Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 8th Jun 2010 22:07 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 429084
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-01-26
It doesn't matter what you meant to say - you still have an incorrect definition of "anti-competitive".
Well, that's certainly a competitive action. It's not like Google "infiltrated" the iPhone platform through some backdoor. They did it through perfectly legitimate, competitive means, with iPhone developers supporting them. By definition, what Apple is doing *after the fact* is anti-competitive because Apple doesn't want Google to compete with them on their platform, even if the developers would rather use AdMob then iAd, Apple has made the choice for them.
Seriously...I only pointed out that your definition of anti-competitive was pretty much backwards, and you still insist that it's not.
It doesn't matter who is big and who is little, who is more powerful and who is less powerful, who respects privacy and who doesn't - you can't just change the definition of the word to suit your needs.