Slashdot Mirror

You're thinking of the magsafe charger. That uses palindromic pins. Lightning has palindromic power, but not data: http://appleinsider.com/articles/12/09/25/apples_lightning_port_dynamically_assigns_pins_to_allow_for_reversible_use

$1349 for the cheapest 13" Retina display.

http://appleinsider.com/mac_price_guide/#%23

$50 more only if you do comparison shopping. :)

And how many are there in those other PDF viewers?

For the record, the last exploitable PDF bug on Macosx PDF viewer was in 2010 (http://appleinsider.com/articles/10/08/24/apple_releases_mac_os_x_security_update_to_patch_pdf_exploit. Granted, it may be because it doesn't support javascript or flash, and is rarely touched, but I would say one update every several years is much nicer than one every week for your javascript engine (yes, Safari suffers from those).

Try some news more recent than 2010.

http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/02/11/apple-google-nearly-tied-as-top-contributors-to-webkit-as-adoption-expands

Apple still contributes more.

If a service isn’t using Apple’s in-app purchase platform, it can’t provide an outside link to purchase a subscription service.

We found that your app provides access to external mechanisms for purchases or subscriptions to be used in the app, which is not in compliance with the App Store Review Guidelines.

This guideline states that apps "that link to external mechanisms for purchases or subscriptions to be used in the app, such as a 'buy' button that goes to a web site to purchase a digital book, will be rejected."

Microsoft reportedly offered to remove paid subscription options from its SkyDrive application to comply with Apple's rules. But Apple felt that move wasn't enough, as users can still sign up for the SkyDrive service through the application.

You might prefer more freedom. I'm not sure exactly how that will benefit you, but that's not for me to say. It's simply good enough that you (and others) have different preferences. Fair enough. Fortunately, Android is available and does exactly what you want.

So what's to complain about? Is anyone forcing you to use Apple's App Store? I've never heard of that happening.

maybe i like everything else about apple. i suppose its difficult for the koolaid-drinkers like yourself that will swallow whatever apple gives you to understand that normal people may have a criticism or two about the platform which doesnt necessarily mean we are going to use something else, i am sure you believe the privilege of them allowing you to use their platform is enough to suppress any thoughts of imperfection or will to have an opinion other than that fed to you by apple. your mentality is that of a pathetic sheep.

And really, you can't sell phones at a loss and make up the difference in games, like you can with consoles.

Microsoft has its own market on its phones and I believe are you locked into their market if you have one of their phones. If they can get traction, they could indeed sell phones at a loss and make up the difference in apps/games.

Didn't Google do something pretty close to that with the Nexus 7? They made extremely low profit on Nexus 7 hardware. Of course, they knew that almost no one uses anything but the default app market. They were trying to compete with the Kindle Fire's price because it doesn't use Google's market. They wanted people to prefer their market over all others. After all, if nothing is wrong with the old market app, why would you switch when your app purchases are already registered with your current market. You would have to use the new one side-by-side just to be sure that you can continue to download and update previously purchased apps.

Also, it's not in their news section.

And the linked article doesn't cite any sources.

I already have a phone that does this. As someone who is aware of my surroundings and generally conscientious, I simply turn my phone to "vibrate" or even - God forbid - OFF... It works very well indeed. And I even still receive alerts if a call or text came in. Amazing technology.

Yes Apple already patented the technology, silencing the phone based on GPS location. Similar to geofencing that came out in iOS 5

Please pay Apple $2 every time you use their idea. Just because you press a button rather than use an app does not negate that it is THEIR idea.

I already have a phone that does this. As someone who is aware of my surroundings and generally conscientious, I simply turn my phone to "vibrate" or even - God forbid - OFF... It works very well indeed. And I even still receive alerts if a call or text came in. Amazing technology.

Yes Apple already patented the technology, silencing the phone based on GPS location. Similar to geofencing that came out in iOS 5

Cute, Apple patents something in 2012 that I've had on my Android phone since 2010 (little app called WhereRing). That sort of thing never happens.

Minor bitch, a script that takes input from existing sensors and uses said input to cause a particular action in existing hardware is not what I would refer to as "technology."

"Bloody obvious" would be a good alternate term.

I already have a phone that does this. As someone who is aware of my surroundings and generally conscientious, I simply turn my phone to "vibrate" or even - God forbid - OFF... It works very well indeed. And I even still receive alerts if a call or text came in. Amazing technology.

Yes Apple already patented the technology, silencing the phone based on GPS location. Similar to geofencing that came out in iOS 5

No. The first worm was in 2009, and it was possible to jailbreak iOS from safari (it still is, in some cases) -- http://appleinsider.com/articles/09/11/09/first_known_iphone_worm_rickrolls_jailbroken_apple_handsets.html

Aside from that, I do expect to be able to jailbreak my devices. If that costs me something in day-to-day security, I'm completely fine with that. I always want ultimate control over my hardware. The reason why you think Android is malware infected is because we have the option of installing our own software without the store. This is why developers are complaining that it's a platform for piracy - there is a path for software onto the device that is user-controlled. Also, google supplies the bootloader unlocking tools, effectively giving their blessing to people who want to jailbreak.

1) That's actually a low rate for Windows adoption

Windows 7 sold as many licenses in the same period (ref). According to IDC, the PC industry in Q4 2012 sold 89.8M units worldwide (ref). IDC also claims in Q4 2009, the PC industry sold 89.6M units (ref). So between 2009 and 2012 we see no growth and the same sales... we can see Windows 8 is selling at the same rate as Windows 7.

I got that from this article on Ars Technica which states it's an authentication chip and claims "manufacturing sources" have found it difficult to duplicate. But it doesn't say who is trying to duplicate them, I suppose to avoid them getting sued by Apple. Wikipedia also states that it's an auth chip twice and provides two different citations. Reading the citations and clicking through links, you end up here which is an article on Apple Insider that also repeats this claim.

Now I'm looking closer at all the sources and citations that are claiming this, it's not really clear to me if the chip is indeed designed to engage in some kind of auth protocol, or if it's just that nobody actually knows what it does and so people assumed it must be for auth. It seems like it's at least responsible for pin routing, whether it does more is unclear. Given the licensing requirements and Apples love of squeezing customers for fat accessory profits, it's not an unreasonable assumption, but as far as I can tell nobody has fully reverse engineered the chip. The Chinese manufacturers aren't stupid so I'd think if the chip was doing something trivial it'd have been cloned by now, but it seems no-one knows for sure.

Man!... You are showing your ignorance. The patent is not on what something does. example. multitouch. The patent is on the method that is used to implement multitouch. You cannot patent multitouch. Apple did not invent multitouch. You can only patent your method that is why apple lost their most significant case in the EU. The methods to achive pinch to zoom is different on the platforms. This is really not rocket sciene.

I haven't offered anything that you can't easily check for yourself. It's not FUD, it's just facts.

You can disagree because of your personal experience, that's fine. Forgive me if I dismiss that in favor of more scientific data.

A figure you give isn't true until somebody else gives proof that it isn't. That is an appeal to ignorance.

In spite of this, I have taken to google, as you recommended in another post. For your figure of 2/3, I found a single article, about an
estimate done by a 3rd party, available here. This is shotty, and not "scientific" -- no study is mentioned, it may just be a shot-in-the-dark estimate -- , but since this is the only source I am aware of, I'll concede that your first figure may be accurate.

For your 1% figure, I couldn't find anything to back this up. I tried multiple search terms, including: "iOS app revenue", "iOS 1% of apps","itunes top selling apps", and "itunes 1000 apps". Nada.

I love to hate on apple like everyone else. I proudly don't own a single apple device. But if you are going to hate them, hate them for real reasons, and not silly reasons based on contrived facts, and definitely don't talk down your nose to people that question your bold claims that lack citations.

so who knows what is true...

Listen to this 1983 (pre mac) recording of his vision of computing. It's not equal to Doug Ebehart's mother-of-all demos in technical detail but it imagines the modern computing ecosystem and the times scales with breathtaking accuracy, right down to the economic need for the app store.

http://appleinsider.com/articles/12/10/02/steve-jobs-speech-from-1983-foretells-rise-of-mobile-computing-ipad

amazing for 1983.

Apple does show you a location which can be accurately described 315 E 15th- elsewhere in the city, on a different 15th Street. This location most closely matches the search term in that there is actually a building numbered 315 there, it just isn't in Manhattan.

If you force it to look only in Manhattan by searching for "315 E 15th St Manhattan", it does interpolate the building numbers as you describe and returns a location in the park.

http://appleinsider.com/articles/12/09/27/googles-ilost-motorola-ad-faked-an-address-to-lose-ios-6-maps

Let me get this straight, It could be accurately described as the 15th when it was changed from that name around 1915 or something (nearly a century ago)???

Funny how Bing, Yahoo, and Google all correctly approximate it to the CURRENT 15th street when given the exact same search terms and only Apple needs further clarification to correctly approximate it.

OK, us retina MacBook Pro buyers have been struggling for a couple of months now with the fact that Apple used two suppliers, LG and Samsung, to provide the screens for the rMBP. Unfortunately, the LG screens develop image retention or ghosting fairly quickly after purchase, and Apple has been all over the map in either replacing or refusing to replace these defective screens.

Us being niche in comparison, I suspect we won't see anything like that letter ourselves.

Apple discussions thread (you will need an Apple ID to access this, I think):
https://discussions.apple.com/thread/4034848

MacRumors
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1424416

Apple Insider (post launch day)
http://appleinsider.com/articles/12/06/25/retina_display_image_retention_reported_by_new_macbook_pro_owners.html

Apple does show you a location which can be accurately described 315 E 15th- elsewhere in the city, on a different 15th Street. This location most closely matches the search term in that there is actually a building numbered 315 there, it just isn't in Manhattan.

If you force it to look only in Manhattan by searching for "315 E 15th St Manhattan", it does interpolate the building numbers as you describe and returns a location in the park.

http://appleinsider.com/articles/12/09/27/googles-ilost-motorola-ad-faked-an-address-to-lose-ios-6-maps

Just because it doesn't have a building exactly there doesn't mean it isn't valid to search for it.

In which case Apple still finds it.

The Motorola ad was complete fabrication. But outright lies are OK as long as it's funny!

We've seen some humorous issues (though some of the things being stated as issues are actually made up).

But for every day things, most searches work right now. And Apple is shipping 3D maps on mobile while Google is not.

Lastly, already Apple finds some things Google does not. It's like everyone is blind to the fact that Google has plenty of errors still. Apple with Yelp integration, is going to find most things today that people actually want found when doing a general search on a map. The high-level issues people are seeing should be cleared out in short order, probably more a matter of months than years.

Steve Jobs would have never apologized

I agree.

He woudl've given it just the right spin that everyone would feel contrite over making jokes at Apple's expense. The next release would be perfect, as Steve would have demanded, and the kerfuffle would be consigned to largely forgotten history.

And he might have even pointed out Apple Maps are working better than most people think, with people (and companies!) lying to demonstrate error.

Apple has already somewhat innovated (or at least done something better) in their unpolished product. They're using vector based map images rather than the more images in Google maps. It allows you to see zoom in a more continuous fashion (as opposed to discreet zoom levels) and allows up to 300 miles of visibility rather than the 35 miles Google maps allows in the event that the phone goes off line.

Sigh. If you'd have bothered to read the comments at your link, you'd have been more informed:

gatorguy 2012/08/03 10:13am
Google's maps on Android are not bit-mapped (raster). The desktop maps version may still be, I'm not sure, but Google swapped over to vector-based maps for Android back in 2010.

Yes, 2010. http://googlesystem.blogspot.nl/2010/12/vector-based-google-maps-for-android.html

I agree, this is going to hurt Apple in the short term, but it's a great business decision and in the end users will win no matter who they go with because competition will cause improvement all around.

Apple has already somewhat innovated (or at least done something better) in their unpolished product. They're using vector based map images rather than the more images in Google maps. It allows you to see zoom in a more continuous fashion (as opposed to discreet zoom levels) and allows up to 300 miles of visibility rather than the 35 miles Google maps allows in the event that the phone goes off line.

I have an iPhone 5 and I can tell the difference in the maps, but does anyone else actually care right NOW? Probably not - not when it's showing the wrong map based on your location. But when maps has gotten the first few major bugs out of its system this improvement will definitely be a feather in the iOS map's hat that Google will have to work to keep up with. In the end this decision is good for everyone and I think a lot of the advertising by Google focusing on iOS maps shortcomings is a sign of how concerned Google is... which is also a sign of how hard they'll be working improve their own product.

Apple has already made iPhones compatible with hearing aids and appears to be looking to refine it with "made for iPhone" aids.

If this was "made public" today, why is [sic] there so many articles from August 20th, when it was submitted?

Because the USITC acted on it yesterday.

If this was "made public" today, why is there so many articles from August 20th, when it was submitted? This is total bullshit, posted by Ars, just to try and get publicity with the iPhone 5 release tomorrow.

And for the record, I am not an Apple apologist, and I own a Galaxy S3. But I mean, bullshit is bullshit.

Don't buy an iPhone 5. Wait for the iPhone 5S!!!

To which I simply reiterate:

NEVER, EVER, EVER.

And Apple could care less about making money offa OS X. That's why it is $20. They obviously don't wan't to LOSE money, either; but it is NOT considered anything more than a way to sell Macs.

And boy, is it doing that , now at around 12% marketshare, even though "PC" sales in general are down in this shitty economy. And, more relevant to this discussion, increasingly so to (former) Windows users.

We have the most vibrant car design and development in the UK - probably in the world. I don't think many would argue? Small volume sport single approval car production, F1, supplier to the US Indie Car business. Morgan (who a Honda CEO said would be one of the last few manufacturers standing in the world - read it somewhere in a Sunday colour supplement magazine).

So what can we learn from that?

I think the least government interference the better. The current round of Pirate Bay banning shows that we are being run by clueless Luddites. I wrote to my MP who copied me the stuff on the judgement in favour of Amstrad when tape to tape was:

a) OK to sell blank tapes
b) OK to manufacture tape to tape devices
c) OK to retail tape to tape devices

I find the ruling on The Pirate Bay laughable. It's like saying we should ban chemistry lessons because.....

Hold on we should ban google and search engines because people can find the Anarchist's Cook Book.

Government involvement - it's the last think the tech industry needs, I wouldn't trust a senior politician to sit on a toilet seat the right way round. I'm sure they start of OK, then just bent with all the money involved.

But then to be fair we had some sanity in the UK on an Apple ruling:

"The decision from Judge Colin Birss means Apple will have to post the notice on its U.K. website for six months, as well as "several newspapers and magazines to correct the damaging impression" that Samsung copied the iPad, according to Bloomberg. The same judge said in a ruling earlier this month that the Samsung Galaxy Tab is not "cool" enough to be mistaken for an iPad." http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/07/18/uk_judge_rules_apple_must_advertise_samsung_did_not_copy_the_ipad.html

Only in America could the iPad/iPhone not be accepted as a prior art. It should have never had gone to a jury. I think it will result in Apple being broken up under the Sherman AntiTrust Act 1929.

Government / Technology - what a laugh unless you count the UK's Trident programme and it's replacement - then it's solid employment for the middle class on the surfdom of everyone else.

Sure, 1B$ looks nice on the surface. But some victories are too costly (sow the seeds of final defeat) if they create and rally your opponents. HTC is one sign.

Thanks to activist shareholders, Apple cannot even settle for something reasonable (~100 M$ & xlicence) and will have the full slog ahead; including most likely losing supply of their high-res (RetinaTM) displays from Samsung. Do they have a second-source? From my PoV hi-res is the only Apple advantage -- software is fungible (but maybe not for the mass-market).

Yeah Samsung is going to risk billions in annual revenue and investments. Where do you people come up with this stuff ?

"Apple is said to increase its spend with its partner and archrival Samsung from the estimated current value of $9.7 billion to a staggering $11 billion in 2012 alone."
source

"Samsung announced on Tuesday that it plans to spend about $4 billion to renovate its existing chip plant in Austin, Tex., where the company builds Apple's custom processors for the iPhone and iPad
[...]
The South Korean electronics maker already announced in June that it plans to build a new logic chip plant in its home country to better serve customers like Apple. That project is projected to cost 2.25 trillion won, or $1.98 billion."
source

Let's see how much parts Samsung sell Apple :

"Apple is said to increase its spend with its partner and archrival Samsung from the estimated current value of $9.7 billion to a staggering $11 billion in 2012 alone."

An then there's the investment made to produce these parts :

"Samsung announced on Tuesday that it plans to spend about $4 billion to renovate its existing chip plant in Austin, Tex., where the company builds Apple's custom processors for the iPhone and iPad
[...]
The South Korean electronics maker already announced in June that it plans to build a new logic chip plant in its home country to better serve customers like Apple. That project is projected to cost 2.25 trillion won, or $1.98 billion."

But you think they're going to give all that up because they're in a huff over a court case ? Nerds and their revenge fantasies.

That is information that is wrong! There is no 'standard' but customary FRAND fees are not 2.5% per patent which is what was being asked. That 2.5% (actually 2.25%) is what Motorola was SEEKING and was denied by courts from Apple. The typical customary FRAND fees are less then 5% for the ENTIRE package of patents (from all patent holders combined) for a device including wifi and 3g/4g patents. http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/08/13/apple_frand_win_over_motorola_slashes_googles_patent_power.html

The funny thing about your point is that many of the Mcacfag clan claim that no one but wankers need LTE. Their stance basically guarantees AT&T gets to butt fuck them.

A few years ago Apple fans were proudly shouting that the iPhone had 70%+ of the smartphone market

[cite needed] The iPhone has never been more than 20-30% of total smartphone sales. See here for a glimpse of 2010 [1] and 2011 [2] numbers - none are are even as high as the 32% you are quoting (from where?). Fact is, Android (particularly Samsung) have replaced Nokia, RIMM and Blackberry, not to mention Windows mobile/phone devices. iOS has never been stronger - and neither has Android.

Apple executives are terrified that what happened with the desktop market - Apple initially gaining huge market share, and then falling to below 5%

Unless you never lived the 80's you know this isn't true - Apple pioneered with their AppleII, but IBM always had the corporate market which they basically gave away to Microsoft due to poor agreements on software licenses. Apple's share has never amounted to a large percentage of computing device sales.

Apple has always been about profits and not marketshare.

[1] http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/09/16/iphone_drops_to_23_8_smartphone_market_share_android_jumps_to_17.html
[2] http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/iphone_and_android_gain_marketshare_through_february/

"I'm sure that not being required to share enhancements was a major motivation for Apple."

Probably not but they might have wanted the option. It's not hard to imagine some case where sharing development code might have given competitors information about upcoming Apple hardware designs, and Apple is as freakishly paranoid about that as the FSF is about people using unfree software.

I'm hardly the only one to notice Apple's preference for permissively licensed software:
"GCC currently handles all those phases for compiling code within Xcode, Apple's Mac OS X IDE (Integrated Development Environment). However, there are some drawbacks to using GCC. One is that it is delivered under the GPL, which means Apple can't integrate it directly into Xcode without making its IDE GPL as well. Apple prefers BSD/MIT style open source licensees, where there is no limitation upon extending open projects as part of larger proprietary products."

The legal means that GCC used to prohibit various technical circumventions which the FSF believed would benefit "not-free" software, also prohibited a modular design which Apple wanted to, and then later exploited for significant benefit.

The FSF thought that ideology was more important than technical flexibility and capability. As a result, the experience of developing with gcc is about the same as 1989, whereas XCode can do many more things, because compiling programs to machine code is not the alpha and omega of software development tools.

The FSF has always put software freedom as their top priority. The reason we even know who they are is that they produced useful software based on their principles. GCC is certainly an old project that could benefit from newer approaches. Its limitations have much more to do with it being old than anyone's politics. That's why competition from LLVM is good for all of us, whether we use LLVM or GCC, which is being pushed to advance by LLVM. As interesting as LLVM is, far more platforms and developers still depend on GCC so the FSF's dedication to their principles continues to benefit everyone as well.

Seriously, how much more non-newsworthy can it get?

Your serving, sir.

What if the iPhone really is that innovative in the smartphone arena that only Apple can provide smartphones? Then they have a monopoly, and the DoJ tends to get upset with monopolies that appear to be unreasonably restraining consumer choice raising prices, or both.

Just ask Microsoft. They, arguably, have never recovered from the antitrust suit. Does Apple want to go down that path?

Apple didn't invent the smartphone, and I doubt they claim to. There were plenty of smartphones before the iphone - Nokia had e.g. N95 (and other N-series) and their Communicator, Blackberry had many phones, Sony Ericsson had their P900 series, HTC had Windows mobile phones. They behaved in different ways, and had many interesting styles. So obviously, there are many other ways than iPhone and iPhone OS to look and behave.

Samsung just put an awful lot of work into looking and behaving the same. Where the legal limit for copying goes I don't know, but Samsung wasn't exactly trying a brand new design they had been working on and polishing for the last five years... it seems as if they even copied marketing materials. And even today, there are many different ways. E.g. the Nokia Lumia 900 - it is a full screen touch mobile, but has its own design and user interface. I certainly wouldn't buy one - Microsoft has already said that they are obsolete - but they have put (different) thoughts into design and behaviour.

Except that at that point, Samsung was already aware of Apple's SONY design mockup thus making this evidence irrelevant to the case (they shot themselves in the feet by accusing Apple of copying SONY). Furthermore, Apple has shown their own prototypes from 2005, completely destroying Samsung's claims.

It is likely that the Judge was already aware of all these arguments in the beginning and suppressed them because she saw no need to make more information public than what was strictly necessary for the ruling, and Samsung is being reprimanded now for trying to damage Apple's image with false claims.

Your sources are outdated. Project Purple's prototypes from 2005 are being used to refute Samsung's claim that Apple copied SONY. Guess LG wouldn't have much of a leg to stand on if they sued Apple after all, and the whole LG Prada bullshit can now be put to rest...

"Everything"? "Unrelated subject"? Existence of Samsung's own similar design released at almost same time with iPhone and registered before iPhone was demoed points in direction of Samsung copying Apple?

The fact that Samsung was aware of the SONY design mockup from 2006, does. Everything else you mentioned is irrelevant.

This, Apple's mockups, Samsung's claims fo Sony influence and others are in current round of hearings.

Not anymore, that's already being refuted. News of the day is that Apple had iPhone 4 designs in 2005 that Samsung wasn't aware of. Keep up!

Also, "Design patents are only granted if the design is novel and not obvious for all items,[8] even those of different utility than the patented object. An actual shield of a given shape, for example, can be cited as prior art against a design patent on a computer icon with a shield shape. The validity of design patents is not affected by whether or not the design is commercialized." (source: Wikipedia, lol).

I accept being wrong in that regard, but that argument has no relevance anymore.

Also, good job bringing "possibly industrial espionage" in there.

How else would Samsung be aware of Apple's designs from 2006 in order to make the "Apple copied SONY" claim?

Also, I think feeding time is nearly over.

Yes, because claiming that I'm a troll will validate all your arguments, right?

The reality is that Apple wasn't "inspired" by Sony designs. They'd already started down that design path months before Sony: http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/07/30/apple_strikes_back_at_samsung_with_2005_iphone_prototype_design.html

Apple has a working product originally made by Microsoft

http://images.appleinsider.com/leopard-rev-dev-tools-1.png

FTFY

Not only do you give no examples of "the usual Apple MO," you're flat-out wrong about this one as they've not only stated they LIKE third party navigation apps, iOS 6 even adds a way for said apps to integrate themselves with the new mapping framework: http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/06/13/apple_hands_off_transit_directions_to_third_party_apps_in_ios_6_maps.html

This prediction wasn't one from "financial analysts" - this was Apple's own sales forecast.

This was wrong. Apple Q3 2012 by the Numbers: $35B revenue, $9.32 EPS: Apple predicted revenue of $34 billion and made $35 billion. The reason this is news is that they undershot the analysts average by about $2 billion, and because they have revised down sales forecast for the next quarter to $34 billion again (ie. flat, no xmas jump). Analysts were expecting continuous growth from Apple, 10 months ago some analysts were predicting Apple revenue growth to $164 billion in 2013, so if growth stalls it will suggest that the share price was being massively overvalued.

The real problem here is NOT that Apple's slide-to-unlock idea has become so popular that they should be forced to allow other companies to license the patent. The real problem here is that Apple's slide-to-unlock idea should not have been patentable in the first place. Apple was the first to implement the idea, so they got a head start in the market, and that should have been enough.

Agreed that it shouldn't have been patentable. But Apple was second with the idea. Their slide to unlock patent was overturned in the UK based on prior art - Neonode patented slide to unlock 3 years before Apple.

This seem like it's a logical extension/feature of their SmartGlass intiative.

You self-contradicted yourself. There is simply no way around it. Just admit it and get done with it. The burden of the proof of the proof of any claim is always on the person who does it. You did it on the second sentence, and in exact the same way the poster you criticized did.

There's only burden of proof when something is mentioned against a specific common belief. At the time I thought there wasn't burden of proof because the market dominance of the iPad is well known, but as I mentioned (and you ignored), if you had read my other post to this branch of the thread you would have realized that I actually provided a source, which while not being much, is infinitely more than any of you did.

Now admit you're talking out of your ass or provide a source that counters mine.

No evidence. Assumption bias fueled hypocrisy.

If there is assumption bias, it is not mine, though you can always wait for the earnings conference calls to be sure.

Is there no doubt as to why analytical people despise Apple culture with such fervor that they will avoid it even when it is a reasonable alternative?

The term you're looking for is rational, and if you avoid something when it's a reasonable alternative then you are not being rational yourself.