathshadow
Member since:
2005-07-12

I'll be honest, I was completely floored when I found out skype was available for the iPhone, because allowing it, especially NOT forcing it to only work over the non-wifi connection (therein making it still charge you against the data rate) flies COMPLETELY in the face of Apple's business model...

Let's be honest, NOBODY is more rigid in their vendor lock-in than Apple... as I've said many times if a PC vendor tried half the shit that Apple sleazes through doing with nobody batting an eye, you'd hear it bemoaned from the highest rooftops.

Take a buddy of mine as an example - or as I can him dumbass. Went out and blew his entire wad on one of the bottom end $2600 MacPro's. A year later he decides he wants something more than the crappy little 7300GT the stupid thing shipped with... and damned near crapped himself when he saw that all the 'mac editions' of the video cards cost $100 to $200 more than the PC ones (assuming you can even FIND a Mac Edition). Spends two and a half grand on a computer that "can't" even support a normal video card?

So I say bullshit and give him my 8800GTS I wasn't using anymore for testing with some instructions... and OSX refuses to see it as anything but VESA 3 until we manually edit the damned KEXT.

Is the compatibility issue with using just any PC video card an electrical one? Of course not it's an x16 card... Is it anything REAL to do with the firmware or drivers, indirectly but not really. It's ENTIRELY that Apple ships without listing all the proper ID Strings in the KEXT.

Seriously, the difference between a EVGA 01G-P3-1180-AR GTX 285 ($330ish) and the "Mac Edition" EVGA 01G-P3-1080-TR GTX285 ($450ish) is what exactly? Oh that's right, a different vendor ID string and Apple gets a kick-back on the sale.

Hardly surprising for a company with the balls to charge $150 a pop for a GT 120, a card that under the hood is just a relabeled Ge 9400 GT a card with a street price of $40... or to charge $200 to go FROM a GT 120 to a 512 meg Radeon HD 4870, a card with a street of $126. Hell I'm shocked they don't use non-standard plugs for the RAM and hard drives anymore

It would be like GM telling you that you can only have your car repaired with AC Delco parts right down to the wiper blades. You pull that shit in ANY other industry you'd get slapped down faster than a cop in Zsa Zsa's driveway... But no, because it's Apple and their fans are dumb enough to pay anything if it's shiny with an Apple logo on it, it's suddenly ok.

Vendor lock-in has been been Apple's bread and butter since the original Mac was released, so the shocker certainly isn't them blocking Google Voice, it's them even allowing Skype in the first place - as that flies against EVERYTHING Apple stands for...

So I agree with what someone else said already, Apple MUST be getting some sort of financial kick-back from Skype - as that would be VERY much their style.

Edited 2009-07-28 18:52 UTC

Reply Score: 4

Bad week all around
by emerson999 on Tue 28th Jul 2009 18:52 UTC
emerson999
Member since:
2007-12-08

My contracts ending soon, and a month ago I would have said in an instant that I'd be upgrading to another iphone. I've bought so many apps, have so much data in them, and just generally love the iphone ui more than any other phone I've ever seen.

This entire week has just been story after story of everything I hate about both apple and AT&T though. I'm moving to android. It might not have the same visual appeal, but getting away from apple's policies is going to be worth it.

Reply Score: 1

Spit the apple seeds
by divide_by_zero on Tue 28th Jul 2009 19:04 UTC
divide_by_zero
Member since:
2009-07-11

So you´re basically saying that if the iPhone became a Nokia S60 phone, that would be heaven? Why don´t you just immediately switch to Nokia? Paste a bitten apple logo sticker behind it if you need to look hip.

I´m writing this from a N800 tablet, listening to ogg files and with IM, email, rss and PDF programs at the background. I do SIP calls with its native client. I'm quite happy now... Only sad to hear about how iPhone users suffer, having to deal with all these controversies every day. Come to the light, brothers!... There's a heaven outside the windows and above the apple trees.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by TBPrince
by TBPrince on Tue 28th Jul 2009 19:05 UTC
TBPrince
Member since:
2005-07-06

I'm amazed how Apple can enforce such "rules" without any shame.

Not that they will make so much money out of it once it will become clear that they're blackmailing developers.

What, for example, if they reject an application and then, all of sudden, Apple will have its own version of that application?

I agree a lawsuit is not so far...

Reply Score: 2

kcorey
Member since:
2007-11-06

This sounds like a renamed way to remove "Competition".

Whilst I understand the whole reluctance to open a platform from an economic standpoint of an operator, I don't understand why Apple is wanting to be the fall guy for shutting out GV...or why they care about removing the iFart type applications. Why not let the market decide? One reason: $$$

I'd really like to get an iPhone, but I very much hate the concept that I cannot program, change, modify, and enjoy my device as I see fit.

*sigh* Cool as an iPhone is, I'll likely be going with another phone (or continuing to use my older, slightly chlunky, but accessible, older phone).

signed,

-Disgruntled

Reply Score: 1

Apple: King of HW and SW Monopoly
by rakamaka on Wed 29th Jul 2009 12:54 UTC
rakamaka
Member since:
2005-08-12

apple is king of monopoly not only in software but in hardware also. Microsoft is nothing compared to apple in this regard. You can always do more with WM6 phone than iphone or with zune than ipod...
Should we force ipods to include ballot about compititive zune or sandisk players.
Should we force mac to have ballot screen about other browsers available(if any)..
Should we force iphone to have ballot about symbion or wm6..
Mocrosoft bashers and linux lovers on this forum, can you please clarify your stand about 'top to bottom' monopolostic nature of apple...
(don't give me answer that apple have 10% marketshare and hence no monopoly by definition

Reply Score: 2