5 ms·

| If they have their own bookstore they're trying to run why should they enable a competitor's in their own home? If Microsoft spent so much on R&D for Windows

| If they have their own bookstore they're trying to run why should they enable a competitor's in their own home? If Microsoft spent so much on R&D for Windows 95 and IE, why shouldn't they build it into the OS? Why shouldn't they lock down their APIs to make it difficult to make competing products inside their OS? Really?

fpgeek 15y ago
Forget IE, Microsoft put a lot of effort into Windows Media, Zune, ... Why should they make it easy for Apple to sell music on Windows?
- neuroelectronic 15y ago
  Interesting approach, but the problem here is Apple doesn't sell books on iPhone (or rather 3rd parties do and they don't do a very good job of it). This is more like a retroactive, me-to I want that market move. The Kindle app product is far superior for reading as I understand. If you're going to release a platform, you shouldn't be doing this kind of stuff. It's a similar situation as net-neutrality.
pedalpete 15y ago
I think your argument is flawed (though I also think you are making two somewhat related, yet different points). It isn't about building it into the OS, it's about allowing competitors to provide a service to 'your' users. Microsoft didn't prevent any browsers from being installed on Windows, they didn't require any special processes or try to prevent any competitors from offering competitive or superior services. Microsoft just figured if the baked in stuff was good enough, most people wouldn't bother to change, and they were right. I could would agree with Apple taking a cut of in-app purchases where billing is completed through Apple's infrastructure, but forcing application builders (your community builders) to hamstring their products or pay you a cut is anti-competitive in a sense that I think is worse than anything Microsoft has done. Microsoft helped foster innovation, and then stole it and made it difficult to compete, but you could compete. Apple is just hamstringing the competition so that they can't compete.

fpgeek 15y ago

Forget IE, Microsoft put a lot of effort into Windows Media, Zune, ... Why should they make it easy for Apple to sell music on Windows?

neuroelectronic 15y ago
Interesting approach, but the problem here is Apple doesn't sell books on iPhone (or rather 3rd parties do and they don't do a very good job of it). This is more like a retroactive, me-to I want that market move. The Kindle app product is far superior for reading as I understand. If you're going to release a platform, you shouldn't be doing this kind of stuff. It's a similar situation as net-neutrality.

pedalpete 15y ago

I think your argument is flawed (though I also think you are making two somewhat related, yet different points). It isn't about building it into the OS, it's about allowing competitors to provide a service to 'your' users. Microsoft didn't prevent any browsers from being installed on Windows, they didn't require any special processes or try to prevent any competitors from offering competitive or superior services. Microsoft just figured if the baked in stuff was good enough, most people wouldn't bother to change, and they were right. I could would agree with Apple taking a cut of in-app purchases where billing is completed through Apple's infrastructure, but forcing application builders (your community builders) to hamstring their products or pay you a cut is anti-competitive in a sense that I think is worse than anything Microsoft has done. Microsoft helped foster innovation, and then stole it and made it difficult to compete, but you could compete. Apple is just hamstringing the competition so that they can't compete.