That's a strong argument. Ignore the point and attack the analogy and my integrity.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple's anti-competitive behavior with browsers: Why does Apple get a pass?
- Thread starter Calidude
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That's a strong argument. Ignore the point and attack the analogy and my integrity.
You compared Burger King to the App Store. Speaking about absolutely terrible that analogy is a waste of effort in typing and others will see it for themselves. Nobody attacked your integrity. You harmed it yourself with that comparison.
And yet, other web browsers seem to do quite well speedwise on their own.
The argument that Apple's restriction of the Nitro Javascript engine gives Safari a speed advantage isn't true, because Safari is not the fastest browser on iOS. It's not even the fastest iOS browser on the App Store.
The Mercury browser is VERY fast - faster than Safari for me. And Chrome's no slouch itself, despite the alleged "gimping" mentioned above.
Last edited:
Actually, not really... Disregarding the fact whether Apple is right or wrong... It's not so much Burger King not allowing McDonald's into their store...
It's more like a food court at a Mall. There are all sorts of stores, and they buy space. They have to use the rooms and space provided in the mall. However, in the food court, only the mall's in-house meals are provided. No outside vendors are allowed. Now, in reality this doesn't happen much, if at all, because people want McDonald's and Burger King and other choices...
Still, is it anti-competitive of the mall's owner's not to allow them inside the mall? That's an interesting thought.
You were on the right track with analogy, you just didn't quite get it there. Again, as to the question. I like choices, so I'd like the option on browsers. Is it anti-competitive, though? Hmm...
Come on, guys. Look at this guy's avatar. Jobs with Kool-Aid?
He's trolling.
Don't feed him and he'll stop.
Again, you didn't actually respond to the point. Analogies are not meant to be perfect examples in every respect. They are meant to illustrate a specific point. My point being that, as a closed platform, Apple is not being anti-competitive by not featuring a competitor's products.
I don't think that the difference was significant to my point. It all depends on if you consider an alternative browser to be a Big Mac or a McDonald's.
I don't think that the difference was significant to my point. It all depends on if you consider an alternative browser to be a Big Mac or a McDonald's.
Fair enough... My thought was just that Burger King makes all the products it sells. Apple obviously approves but doesn't make all the products they allow in iOS... Considering you have third parties involved, trying to sell their own ideas and services, with only a small section actually causing any dispute, that's why I see it more as a mall, but I get where you're coming from.
As I said, it doesn't negate your argument, but it clarifies the situation by asking a slightly different question. Your answer is still sound, but there's more to it than simply saying BK doesn't sell a Big Mac... That's why I offered the alternative (since someone else wasn't happy with the metaphor you offered).
*sighs i believe you fail to understand what they mean.
not at all, apple designed their software, just because they dont want their software experience changed doesnt mean they are being anti-competitive. I'm not saying i agree with it, but is not ant-competitiveness. If apple allowed it or not, it doesnt changed the competition in the market at all. People still buy their device and software if they were to allow a new browser on it.
Apple playing the stupid patent game and trying to block sales of other devices would be anti-competitive.
Definition for anti competitive:
Web definitions:
Anti-competitive practices are business or government practices that prevent or reduce competition in a market (see restraint of trade)..
what you are describing and talking about is innovation, strait from to the definition.
in·no·vate [in-uh-veyt] Show IPA verb, in·no·vat·ed, in·no·vat·ing.
verb (used without object)
1.
to introduce something new; make changes in anything established.
introducing a new browser to an already existent environment. making changes to their webkit.
lolol
another classic from calidude
__________________________
and of course no response..
Last edited:
i just showed him the definitions of each and hell still argue and name call. calidude can argue with a sign.
EU is investigating Windows RT. I don't think ios will be far. Depending on the outcome, Apple may be next. If EU regulates MS for RT, then they have to do it for iPad.
http://www.theverge.com/2012/7/18/3...ws-8-rt-for-allegedly-blocking-browser-choice
http://www.theverge.com/2012/7/18/3...ws-8-rt-for-allegedly-blocking-browser-choice
As a current user of Mercury, it's only faster for me because I've got AdBlock enabled. Apples to apples, Safari is faster.
He's not trolling, but he's just annoyed with Apple for what I think are bad reasons.
EDIT: Wait, he's "in time out". Hmm, maybe he turned into a hater.
This is simple.
Apple is not about choice. They are about what they think is the best things for their users. And, for the most part they have done a great job at this.
IMO they are not under fire for not offering other browsers full speed and to set as default because most of their users don't care. For them, Safari works great. I personally have used Chrome exclusively on my iPhone since it made it into the app store. And I will be using it exclusively on my Galaxy Nexus as well. I will however be able to set Chrome as the default browser, so that will be nice.
Side Note: I think it is really funny how people defend Apple AND/OR Google like they are on the payroll or something.
Apple is not about choice. They are about what they think is the best things for their users. And, for the most part they have done a great job at this.
IMO they are not under fire for not offering other browsers full speed and to set as default because most of their users don't care. For them, Safari works great. I personally have used Chrome exclusively on my iPhone since it made it into the app store. And I will be using it exclusively on my Galaxy Nexus as well. I will however be able to set Chrome as the default browser, so that will be nice.
Side Note: I think it is really funny how people defend Apple AND/OR Google like they are on the payroll or something.