Authored by: jesse on Tuesday, April 09 2013 @ 07:23 PM EDT |
A lot of the OS is available elsewhere - the kernel for instance.
You can put anything you want over that kernel. Android just happens to be one
such "anything".[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: JonCB on Tuesday, April 09 2013 @ 11:02 PM EDT |
The thing you will have to explain is, how did Amazon Fire
happen if it's so predatory and anti-competitive.
While you could definately say it is being "sold" below
cost, the intent is demonstrably not "to drive out the
competition" nor to "create artificial barriers to entry".
It's not even anti-competitive in search considering the
code to add a new search engine is completely trivial and
demonstrably available in the android market.
FairSearch has an axe to grind that has nothing to do with
the consumer and i'd argue that Microsoft has tainted itself
by associating with this if that wasn't locking the barn
door after the horse had bolted.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ukjaybrat on Wednesday, April 10 2013 @ 10:39 AM EDT |
Then you suspect incorrectly. Predatory pricing does not apply
to free or open source software when discussing whether a
company is being anti-competitive.
---
IANAL[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: cricketjeff on Wednesday, April 10 2013 @ 04:49 PM EDT |
The manufacturing cost of any OS is the same, 0. Each copy of Windows costs M$
nothing, each copy of iOS costs Apple nothing. So the only way to price an OS
predatorially is to pay someone to install it, only one company has gone that
way!
Operating systems cost money to develop but you cannot include that in the cost
of each copy, how could you? If you have to then any new OS maker has to charge
a completely mad price for the first copy in case he only sells 1!
---
There is nothing in life that doesn't look better after a good cup of tea.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- True Cost - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 10 2013 @ 10:54 PM EDT
|