The BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12918059) reports that:
QuoteMicrosoft is to take an anti-competion complaint against Google to the European Commission.
The software maker claims that Google used its dominant position in the search market to restrict the growth of Microsoft services.
Oh the irony. ;D
;D
Is it because Bing has no Bling?
:music: Bling free, Google is Bling free :music: ;D
Underground, overground, Google's bling free
next
;D
;D
I have always been confused how some companies block others from doing things eg: Why is it wrong that MS want to include IE with windows but Apple wont let anyone run their operating system and get away with it. Surely it should be up to the customer what they want to run on their computer be it IE,Firefox etc or even Mac software on a PC. :eyebrow:
Well the Apple one's straight forward - When you purchase a copy of the OS i.e Snow Leopard and install it you are agreeing to the licensing restrictions and one of those is that you agree only to install it on Apple branded equipment. One may not like it but that's rule,if one can't abide by this restriction there are many other OS alternatives. We come across licensing restrictions every day i.e Music and Film media where there are rules regarding playback,distribution and copying.
How legal are EULA's in court? Some courts throw them out, others uphold them. :dunno:
Interesting question, Glenn. I suppose it depends on how they're written and what consumer protection laws are like in a country.
Still nobody is able to explain why it's OK for Apple and not for MS. If I went out and bought a CD I can play it on any of my CD players so how are Apple able to get by restricive practices and MS are not?
The MS software license allows you install on any type of computer even an Apple mac. To me it's just a difference in the terms of the license whether it's legal or not is beyond me but there's a certain logic for a computer manufacturer who also produces an OS to demand that it is installed only on the hardware it was designed for.
The EULA I have with OS X 10.5, states that it can only be installed on an Apple labelled computer, they supply Apple logo's with the OS. So if you stick the logo on any PC, is it an Apple labelled computer?
The current term is "Apple-branded" computer,so I guess since a label can be removed it's not branded. ;D
Why would any one pay £1200+ for a system that could be run on any other and why is there always a fuss over MS wanting to include IE with theirs? :dunno:
It's about personal choice of the OS you wish to use, obviously an Apple costs a premium and if you prefer to use OS X that's the price you pay. MS has the dominant position in the PC world and therefore as an the OS developer it's incorporation of it's own brand internet browser into it's OS was deemed uncompetitive.
Has the Apple license ever been challenged in court? Very few of these EULAs have. Chances are that a clause saying "you can only run this OS on our own hardware" would be found unenforcable under EU competition law... but until they try and enforce it nobody really knows.
Besides, only communists buy from Apple. :gigglerabbit:
Psystar tried and failed in court to produce their own machines with a modified install of Mac OS X. I wonder how Quo will get on?
http://www.tuaw.com/2010/09/10/psystar-is-dead-long-live-quo-computer/
Quote from: gizmo71 on Apr 01, 2011, 08:22:15
Has the Apple license ever been challenged in court? Very few of these EULAs have. Chances are that a clause saying "you can only run this OS on our own hardware" would be found unenforcable under EU competition law... but until they try and enforce it nobody really knows.
Besides, only communists buy from Apple. :gigglerabbit:
Why should they, Apple hardware works great with OS X thats the point of blending hardware and software together.
Oh maybe you can amend the "communist" part of you post, even with the smiley its a bit offensive really.
Quote from: Steve on Apr 01, 2011, 08:43:27
Psystar tried and failed in court to produce their own machines with a modified install of Mac OS X. I wonder how Quo will get on?
http://www.tuaw.com/2010/09/10/psystar-is-dead-long-live-quo-computer/
Some people still build hackintoshes but they don't always work brilliantly due to incompatible hardware and software issues, Apple like Sony and the hacked PS3 issue will probably get their way in the end.
There are worse insults than been called a communist, god forbid I should be called a conservative :eek4:
Quote from: Steve on Apr 01, 2011, 08:50:29
There are worse insults than been called a communist, god forbid I should be called a conservative :eek4:
:rofl: I have to agree Steve ;)
Quote from: Rik on Mar 31, 2011, 17:19:29
Interesting question, Glenn. I suppose it depends on how they're written and what consumer protection laws are like in a country.
You mean who greases the sausages in charge? :whistle:
I always found it strange how MS get tarred with one brush and Apple do not. I agree, if it's unfair, stop em doing it. But apply it to everyone, not just MS.
[edit]
Oh, same goes for Sony and the PS3. They are legally allowed to hack my pc with a rootkit but I'm not allowed to open up the PS3? I did send Sony my Eula for acceptig my custom. ;)
It is funny how the tables have turned on Microsoft now, it does not seem so many years ago that MS had the iron grip accept, now with Chrome, Android, OS X iOS etc they have so much more competition and they don't like it, but its exactly what many others wanted, a market where new and innovative products could be created, and where MS did not have a Monopoly that stopped that happening, although Google are getting a little to big for their boots now I think.
Quote from: Technical Ben on Apr 01, 2011, 08:58:14
You mean who greases the sausages in charge? :whistle:
I always found it strange how MS get tarred with one brush and Apple do not. I agree, if it's unfair, stop em doing it. But apply it to everyone, not just MS.
[edit]
Oh, same goes for Sony and the PS3. They are legally allowed to hack my pc with a rootkit but I'm not allowed to open up the PS3? I did send Sony my Eula for acceptig my custom. ;)
I get the feeling that if we represented Microsoft, Apple, Google or Sony we would probably be trying to protect our products in the same way tbh. Businesses do not get that big by playing nice. Equally they want to keep control over their products to stop hacking and the loss of the huge sum of cash they make by having us tied to their software. Equally there is the argument that keeping it all in house means its runs more smoothly.
So? Then they should stay small like IDNet. ;)
Else play nice. It's not true you have to be evil to succeed. Else (sorry to use the example) we would all be mini Hitlers/[insert your own horrid dictator].
I either want Sony to lay off the rootkit, or allow me to do what I like to their hardware!
Pot, Kettle. :D
The relatively low market share has, I believe, protected Apple from competition enquiries so far. That may change in the future, but I'd bet that it is legal to only allow OS X to run on Apple hardware, simply because it will have been written to work with that hardware and that hardware only. I don't believe any regulator would insist on it being re-written to work with alternative hardware.
Code can be copyrighted. Thankfully, screwdrivers cannot... now where did I put that phillips head...
Which was, I think, patented... ;)
Yes... the joke...
However, I don't see there being any restrictions on who can use one. Next we will have nails that refuse to budge if you don't sign an agreement.
They already exist. The agreement is usually with the Devil. :evil: