Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 9th Apr 2013 10:34 UTC
Legal After Microsoft's extortion racket has failed to stop Android, and after Oracle's crazy baseless lawsuit failed to stop Android, and after Nokia adopting Windows Phone failed to stop Android, Microsoft, Nokia, and Oracle are now grasping the next straw in their fruitless efforts to stop Android: they've filed an antitrust complaint with the EU, claiming Google unfairly bundles applications with Android.
Permalink for comment 558283
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

Can you stop using this term because tbh you haven't proven that they always exist. Tarring everything with the same brush is mis-information

It is not mis-information to point out that anti-features can only exist in closed software. If software is open yet it paradoxically contained an anti-feature (a feature that was not in the best interests of the end users, but rather in the best interests of the software authors), then ONLY in the case of open software could the users collaborate together to create a fork and remove the anti-feature.

Since some people might claim that there are anti-features in Android, let me point this out to illustrate my point:

So, are the any demonstrable anti-features in Windows Phone?

Well, how about this one?
In order to get an application to appear in the Windows Phone Store, the application must be submitted to Microsoft for approval. Microsoft has outlined the content that it will not allow in the applications, which includes content that, among other things, advocates discrimination or hate, promotes usage of drugs, alcohol or tobacco, or includes sexually suggestive material.

So Microsoft gets to approve apps (and hence veto apps as well)? Microsoft gets to say what apps a Windows Phone 8 user may, or may not, install?

I would ask: "Once a consumer has purchased a phone, whose phone is it, anyway"?

Reply Parent Score: 2