Is Google Hypocritical About Microsoft?

[swansont]

I'm not sure I followed your question. Are you basically asking if it's okay for companies to make the browser an integrated part of the operating system so long as it doesn't lead them to market domination?

 

If so it's an interesting question, with implications both "pro" and "con".

 

No, not really. I was asking for clarification of your use of the term "acquire."

 

The browser lawsuit of a few years ago was based (as far as my recollection/understanding goes) that it was unfair for Microsoft to use their monopoly on the OS to also dominate the browser market. The forced consumers to use IE because it was bundled in the OS and could not easily be disabled, nor could other browsers work as well with the OS.

 

So when you say they "acquired" a monopoly in the browser market, AFAIK it was done by illegally leveraging/exploiting their monopoly in the OS market. Several states took antitrust action.

 

So to point out that they didn't have a monopoly in the browser market isn't relevant. They had a monopoly in the OS that they leveraged. What monopoly does Apple have that they are leveraging?

[Pangloss]

the linux kernel iteself is licenced under GNU v2. if linus controls the linux-kernel progect, the good thing about GNU is that someone could just fork the linux kernel into a non-linus dominated project if there was a need.

 

Well that would seem to be a reasonable distinction, but I would point out that there's a reason why Torvalds has that control -- to maintain compatibility. If other people start cranking out differing kernels, you lose that compatibility advantage.

 

So the question becomes: Is voluntary domination better than involuntary? (Or is it really involuntary if we bought into it by purchasing a Windows-equipped computer?)

[Pangloss]

So to point out that they didn't have a monopoly in the browser market isn't relevant. They had a monopoly in the OS that they leveraged. What monopoly does Apple have that they are leveraging?

 

What "browser market"? You're talking about a "product" that's free. The purpose of integrating Internet Explorer into Windows wasn't to "capture the browser market", it was to maintain Windows dominance by adding vertical value to it.

 

Of course the impact on Netscape was the same either way, but this is relevent because Apple is attempting to do exactly the same thing -- dominate a market. I agree that's a distant target, but shouldn't we apply the same scrutiny to their trade practices that we should have applied to Microsoft's trade practices early on, when we had a chance to actually do something about them BEFORE the damage was done and the consumers were happy with the resulting status quo?

 

----

 

Which brings me to my last point (to the thread in general, not in response to Swansont's post above), which is that when people point out that consumers WANT what Apple is doing (like that quote I posted above where a consumer was happy that Apple was restricting developer access to the iPhone desktop), this has to be seen as irrelevent to the issue of whether or not it is fair. After all, most consumers also wanted a free browser included with Windows.

[1veedo]

Again, I'm talking about the kernel here, not the entire operating system.

Yes, considering this is exactly what I was talking about there should be no disconnect here. Linus Torvalds just holds the copyright for the name "Linux" (and even now I think the copyright is held by GNU or the FSF). So if you're talking about Linux it just insures you really mean Linux as in the OS and not something else. Again though, nobody actually "owns" Linux (the kernel). It's published under GNU and is open for everyone to inspect and modify.

[Dak]

Linus Torvalds just holds the copyright for the name "Linux" (and even now I think the copyright is held by GNU or the FSF). So if you're talking about Linux it just insures you really mean Linux as in the OS and not something else.

 

technically, if you're talking about linux, you're talking about the kernel and nothing else. the OS sans kernel is GNU. a GNU OS running on a linux kernel is linux/GNU, whilst a GNU OS running on hurd (the GNU kernel) is just GNU, i think.

 

having said that, most people reffer to the OS as linux, and i say go with common usage.

 

http://www.gnu.org/

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Again, I'm talking about the kernel here, not the entire operating system. I brought this up in response to another person's question about the Windows kernel, so I think it's worth a separate answer. I don't disagree that Linux is more open than Windows -- of course it is. The question is whether the Linux kernel is really "open source", or if it is in fact controlled by Linus Torvalds. (And is that term really nullified if he does control it?)

Define "controlled." Linus may control what gets in to the kernel in the end, but that's irrelevant to the definition of "open source." Open source means I can release my own kernel, fully compatible with the Linux kernel, with a few extra bells and whistles. Or whatever I want. Without receiving a cease-and-desist notice.

 

(Off07 = XML; how much more open source does it get than XML?).

Wrong. When you contain tags like "lineWrapLikeWord6," and don't specify what Word6 did in line-wrapping, you still have an advantage over other implementations of the file format.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Office_Open_XML#Criticism

[Pangloss]

Linus Torvalds just holds the copyright for the name "Linux" (and even now I think the copyright is held by GNU or the FSF).

 

That's in direct contradiction to what Cap'n Refsmmat said after your post. His post and the Wikipedia article jives with what I remember, which is that Linus Torvalds does indeed control what goes into the kernel. However, I await enlightenment with an open mind.

 

And that's fine, Cap'n, certainly some loose definitions of "open source" have floated around. But you have no more say about what goes into the Linux kernel than I do. I'm just pointing out that, contrary to some fanboys' closed-minded ideological beliefs, Linux is indeed quite thoroughly controlled. (And in fact that control is essential to its success.) You want to say that's a better to control software, more power to you. (My opinion isn't that Microsoft's way is better, but rather than the competition between the two approaches benefits us all. But that's another subject.)

 

Regarding Office 2007's XML file format, I think it's important that people remember that XML is *supposed* to be defined at the program level. That's the entire point. You wrap your data in XML and define (in a schema) what each column of data represents. I realize this is not what you're talking about, but I think it's important to make that distinction in this discussion for the benefit of those who may not understand that XML is essentially a blank slate until a program does this. It's "universal", yes, but it's not a universal content format, e.g. PDF. That's a GOOD thing.

 

Anyway, getting to your point, I don't see how including a backward compatibility tag as a stated field in its XML schema is a violation of the open standard. It'd be silly not to include something like that, and what difference does it make to third party developers? They're not going to demand access to an old file format when they can simply write data in the new file format. After all, the target audience can't open newly developed XML-file content in an old copy of Microsoft Word anyway!

[Sayonara]

Should we ignore the fact that Microsoft only relented on including XML functionality because to not do this would have blown them out of the market?

 

In terms of this discussion, I mean. Not in terms of good old general Microsoft bashing.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

That's in direct contradiction to what Cap'n Refsmmat said after your post. His post and the Wikipedia article jives with what I remember, which is that Linus Torvalds does indeed control what goes into the kernel. However, I await enlightenment with an open mind.

 

And that's fine, Cap'n, certainly some loose definitions of "open source" have floated around. But you have no more say about what goes into the Linux kernel than I do. I'm just pointing out that, contrary to some fanboys' closed-minded ideological beliefs, Linux is indeed quite thoroughly controlled. (And in fact that control is essential to its success.) You want to say that's a better to control software, more power to you. (My opinion isn't that Microsoft's way is better, but rather than the competition between the two approaches benefits us all. But that's another subject.)

And what does that have to do with its status as "open source" software?

 

Regarding Office 2007's XML file format, I think it's important that people remember that XML is *supposed* to be defined at the program level. That's the entire point. You wrap your data in XML and define (in a schema) what each column of data represents. I realize this is not what you're talking about, but I think it's important to make that distinction in this discussion for the benefit of those who may not understand that XML is essentially a blank slate until a program does this. It's "universal", yes, but it's not a universal content format, e.g. PDF. That's a GOOD thing.

 

Anyway, getting to your point, I don't see how including a backward compatibility tag as a stated field in its XML schema is a violation of the open standard. It'd be silly not to include something like that, and what difference does it make to third party developers? They're not going to demand access to an old file format when they can simply write data in the new file format. After all, the target audience can't open newly developed XML-file content in an old copy of Microsoft Word anyway!

 

The trouble is that a third-party developer can't fully support the format because only Microsoft knows the algorithm behind word-wrapping in Word 6. It's only superficially "open."

[Pangloss]

Should we ignore the fact that Microsoft only relented on including XML functionality because to not do this would have blown them out of the market?

 

Nope, we shouldn't ignore that. That's what I mean when I say that open source has had a positive impact on competition between the two approaches.

[Pangloss]

And what does that have to do with its status as "open source" software?

 

I've no idea.

 

 

The trouble is that a third-party developer can't fully support the format because only Microsoft knows the algorithm behind word-wrapping in Word 6. It's only superficially "open."

 

I don't know if I believe that. People's been writing applications that output files in Word format for years. But perhaps I have an incomplete picture here.

 

But that has nothing to do with whether Word 2007 is "superficially open" or not. The Word 2007 format is no less open because of that inclusion.

[1veedo]

Define "controlled." Linus may control what gets in to the kernel in the end, but that's irrelevant to the definition of "open source." Open source means I can release my own kernel, fully compatible with the Linux kernel, with a few extra bells and whistles. Or whatever I want. Without receiving a cease-and-desist notice.

I don't even think Linus controls that. He gave up that power when he switched to GNU. Instead he's part of a committee made up of the main kernel coders. Most of them meet every year at a Linux Kernel Developers Summit. If you submit code to the kernel, your .diff patch is always going to be available for anyone who wants to use it. I'm not sure how it becomes an official part of the kernel though -- I guess if they need it then it gets added. Linus himself doesn't self-inspect everything that goes into the kernel though. It's erroneous to assume that because it's controlled, which I'm sure it is, that it's no longer open source or that you would have a hard time getting your code included, which is irrelevant. If you write good code then it'll be included. If you send in poorly written code that isn't useful then, amazing, it wont.

 

The Linux kernel has received code from thousands of people around the world. Saying that the kernel is "controlled" really means you don't know much about how it's set up on a technical level. There are many projects that are compiled with the kernel that are not part of the vanilla version of the kernel. These include squashfs, unionfs, and proprietary nvidia drivers for example. Squashfs I think has been added by default recently but unionfs still remains separate. If you want unionfs then you can just download the source and build it yourself -- the source is all right there for you to do whatever you want with it. Most distros of Linux use their own modified version of the kernel -- eg gentoo and ubuntu, and they don't have to ask Linus if they can do this.

 

The kernel is not one big centralize hunk of code that everyone works on. Instead there are different parts of the kernel that are developed individually of each other (eg the squashfs developers work separate from network coders). So if you wanted to submit modifications for squashfs you would be submitting your patches to squashfs, not "the Linux kernel."

[Aeternus]

And that's fine, Cap'n, certainly some loose definitions of "open source" have floated around. But you have no more say about what goes into the Linux kernel than I do. I'm just pointing out that, contrary to some fanboys' closed-minded ideological beliefs, Linux is indeed quite thoroughly controlled. (And in fact that control is essential to its success.) You want to say that's a better to control software, more power to you. (My opinion isn't that Microsoft's way is better, but rather than the competition between the two approaches benefits us all. But that's another subject.)

 

I'm extremely confused as to what your point is here. Linux & Co offer a standard generic linux kernel which people can use but they also offer the source as well so that you are free to change it and redistribute your changes as you see fit so as to provide a completely different kernel or you can even start distributing the same kernel. This is completely different to what you have with Microsoft whereby the kernel source is never revealed (unless you are in one of their partnership programs and then only select parts) and if you try to redistribute their kernel, you WILL be sued.

 

You make it seem like everyone only ever uses the stock kernel but this isn't the case, almost all linux distributions have their own kernel patches which they apply to each new version of the stock kernel and then distribute to their users. The open source nature means if people do see a problem they can create a fork of the code as has been mentioned and people can join them if they wish.

 

The point you are making about Linus & Co "controlling" what goes into the stock kernel is true to some extent(*) but not in the same way as MS and it's completely irrelevant in reality as, as I just pointed out, the open source nature of the kernel means that if they won't include it in the stock kernel, you are free to modify the kernel anyways and use AND distribute your changes so that anyone can benefit from them. Linux & Co don't act as a monopolistic gatekeeper (as anyone can do exactly what they are doing), they are simply a major trusted entity (amongst many kernel distributors).

 

* This is true in the context that if you are a developer and you wish to reach a great deal of people *easily* through distribution via the stock kernel then yes, your code is subject to scrutiny by the kernel group and yes for some people this can cause anguish and is an interesting issue (similar to the issue of social pressure vs authoritative control in society) but as mentioned above, the fact that you are free to distribute your own kernel, or patches to be applied to the stock kernel to others means that there is no real restriction implied here in terms of source, only in terms of someone else doing the distribution for you.

 

I'm sorry if this doesn't come across well, and I admit there are parallels to be drawn between the effects of control on distribution of one of many trusted kernels (albeit usually the daddy) and the complete authoritative control of source,workings, distribution etc (everything) but the two are clearly not the same and to suggest that because you can note some (practically different) elements of control within certain aspects of the linux community, that this means that the entire process is as controlled and restricted as what occurs with the Windows Kernel seems to me to be a little bit wrong :\

 

Perhaps you are not suggesting that they are the same and are only pointing out the lesser "sense" of control that has been mentioned but if so it didn't come across that way.

 

[Edit]

Bah, didn't realise, I'm reiterating 1veedo here, oh well.

[bascule]

That's in direct contradiction to what Cap'n Refsmmat said after your post. His post and the Wikipedia article jives with what I remember' date=' which is that Linus Torvalds does indeed control what goes into the kernel. However, I await enlightenment with an open mind.

 

And that's fine, Cap'n, certainly some loose definitions of "open source" have floated around. But you have no more say about what goes into the Linux kernel than I do. I'm just pointing out that, contrary to some fanboys' closed-minded ideological beliefs, Linux is indeed quite thoroughly controlled. (And in fact that control is essential to its success.) You want to say that's a better to control software, more power to you. (My opinion isn't that Microsoft's way is better, but rather than the competition between the two approaches benefits us all. But that's another subject.)[/quote']

 

That's a very odd stance to take. Linus and others have worked on a distributed version control tool called git specifically for the purpose of allowing distributed branches of the Linux kernel to be independently developed by a number of different maintainers, including Linus. Alternative branches are great for: those who want to develop highly experimental kernel improvements and hardware vendors (IBM, SGI) with a lot of hardware-specific add-ons that those seeking the mainline kernel don't care about. So far nobody's trying to maintain a production-ready general purpose kernel branch besides Linus... the closest thing are experimental branches which incorporate a lot of bleeding edge features and cater to the performance-oriented crowd who's willing to sacrifice a little stability.

 

Thing is, everyone uses Linus's kernel, and the majority contribute to Linus's kernel. It's not like there aren't any other alternatives out there... the question is: why use them? Linus knows better than anyone else what's going on. Furthermore, Linus doesn't even handle releases, he's farmed that task off to others. He just maintains the mainline branch and generally controls what goes into it. He's made some stupid decisions in the past (edge-triggered versus level-triggered interfaces aren't a dichotomy, you can have BOTH!), but if he starts making too many, git will be his undoing. If someone can make a better branch and convince enough people to switch, git would ensure code sharing (of what either party cares for) even as certain kernel subsystems begin to diverge. If there's a better Linus out there, s/he could reap the benefits of present mainline development while taking development in a totally different direction.

 

Distributed development has allowed for a number of features to be developed which began far too unstable for anyone else to work with during development. Some of these major revisions have been: the SLAB allocator, O(1) process scheduler, kernel pre-emption, various kernel filesystems (a problem now obviated by FUSE), and countless performance improvements which began their lives as highly experimental prototypes.

 

Similar things have happened before in the open source OS world. Theo de Raadt forked OpenBSD from NetBSD, and now OpenBSD has a larger installed base. Matthew Dillion forked DragonflyBSD from FreeBSD 4.x, and now it's looking like a great OS for building clusters. It allows a single system image across multiple different computer systems, complete with network-synchronized cache coherency across various kernel subsystems. And who knows, maybe in the future that will be more useful than the present mainline FreeBSD.

 

The x.org project forked and completely eclipsed XFree86. Features needed for modern desktops weren't getting added fast enough by a dinosaur of a group, so the community responded by forking and being much faster in responding to the needs of modern desktop environments.

 

Open source development is anarchy, and the only way to be successful is to be the best programmer warlord, so that all who may try to fork you and usurp your power fail in their attempts.

[swansont]

What "browser market"? You're talking about a "product" that's free. The purpose of integrating Internet Explorer into Windows wasn't to "capture the browser market", it was to maintain Windows dominance by adding vertical value to it.

 

There's money in them thar browsers. in 2005, Mozilla earned more than $50 million, mostly from funneling traffic to Google. MS may have wanted to add value, but they also wanted to have a hand in how you surf the web, because there's money to be made in doing that.

 

Of course the impact on Netscape was the same either way, but this is relevent because Apple is attempting to do exactly the same thing -- dominate a market. I agree that's a distant target, but shouldn't we apply the same scrutiny to their trade practices that we should have applied to Microsoft's trade practices early on, when we had a chance to actually do something about them BEFORE the damage was done and the consumers were happy with the resulting status quo?

 

No, I don't think so. When consumers have a real choice, i.e. there is no monopoly, then market forces will have more of an effect. If your product isn't good, people can go elsewhere. But when you are a monopoly, the consumer has less choice (or none at all), and you have to scrutinize those companies more.

 

And I disagree that Apple it trying to dominate the cellphone market. They're going after the high-end niche, not the masses. If you don't like the iPhone, there will always be others you can buy. But if, somehow, that ends up not being the case, and Aplle becomes a monopoly, then they will have to behave according to more stringent rules.

 

 

Which brings me to my last point (to the thread in general, not in response to Swansont's post above), which is that when people point out that consumers WANT what Apple is doing (like that quote I posted above where a consumer was happy that Apple was restricting developer access to the iPhone desktop), this has to be seen as irrelevent to the issue of whether or not it is fair. After all, most consumers also wanted a free browser included with Windows.

 

I think people want a free browser that doesn't suck, which explains why Firefox and Safari, et. al, have market share.

[Pangloss]

I'm extremely confused as to what your point is here.

 

I'll take the blame for that. It's tricky to moderate a discussion and take a specific point of view at the same time, especially if it's an unpopular one. I probably should have focused the discussion a little more tightly at the beginning and steered off some tangential posts rather than responding to them.

 

 

I'm sorry if this doesn't come across well, and I admit there are parallels to be drawn between the effects of control on distribution of one of many trusted kernels (albeit usually the daddy) and the complete authoritative control of source,workings, distribution etc (everything) but the two are clearly not the same and to suggest that because you can note some (practically different) elements of control within certain aspects of the linux community, that this means that the entire process is as controlled and restricted as what occurs with the Windows Kernel seems to me to be a little bit wrong :\

 

We're on the same page here.

[Pangloss]

What "browser market"? You're talking about a "product" that's free. The purpose of integrating Internet Explorer into Windows wasn't to "capture the browser market"' date=' it was to maintain Windows dominance by adding vertical value to it.

[/quote']There's money in them thar browsers. in 2005, Mozilla earned more than $50 million, mostly from funneling traffic to Google. MS may have wanted to add value, but they also wanted to have a hand in how you surf the web, because there's money to be made in doing that.

 

Of course.

 

And this doesn't counter my point.

 

 

No, I don't think so. When consumers have a real choice, i.e. there is no monopoly, then market forces will have more of an effect. If your product isn't good, people can go elsewhere. But when you are a monopoly, the consumer has less choice (or none at all), and you have to scrutinize those companies more.

 

And I disagree that Apple it trying to dominate the cellphone market. They're going after the high-end niche, not the masses. If you don't like the iPhone, there will always be others you can buy. But if, somehow, that ends up not being the case, and Aplle becomes a monopoly, then they will have to behave according to more stringent rules.

 

Incorrect. All publically-held companies try their damndest to dominate their markets. And in fact they have a legal obligation to do so. That doesn't mean they're all going to resort to the same practices that Microsoft has used that got them into trouble (and therein lies the heart of my question). But you're wrong, they absolutely will try. They cannot not.

 

There is absolutely nothing sacrosanct about Apple, Google, Linux, or My Aunt Jane's Really Good Apple Pie Company. It doesn't matter how green they are, what percentage of their profit they give to the poor, how popular or politically correct their product is. Or how their opponent is perceived.

 

The fact that Microsoft wears a black hat in certain social circles these days may indeed say something about Microsoft, especially with regard to its past behavior. But it absolutely says something about those social circles and their narrow-minded perceptions.

[1veedo]

But it absolutely says something about those social circles and their narrow-minded perceptions.

You mean the fact that they paid attention in economics class and actually understood the material?

 

The only downside of a capitalist economy is the threat of a monopoly*. This is a very elementary concept -- when you have a monopoly there are no longer other choices so if you, for example, want an operating system you have no choice but to buy inferior goods at higher cost. This is why there are laws against monopolies -- pure laze-fair capitalist economics do not work because companies merge and outcompete each other until there's only one or two companies in a market. Mind you oligopolies (eg fast food) are ok, but not monopolies.

 

And the proof is right here with Microsoft. Windows is a very low quality product and yet you pay way too much to use it. And look at the RIAA -- they're not technically a monopoly in the music industry but as far as "popular" artists are concerned they most certainly are a monopoly.

 

I'm not against Microsoft by any means but most of the criticism that they receive is deserved. You just have to remember that any other company put in Microsoft's position would be doing the same thing.

 

*Well that and inefficiency but we don't need to go that deep. Inefficiency arises because you, as the consumer, have choices. As far as I'm aware of other economic systems, for different reasons, are even more so inefficient.

[swansont]

Incorrect. All publically-held companies try their damndest to dominate their markets. And in fact they have a legal obligation to do so. That doesn't mean they're all going to resort to the same practices that Microsoft has used that got them into trouble (and therein lies the heart of my question). But you're wrong, they absolutely will try. They cannot not.

 

I think that either presupposes a particular definition of "dominate" or "market." Publicly-traded companies have a responsibility to their shareholders, but that does not extend to them losing money to grab market share. IANAL, but it seems to me that a company can choose not to produce a cheap product, especially if part of the corporation's value is their brand and reputation for quality. And if they can't make a profit, they don't make the product. So either dominate doesn't mean "try to become a monopoly," or "market" has to be segmented, e.g. Apple is trying to dominate the high-end touchscreen phone market, but they are not trying to dominate the cellphone market.

[Aeternus]

...Windows is a very low quality product...

 

Ouch, bit harsh don't you think? I mean, don't get me wrong, various Windows versions (most if not all annoy me no end in a lot of ways (as do a lot of other OSs), but I doubt you'll find a perfect OS and I'd say most Windows OS are at least low quality ;P

[bascule]

Re: OP

 

Microsoft still maintains a veritable monopoly on desktop and business computer systems. Google is arguing they are leveraging their existing monopoly in desktop computer systems in order to shut out competitors in another area: desktop search.

 

The iPhone is a new product which presently has a market share of 0.

 

How do the two compare?

[Pangloss]

They compare because Windows wasn't born with 94% market share, bascule. It developed that market share -- from zero -- based in part on unfair trade practices.

 

Swansont, Apple execs have specifically stated their intention to try and dominate the broader cell phone market, and market analysts have spent considerably time (and broadsheet paper) conjecturing over whether or not they will be able to do so. And I don't see any difference from Apple "domination" becoming "monopoly" by fiat vs Microsoft's "domination" becoming "monopoly" by fiat.

 

What I hear this thread saying, in its defense of gigantic megacorporations it loves, is that some types (or number of) unfair trade practices are ok, but other types (or numbers of) are not ok.

[swansont]

They compare because Windows wasn't born with 94% market share, bascule. It developed that market share -- from zero -- based in part on unfair trade practices.

 

But the practices were not necessarily unfair when they had a much smaller market share.

 

 

Swansont, Apple execs have specifically stated their intention to try and dominate the broader cell phone market, and market analysts have spent considerably time (and broadsheet paper) conjecturing over whether or not they will be able to do so. And I don't see any difference from Apple "domination" becoming "monopoly" by fiat vs Microsoft's "domination" becoming "monopoly" by fiat.

 

Do you have a cite? Everything I've read has been in terms of wanting to dominate the smartphone market, and not the broader cellphone market.

[Pangloss]

But the practices were not necessarily unfair when they had a much smaller market share.

 

Interesting. That would certainly mark a distinction between the current examples and Microsoft's historic unfair trade practices (if not necessarily the current ones, though they may also apply, but specifically here I'm thinking of the infamous Shelf Space Wars, etc).

 

 

Do you have a cite? Everything I've read has been in terms of wanting to dominate the smartphone market, and not the broader cellphone market.

 

On the Apple management statements? I'll have to look for it; this was a couple of weeks ago. But glancing at Google News I see thousands of articles about the impact of the iPhone on the larger cell phone market. Clearly the analysts are responding to Apple management statements, not to mention general industry sentiment. Have you used a run-of-the-mill cell phone lately? Most of them are pure dreck.

 

The article below is a typical example of the multitude of current stories that look at the impact of the iPhone on the broader cell phone market.

 

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/062907dnbusphonefuture.39ccebf.html

 

This quote is particularly relevent to a point I made earlier in the thread, although it doesn't address your question, so please pardon the aside:

 

"Apple is teaching America that 'cellphones' are actually powerful computers," said Shawn Freeman, chief technology officer at Handango, a Hurst-based company that offers downloadable applications for mobile devices.

 

They're "powerful computers" -- but only Apple gets to decide who can write software for them.

 

And nobody seems to have a problem with that concept.

 

And this is the year 2007.

 

No. Really.

[Sayonara]

Surely you mean "only Apple gets to decide who can SELL software for them"?

 

Or has the developer area on Apple.com completely mislead me?