My Community

Middle Earth => Orthanc => Topic started by: dapengmingwang on September 24, 2007, 12:10:45 AM

Title: Apple - The Hypocrisy That Don't Get Hyped About
Post by: dapengmingwang on September 24, 2007, 12:10:45 AM
Guess I wasn't the only one who wrote about Apple's hypocrisy and unethical business practices (

Is Apple the New Microsoft?
Don't look now, but the role of the industry's biggest bully is increasingly played by Apple, not Microsoft.

Mike Elgan, Computerworld
Friday, September 07, 2007 8:00 AM PDT

Ten years ago, Microsoft was the company everyone loved to hate.

The most vociferous Microsoft haters slammed the company for being a greedy industry bully that used its monopolistic, clunky, copycat operating system to force software on users and coerce partners into unfair licensing deals.

Don't look now, but the role of the industry's biggest bully is increasingly played by Apple, not Microsoft. Here's a look at how Apple has shoved Microsoft aside as the company with the worst reputation as a monopolist, copycat and a bully.

Apple the Monopolist

The core complaint about Microsoft in the 1990s was that its Windows market share gave it monopoly power, which it abused in multiple ways. Attorneys General and others zeroed in on the "bundling" of the Internet Explorer Web browser, which they claimed was forced on users because Microsoft offered it as part of Windows.

People love iPods (including me; my family of four has purchased 12 iPods in the past few years). But iPods come bundled with iTunes. Want to buy music from Apple? Guess what? You must install iTunes. Want an Apple cell phone from AT&T? Yep! ITunes is required even if you want only to make phone calls. Want to buy ringtones for your Apple phone? ITunes.

Apple not only "bundles" iTunes with multiple products, it forces you to use it. At least with Internet Explorer, you could always just download a competitor and ignore IE.

Not fair, you might say. Any hardware device that syncs data with a PC as part of its core functionality has software to facilitate that syncing. True enough. But operating systems have browsers as part of core functionality, too. Doesn't Mac OS X come with Safari? Doesn't the iPhone?

And "bundling" works. Steve Jobs bragged this week that Apple has distributed 600 million copies of iTunes to date. The overwhelming majority of those copies were iTunes for Windows. And iTunes for Windows' popularity isn't driven by software product quality. ITunes is the slowest, clunkiest, most nonintuitive application on my system. But I need it because I love my iPods.

At least with Windows, you could reformat your PC and install Linux or any number of other PC-compatible operating systems. Can I reformat my iPod and install something else? Can I uninstall iTunes but keep using the iTunes store and my iPods? Apple strongly discourages all that, claiming that the iPod, the iPod software and iTunes are three components of the same product. But that's what Microsoft said about Windows and IE.

Sorry, Dad

Here's a scenario for you. A consumer walks into a local retail outlet to buy a Christmas present for dad. The Apple iPod "section" of the store dwarfs the section where all the also-ran players are displayed. IPod is clearly the trusted standard. The consumer buys a shiny new "Fatty" iPod nano with video.

Dad opens the present and is excited. He follows the directions, installs iTunes and immediately splurges on a few dozen songs at the iTunes store. He loves it, and is an instant convert to portable digital music.

The only downside is that he works out every day at the gym, where cardio machines face TVs that broadcast sound over FM radio. Six months later, when his iPod is stolen, he goes to buy another player -- this time, he hopes, with an FM radio in it. Several competitors offer this feature, but not iPods. He's about to choose a new player with an FM radio when it hits him: None of his files -- now totaling 300 songs and 50 movies -- will play on the new player. He bought and paid for all this content, but it only works with iPods and iTunes.

Apple has an iPod customer for life. Microsoft never had this kind of monopoly power. Sorry, dad. I should have bought you a tie.

Sticker Shock

Another clue that a company has monopoly power is when you find yourself suffering sticker shock. How many times have you stood in line at the theater megaplex and marveled at the chutzpah required to charge $4.50 for a soft drink, when the same beverage is one-third the price at the quickie mart 50 feet outside the theater doors? But -- so sorry! -- no outside food or beverages are allowed in the theater. The theater has a monopoly on soft drink sales, and you'll pay what they charge.

That same shock rippled through the iPhone enthusiast community yesterday when Jobs announced with a straight face that iPhone ringtones based on iTunes songs would cost the full price of the song, plus 99 cents extra. What? The full song costs 99 cents! How on Earth can Apple seriously charge the same amount again for the ability to hear just 30 seconds of the song -- the same length as the free iTunes "samples"?

Apple fully understands the power of monopoly pricing. The company has sold the 8GB iPhone for two prices in its short, three months of existence: $599 and, now, $399. When the iPhone was the only way to get the whole multitouch, big-screen, Wi-Fi iPod experience -- when the product had no alternatives -- the price was $599. One analyst estimated Apple's cost to build an iPhone is $245.83. I don't know if that's true but, if so, more than half the user cost was profit. That's theater soda pricing. But as soon as Apple introduced an alternative to the iPhone -- the iPod Touch -- Apple dropped the price by one-third.

Imagine if another company were allowed to compete in the OS X media player market. These players would all drop to below $300. Don't hold your breath, though; it'll never happen. Apple has the power to exclude all others from software than runs on its media players. Microsoft could only dream of such power.

Apple the Copycat

Ten years ago, Microsoft haters complained that Windows followed the Mac OS to market as a graphical user interface, copying the Mac's features such as folders, trash cans, resizable windows and other elements. That complaint was repeated with each new version of Windows -- Apple was the innovator in the operating system space, and got there first with a host of key features. Microsoft just came along later, duplicated features that Apple pioneered, and reaped the benefit because of its monopoly power.

But who's innovating now? The LG KE850 was winning awards for its full-screen, touch-screen, on-screen keyboard before Jobs even announced the iPhone.

The best thing about the iPhone and iPod Touch -- the warm-and-fuzzy multitouch UI with gestures -- wasn't new, either. Various labs have been demonstrating similar UIs for more than a decade, and even Microsoft demonstrated a fully realized 3G UI in May, well before Apple shipped the iPhone. Microsoft will ship its tabletop UI, called Microsoft Surface, in November, and Apple will likely enter this space with a 3G UI months or years after Microsoft does.

And Wi-Fi in a media player? Ha! Microsoft's funky Zune had that almost a year before Apple did and SanDisk's Sansa Connect with Wi-Fi was released last June. Apple even stole the name for its iPod Touch product, according to HTC, which sells a touch-screen smart phone called the HTC Touch.

Don't get me wrong. I think Apple's execution of these features is far better than its competitors'. And it would be horrible decision-making to not build the iPhone simply because others pioneered key features. But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about Apple doing what Microsoft did: dominating the market with features other companies had first. If it was fair to slam Microsoft over Windows, it's fair to slam Apple over the iPhone and iPod Touch.

Apple the Bully

Microsoft used to be the big bully, pushing everyone around and dictating terms to partners. Microsoft has lost its edge in this regard -- most of Microsoft's major resellers brazenly hawk Linux. Even Intel -- the "tel" part of "Wintel" -- is powering Macs these days. Microsoft is still profitable, but it has lost control -- and has lost its reputation as the bully nobody can say no to.

Meanwhile, Jobs has suddenly become the most feared man in Hollywood, bragging Thursday about Apple's scary dominance in digital media sales. Apple has sold more than 3 billion songs and 95 million TV shows via iTunes. While music CD sales crash and burn, almost one-third of all music sales are now digital. As Jobs euphemistically said yesterday, "iTunes is leading the way."

Although full details haven't been revealed, NBC apparently wanted more "flexibility" to charge higher prices for its TV shows on iTunes. Apple said no, and NBC was sent packing. NBC now plans to sell shows on alternative locations, such as its own Web site and on Prediction: NBC will come crawling back to Apple and beg the company for inclusion, and on Apple's terms. Why? Because iTunes is increasingly becoming the only venue in which media companies can succeed selling music and TV show.

Jobs rules like Bill Gates never did. If you want to succeed in the digital music or downloadable TV business, you'll do things his way.

Why I Support Apple

After reading my preceding comments, you may be surprised at my next statement: I come not to bury Apple, but to support it.

You see, my point isn't that Apple's growing bad reputation is deserved, but that Microsoft's wasn't. All that evil monopoly hype, court cases and public posturing directed for so long at Microsoft drained energy and resources from the entire industry. The market, however, corrects issues such as that. In the case of Microsoft's "monopoly," Linux, Firefox and now Apple prove that customers always had choices.

The same goes for Apple.

As pundits, bloggers, users, politicians, Hollywood big shots, regulators, lawyers and competitors increasingly bash Apple, accuse it of unfair play and call for legal and regulatory action, I will defend it, as I defended Microsoft. It's fun to slam big, powerful companies that are dominating their markets. But in the final analysis, Apple has earned its growing power and influence, just like Microsoft did.

Is Apple a monopolist, copycat and bully? Yes, and deservedly so. And if anyone thinks Apple's success is a problem, well, bringing in the lawyers wasn't the solution for Microsoft, and it won't be the solution for Apple.

Mike Elgan writes about technology and global tech culture.

Title: Re: Apple - The Hypocrisy That Don't Get Hyped About
Post by: dapengmingwang on October 29, 2007, 11:56:12 PM
Well done, Apple... I love ANY KIND OF NEWS that expose Apple for the hypocrite it really is.

Apple Sends 3rd Grader Cease And Desist Letter
The company replied to the young girl after she sent them some ideas to make the iPod Nano better.
- Apr 13, 2006 10:16 pm US/Pacific

(CBS 13) Like any nine-year-old, Shea O'Gorman spends a lot of time listening to her iPod Nano. So much so, that when her third grade class started learning about writing letters she thought, who better to write to than the man whose company makes her iPod.

"I decided to write to Mr. Steven Jobs," said Shea. Jobs is the president of Apple Computers.

"She just came home and said 'mom I have some ideas about the iPod Nano,' and said 'I'm going to write Steven Jobs a letter'," said Shea's mother. "We were just very impressed and very proud of her."

In her letter, Shea outlined her ideas for improving iPods like adding song lyrics.

"Have the words on the screen so they could sing along and stuff," said Shea.

So she mailed it, and waited for three months, and when a letter arrived from apple, the whole family gathered around to read it.

"She was very upset. She kind of threw the letter up in the air and ran into her room and slammed the door," said Shea's mom.

The letter was not from Steve Jobs, it was signed the senior counsel, Apple Law Department.

That's right, apple's legal department, telling a nine year old that apple does not accept unsolicited ideas. Apple's legal department told her not send them her suggestions, and if she wants to know why, she could read their legal policy on the Internet.

"We were stunned, we just were stunned, is the best word to say. It just wasn't the appropriate type letter to send to a third grader who had the initiative to write to them," said Shea's mom.

"It kind of seemed like they were saying well we don't want your idea like it's not good or anything," said Shea.

And her mom thinks it's even worse coming from apple. "They are a company who tries to promote itself as an educator of children. That was really, it was unacceptable. They know better than that," said Shea's mom.

( MMVI, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.)

Title: Apple Is Said to Face Inquiry About Online Music
Post by: dapengmingwang on May 28, 2010, 06:52:02 AM
What took them so long?

There should never be a right for them to limit songs bought on iTunes to be playable on iPods only in the first place.

Apple Is Said to Face Inquiry About Online Music

Published: May 25, 2010

SAN FRANCISCO - The Justice Department is examining Apple's tactics in the market for digital music, and its staff members have talked to major music labels and Internet music companies, according to several people briefed on the conversations.

The antitrust inquiry is in the early stages, these people say, and the conversations have revolved broadly around the dynamics of selling music online.

But people briefed on the inquiries also said investigators had asked in particular about recent allegations that Apple used its dominant market position to persuade music labels to refuse to give the online retailer exclusive access to music about to be released.

All these people spoke on condition of anonymity, citing the delicacy of the matter. Representatives from Apple and Amazon declined to comment. Gina Talamona, a deputy director at the Justice Department, also declined to comment.

In March, Billboard magazine reported ( that Amazon was asking music labels to give it the exclusive right to sell certain forthcoming songs for one day before they went on sale more widely. In exchange, Amazon promised to include those songs in a promotion called the "MP3 Daily Deal" on its Web site.

The magazine reported that representatives of Apple's iTunes music service were asking the labels not to participate in Amazon's promotion, adding that Apple punished those that did by withdrawing marketing support for those songs on iTunes.

Apple is by far the largest seller of online music in the United States, with 69 percent of the market, according to data from the NPD Group, a marketing consultancy. Amazon's MP3 store was in second place, with an 8 percent share. Apple is also the largest seller of music, with 26.7 percent of the overall market, up from 12 percent in 2007.

Though the Justice Department's inquiry is preliminary, it represents additional evidence that Apple, once the perennial underdog in high tech, is now viewed by government regulators as a dominant company with considerable market power.

Through its iTunes store, Apple sells TV shows, films and applications for its iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad hand-held computing devices. Apple has also begun to sell electronic books.

"Certainly if the Justice Department is getting involved, it raises the possibility of potential serious problems down the road for Apple," said Daniel L. Brown, an antitrust lawyer at Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton.

"Without knowing what acts or practices they are targeting, it's difficult to say exactly how big a problem this is," Mr. Brown added. "But it's probably something Apple is already concerned about."

The inquiry is one of several by the federal government involving Apple. The Federal Trade Commission is moving ahead with a separate investigation of Apple's rules for developers who create applications for the iPhone operating system, according to a person familiar with that discussion.

That inquiry, initiated by complaint from Adobe Systems, the maker of the Flash format for Internet video, is said to be in its early stages as well.

The Justice Department has also reportedly been investigating the hiring practices at Apple and other top technology companies, including Intel, I.B.M. and Google, asking whether the companies have improperly agreed to avoid hiring each other's employees.

The music investigation signals the elevated scrutiny of technology companies under the antitrust agencies of the Obama administration.

The Federal Trade Commission recently spent six months reviewing Google's proposed acquisition of Admob, a mobile advertising start-up. Although the commission said the combination created "serious antitrust concerns," it approved the deal, noting Apple's own entry into the market for mobile advertising.

Apple first released its iTunes software in early 2001, giving people an easy way to organize their music collections on a Mac computer, and later, a PC. It opened the iTunes store in 2003 and has since sold more than 10 billion songs, providing a significant source of revenue for the music industry.

While iTunes persuaded many people to pay for music, rather than download pirated copies of songs free, the music industry has chafed because Apple sets prices and controls the relationship to the music buyers.

More recently, Apple has encouraged new kinds of competition in the online music marketplace by allowing streaming music applications from companies like Pandora and Rhapsody onto Apple devices.

Title: Re: Apple - The Hypocrisy That Don
Post by: dapengmingwang on May 28, 2010, 07:10:03 AM
About damned time for this too.

An antitrust app
Apple may be in the eye of regulatory storm

Last Updated: 4:33 AM, May 3, 2010
Posted: 1:36 AM, May 3, 2010

After years of being the little guy who used Washington to fend off Goliaths like Microsoft, Apple CEO Steve Jobs is about to learn what life is like when the shoe's on the other foot.

According to a person familiar with the matter, the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission are locked in negotiations over which of the watchdogs will begin an antitrust inquiry into Apple's new policy of requiring software developers who devise applications for devices such as the iPhone and iPad to use only Apple's programming tools.

Regulators, this person said, are days away from making a decision about which agency will launch the inquiry. It will focus on whether the policy, which took effect last month, kills competition by forcing programmers to choose between developing apps that can run only on Apple gizmos or come up with apps that are platform neutral, and can be used on a variety of operating systems, such as those from rivals Google, Microsoft and Research In Motion.

An inquiry doesn't necessarily mean action will be taken against Apple, which argues the rule is in place to ensure the quality of the apps it sells to customers. Typically, regulators initiate inquiries to determine whether a full-fledged investigation ought to be launched. If the inquiry escalates to an investigation, the agency handling the matter would issue Apple a subpoena seeking information about the policy.

Officials at both the Justice Department and FTC declined comment. Apple did not return calls seeking comment.

The threat of Apple being the subject of an investigation would be a remarkable turnabout for a company that has long seen itself as being outside the establishment, and one that has egged on antitrust officials to blunt the momentum of larger rivals.

However, thanks to the popularity of the iPod and iPhone, Apple is having a tough time continuing to play the role of David fighting against Goliath. Indeed, its market cap of $237.6 billion exceeds that of the world's largest retailer, Wal-Mart, whose market cap is $201.7 billion.

Apple put its might on full display last week when Jobs wrote a scathing explanation for why Adobe's Flash programming language was unfit to be used on Apple products. The day his missive was released, Adobe shares fell 2 percent.

In forcing computer programmers to choose developing an Apple-exclusive app over one that can be used on Apple and rival devices simultaneously, critics say Apple is hampering competition since the expense involved in creating an app will lead developers with limited budgets to focus on one format, not two. Generally, app developers are paid from a cut of the revenue generated when consumers buy the app.

Shaun Meredith, a former Apple employee who runs software development company InfoBridge, said that as a result of Apple's rule change, some of his customers are choosing to finance apps that are compatible with all of Apple's competitors instead of those that work only with the iPhone or iPad.

Indeed, though Apple has the most applications, it is a distant second in terms of operating system market share. According to comScore, RIM, which makes the BlackBerry, has a 42 percent share, while Apple's take is 25 percent. Microsoft has 15 percent and Google's Android software has 9 percent.

Title: Foxconn Promises 20% Wage Hike Following Suicides
Post by: dapengmingwang on May 29, 2010, 03:20:37 AM
USD 131 (before pay increment) is just about S$185. That translates to a SGD 8.39/day for a 22day work month, i.e. merely just SGD 1.05/hr for a 8-hr work day. The iPhone is revolutionary... down right to the level on how revolutionary CHEAP it pays the manufacturer.

Foxconn Promises 20% Wage Hike Following Suicides
By: Ryan Fleming  May 28, 2010

After 10 suicides, and several more attempts by employees, Foxconn is planning on raising the wages of its 420,000 worker.

Hon Hai, the Taiwanese parent company of Foxconn, is promising a 20 percent raise to its 420,000 employees following a string of worker suicides that have brought increased scrutiny to the factory, from both the media and the American companies like HP, Dell and Apple, all of whom have products manufactured by Foxconn.

The wage hike will raise the pay from $131 to $157 a month, although it does not address the work conditions that many describe as "sweatshop-like". HP, Nintendo, Apple and Dell all have products made by Foxconn, and all have vowed to investigate the factory conditions.

A spokesman for Hon Hai claims that the pay raise has nothing to do with the suicides, and that the wage increase had been scheduled for some time. It is unclear when the raise will take effect. Labor costs account for just 2 percent of Hon Hai's operating costs.

"It may help the suicide situation, because we workers just need money and the financial pressure on us is great," a Foxconn employee told MSNBC "Every little bit helps."

The announcement of a raise follows the news that Foxconn employees were being required to sign a form that included a clause stating that the company would no longer pay anything more than the legal minimum for injuries sustained while not at work. Foxconn was rumored to be offering 100,000 yuan, or roughly $14,650 to compensate the families of those that committed suicide, something that may have encouraged some of the suicides.

So far this year, 10 employees of Foxconn have committed suicide. An 11th death was reported yesterday after a worker slit his wrists, but the man survived after receiving medical attention. At least two others have also attempted suicide but survived, and the number of unreported attempts may be higher.

Title: Fuck you, Apple: You've gone too far
Post by: dapengmingwang on July 10, 2012, 09:00:18 AM
Fuck you, Apple: You've gone too far (
- Eric Ravenscraft  Jul 4, 2012

I would like to preface this bit of rambling with a disclaimer: broad strokes, I like Apple. As a company. I also like Microsoft. And Google. These three companies, together, represent some of the finest innovation I've ever witnessed. The three of them, as a whole, are beacons of what progress should be. They all have their missteps and they all have their problems, but they never stop. Each of them is responsible for this amazing future that we live in today.

But Apple? Your unrelenting assault on anything that you perceive as being derivative of your baby has gone beyond acceptable. You have moved past being the underdog, being the troubled artist, the downtrodden genius. As a company, as an identity, you are now the spoiled rich kid that got told to share. And just like that spoiled brat, you've raised a fuss that is entirely disproportional even to your imagined wrong, much less reality.

For those who haven't heard, the Galaxy Nexus is a phone that was available for sale in the US that is built by Samsung, but designed in tandem with Google. The purpose of the device is to be a model, a symbol of what Android is and could be, straight from the heart of Google. And it would take all of 5 seconds holding one to tell that it is not an iPhone.

I say that this device "was" available because at the moment, it isn't anymore. Because of a lawsuit with Apple. A lawsuit over a few patents. I don't care to go over the details. The short version is, Apple found a few tiny things that Android does the same way iPhones do them. Ergo, they are infringing Apple's patents. Ergo, the Galaxy Nexus is an illegal device. Ergo, Google murders babies and should be wiped off the earth.

This is shit. This is complete and utter horseshit. Google is currently in the process of hurrying out an OTA update to fix the issue so the device is no longer infringing Apple's patents. This means that, among other things, avoiding the infringement is trivially easy to do. If Apple really only wanted Google to not infringe its patents, this could be sorted out easily without banning devices.

It could also be sorted out with money. Apple has refused to substitute damages in exchange for injunctions because it feels it has that right. This, too, is borne of the feces of farm animals. Apple has no interest in peace here. Apple wants to end Android. Apple wants to prevent as many Android devices from being sold to end consumers as possible, and accomplishing this by being better isn't enough, it seems.

The argument could (and will) be made, by the way, that if it's trivially easy to avoid infringing a patent, why didn't Google just do this in the first place? It's simple: because making mobile devices requires, necessarily, hundreds of thousands of little features that may or may not infringe on someone's patents somewhere. Whether it be standards-related like Nokia's recent claims, or just a clever idea that someone had and didn't realize someone else's product already does. This further raises the questions of whether such patents should even be legal, but that's beside the point. The point is that what these companies are arguing over is less like intellectual property theft and more like arguing over which one of them exceeded the speed limit by a single mile per hour. It is virtually impossible to drive a vehicle at exactly the speed limit 100% of the time. Leeway is granted to drivers who can't maintain a perfectly OCD adherence to the law. This same sort of leeway is not being granted to the players in the mobile industry. Instead, the law is being used in the way closest to the letter and furthest from the spirit, in a chess game that is more about market share dominance than it is fair competition.

I want a nice phone. That is all I want. And both Google and Apple (as well as all the OEMs) work incredibly hard to grant my wish. In exchange, of course, for my money. Which I will happily surrender. This is the deal we consumers make with companies: you make a product I like and I will give you money for it. However, wonderfully, at the end of the day, I have a choice: if I don't like a product, I can choose not to spend money on it.

Apple would have none of that. Apple wants to believe that Android, as a whole, is a rip off in every way of iOS. Despite the litany of differences, despite the veritable cornucopia of essays and comments and blog posts and books, oh the books, written to the contrary. Despite the fact that the most uninformed, mentally slow observer to hold an iPhone and a Galaxy Nexus in their hands could tell that they are very different devices.

If Apple wanted peace, we would have peace now. The opportunity has been presented, on more than one occasion, to settle these relatively minor disputes with money. Apple does not want money. Apple wants bans. Apple has succeeded in getting bans. This maneuver would almost make sense if Apple were still the underdog. Apple wanting to halt the sales of a big bad company "stealing" its ideas would be reasonable if Apple weren't the richest fucking company in the god damn world. Seriously. No one has as much money as Apple. No one has Apple's power. No one has the reach Apple does.

When Windows came out, Apple's fear was rational. Comparatively few people knew about Apple, and even fewer could afford their products. If Windows could copy the basic idea of the Mac's GUI wholesale and face zero repercussions, it would not be impossible to imagine Apple being wiped from the face of the earth (and in fact it nearly was). However, that is not the case anymore. Apple does not face extinction or irrelevance if it loses this new patent war. It faces only an equal. A fair fight. A competitor of a caliber to rival its own.

This is why Apple wants bans. This is why Apple won't settle its disputes. This is why Apple sues manufacturers because you can tap a phone number or because scrolling locks into a certain axis, yet will rip off the idea of a pull-down notification shade wholesale. It's not because Apple lacks the clarity to realize it also borrows features and ideas from other OSes. It's because Apple truly believes, in the minds of its leadership, that Android is a pale shadow of itself and deserves to be removed from the earth by any means necessary. These patents are not the ends, they're the means.

And it's disgusting. I want to use Android. I love Android. I can't get enough of Android. I respect iPhones and I'd like to see what happens with Windows Phone, but at the end of the day, Android is my platform of choice. And after six versions of iOS, it is ridiculous to believe that I, an informed consumer with high demands of my mobile device, could be satisfied by something that is little more than a rebranded knock-off of an Apple device.

This is my choice, Apple. I will make it no matter what you do. I could care less if you're bitter about what may or may not have happened in a board room, or if you truly believe your product is better. I want to make my own choice about what device and OS I use and you are doing nothing but getting in the way. You don't get to make this decision for me. You don't get to decide that customers shouldn't have access to Android. This mentality is precisely the sort of reason I don't use iOS devices to begin with. On iOS, if I want to run an application that wasn't directly approved by Apple, I need to jailbreak my device which voids my warranty. If I want to run an application that wasn't directly approved by Google, and even if I ignore that the Play Store is not policed, I can check one setting to enable third-party apps and voila. The internet is my oyster. This is something I treasure. It's also a key difference between Android's approach and iOS's.

But you would have that option taken away from me, Apple. And that's not okay. I really don't care if you want to hang on to control of your ecosystem. Some people prefer it and I'm all for that. Choice is great. Personal freedom is great. But the day you start telling me what devices I can and can't have, that is the day we start to have a serious problem. If you had just settled for some money, if you had tried to make peace with Google, or any of the OEMs, we would be in a different place. But today I was told that I am not allowed to buy a Galaxy Nexus if I want to because Apple said no.

So, I say again: Fuck you, Apple.