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 558291
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

"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.

Other than in most 1st world countries most of those are illegal or restricted to Adults ... that kinda makes sense? So you are saying that Microsoft should break the law?

No, there is nothing wrong with Microsoft selecting only a certain set of apps for its store, if that was all that was happening. The problem with Microsoft's store is that it does not allow apps to be installed other than via their store, and that Microsoft rejects apps from their store for more reasons than they have stated above.

For example, can I get any .webm capability on a Windows Phone? How about FLAC? What about ad blocking?

In what way would a .webm or FLAC capability break any of Microsoft's rules as stated above, or indeed how would they break any law?

BTW, with regard to CyranogenMod, one of the capabilities it introduced was FLAC. So Android itself responded by:

Well at least those apps are getting vetted, because Android with it free an open model has dodgy freeware and spyware apps ... which is a major problem that Windows used to suffer from.

This is a matter of choosing your source. For example, on Android, I can choose a source other than Google Play which nevertheless is guaranteed free of spyware:

This will allow me to install ad-blocking software, which Google itself has restricted:

So it turns out that I, as a consumer, am not bound by defective-by-design anti-feature decisions that Google does make from time to time.

With Apple and Microsoft vetting apps, you know if they are in the store then they have had to pass whatever their requirements are ... and these are pretty easy to look up and read by anyone. You found them easily enough.

But what they don't tell you about are apps and features that Apple and Microsoft don't want consumers to have. Do you imagine, given that Microsoft has Skype and Apple has FaceTime, that either Apple or Microsoft will allow a browser that supports WebRTC?

So we are talking about perfectly legal apps and features at that. Apps and features that do not advocate discrimination or hate, promote usage of drugs, alcohol or tobacco, or include sexually suggestive material.

It is swings and roundabouts. There are pros and cons to both open and closed platforms.

You are really struggling to find a true unequalled "pro" for a closed platform that is also an insurmountable "con" for an open one, IMO. What is also very interesting is that you have no points at all to argue against the true unequalled "pros" (from a consumer's perspective) for an open platform, instead you simply ignore them all.

Edited 2013-04-12 10:07 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2