If two points are related and affect each other, why do you exclude one when the other is being discussed?
They can affect eachother, in this instance whether they do or do not is not relevant. And I didn't exclude it from being discussed, in fact I discussed and conceded his point, but then you lack the cognitive ability to comprehend that. So again, what is your point?
Actually I did, but the fact that software bundling and partner exclusivity agreements can possibly have an impact on one another was never in dispute, nor is that fact relevant to this discussion, if you thought it was then you clearly didn't understand it. So again, what is your point? Try and concisely explain your point.
Also since you weren't part of the original discussion perhaps you should explain to me what you think it is about and how it relates to the presented story, because obviously you've misunderstood so let's try and find out where your misunderstanding is and I can educate you on that and help you to understand.
No one said "anti-trust issues with preloading software on a monopoly platform" except you.
That is precisely what this story is about: Google To Require As Many As 20 of Its Apps Preinstalled On Android Devices <-bundling software, nothing about partner exclusivity agreements
But since you failed to comprehend that I'm not surprised you're having such difficulty with following a discussion thread so I'll point it out for you in list form that perhaps you have the cognitive ability to process:
Remember when simply bundling IE was a monopoly abuse? Google is behaving in exactly the same way <-bundling software
I think Microsoft also required OEM's to not preload Netscape. <- bundling software
I don't think so, Compaq shipped Windows PCs with Netscape preloaded. <- bundling software
And then this post changed the topic of discussion from bundling software to exclusivity licensing.
The real issue back then was that MS required OEMs to install MS OS on every computer they sold <- not bundling software, exclusivity agreements
It really can't be any more clear. Now let's assume you lack the cognitive ability to follow a simple list, if you look here I conceded his point even though that isn't what I and the people I responded to were discussing anyway. So what is your point?
"Monopoly abuse" started it in this particular thread, and preloading, partner exclusivity all are being discussed in that context.
No, nobody was discussing partner exclusivity until this, but again your inability to follow a simple comment thread fails you.
If you want to refute this then do it with quoted examples then I can educate you on where you failed reading comprehension.
Because they don't actually hate Microsoft, it's just something to complain about. If they really hated Microsoft they simply wouldn't use it and would instead advance desktop Linux operating systems. But look at the hundreds of comments any story about Microsoft gets (and just look, most of them are about the marketing of name of it) and then when there is a new Linux kernel version you see a dozen or so comments at best, very few people here care about technical details or being clever anymore, it's just trolls, flamebait and irrelevance.
This site used to be about technical details and hacks to make things work differently, now it's about complaining that the out-of-the-box experience isn't palatable to whichever audience it isn't palatable to (if it's too user-friendly then it's too power-user hostile and vice versa). Nevermind that the obvious solution to any geek or hacker for the Windows 8 Metro thing is to replace the shell with something like LiteStep or install Classic Shell and boot-to-desktop, if the out-of-the-box experience isn't what they want then they'll buy it anyway and complain about it rather than taking the initiative to make it work how they want.
The real issue back then was that MS required OEMs to install MS OS on every computer they sold if they wanted to install it on ANY computer they sold.
No, that wasn't the anti-trust issue, that was exclusivity partner agreements.
Leveraging a monopoly in one market to gain advantage in another is anti-competitive and violates anti-trust law. Microsoft used it's Windows monopoly to push IE on users and Google is using its Android monopoly to push gapps on users.
Now for what it's worth I don't think there is an issue, if the alternatives were actually better then users would install and use them rather than the bundled versions.
1) I think Microsoft also required OEM's to not preload Netscape. Don't think Google does anything like that - though requiring the Google search box in launchers may come close...
I don't think so, Compaq shipped Windows PCs with Netscape preloaded. The real issue back then was Microsoft offered IE for free and Netscape charged a fee for their browser.
Plus, Android has not reached anything approaching monopoly status (yet).
Really? They pretty much own the global market for smartphones.
2) You prove my point - nothing prevents you from loading alteratives.
That's irrelevant, nothing ever prevented you from loading Netscape on your Windows PC either.
For what it's worth I don't think there's anything wrong with Google doing this, so long as you can install alternatives there should be no issue, but then that's what I thought about Microsoft too. If they alternatives aren't compelling enough to entice the users to install them then they are useless anyway.
That question became irrelevant given that the premise that the iPhones are worse than the HTC One was wrong. Even if it were relevant, if you want to know go look - I certainly don't follow Android designs.
It isn't irrelevant, you stated it and I can't find any evidence of it so you're called out as a liar, unless you can back it up, but you can't.
But you are still ignoring the fact that the phone you presented as a paradigm is more easily bent than the iPhone 6 Plus and the same as the iPhone 6. Evidence via Consumer Reports.You had a chance to prove you weren't just a hater troll, and you failed.
End of conversation. You've proven yourself not to be interested in the truth.
No, actually it is you who is not interested in the truth. Explain to me what exactly is it in that Consumer Reports test that is being tested? Is that thing on the end of the actuator supposed to represent some really thin leg? And the smartphone has somehow wedged horizontally down in one's pocket? Come on, don't be an idiot.
Frankly the level of stupidity on this issue is just astounding and now you are actually going to look at this test and tell me you genuinely think that is representative of a real world situation? Really? You point to that report and then call me a "hater troll"? No, I have a 6+ and it's great, I hope it doesn't bend and I don't really think it will but I'm not a shill, I'm not going to look at that test and pretend it demonstrates anything about real world usage.
But wait; I thought the Conventional Wisdom among the Slashdot crowd was the the iPhone is being taken over by Android, and that Apple has only seconds to live.
Given the amount of discussion and debate on issues like this I don't see how you're coming to a conclusion about what "the slashdot crowd" thinks.
So which is it? Is the iPhone the most popular Phone in the world, or is it doomed to extinction any second now? Can't have it both ways...
What do you mean "which is it"? I think I already made it pretty clear, it shouldn't be that hard to follow. Many people also say Microsoft is doomed to extinction despite having the most popular and common desktop operating system, do you believe them too and project their opinions on everybody else that posts on this site?