Securing views Berg

To Hakan Juholts mouth is a frog factory of epic proportions is becoming increasingly evident, and for all with the least insight into the telecom industry is the latest The move astounding.

All sections must be supported by all networks.

The State shall determine the roll-out plans for private parties so clearly contrary to all rhyme or reason. It's like forcing op to build some stores, to legislate for the Y-bus to travel inland part or Bring to set up mailboxes on Gotska Sandon.

Enterprise are normally based on the private players to optimize their operations based on need and demand, which they do better than any politician in the country. The trader learns its market and optimize their presence.

The government can of course choose to do that at the 3G licensing process - make demands on national expansion to gain access to the license. It was an auction where the bid was the coverage we undertook to establish.

There is only one relevant option and that is the phenomenon known as the USO (Universal Service Obligation), which means that the state is saying we want to have national coverage and procures it to the lowest bidder. All are offered and the one who is willing to do the job to the team's charge gets the assignment. To instruct all, however, TOTALLY unrealistic in every way.

Skype is driving development, was once the telephony service, and they built an infrastructure to deliver it. Then came the IP wave where there were a number of more or less clumsy attempts to migrate voice telephony as a service on top of IP. Fragmentation and lack of bandwidth mess, combined with the operators hardly saw this migration as something good. It sucks out a huge portion of the proceeds and all that be over the increased costs of bandwidth under the flat rate data that one typically sells.

So if operators and Skype are repelled by magnets, and you look in between Microsoft and Nokia to hold the chain. What attracts you to this conclusion? Someone who can think of something talented on how the chain Skype <-> Microsoft <-> Nokia <-> operator must work?

Bloomberg today has an interesting article about Apple, positioning, and a generalized discussion about the integrity of the authorities in response to this.

http://berg.to/blog/6j

Apple is REALLY tight! I've never heard Apple use the word bug
in context with their products. In addition, it is referred here to TWO
various bugs which must be unique. ( See here )

When I last summer was in contact with Apple because their kids
knasade out of themselves in relation to the GSM network. When we visited a 2G network but
had a USIM stood visit the network's name remains displayed and it went
not to get rid of it. I then got the most bizarre answers I received, which
summary can be summarized:

"We are aware of the phenomenon. We can not confirm that it is a bug, we
can not confirm that it will be fixed in next version of the OS,
we can not confirm that there will be heterogeneity iOS4och we can not
either confirm that it will in a few days. We have never had this conversation. "

How can you like such a company?

To my delight, I see that the Danish EU MP Bendt Bendtsen from The Conservative People's Party at the European level now want to pursue the issue that the jailbreak will be permitted

Jailbreak is likely a violation of Apple's terms of use, and to succeed it must be examined and "reverse engineera" parts of the system, find a weakness and find a way to execute code that uses this weakness. To make the jailbreak has allowed Apple banned the use of restrictive contractual but you also have to reverse engineer explicitly allowed. Just to allow implementation of the jailbreak will be partly pointless if Apple can still legally attack those who develop the jailbreak mechanism.

Personally I do not see the value in that jailbreak per se would be permitted, but the point is that you want to achieve that which is achieved through jailbreak, that you can install software not provided by Apple. That is because

a) you do not want to depend on Apple to accept a particular program and

b) they want it because you want there to be competition, distribution, and hence price competition.

Thus;

It would have been better if Mr Bendt Bendtsen, had focused on making sure that Apple was not allowed to have a distribution monopoly for Apps, so he had addressed the legal question rather than a sequela to the basic problem.

Mobile phone providers've recently påkommits to both store positioning information, which is a big deal in many parts of the world.

Just the same way as the Competition Authority did not take hold of the issue of Apple's abuse of dominant position in respect to technical and legally block competing Appstores, so now take Datainspektionen not get hold of this.

In December I sent my complaint against Apple for abuse of dominant position. Administrator (Peter majority, 08-700 16:34) announced that it was itself decided what would be included and that this would not be processed.

The Competition Authority does not comment on legal facts of a particular case where the issue is not nearly have been investigated by us. However, where appropriate, provide some general guidance only. It is Konkurrensverketsom in each individual case examination of the question presented to them will be examined further.

In light of your comments, I would emphasize the following. I understand there is no specific obstacles for a company to choose which strategy to vertically integrate. In some areas, such as "smart phones", companies have apparently adopted different business strategies. Another important factor from the competition point is whether there is exclusion of the companies that make applications ("apps"), ie. that they would be denied to deliver their solutions to one or more companies. Some of these data, we have no access to. Against this background, there is insufficient basis for us to further investigate the circumstances that you have submitted.

My answer was this:

I interpret the response to NPP requires that there are instances of any denied access.

Normally, it may safely be satisfied by notification by a Party is concerned, which is not in my case where I point to a fundamental lack of competition in the structure without itself being an affected party.

Is KKVs assessment of the affected app, if so, must have a connection to Sweden (= KKVs jurisdiction)?

Quoted recently by the way, a Gartner report estimates the market value on the app market (total) to $ 15 billion for 2011.

Below is a case for Apple for various reasons refused Apps access to the App store:

First - Adobe may not deliver Flash for IOS-armed units. In addition;

1) Apple refuses a newspaper app of this network is all about Android:

http://berg.to/blog/dq

2) Apple refuses Spotify (it dissolves):

http://berg.to/blog/2W

3) Apple refuses Danish Ektrabladets App based on nudity

http://berg.to/blog/pP

A subset - that is unlikely to fall within the NPP's jurisdiction is the expression dimension:

http://berg.to/blog/kd
http://berg.to/blog/pu

4) prylportalen.se have examples of seven apps that are not permitted:

http://berg.to/blog/3R

5) Christian app (the name is not repeated, but the journalist should be able to provide details)

http://berg.to/blog/Bq

6) Google Latitude (later resolved)

http://berg.to/blog/a5
http://berg.to/blog/41K

7) Google talk (an interesting article in general on the subject)

http://berg.to/blog/Tb

Wikileaks app was approved by the revoked

http://berg.to/blog/v0

9) manhattan Declaration.org - anti-gay app

http://berg.to/blog/Ml

10) A program that emulates the old computer, the Commodore 64

http://berg.to/blog/oj

11) more light

http://berg.to/blog/8n

I hope these ten examples clearly show that there are lots of examples of Apps that have been spiked. As I was clear in my initial submission so they are therefore legally and technically unable to make their creations available because Apple products are locked against any attempt to install software not authorized.

My mail was registered, but it prompted no matter and therefore also no reference number of this answer:

Thanks for your additional comments. For your information I would like to clarify that in each case independently determine whether the matter is notified to us for further analysis or not. In support of our priorities is a general policy, partly based on an assessment of the seriousness of the alleged problem or phenomenon is. In your case, we believe that there are insufficient grounds to initiate an investigation on our part. Thus, there is no reason for us to register your e-mail (see your question on the reference number). The e-mail received by the Competition Authority will be public documents and are therefore to be arranged by us.

I have read Linus Brohults comment in the magazine Mobil alleging that Nokia and Microsoft is launching a strategic partnership. I completely agree with what has been said, and his conclusions.

Microsoft's upside is easy to see, but what Nokia has to gain is more difficult to understand. They had Symbian but neglected it in a way that made it obsolete. Not "with power to fix it to have" but quickly change course to Maemo. Do not you then Maemo clear, but it enters into partnership with a renowned players like Intel and again abandon a promise for a new desktop product - MeeGo. No matter what you say will kill you now MeeGo and switch to Windows Mobile 7, which is already complete flopped on marknaden.Windows as a mobile OS is dead and even if Windows Mobile 7 is a better product than the earlier versions it is DEAD!

One sees a trend; solve the problem through new routes. Not quiet on shore with the fan you have in your boat, but the solution is to take on board new passengers and hope it goes better. Time and again, until you sit with both Fan and his entire family in his small boat. So if you want to win the horse race and you have killed two promising foals in exchange for an old mare who has been quite mediocre (to put it gently) during his rather long career.

Also the "unexpected" that Elop will turn over to Microsoft, where he worked right there in their previous careers. It is said that anyone who only owns a hammer sees all their problems as nails. Elop must have respect for the power energy and illness insight, but the question is whether it is right that resolutely solve a problem by creating more, or have been better to mesa around and do nothing. The result is long-term course that Nokia will return to the rubber boots, no matter which way you take it.

Best would be to capitalize on its expertise in design, their volumes and the accompanying good price and manufacturing capabilities by becoming a leader in the Android segment.

Second best would be to be bought Palm when it was possible and run the track instead of being spread over Symbian, Meamo and MeeGo. This is still possible.

Third best would be to really put all energy into MeeGo, but it is truly a "go there it goes" approach.

Fourth best would be to put all effort into getting up Symbian 4 to market standards. If it was possible to MeeGo had received support for Symbian applications, it would have been a variation, that is a combination of this paragraph and the last one.

Fifth best would be to resume Maemo

Sixth best had been a collaboration with Samsung on Bada (and it's a lousy rikitgt options)

It is done now is to rush straight into another dead end. It is not even eighth best. It's worse than watching after all capsize.

Will you bet? 12 months ago Elop is gone and to replace track, as it continues to go down. It is no longer the largest in the world, either in volume or turnover. Meanwhile, Microsoft has sucked from Nokia everything of value in the same way that Chinese people suspected of activities they take on. Then Nokia with a new CEO creeping into Google and begging on their knees to be involved in Andoidgänget because you no longer have any choice left.

It is indeed a sad day for me that had basically just Nokia phones since the Nokia 2110i I got in autumn 1994.

Yesterday I sent my application on Apple's abuse of dominant position. I well might initially posted the text here for comments, allowing them to debug the text one turn to, but now it has gone and I look forward to the outcome.

Update;

Got some feedback from the FCA and also media interest in the question, why I have updated my registration and return of a Version 1.1. For readers of this blog to the notification again here:

Subscribe to Apple

Observations taken gratefully received, even for linguistic oddities, and typographical errors.