Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNBC)   Microsoft is missing out on a $2.5 billion windfall because it refuses to deploy MS Office for iOS   ( cnbc.com) divider line
    More: Stupid, Microsoft Office, office suites  
•       •       •

2820 clicks; posted to Geek » on 17 Feb 2013 at 2:02 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



78 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-02-18 05:31:30 PM  

Unscratchable_Itch: Doesn't anyone think of software, especially suites, in terms of usage, and need anymore?


I've worked in 2 places that didn't pay the MS Office tax (ironically, I was doing .net development). In one, we used Google Docs. In the other we used OOo. Everyone was fine with OOo.

I've done work for clients where we did everything by recording requirements in Huddle. With another, we just wrote stuff in emails and used the formatting features.

If someone wrote a simple FOSS desktop database for Windows that allowed people to enter columns and rows of data, you would replace about what 95% of people use Excel for, which is a crummy, unstructured, unvalidated database.
 
2013-02-18 05:52:41 PM  

lohphat: They didn't release it because they don't want to pay the iTunes extortion 33.3% rate.


No kidding.  Apple is so selfish and greedy, they should totally let people use the environment they built and constantly maintain for free.  And mall owners, what's the deal with them actually charging merchants for rent?  People should be able to set up shop anywhere they want, for nothing.  They also shouldn't have to pay taxes on the goods they sell.

What is it with people making money, anyway?  Only my people should be allowed to make money; nobody should be allowed to make money off them in return.  Screw economics, only dummies practice that.
 
2013-02-18 07:06:24 PM  

karmachameleon: No kidding. Apple is so selfish and greedy, they should totally let people use the environment they built and constantly maintain for free. And mall owners, what's the deal with them actually charging merchants for rent? People should be able to set up shop anywhere they want, for nothing. They also shouldn't have to pay taxes on the goods they sell.


It no longer has nearly the overhead and is almost a pure profit machine now.  People biatch about the 1% living off the backs of the 99%, this is the same thing in corporation form.
 
2013-02-18 07:26:31 PM  

karmachameleon: lohphat: They didn't release it because they don't want to pay the iTunes extortion 33.3% rate.

No kidding.  Apple is so selfish and greedy, they should totally let people use the environment they built and constantly maintain for free.  And mall owners, what's the deal with them actually charging merchants for rent?  People should be able to set up shop anywhere they want, for nothing.  They also shouldn't have to pay taxes on the goods they sell.

What is it with people making money, anyway?  Only my people should be allowed to make money; nobody should be allowed to make money off them in return.  Screw economics, only dummies practice that.


I don't have a problem with capitalism but I do have a problem with a constrained monopoly delivery channel.
 
2013-02-18 08:17:29 PM  

lohphat: karmachameleon: lohphat: They didn't release it because they don't want to pay the iTunes extortion 33.3% rate.

No kidding.  Apple is so selfish and greedy, they should totally let people use the environment they built and constantly maintain for free.  And mall owners, what's the deal with them actually charging merchants for rent?  People should be able to set up shop anywhere they want, for nothing.  They also shouldn't have to pay taxes on the goods they sell.

What is it with people making money, anyway?  Only my people should be allowed to make money; nobody should be allowed to make money off them in return.  Screw economics, only dummies practice that.

I don't have a problem with capitalism but I do have a problem with a constrained monopoly delivery channel.


Define "constrained monopoly delivery channel".

In what way is iTunes "constrained" (Severely restrict the scope, extent, or activity of; compel or force (someone) toward a particular course of action)?  Is the grocery store constrained because it only carries certain items and brands that it chooses to carry, and is discriminating in what it chooses to carry?  How about Nordstrom, is their store constrained because they don't allow just anyone to place their wares on their racks?  Are those stores constrained because they take a cut of what they sell?

In what way is it a monopoly?  You can only buy Frangos at Macy's.  Is that a monopoly too?  No one sells McDonald's hamburgers except for McDonald's.  Are they a monopoly?  If you don't like the iTunes model, you can choose an alternative platform, just like if you don't like McDonald's hamburgers, you can choose somebody else's hamburgers.

I think your comments are reactionary and aren't thought all the way through.  I understand you don't like the iTunes platform, but what's wrong with it?  Just because it's not for you, doesn't make it a "constrained monopoly".
 
2013-02-18 08:48:00 PM  

karmachameleon: Define "constrained monopoly delivery channel".


The only way to get an application on an iPad/iPhone is it being allowed by Apple. I'm not talking about jailbreaking as an option as it's not practical.

I've worked for a company that made iOS apps and Apple sat on app approvals and essentially killed the product. The consumer had no other way to freely choose from the market what they could run on their own hardware without risking getting locked out of the platform by jailbreaking.
 
2013-02-19 06:25:11 AM  

lohphat: karmachameleon: Define "constrained monopoly delivery channel".

The only way to get an application on an iPad/iPhone is it being allowed by Apple. I'm not talking about jailbreaking as an option as it's not practical.

I've worked for a company that made iOS apps and Apple sat on app approvals and essentially killed the product. The consumer had no other way to freely choose from the market what they could run on their own hardware without risking getting locked out of the platform by jailbreaking.


The consumer has no other way to determine what they want on their McDonalds hamburger than what McDonalds will allow or offers either and you have to have McDonalds put it on there for you. MONOPOLY! Those bastards!
 
2013-02-19 07:57:08 AM  

lohphat: karmachameleon: Define "constrained monopoly delivery channel".

The only way to get an application on an iPad/iPhone is it being allowed by Apple. I'm not talking about jailbreaking as an option as it's not practical.

I've worked for a company that made iOS apps and Apple sat on app approvals and essentially killed the product. The consumer had no other way to freely choose from the market what they could run on their own hardware without risking getting locked out of the platform by jailbreaking.


a) Jailbreaking is in fact an option, so I don't know why you'd exclude that possibility.
b) As I said, if you (either consumer or developer) don't like the iTunes platform (or it doesn't like you), you are free to choose another.

Surely you're not suggesting that you're entitled to have your product carried in iTunes, are you?  Is Safeway obligated to carry your special brand of frozen yogurt as well?  It's Apple's store, they can carry what they wish.

When you start seeing software as a product like any other, you will see the error of your ways.  If you continue to insist that it's special and comes with special rights attached, unlike almost any other consumer product, you will continue to lack perspective.  Your call.
 
2013-02-19 08:00:34 AM  

Majick Thise: lohphat: karmachameleon: Define "constrained monopoly delivery channel".

The only way to get an application on an iPad/iPhone is it being allowed by Apple. I'm not talking about jailbreaking as an option as it's not practical.

I've worked for a company that made iOS apps and Apple sat on app approvals and essentially killed the product. The consumer had no other way to freely choose from the market what they could run on their own hardware without risking getting locked out of the platform by jailbreaking.

The consumer has no other way to determine what they want on their McDonalds hamburger than what McDonalds will allow or offers either and you have to have McDonalds put it on there for you. MONOPOLY! Those bastards!


Precisely.  What exactly is so hard to understand about this concept?  Go into McDonald's and ask for guacamole on your burger.  Don't forget to claim victimhood when they tell you they don't carry that.
 
2013-02-19 10:43:07 AM  

Majick Thise: lohphat: karmachameleon: Define "constrained monopoly delivery channel".

The only way to get an application on an iPad/iPhone is it being allowed by Apple. I'm not talking about jailbreaking as an option as it's not practical.

I've worked for a company that made iOS apps and Apple sat on app approvals and essentially killed the product. The consumer had no other way to freely choose from the market what they could run on their own hardware without risking getting locked out of the platform by jailbreaking.

The consumer has no other way to determine what they want on their McDonalds hamburger than what McDonalds will allow or offers either and you have to have McDonalds put it on there for you. MONOPOLY! Those bastards!


Wow.

Not even a close analogy.

How about:

You buy a GM car. You want Perrelli tires not the stock Michelin's on your car but only the dealer can install them. Oh and they never seem to get any in stock.
 
2013-02-19 10:57:13 AM  

karmachameleon: Majick Thise: lohphat: karmachameleon: Define "constrained monopoly delivery channel".

The only way to get an application on an iPad/iPhone is it being allowed by Apple. I'm not talking about jailbreaking as an option as it's not practical.

I've worked for a company that made iOS apps and Apple sat on app approvals and essentially killed the product. The consumer had no other way to freely choose from the market what they could run on their own hardware without risking getting locked out of the platform by jailbreaking.

The consumer has no other way to determine what they want on their McDonalds hamburger than what McDonalds will allow or offers either and you have to have McDonalds put it on there for you. MONOPOLY! Those bastards!

Precisely.  What exactly is so hard to understand about this concept?  Go into McDonald's and ask for guacamole on your burger.  Don't forget to claim victimhood when they tell you they don't carry that.


Wow, Stockholm Syndrome much?

This is not a question of a small pre-set of options on a burger. This is an issue of a single constrained point of supply for the consumer having to choose from *thousands* of options yet the channel supplier has the option to block anything it feels it wants to.

The analogy of a fast-food burger does not fit.
 
2013-02-19 08:03:35 PM  
karmachameleon: Majick Thise:The consumer has no other way to determine what they want on their McDonalds hamburger than what McDonalds will allow or offers either and you have to have McDonalds put it on there for you. MONOPOLY! Those bastards!

Precisely.  What exactly is so hard to understand about this concept?  Go into McDonald's and ask for guacamole on your burger.  Don't forget to claim victimhood when they tell you they don't carry that.


I see the point and don't agree. It's not a monopoly either at Apple nor at McDonalds. It's one company doing whatever they want and not doing what they don't want, with their own product!  They do what they want and they don't have to check with you or me. If we don't like what they do we can always go to another company for our gear. Just like every company in the world they control their product. That's not a monopoly..

My post above about McDonalds, was an (apparently feeble) attempt at satire.
 
2013-02-19 10:40:43 PM  

lohphat: Majick Thise: lohphat: karmachameleon: Define "constrained monopoly delivery channel".

The only way to get an application on an iPad/iPhone is it being allowed by Apple. I'm not talking about jailbreaking as an option as it's not practical.

I've worked for a company that made iOS apps and Apple sat on app approvals and essentially killed the product. The consumer had no other way to freely choose from the market what they could run on their own hardware without risking getting locked out of the platform by jailbreaking.

The consumer has no other way to determine what they want on their McDonalds hamburger than what McDonalds will allow or offers either and you have to have McDonalds put it on there for you. MONOPOLY! Those bastards!

Wow.

Not even a close analogy.

How about:

You buy a GM car. You want Perrelli tires not the stock Michelin's on your car but only the dealer can install them. Oh and they never seem to get any in stock.


Sure, that works too.  And what would be wrong with that?
 
2013-02-19 10:42:22 PM  

lohphat: karmachameleon: Majick Thise: lohphat: karmachameleon: Define "constrained monopoly delivery channel".

The only way to get an application on an iPad/iPhone is it being allowed by Apple. I'm not talking about jailbreaking as an option as it's not practical.

I've worked for a company that made iOS apps and Apple sat on app approvals and essentially killed the product. The consumer had no other way to freely choose from the market what they could run on their own hardware without risking getting locked out of the platform by jailbreaking.

The consumer has no other way to determine what they want on their McDonalds hamburger than what McDonalds will allow or offers either and you have to have McDonalds put it on there for you. MONOPOLY! Those bastards!

Precisely.  What exactly is so hard to understand about this concept?  Go into McDonald's and ask for guacamole on your burger.  Don't forget to claim victimhood when they tell you they don't carry that.

Wow, Stockholm Syndrome much?

This is not a question of a small pre-set of options on a burger. This is an issue of a single constrained point of supply for the consumer having to choose from *thousands* of options yet the channel supplier has the option to block anything it feels it wants to.

The analogy of a fast-food burger does not fit.


Actually, it's an issue of a feeling of entitlement on your part.  Since you don't like the iTunes model, you are free to choose a different model.  End of story.  Certainly Apple is not "extorting" anyone for anything, or running anything like a "constrained monopoly".  Simple hyperbole on your part.

And lastly, since you're obviously not one of Apple's customers - why should they care what you think?
 
2013-02-19 10:43:43 PM  

Majick Thise: karmachameleon: Majick Thise:The consumer has no other way to determine what they want on their McDonalds hamburger than what McDonalds will allow or offers either and you have to have McDonalds put it on there for you. MONOPOLY! Those bastards!

Precisely.  What exactly is so hard to understand about this concept?  Go into McDonald's and ask for guacamole on your burger.  Don't forget to claim victimhood when they tell you they don't carry that.

I see the point and don't agree. It's not a monopoly either at Apple nor at McDonalds. It's one company doing whatever they want and not doing what they don't want, with their own product!  They do what they want and they don't have to check with you or me. If we don't like what they do we can always go to another company for our gear. Just like every company in the world they control their product. That's not a monopoly..

My post above about McDonalds, was an (apparently feeble) attempt at satire.


No, it was good - I was agreeing with you.  :-)  You've got it exactly right.
 
2013-02-19 11:23:27 PM  

Majick Thise: I see the point and don't agree. It's not a monopoly either at Apple nor at McDonalds. It's one company doing whatever they want and not doing what they don't want, with their own product! They do what they want and they don't have to check with you or me. If we don't like what they do we can always go to another company for our gear. Just like every company in the world they control their product.


Not arguing the monopoly point, but the analogy falls apart because after I buy a burger at McDonalds I can put guac or sour cream, or whatever on it (myself) if I want.  Apple doesn't allow that.  They are controlling what I can do with something I purchased.  They might have created the product, but (for now) I own it.  I'm not licensing my phone (even though BS like that is probably coming).
 
2013-02-20 01:37:46 AM  

karmachameleon: Actually, it's an issue of a feeling of entitlement on your part.  Since you don't like the iTunes model, you are free to choose a different model.  End of story.  Certainly Apple is not "extorting" anyone for anything, or running anything like a "constrained monopoly".  Simple hyperbole on your part.

And lastly, since you're obviously not one of Apple's customers - why should they care what you think?


Pardon me but I actually have lived the fact that Apple blocked the core app of my former company our app from their store even when it was compliant to their requirements. They're STILL sitting on the application and won't release it.

This is no different from Microsoft making their platform hostile to competing apps or using undocumented system calls to their advantage.

This is not free market at work, it's a monopoly channel reducing choice in the market for their own selfish demands and not in the interest of the consumer market to choose what they want to use on their own hardware.
 
2013-02-20 03:24:48 AM  

mjbok: Majick Thise: I see the point and don't agree. It's not a monopoly either at Apple nor at McDonalds. It's one company doing whatever they want and not doing what they don't want, with their own product! They do what they want and they don't have to check with you or me. If we don't like what they do we can always go to another company for our gear. Just like every company in the world they control their product.

Not arguing the monopoly point, but the analogy falls apart because after I buy a burger at McDonalds I can put guac or sour cream, or whatever on it (myself) if I want.  Apple doesn't allow that.  They are controlling what I can do with something I purchased.  They might have created the product, but (for now) I own it.  I'm not licensing my phone (even though BS like that is probably coming).


That's just an artifact of the fact that there's no way for McDonald's to stop you from messing with the burger after you get it.  But there are lots of products aren't there that you can't alter through official channels, protestations that Apple is the only one to the contrary.  The analogy holds up on the important point:  companies have every right to control their product.  This notion that the app store is "constrained", a "monopoly", or commits "extortion" of developers is just silliness.
 
2013-02-20 03:27:26 AM  

lohphat: karmachameleon: Actually, it's an issue of a feeling of entitlement on your part.  Since you don't like the iTunes model, you are free to choose a different model.  End of story.  Certainly Apple is not "extorting" anyone for anything, or running anything like a "constrained monopoly".  Simple hyperbole on your part.

And lastly, since you're obviously not one of Apple's customers - why should they care what you think?

Pardon me but I actually have lived the fact that Apple blocked the core app of my former company our app from their store even when it was compliant to their requirements. They're STILL sitting on the application and won't release it.

This is no different from Microsoft making their platform hostile to competing apps or using undocumented system calls to their advantage.

This is not free market at work, it's a monopoly channel reducing choice in the market for their own selfish demands and not in the interest of the consumer market to choose what they want to use on their own hardware.


I'm sorry you're having a hard time getting your app in the store, really.  But it is their store.  You don't have the right to demand they allow your product into it, just like any other store.  That doesn't make it a "monopoly".
 
2013-02-20 03:32:29 AM  

karmachameleon:
I'm sorry you're having a hard time getting your app in the store, really.  But it is their store.  You don't have the right to demand they allow your product into it, just like any other store.  That doesn't make it a "monopoly".


You don't understand the definition of monopoly. If they are the effective sole channel of supply of apps, that is a monopoly. They decide what you are allowed to use in that ecosystem, not the customer or app developer of that ecosystem.
 
2013-02-20 10:03:10 AM  

lohphat: karmachameleon:
I'm sorry you're having a hard time getting your app in the store, really.  But it is their store.  You don't have the right to demand they allow your product into it, just like any other store.  That doesn't make it a "monopoly".

You don't understand the definition of monopoly. If they are the effective sole channel of supply of apps, that is a monopoly. They decide what you are allowed to use in that ecosystem, not the customer or app developer of that ecosystem.


Lets try again.. My local goodyear tire place refuses to sell firestone tires in their goodyear store.... ahh never mind
 
2013-02-20 10:38:43 AM  

Majick Thise: lohphat: karmachameleon:
I'm sorry you're having a hard time getting your app in the store, really.  But it is their store.  You don't have the right to demand they allow your product into it, just like any other store.  That doesn't make it a "monopoly".

You don't understand the definition of monopoly. If they are the effective sole channel of supply of apps, that is a monopoly. They decide what you are allowed to use in that ecosystem, not the customer or app developer of that ecosystem.

Lets try again.. My local goodyear tire place refuses to sell firestone tires in their goodyear store.... ahh never mind


Apple is not a major app creator but a distributor. The only distributor of the platform which decides for the market what the customer can buy on that platform, not the customer themselves.

On OSX the customer has the freedom what software to install on the platform. On iOS you don't. Apple is controlling the 3rd party software market as a monopoly blocking apps it doesn't like before the customer can make that decision for themselves.

I use an iPad but also am moving off the platform onto a surface tablet which allows me to install what I want to and also runs java and flash, not because I'm in love with java or flash but I ned to get work done and the world still uses those technologies for components I can't avoid. I don't need Apple unilaterally blocking functionality on my property. If I want to use flash or java, that's my decision to make, not theirs.
 
2013-02-20 10:57:59 AM  
When Google maps was removed from iOS for iPads in sept 2012 it was replaced by Apple maps. Where did google maps go? Well Apple allowed the iPhone version through but where's the hi res iPad version? Submitted by Google but not released because Apple didn't want the competition. Customers can't get the app functionality they already had but was taken away not by supply and demand, but unilaterally by the supply channel.

The very definition of monopoly.
 
2013-02-20 12:47:58 PM  

lohphat: The very definition of monopoly.


Except there are reasonable and competitive alternatives, you mentioned the Surface yourself. Which makes it NOT a monopoly, just one competitor in a field of alternatives. I'm sorry they didn't ask you first before they made their product their way. MS and Android both have App Stores maybe one of them will be more to your liking. But don't be surprised when MS and Android also fail to ask you first before they make a change.
 
2013-02-20 01:15:05 PM  

Majick Thise: lohphat: The very definition of monopoly.

Except there are reasonable and competitive alternatives, you mentioned the Surface yourself. Which makes it NOT a monopoly, just one competitor in a field of alternatives. I'm sorry they didn't ask you first before they made their product their way. MS and Android both have App Stores maybe one of them will be more to your liking. But don't be surprised when MS and Android also fail to ask you first before they make a change.


Yes Apple does not have a monopoly on the tablet market -- no one here ever claimed that.

Apple does have an app distribution monopoly on its platform.

Microsoft and Android do not. You can install what you want.

If you buy into the Apple platform, you are limited on which apps are made available to you by the monopoly distribution channel.

Stockholm Syndrome much?
 
2013-02-20 02:03:46 PM  

lohphat: Apple does have an app distribution monopoly on its platform.


This is where you fail. Apple owns its product and it owns its platform and can do whatever the hell it wants. MS and Android could do the same if they chose, but they chose to be open. Good for them.

Maybe the term monopoly is part of the problem here.. Apple has handled their platform in a closed manner yes but nothing there is actionable by the Justice Dept because there is no monopoly to take action against. The consumer has choice/reasonable competitive alternatives. You buy Apple and accept that they are control freaks and right bastards once in a while or you buy a competing product and deal with their ecosystem.

Or maybe we must just agree to disagree.....
 
2013-02-20 02:27:59 PM  

Majick Thise: lohphat: Apple does have an app distribution monopoly on its platform.

This is where you fail. Apple owns its product and it owns its platform and can do whatever the hell it wants. MS and Android could do the same if they chose, but they chose to be open. Good for them.

Maybe the term monopoly is part of the problem here.. Apple has handled their platform in a closed manner yes but nothing there is actionable by the Justice Dept because there is no monopoly to take action against. The consumer has choice/reasonable competitive alternatives. You buy Apple and accept that they are control freaks and right bastards once in a while or you buy a competing product and deal with their ecosystem.

Or maybe we must just agree to disagree.....


That's a lot of tap dancing around the incontrovertible fact that Apple is a monopoly distribution channel on their platform.

mo·nop·o·ly
/məˈnäpəlē/
Noun
The exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service.
The exclusive possession, control, or exercise of something: "men don't have a monopoly on unrequited love".
 
2013-02-20 10:17:06 PM  

Majick Thise: lohphat: The very definition of monopoly.

Except there are reasonable and competitive alternatives, you mentioned the Surface yourself. Which makes it NOT a monopoly, just one competitor in a field of alternatives. I'm sorry they didn't ask you first before they made their product their way. MS and Android both have App Stores maybe one of them will be more to your liking. But don't be surprised when MS and Android also fail to ask you first before they make a change.


Stop for a moment and place yourself in the position of a developer not a consumer.

The last company I worked for spent 100's of millions of dollars on an application that was popular on PCs, on Macs (OSX) but when we submitted the app to the iOS app store it was not released by Apple despite being conforming to their requirements. We were essentially locked out of the platform the Android app did well in comparison. In the end a lost market opportunity for us stifled by a single point of market access constraint.

That's why a monopoly distribution channel is not acceptable regardless of the platform or ecosystem. All it takes is for the monopolist to block an app by not releasing it to destroy competitors and game the market in their favor. This is not supply and demand capitalism, it's more of an extortion racket.
 
Displayed 28 of 78 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report