No arguments here. This is not an evil plot, just good, old-fashioned competition, which of course involves a fair amount of jumping up and down, when stomping doesn't agree with one's size.
Shane On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 11:47 AM, Disconnect <dc.disconn...@gmail.com> wrote: > Owned a commodity (j2me) tmobile phone recently? Non-tmobile-sourced j2me > apps (unsigned, for those playing along at home, and tmob holds the keys) > are prevented from accessing the net. (Right. No gmail.jad, no gmaps, no > im+, nothing more connected than solitare.) Even non-subsidized versions > are sold that way. > > (And .. um.. not to point out the obvious.. but remind me how many places > can sell iphone apps these days?) > > Tmobile and other carriers get the majority of the 'missing' money > (although if you put me on the spot by asking for my reference I'd have to > do some more digging to find it again.) > > And the various non-compete clauses are similar - what good is it to claim > 20% for the carrier if devs just use a paypal link instead? All the "work" > (and I'll admit they don't seem to have done much.. esp comments..) and none > of the reward. (Same reasoning applies to not listing alternative markets.) > > Is it unpleasant? Sure, in some ways. But its not some evil plot, its > simply the passed-on cost of being shipped on a device. (I'd maintain that, > personally, the $25 pay-to-play is more unpleasant, even though its > potentially - hopefully? - less money overall. Esp when used as a gatekeeper > on the list of ADP1 shipping prices. But that's just me..) > > > On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 2:26 PM, Shane Isbell <shane.isb...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> >> >> On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 11:18 AM, Disconnect <dc.disconn...@gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> You realize they could have simply disabled the third-party-installer >>> option, right? (Or not written one to begin with.) They are far more than >>> an application vendor in this space, and if they really wanted to "control >>> the distribution channel for mobile content" they could have. >> >> No they couldn't have. This shows a lack of understanding of the mobile >> industry on your part. The carriers could have just told Google: "Tough >> luck, go find another market to play in." Carriers would not have allowed >> Google to enter, if they thought Google would lock down and control >> everything. The openness of Android is some type of assurance against this. >> >> Shane >> >> >> >> >> > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to android-developers-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
