Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 16th Oct 2012 12:14 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 538834
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.
RE[4]: Drop it to $300-400 and we'll talk.
by Alfman on Wed 17th Oct 2012 15:16
in reply to "RE[3]: Drop it to $300-400 and we'll talk."
lucas_maximus,
"While you are correct you are still missing the point."
Haha, I'll take it. The thing is, the competitive damage of corporate walled gardens is proportional to their *collective* market share. It's still good to have more competition over less, but if consumer's choice ends up being between one walled garden or another, then it represents a significant threat to open computing for consumers. A software-only developer won't be able to compete fairly or sell unapproved software without the blessing of gatekeepers because we are not a hardware provider ourselves. If this is allowed to happen, it would retrograde the entire software industry.
RE[5]: Drop it to $300-400 and we'll talk.
by lucas_maximus on Wed 17th Oct 2012 17:06
in reply to "RE[4]: Drop it to $300-400 and we'll talk."
RE[5]: Drop it to $300-400 and we'll talk.
by zima on Tue 23rd Oct 2012 23:56
in reply to "RE[4]: Drop it to $300-400 and we'll talk."
if consumer's choice ends up being between one walled garden or another, then it represents a significant threat to open computing for consumers. A software-only developer won't be able to compete fairly or sell unapproved software without the blessing of gatekeepers because we are not a hardware provider ourselves. If this is allowed to happen, it would retrograde the entire software industry.
OTOH a typical (smallish) software-only developer won't be able to target more than two ecosystems effectively, anyway... (maybe three - if the "gatekeepers" do all the appstore, payments, etc. dirty work)





Member since:
2009-08-18
While you are correct you are still missing the point.