Why is iPhone not considered a smartphone?

[testacon]

Originally Posted by spectheintro

Are you seriously comparing Microsoft's blatant anti-competitive practices with Microsoft Windows to Apple's decision to not allow Flash on its phones? The two aren't even remotely comparable.

Microsoft--threatened OEMs, spent millions purchasing and immediately shutting down competitors, had tons of backdoor dealings to ensure its platform was the only one being sold in most markets.

Apple--has made a cell phone and decided not to allow certain software on it. Has done nothing to prevent any other cell phone manufacturers from supporting the software, has not attempted to halt the sale of all other cell phones, has threatened no one to my knowledge.

Seriously, get your facts straight. Apple's being arrogant and douchebag-esque with its iOS platform. Microsoft was criminal. The difference between the two is astronomical.

EDIT: Just go read this: United States v. Microsoft - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. And then try and claim that what Apple has done even comes close. Microsoft falsified evidence in a federal court. I'm honestly shocked some of its executives aren't doing hard time. I love Windows 7 and I've supported MS platforms for years, but I call a spade a spade.

Um, did Microsoft at ANY time prevent you from installing ANY programs or disallowed one? No--then case closed. I admit Microsoft was 100% wrong during that time and deserved the fallout they got for "business bullying", but shame on the general public for not looking at other programs or exercising their choices. At no time during the browser regime had any issues installing Netscape or an alternative browser. Can't really say the same for Apple can you now?

Programmers spend weeks and months making programs following Apple's incomplete guidelines for FIVE years only to get denied for no REAL reason, and you're going to cry fowl because the FTC has a problem with this and investigating Apple's practices. Boo freaking hoo! I'm sure Microsoft started out just like this in the beginning.

Now let's look at Apple's "relationship" with AT&T. After contract or buy out, can you easily take your 100% paid for phone to TMobile without hacking? No? Then again I asked what's the difference between Apple and Microsoft's practices. The only reason Apple caved overseas was from threat again from a foreign government. Apple's on borrowed time right now, as they aggravate the wrong people more and more each day. The US smackdown is rapidly approaching, and I'm impatiently waiting for it.

[spectheintro]

Originally Posted by testacon

Um, did Microsoft at ANY time prevent you from installing ANY programs or disallowed one? No--then case closed. I admit Microsoft was 100% wrong during that time and deserved the fallout they got for "business bullying", but shame on the general public for not looking at other programs or exercising their choices. At no time during the browser regime had any issues installing Netscape or an alternative browser. Can't really say the same for Apple can you now?

Except they did. If you'd read the provided link, you'd see that Windows 95 made installs of foreign browsers extremely unintuitive. (They falsified evidence to try and show otherwise, but were caught in the act.) Not only that, but Microsoft also forced OEMs to NOT package competitor's browsers when distributing their computers. So yes, quite literally, Microsoft did prevent me from installing foreign browsers: it exercised (illegally) market power to keep alternatives from me in a purchased machine, and also purposely designed their OS to be anti-foreign browser. You can say MS and Apple are sort-of similar on the latter; the former is a totally different category of behavior.

Programmers spend weeks and months making programs following Apple's incomplete guidelines for FIVE years only to get denied for no REAL reason, and you're going to cry fowl because the FTC has a problem with this and investigating Apple's practices. Boo freaking hoo! I'm sure Microsoft started out just like this in the beginning.

I at no point "cried fowl" for the FTC investigating anything. I merely pointed out that what MS did is in a completely different ozone layer than the things you're decrying Apple for.

Now let's look at Apple's "relationship" with AT&T. After contract or buy out, can you easily take your 100% paid for phone to TMobile without hacking? No? Then again I asked what's the difference between Apple and Microsoft's practices.

Easy. Apple is not bullying AT&T and every other carrier to not let you purchase any other phone. That difference enough for you? Apple is also not spending millions of dollars spreading false information about every other cell phone OS in the market. In short, Apple is not attempting to be a monopoly. That's the difference between Apple and MS.

If you don't like Apple, fine. Doesn't matter to me. But get your perspective straight. Apple and MS are in completely different leagues. Just because you feel more aggrieved by Apple's slights doesn't mean they're comparable to the morass of anti-competitive behavior MS engaged in. We'll never know how much innovation and creativity was stifled by MS's practices.

[fozmsu]

Testacon hates Apple just to hate them. And from the looks of it, it's because he can't get Apple sponsered porn. Get over it. You troll the Apple forum to hate on them. End of story.

[shaggylive]

Originally Posted by spectheintro

Except they did. If you'd read the provided link, you'd see that Windows 95 made installs of foreign browsers extremely unintuitive. (They falsified evidence to try and show otherwise, but were caught in the act.) Not only that, but Microsoft also forced OEMs to NOT package competitor's browsers when distributing their computers. So yes, quite literally, Microsoft did prevent me from installing foreign browsers: it exercised (illegally) market power to keep alternatives from me in a purchased machine, and also purposely designed their OS to be anti-foreign browser.

well, I didn't need to read the link to know that I was using netscape and aol just fine on win95. they didn't prevent anything except the full and complete removal of iexplorer. which at the time was made some sense on thier part as the internet was still very young, and it was based upon explorer (the file browser)

while were on ancient history and back on topic, iphone's dumb.

[spectheintro]

Originally Posted by shaggylive

well, I didn't need to read the link to know that I was using netscape and aol just fine on win95. they didn't prevent anything except the full and complete removal of iexplorer. which at the time was made some sense on thier part as the internet was still very young, and it was based upon explorer (the file browser)

while were on ancient history and back on topic, iphone's dumb.

I used Netscape too, but MS didn't make it easy on me. Honestly, I'm not too up-in-arms about the browser thing--I think IE should come packaged with Windows. What bothered me was that MS took it another step and actively tried to prevent any other browser from gaining a foothold.

Anyway, I've got my own list of beefs with Apple. I actually develop for them, and trying to navigate their developer portals is like chewing salt and lemon-juice laced glass.

[testacon]

Originally Posted by spectheintro

Except they did. If you'd read the provided link, you'd see that Windows 95 made installs of foreign browsers extremely unintuitive. (They falsified evidence to try and show otherwise, but were caught in the act.) Not only that, but Microsoft also forced OEMs to NOT package competitor's browsers when distributing their computers. So yes, quite literally, Microsoft did prevent me from installing foreign browsers: it exercised (illegally) market power to keep alternatives from me in a purchased machine, and also purposely designed their OS to be anti-foreign browser. You can say MS and Apple are sort-of similar on the latter; the former is a totally different category of behavior.



I at no point "cried fowl" for the FTC investigating anything. I merely pointed out that what MS did is in a completely different ozone layer than the things you're decrying Apple for.



Easy. Apple is not bullying AT&T and every other carrier to not let you purchase any other phone. That difference enough for you? Apple is also not spending millions of dollars spreading false information about every other cell phone OS in the market. In short, Apple is not attempting to be a monopoly. That's the difference between Apple and MS.

If you don't like Apple, fine. Doesn't matter to me. But get your perspective straight. Apple and MS are in completely different leagues. Just because you feel more aggrieved by Apple's slights doesn't mean they're comparable to the morass of anti-competitive behavior MS engaged in. We'll never know how much innovation and creativity was stifled by MS's practices.

What's the point of looking through a ancient wiki article if I used every version of MS OS from DOS 3.3 to Windows 7 and had no problems ever with installing or using Netscape? I have recently read that after installing a Plus pack with Windows 95 it may have had some conflicts with Netscape. The problem is as soon as Plus was released, I installed it, hated it (bloatware), and just reinstalled Windows so maybe this specific problem I avoided. But all Windows 95 versions, retail, oem A, B and C ran Netscape without issue for me so, I'm not sure what you want me to see.

I also said that I was against the business bullying as well that Microsoft occasionally engages in but Apple is also engaging in them now, with selective app approval and not being able to leave AT&T. I also welcomed the fines MS got for getting too big for their britches years ago and that's why I see Apple now become what MS was all those years ago.

[testacon]

Originally Posted by fozmsu

Testacon hates Apple just to hate them. And from the looks of it, it's because he can't get Apple sponsered porn. Get over it. You troll the Apple forum to hate on them. End of story.

I love having words put in my mouth. I've said in multiple post that I have two iPods both a 60Gig classic video model and a 64 Gig iPod touch, last revision. What I hate is the ability to not have access to flash if I want to watch a video that is on some 90% of the sites I visit.

I have also said they have the potential to be "great" devices if the shackles of oppression removed via jailbraking, but the problem with that is flash needs to be supported by Apple so that it integrated into the OS better and not some quick hack that was thrown together in someone's basement.

So if I hate them just to hate them then why do they have about $800 from my pockets. I hate them because I can't use my devices to the full potential I should be able. I hate them because I have enough free will that I don't like my decisions be made for me.

All I know is that if I am wrong in my arguments, then why is the Federal Government asking the same questions that I am? I guess we will all see who is right as more and more evidence comes into light. If Microsoft can get slammed with fines, so can Apple.

[PriYankee]

Originally Posted by testacon

What I hate is the ability to not have access to flash if I want to watch a video that is on some 90% of the sites I visit.

I agree with this, I had 2 iphone's before I entered the blackberry world, and while they are Great phones & provide great features, i did not like the fact that i could not watch a video on a site if i needed to. Of course my blackberry is not near perfect but it does, after major buffering, allow me to watch a video if need be. IF the iPhone did have flash, it would be so much more convenient.

But those are just my 2 cents

[fozmsu]

Originally Posted by testacon

I love having words put in my mouth. I've said in multiple post that I have two iPods both a 60Gig classic video model and a 64 Gig iPod touch, last revision. What I hate is the ability to not have access to flash if I want to watch a video that is on some 90% of the sites I visit.

I have also said they have the potential to be "great" devices if the shackles of oppression removed via jailbraking, but the problem with that is flash needs to be supported by Apple so that it integrated into the OS better and not some quick hack that was thrown together in someone's basement.

So if I hate them just to hate them then why do they have about $800 from my pockets. I hate them because I can't use my devices to the full potential I should be able. I hate them because I have enough free will that I don't like my decisions be made for me.

All I know is that if I am wrong in my arguments, then why is the Federal Government asking the same questions that I am? I guess we will all see who is right as more and more evidence comes into light. If Microsoft can get slammed with fines, so can Apple.

Blah, hate, blah

[jasonck08]

Why is iPhone not considered a smartphone?

Because people that buy the iPhone are not smart.

Kidding... Just poking some fun at the apple users...