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.
Thread beginning with comment 558268
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

Why do you always take a black and white viewpoint to proprietary vs open source software?


If you want to understand my motivation it is very simple. I simply ask, in any given scenario, what is best for the greater number of people? In this case it is abundantly clear, the OS which is open, which does not include anti-features, which is far less costly, which is supplied and supported by 84 companies not just one, and for which the wider ecosystem is not a walled garden is clearly better in every way for the vast majority of consumers. Hell, since we are talking an alliance of 84 companies, plus a number of other suppliers who use the codebase without being part of the alliance, versus a single supplier, then that same option is even better for more companies.


It is a no-brainer, really. How could anyone objectively decide otherwise is the mystery to me.

Edited 2013-04-12 01:23 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Except it doesn't matter what scenario it is you will always say Linux is the better choice, no matter what the argument is presented.

You are zealot, nothing more.

As for your reasoning it is flawed.

In this case it is abundantly clear, the OS which is open, which does not include anti-features,


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


which is far less costly, which is supplied and supported by 84 companies not just one, and for which the wider ecosystem is not a walled garden is clearly better in every way for the vast majority of consumers. Hell, since we are talking an alliance of 84 companies, plus a number of other suppliers who use the codebase without being part of the alliance, versus a single supplier, then that same option is even better for more companies.


Innovation rarely happens when there is design by committee. While specifications and standards are great e.g. TCP/IP, HTTP etc, XML, JSON etc. It doesn't really work on one product.

I upgraded from a HTC Desire to a Samsung SIII ... While it looks a bit nicers and a bit slicker ... there isn't a huge difference between the OS versions.

In anycase, Google controls Android Development. It is pretty much irrelevant whether Google is part of it or not.

Edited 2013-04-12 07:40 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Except it doesn't matter what scenario it is you will always say Linux is the better choice, no matter what the argument is presented.

You are zealot, nothing more.


I notice you make an unsupported claim, you are claiming to know what is in my mind, but you completely avoid the point I made.

Why exactly would you claim, in this particular case, as Microsoft, Nokia and Oracle are claiming, that open, non-walled-garden, zero-cost mobile OS software is somehow not the best choice for consumers? This is the crux of the matter, because EU competition law is actually meant to protect the best interests of consumers, not software companies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_competition_law
Competition law in the European Union has some similarities with the law in the United States antitrust, though there are some key differences; not least, while US law is designed to protect competitors from the power of monopolies, EU law is designed to protect consumers from anti-competitive behaviour.


So go ahead, make your case, present an argument.

Until you do that, and until I can come up with no valid counter, you have made no point at all.

At this juncture, your claiming that I am a zealot, without you having made any actual argument, is merely an ad hominem attack meant to distract everyone's attention (my own in particular) away from the fact that you have no point.

Edited 2013-04-12 08:00 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

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:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CyanogenMod

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

Well, how about this one?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Phone#Submission
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