People and companies are not compelled to open source their software.
No one is saying they are, but when one does, and the other doesn’t, the former hands themselves a shitton of competition. They become more competitive. They created a whole market of competition for themselves. All they’ve done is put restrictions on how people use their software they’ve licensed other OEMs to use. Again, not saying these restrictions aren’t anti-competitive, but Apple does none of this, so how can Google be called anti-competitive while Apple is not?
Do you think there were no phone makers before Android or something?
We’re not discussing “before Android”. We’re discussing today. If Apple opens their OS to other OEMs, or allows other developers to publish on iOS, I’ll take back everything, but they’ve made it very clear they have zero intention of doing any of those things.
Apple. Is. Not. Imposing. Terms. On. Phonemakers.
They. Can’t. Impose. Terms. For. Things. They. Don’t. Allow. To. Exist. In. The. First. Place.
You can’t claim one is being anti-competitive for imposing terms on a service they created and open-sourced while the other doesn’t even allow for a service to exist to impose them on. That goes for iOS and it goes for alternative app stores.
Google is. Because their dominant market position allows them to.
Apple doesn’t allow alternative app stores or alternative hardware because their dominant market position allows them to. A significantly larger market when we’re talking about hardware…
It’s incredible how you still don’t get it despite me very clearly explaining it multiple times.
You’re clearly unable to comprehend what I’m telling you so let’s call it a day. Bye.
It’s not abusing your market position to not open source your own software. If I make a game, I don’t have to let people have the source code. How don’t you understand this?
I’ve explained many times why Google’s options are abusive of their market position and Apple’s aren’t. You’re just unable to understand, it’s like talking to a brick wall.
I’m not, you just don’t like it.
No one is saying they are, but when one does, and the other doesn’t, the former hands themselves a shitton of competition. They become more competitive. They created a whole market of competition for themselves. All they’ve done is put restrictions on how people use their software they’ve licensed other OEMs to use. Again, not saying these restrictions aren’t anti-competitive, but Apple does none of this, so how can Google be called anti-competitive while Apple is not?
We’re not discussing “before Android”. We’re discussing today. If Apple opens their OS to other OEMs, or allows other developers to publish on iOS, I’ll take back everything, but they’ve made it very clear they have zero intention of doing any of those things.
They. Can’t. Impose. Terms. For. Things. They. Don’t. Allow. To. Exist. In. The. First. Place.
You can’t claim one is being anti-competitive for imposing terms on a service they created and open-sourced while the other doesn’t even allow for a service to exist to impose them on. That goes for iOS and it goes for alternative app stores.
Apple doesn’t allow alternative app stores or alternative hardware because their dominant market position allows them to. A significantly larger market when we’re talking about hardware…
It’s incredible how you still don’t get it despite me very clearly explaining it multiple times.
You’re clearly unable to comprehend what I’m telling you so let’s call it a day. Bye.
It’s not abusing your market position to not open source your own software. If I make a game, I don’t have to let people have the source code. How don’t you understand this?
I’ve explained many times why Google’s options are abusive of their market position and Apple’s aren’t. You’re just unable to understand, it’s like talking to a brick wall.