Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 24th Sep 2010 23:20 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 442690
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.
Let me rephrase this (even if Kroc did it already): having software vendors throwing a hissy fit if an opponent's app is also on the same device is a very bad tendency, and it is getting worse and worse because of the app store model (ab)use by concurrent software vendors. App stores should be independent. After net neutrality, will we have to fight for app store neutrality?
Not sure about that. It's a right of the OS manufacturer to promote some specific apps on its platform, because they integrate well or follow their strategy best.
As long as installation and use of non-promoted apps is not obfuscated (is it possible on Android to create alternative application stores or take an app transferred through USB to the device and run it ?), this looks like a small issue to me.
Would you blame Ubuntu for including F-Spot as a default, as long as one can install Gimp ?
Edited 2010-09-25 21:53 UTC




Member since:
2009-06-20
Let me rephrase this (even if Kroc did it already): having software vendors throwing a hissy fit if an opponent's app is also on the same device is a very bad tendency, and it is getting worse and worse because of the app store model (ab)use by concurrent software vendors. App stores should be independent. After net neutrality, will we have to fight for app store neutrality?