ie8 fix
madison

Hardware 2.0

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes

Is Apple now abusing its iPhone/App Store market position?

By | January 6, 2010, 10:01am PST

Summary: An interesting story posted up on TechDirt suggests that Apple is abusing the power it wields by having created the iPhone/App Store ecosystem.

An interesting story posted up on TechDirt suggests that Apple is abusing the power it wields by having created the iPhone/App Store ecosystem.

The story revolves around Apple’s decision to block Google’s location-tracking service called Latitude from the iPhone while at the same time trying to patent a similar technology.

Now, the question as to who developed the app first and whether Apple’s patent application is valid is up to bureaucracy and possibly the court system to decide, but the way that Apple seems to be leveraging the App Store approval policy to gain the upper hand on competitors is certain to raise a few eyebrows.

I say “seems too be leveraging” because it’s hard to know the ins and outs of the story. Google launched Latitude back in February 2009, while Apple’s patent application was filed back in June 2008. Also, it’s hard to know what level of privilege those approving or denying apps have. Are apps supplied by big hitters such as Google looked at by the same folks that wade through the fart machines and notebook apps, or do they undergo more (or less) scrutiny?

Another issue here is how long can Apple play the “duplicates functionality” card to keep rejecting apps without that becoming a monopoly monkey on the company’s back? While some small “at home” developer, or even a small to medium sized dev house might not have the power to mount an assault on Apple, a big hitter such as Google sure does.

Some else to keep an eye on in 2010.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes is an internationally published technology author who has devoted over a decade to helping users get the most from technology.

Disclosure

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes

All opinions expressed on Hardware 2.0 are those of Adrian Kingsley-Hughes. Every effort is made to ensure that the information posted is accurate. If you have any comments, queries or corrections, please contact Adrian via the email link here. Any possible conflicts of interest will be posted below. [Updated: February 23, 2010] - Adrian Kingsley-Hughes has no business relationships, affiliations, investments, or other actual/potential conflicts of interest relating to the content posted so far on this blog.

Biography

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes is an internationally published technology author who has devoted over a decade to helping users get the most from technology -- whether that be by learning to program, building a PC from a pile of parts, or helping them get the most from their new MP3 player or digital camera.

Adrian has authored/co-authored technical books on a variety of topics, ranging from programming to building and maintaining PCs. His most recent books include "Build the Ultimate Custom PC", "Beginning Programming" and "The PC Doctor's Fix It Yourself Guide". He has also written training manuals that have been used by a number of Fortune 500 companies.

Adrian also runs a popular blog under the name The PC Doctor, where he covers a range of computer-related topics -- from security to repairing and upgrading.

120
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

I get that you want different rules
Turd Furgeson 12th Jan 2010
That's ridiculous. By this logic, Apple doesn't have their own Cell phone carrier they use AT&T therefor they have to open their phone to any carrier. Manufacturers and resellers agree to terms. If Dell wants to sell Windows they agree to terms. It's a double standard.
0 Votes
+ -
Probably nothing illegal about it
NonZealot 6th Jan 2010
Apple seems to be leveraging the App Store
approval policy to gain the upper hand on
competitors is certain to raise a few
eyebrows.


But as an app developer, I would never
release any sort of application for the App
Store knowing that Apple would just turn around
and steal it from me. Google is learning first
hand just how backstabbing a "partner" Apple
is.
0 Votes
+ -
With 3 Billion downloads
Ken_z 6th Jan 2010
I doubt if Apple will miss you.

But I'd bet that Palm would love to talk to you, girl. Check in with them.

For the open minded it's pretty obvious that Apple is doing what Apple
wants to do. Some companies and/or developers will work with them
and do pretty well. Others prefer the warm & fuzzy feelings you get
when you work with, say, MS.
0 Votes
+ -
Ignoring the troll bait
jdbukis@... 6th Jan 2010
Do you seriously think this is any different than the many anti trust cases against MS?

Its worse than thrying to force MSN on people in windows 95, far worse than bundling works or office (or even Internet explorer).

Ask yourself this if MS made the iphone would they be allowed to do this? the answer is almost certainly no as it the situation with the ipod.
0 Votes
+ -
Whats this have to do with MS
John Zern 6th Jan 2010
Oh yeah, the "it's OK to steal $20 because someone else stole $2000." defense.

Guess that makes it OK now.
0 Votes
+ -
DEFLECT!!!!
NonZealot 6th Jan 2010
You can tell when an Apple apologist is feeling
defensive because their immediate reaction is to
introduce MS to any topic.
0 Votes
+ -
@NonZealot
Axsimulate Updated - 6th Jan 2010
No, that's because almost everybody on ZDNet knows your anti-everything that don't come from Redmond WA, and know that you conveniently ignore the fact the Microsoft has been found guilty in a court of law doing the same thing and pretent Apple is the only company in the world that would stoop that low. We just like to remind you of your hypocrisy and you make it as easy as shooting ducks in a pond.
0 Votes
+ -
Links please!!
NonZealot 6th Jan 2010
pretent Apple is the only company in the world
that would stoop that low


Where did I do this?
0 Votes
+ -
@NonZealot
Axsimulate 6th Jan 2010
Every post you make about Apple implies they are evil and MS is good, don't try and deny it.
0 Votes
+ -
Re; @NonZealot
notsofast 6th Jan 2010
Every post you make about Apple implies they are evil and MS is good, don't try and deny it.

I don't know about his other posts, but this one seems to state the obvious, which is that Apple is doing the same things that MS did in the past, which led to the Justice Dept. suits against MS.

Regardless, it's pretty clear that Apple is guilty of some anti-competitive activities. However, it would appear that their limited market share protects them on that front. If the iPhone ever becomes the dominant Mobile platform (or if justice somehow combines DAPs with the iPhone, then maybe things will change).

Personally, i think Apple is about as MS was 15+ years ago.
0 Votes
+ -
Are you sure about that?
vulpine@... 7th Jan 2010
"I don't know about his other posts, but this one seems to state the
obvious, which is that Apple is doing the same things that MS did in
the past, which led to the Justice Dept. suits against MS.

Let's see. One of those was about bundling IE with the OS--that
seems to be the most relevant one here. However, what you seem to
conveniently ignore is that MS not only bundled IE, but went out of
their way to prevent any other browser from operating in Windows. Is
this really what you feel Apple is doing? I can't say one way or the
other, myself, but I do know that Apple sure isn't preventing any other
browser from operating in OS X.

Which reminds me: Why don't web pages created in Front Page parse
properly in other browsers?
0 Votes
+ -
@notsofast
Axsimulate 7th Jan 2010
"Personally, i think Apple is about as MS was 15+ years ago."

You obviously don't know what Microsoft was like 15+ years ago then.
0 Votes
+ -
@vulpine
rtk 7th Jan 2010
However, what you seem to conveniently ignore is that MS not only bundled IE, but went out of their way to prevent any other browser from operating in Windows.

Where'd you get that from? There was never a complaint, case or conviction in either the US or UK that MS was preventing alternative browsers from being installed or used.

Netscape, Opera, Firefox, and now Chrome and Safari all install and work as intended on any supported (by the developer) OS.
0 Votes
+ -
@rtk
Axsimulate 7th Jan 2010
"Where'd you get that from? There was never a complaint, case or conviction in either the US or UK that MS was preventing alternative browsers from being installed or used."

It was brought up in the anti-trust case and Microsoft was order by the court to make it easier for someone to use an alternate browser. Look it up.

http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/ms_index.htm
0 Votes
+ -
I searched for quite a while on your link
rtk Updated - 7th Jan 2010
nowhere did I find anything about MS preventing the installation or use of alternate browsers.

The case was about not allowing the uninstallation of IE.

edit: more accurately, there's nothing about the end user using a different browser, or MS doing anything to prevent the installation or use of an alternate browser by an end user.

Firefox's marketshare before the UK fiasco showed how pointless the entire affair really was.
0 Votes
+ -
@rtk
Axsimulate Updated - 7th Jan 2010
My mistake. It wasn't that they prevented Netscape of any other browser from being install, they hampered the ability to set any other as a default. No matter what the end user would do, whenever they clicked on a link or do anything to invoke a internet connection, IE would pop up instead of the browser of choice by the user. They also made if very difficult to uninstall IE if the users chose to do so. It's all right here...

http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm#v

Here is some quotes starting at 170

"First, they did not provide users with the ability to uninstall Internet Explorer from Windows 98."

"The second way in which Microsoft's engineers implemented Allchin's strategy was to make Windows 98 override the user's choice of default browser in certain circumstances."

"Microsoft's refusal to respect the user's choice of default browser fulfilled Brad Chase's 1995 promise to make the use of any browser other than Internet Explorer on Windows 'a jolting experience.'"

Face it rtk, Microsoft broke the law and did every illegal thing in their monopoly power to crush Netscape, and they did so very quickly. Oh and that was only after Netscape refuse to illegally collude with them and divide the market.
0 Votes
+ -
that MS "went out of their way to prevent any other browser from operating in Windows"

This is false, other browsers operated just fine on windows.

The default browser ruse was about Windows Update requiring IE.
0 Votes
+ -
@rtk
Axsimulate 7th Jan 2010
"Let's go back to Vulpine's original claim"

Why? so you can try and wipe the egg off your face?
0 Votes
+ -
@Axsimulate
rtk 7th Jan 2010
because you're strawman didn't work, Vulpine's claim is false.
0 Votes
+ -
@rtk
Axsimulate Updated - 8th Jan 2010
"because you're strawman didn't work, Vulpine's claim is false. "

I realized the error and admitted it and corrected it. Microsoft may not have prevented any other browser to be installed, but they jumped through hoops to make it as "jolting" as they possibly could so the user would gravitate back to IE. No matter how you try to spin it, that's pure malice. And that is the way Microsoft treats its customers, the way only a monopoly could, full of contempt. And you apparently approve of this behavior. Because you defend them from this despicable behavior.
0 Votes
+ -
@ Axsimulate
rtk 8th Jan 2010
Microsoft may not have prevented any other browser to be installed, but they jumped through hoops to make it as "jolting" as they possibly could so the user would gravitate back to IE

No, they didn't, and no court found that they did. They made it hard to remove IE, not use another browser. At the time WU used ActiveX, therefore requiring IE to update Windows. As well, many small developers coded their programs to not look for the default browser, but to just launch the browser they knew for sure would be there, namely IE.

Most of those have now been "fixed", but none of them prevented you from using an alternative browser and there were no hoops or jolts to deal with.

No matter how you try to spin it, that's pure malice.

Except of course that the spin is yours, since the malicious parts have been fabricated.

And you apparently approve of this behavior. Because you defend them from this despicable behavior

I've happily and successfully used Fx as my default browser since it was Phoenix and Firebird, more than 5 years ago, as have millions of others. There's nothing to defend against.
0 Votes
+ -
@rtk
Axsimulate 8th Jan 2010
"No, they didn't, and no court found that they did."
Uh, yes they, and I even linked to the doj website that proves you wrong. It's even in several MS executives own words. Why are you in such denial?


"Most of those have now been "fixed", but none of them prevented you from using an alternative browser and there were no hoops or jolts to deal with."

Hello? Is anybody home? So it's OK MS bent you over the sink and put sand in the vasoline? I think you are arguing just to argue.


"Except of course that the spin is yours, since the malicious parts have been fabricated."

No there not, there is email from Microsoft that says otherwise. Spins not mine, it's your denial. I have showen you the proof you?ve shown me nothing. What are you afraid of rtk, go start reading, here the link again.

http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/ms_index.htm

"I've happily and successfully used Fx as my default browser since it was Phoenix and Firebird, more than 5 years ago, as have millions of others. There's nothing to defend against."

Then why are you adamantly defending MS if there is nothing to defend against?
0 Votes
+ -
"... as my default browser since it was Phoenix and Firebird, more
than 5 years ago,..."


Ummm... what were you using 15 years ago, when the issue was in the
courts?

I reiterate: Microsoft went out of its way to make using any browser
other than IE next to impossible to use.
This was also evidenced by
the fact that web pages created using FrontPage only displayed
correctly in IE, and frequently still has that issue. This happens to be
due to the fact that neither Front Page nor IE adhere to the current
HTML standards, staying just close enough to make non-FP pages
display properly in IE, but not the other way around.
0 Votes
+ -
Takes one to know one!
rahbm 6th Jan 2010
You can tell when an MS apologist is feeling
defensive because their immediate reaction is to
introduce Apple to any topic, in order to deflect.


I was hoping against hope to find some intelligent and useful
discussion on here, but no, NZ is in the vanguard as usual,
contributing nothing but mindless and repetitive Apple-bashing.

It is now crystal-clear to everyone on here how you feel about Apple;
there is no need whatsoever for any more of your tedious rants.

Did Steve Jobs spurn your advances once or something? Get a life.
0 Votes
+ -
Umm Apple dude not MS - don't think MS/Linux
ItsTheBottomLine 6th Jan 2010
was in the article...sheesh
0 Votes
+ -
@NonZealot
Axsimulate 6th Jan 2010
If Apple is abusing its iPhone app store martet position and backstabbing their partners, they had a very good teacher. That teacher is Microsoft, because nobody backstabs partners better. Look no further than the DOJ vs MS anti-trust lawsuit.
0 Votes
+ -
Yes, Apple copies a lot from MS
NonZealot 6th Jan 2010
If it wasn't for MS, Apple wouldn't have any ideas
for any products! The pattern is always the same:
MS releases an innovative new technology.
5 years later, Apple releases a crippled version
of the same technology.
Repeat. happy

Bet you can't wait for Apple's tablet... you
know... then one MS innovated 5 years ago! happy
0 Votes
+ -
@NonZealot
Axsimulate Updated - 6th Jan 2010
"If it wasn't for MS, Apple wouldn't have any ideas for any products! The pattern is always the same: MS releases an innovative new technology.
5 years later, Apple releases a crippled version of the same technology."

What planet are you from? With a comment like that, you are obviously have not been around computers very long. It's common knowledge that MS has taken a lot more from Apple than the other way around. Only the die hard, nose up Bill Gates behind, Windows worshippers deny it and try to flip it the other way around.

Google System 1 and Windows 1 and look at images and then you will see who copy from who. Being your such a computer newbe, you won't reconized Windows 1 because it looks nothing like Windows does today. However Windows 95 and up will look like a color version of System 1. Amagine that.
0 Votes
+ -
Google System 1 - ? Google wasn't even around...what are you babling about?
0 Votes
+ -
@socialism=nowhere
Axsimulate Updated - 6th Jan 2010
Here let me help you out since your low IQ can't comprehend what I wrote.

http://netdna.webdesignerdepot.com/uploads/2009/03/mac-os-1.gif

Next time I'll write it in preschool level so you understand me.
0 Votes
+ -
@NonZealot
Axsimulate Updated - 6th Jan 2010
Here you go NonZ. A little history lesson, you obviously need it.

http://www.webdesignerdepot.com/2009/03/operating-system-interface-design-between-1981-2009/
0 Votes
+ -
and this proves?
Turd Furgeson 6th Jan 2010
Everybody stole from everybody. Apple being the first who stole from Xerox.
I really thought it was going to be clear cut the way you cited it.
0 Votes
+ -
@Turd Furgeson
Axsimulate 6th Jan 2010
Looks like you are in need of some remedial training as well. Here is the link.

http://www.webdesignerdepot.com/2009/03/operating-system-interface-design-between-1981-2009/

First of all Xerox didn't invent the GUI, they were just the first to put it together in a lab. The GUI concept was developed in the late 60's at Stanford University. In other words, it was public domain.
You will notice how different Xerox and Lisa/Macintosh are. Xerox did not have drop down menus (Xerox used contextual menus), trash can, dynamic scoll bar, etc. These were Apple innovations, neither came from Stanford or Xerox.
Then compare the Mac with Windows 1-3 & NT 3, not even close, but then compare Win95 with the Mac, notice how close they are? But I'm sure you will deny it.
0 Votes
+ -
Are all Mac users like this?
Turd Furgeson 7th Jan 2010
In no way did I insult you. Yet you feel the need to be a dick. Thanks for the info about Stanford labs and xerox although i made no claim about who had what first.

Here is some reading for you. I know you won't because it dosen't support the history you want to remember and then you would have to admit Apple stole ideas for it's Iphone and Ipod touch. I feel much better about myself supporting my argument with ridicule about your research skills. Thanks for that trick.

http://www.macobserver.com/columns/thebackpage/2004/20040708.shtml

http://www.pcworld.com/article/136949/is_apple_the_new_microsoft.html

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/15/business/company-news-xerox-sues-apple-computer-over-macintosh-copyright.html?scp=3&sq=apple+xerox&st=nyt
0 Votes
+ -
@Turd Furgeson
Axsimulate Updated - 7th Jan 2010
"Are all Mac users like this?"

I use all kinds of computers, I'm using WinXP right now. Over the years I've used the TRS-80, Commodore 64/Amiga, Atari 8bit/ST, TI99, Timex Sinclair, IBM mainframes, Apple IIe/GS/Macintosh, BSD Unix, Sun, SGI, Linux, CP/M, DOS, GEM (PC), OS2/Warp, and of course Windows 3-Win7. Windows is my main OS at work, I just happen to like OS X better.

"Thanks for the info about Stanford labs and xerox although i made no claim about who had what first."

You did accuse everybody of stealing

here is your quote...

"Everybody stole from everybody. Apple being the first who stole from Xerox."

I was pointing out that the concept of the GUI was there before Xerox and that Apple didn't steal the idea from Xerox. All Apple saw was SmallTalk when they were at Xerox and traded stock for the visit. Jef Raskin brought the idea of the Mac to Apple and wrote about GUIs in college in the late 60s. Years before PARC was created.

"http://www.macobserver.com/columns/thebackpage/2004/20040708.shtml"

I never said MS stole from Apple, I am fully aware that Apple by licensed under the threat that MS would pull Word and Excel from them. That came out in the anti-trust trial.

"http://www.pcworld.com/article/136949/is_apple_the_new_microsoft.html"

Nothing more than 1 mans opinion.

"http://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/15/business/company-news-xerox-sues-apple-computer-over-macintosh-copyright.html?scp=3&sq=apple+xerox&st=nyt"

And if you remember, that lawsuit was thrown out.
0 Votes
+ -
Everybody stole from everybody. Apple being the first who stole from
Xerox.


Apple DID NOT STEAL from Xerox. Apple gave 1,000,000 shares of pre-
IPO preferred Apple stock to Xerox for two 8 hour visits to Xerox's Palo
Alto Research Station and the right to use what they learned there.
Xerox was well compensated for the visit. They took no code, only ideas
to incorporate with their own ideas. Xerox sold those shares for
approximately $16million dollars after the 1980 IPO. Not a bad return
for a few hours visit with Steve Jobs and a few engineers Q&A.
0 Votes
+ -
You got it backwards
rtk 8th Jan 2010
Apple gave 1,000,000 shares of pre-
IPO preferred Apple stock to Xerox


No, Apple gave Xerox the opportunity to invest $1 million in Apple by purchasing 100,000 shares at $10 each and agreed to never purchase more than 5% of Apple's outstanding shares.
0 Votes
+ -
@rtk
Axsimulate 8th Jan 2010
Well, I glad to see you finally came to your senses and admit that Apple did not steal from Xerox.
0 Votes
+ -
@Turd Furgeson
Axsimulate Updated - 8th Jan 2010
Read it, it was dismissed.
0 Votes
+ -
@ Axsimulate
rtk 8th Jan 2010
it was throw out for procedural issues, namely statute of limitations. There was no finding of fact one way or the other.

Suffice it to say, Xerox believed Apple stole from them, they just waited too long to have the opportunity to prove it.
0 Votes
+ -
Similar to when Apple sued MS over it's Gui
Turd Furgeson 8th Jan 2010
But i suppose they got the xerox case against Apple correct and the Apple case vs Microsoft wrong.
0 Votes
+ -
@ Turd Furgeson
rtk Updated - 8th Jan 2010
the "look and feel" case Apple filed against MS wasn't dismissed, it was fully litigated all the way up to the supreme court.

Apple lost the case and all appeals, Xerox didn't get the opportunity to slap them around similarly.
0 Votes
+ -
@rtk
Axsimulate 8th Jan 2010
"the "look and feel" case Apple filed against MS wasn't dismissed, it was fully litigated all the way up to the supreme court."

We finally agree on something.
I was referring to Xerox VS Apple, that was dissmissed.

"Apple lost the case and all appeals, Xerox didn't get the opportunity to slap them around similarly."

Apple lost because they had accually licensed Microsoft some of the "look and feel". Some was deemed uncopyrightable. Some still stuck. That is why MS has a Recycle Bin vs a Trash Can, or no Floppies, Harddisk, CD/DVD or network mounts directly on the desktop.

Chances are even if Xerox was able to take Apple to court, the Apple vs MS set a precedence with "look and feel" that may have severaly hampered Xerox.
0 Votes
+ -
Thanks for the link, Axsimulate
rahbm 6th Jan 2010
It was a fascinating trip back down memory lane.

But please, forget about trying to talk sense to NZ. It is totally ineffective
because he is not interested in how things are, but only in how he wants
things to be in his little anti-Apple fantasy world.

As such, it is also a complete waste of your time, and sadly only
encourages him to post yet more rabid drivel.
0 Votes
+ -
@rahbm
Axsimulate 7th Jan 2010
"But please, forget about trying to talk sense to NZ. It is totally ineffective because he is not interested in how things are, but only in how he wants things to be in his little anti-Apple fantasy world."

I know he is the Village Idiot, but shooting ducks in a pond is so much fun (his lies and propaganda are really easy to debunk).
  • Flagged
0 Votes
+ -
crazy
bannedfromzdnetagain 6th Jan 2010
i think now we can declare microsoft zealot here officialy crazy. you can't
make this stuff up.

only on zdnet.
0 Votes
+ -
@elllroy
Axsimulate 7th Jan 2010
Pretty much everybody on here knows NonZealot is the Village Idiot.
  • Flagged
0 Votes
+ -
Exactly
mlbslugger 6th Jan 2010
I tend to agree... it's obvious they both copy and learn from each other. It's the nature of the beast.
0 Votes
+ -
At least get your history right -
vulpine@... 7th Jan 2010
How about some specifics on that statement?

Windows?
Look at Win95--it looked almost exactly like OS6 that was out 5 years
earlier.
Win98--looked almost exactly like OS7, 5 years earlier.
XP?--A step backwards in appearance, but arguably the best version
of Windows until Win7. (No conclusion on 7 for me as yet, but
definitely better than Vista.)
Vista? Think OS X 10.0
Win7? Think OS X 10.4

What about the Zune? Ummm... at least 3 years after the iPod hit
Windows, 4 years after if you include the Mac-only first version.

Phones? Yup, Windows was on phones before Apple, I'll grant you
that; but why, if it was so good, has the iPhone blown all versions of
WinMo out of the water?

Tablets? Aw come on, now! You call that modified version of Windows
a tablet? Microsoft didn't build the tablet, they merely modified a
version of Windows to take advantage of the touch screen... very
poorly at that. Why else would so many Tablet naysayers say "There's
no market for a Tablet." It's because nobody, as yet, has done a
proper tablet. If you think about the cartoon series "Inspector Gadget,"
you might remember Penny's book. That at least comes closer to what
a Tablet should be than anything we've seen before this year.

No, it's Microsoft that has always been the copier. And almost always
5 years behind.
Look at Win95--it looked almost exactly like OS6

OS6 was closer to Win3.11 in appearance.

The actual history is, Apple copies MS, releases a product five years later and then claims MS copied them. Unbelievably, the drugged iSheep fall for it, time and time again.
0 Votes
+ -
I get that you want different rules
Turd Furgeson 12th Jan 2010
That's ridiculous. By this logic, Apple doesn't have their own Cell phone carrier they use AT&T therefor they have to open their phone to any carrier. Manufacturers and resellers agree to terms. If Dell wants to sell Windows they agree to terms. It's a double standard.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix
Click Here
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix
ie8 fix