There has to be a reason behind their decisions. You can't come up with an actual reason, so you just wave your hands and cry "Apple hates freedom!" Pathetic.
C'mon, that's not difficult. The only reason Apple needs is some sort of agreement, probably involving money changing hands, with any content publishing industry.
I said "actual reason", not imaginary reason.
The only rule they need to add to the software requirements is that any web browser needs to state the correct device and OS version in the user agent string.
No such rule exists, and there's no indication such a rule is likely to ever exist.
It's not exactly a stretch to assume that's possible.
No, but it's a huge fucking stretch to assume it's even remotely likely.
Apple likes its agreements with third parties, even if they screw the customers.
[citation needed]
Apple makes the agreements it needs to in order to gain access to important third party goods and services. Music, movies, TV shows, etc., and cell networks. And not a single one of these "screw the customers".
That being said, this entire thread is a joke.
Yes, it's a farce, but that hasn't stopped the "Insightful" and "Informative" mods about how this is an example of Apple's so-called "walled garden".
This is an article about a web site doing browser sniffing, and it devolves into attacks and defenses on Apple has a company. This has nothing to do with Apple, this is a story about the New York Post doing browser sniffing.
Yet even *you* engaged in attacking Apple. And your lumping together of "attacks and defenses" is unreasonable. The attacks are non sequitur (as you've just stated), but the defenses naturally follow from the unwarranted attacks.
They've been an ass in the past, and they probably will continue to be in the future, but they haven't done anything wrong with regard to this specific issue and there's no reason to either attack them over it OR defend them over it.
Um... There's no reason to attack them. The attacks are the reason to defend them.
Then there wouldn't have been any need to make such a complex statement. Simply saying:
Possibly because the intersection of the set of "People who browse dumb sites like the NY Post" and "People who understand what a User-Agent String is" is pretty much a null set.
Would have more accurately conveyed your interpretation. On this site, calling Apple customers "stupid" is seen as insightful.
And regardless of the interpretation, it's still non sequitur.
Um, no. The NY Post is making the restriction, not Apple. Apple has nothing to do with it. In fact, Apple offers apps on their store which circumvent this restriction.
NY times wants to be hip and down with apple, apple marketing says fuck the web go with an app
Interesting. Care to point to a specific example of Apple marketing saying anything like this? Where they've said, "web sites should block access to mobile Safari and require users to download an app instead"?
I cant make it any simpler so either your one of the sheeple that loves apple no matter what or your stupid
Making it simpler won't make it any more correct. The NY Post has done this entirely on their own. Funny you should use a term like "sheeple". You're the sheep here. Everything iOS somehow has to be bad and has to be Apple's fault in some way. That's what the slashdot nerd sheep bleat.
Your fantasy isn't that Apple has banned apps, it's that they will ban any app discussed on slashdot in a positive light. There's absolutely no reason, other than your paranoid fantasy, to think Apple is going to pull browsers that allow the user to change their user agent.
What makes you (and far too many nerds here) think otherwise?
Apple has proven by its actions that it has no commitment to freedom. Apple changed its App market policies often, and done so for the better only when responding to immense public pressure and doing damage control. I think Apple's track record speaks for itself.
In other words, there's no reason to believe Apple will remove browsers that allow one to change their user agent string other than your paranoid fantasies.
Apple doesn't look at an app and think, "oh no, this gives the user freedom to do something, this must stop!" There has to be a reason behind their decisions. You can't come up with an actual reason, so you just wave your hands and cry "Apple hates freedom!" Pathetic.
even within the "walled garden", there are other browsers available which will let you spoof the user-agent string. I use the "Atomic" web browser on my iPad and iPod Touch
For how long will "Atomic" remain available?
Um, for as long as the developer wishes it to be? What makes you (and far too many nerds here) think otherwise?
No, the point here is obvious: slashdot nerds will bend over backwards to make anything about Apple fit their irrational hatred of Apple and the notion of some sort of offensive "walled garden". You are correct, however, in citing "cognitive dissonance", you've just applied it to the wrong target.
I think the point was that people who use other systems don't have to keep reading about alternative software, hacks and jailbreaks to do what other people do. No disrespect.
Nice try. This isn't a "hack" or "jailbreak". Lumping in proper third-party software with these sorts of things to try and paint iOS as a bad system is dishonest.
There's nothing inherent to Android (or other systems) that prevents the NY Post from doing the same on it. Well, other than the fact that the market for Android tablets is microscopic. But the NY Post could just as easily detect you are on an Android tablet, and direct you to download their app.
It's amazing, Apple gets the slashdot nerds all riled up by having a "closed" app store, and they get the very same nerds riled up by offering third party apps that give users the freedom to work around things like this. There's a word for fanatics who twist everything to fit their own preferences, logic, rationality, and consistency be damned. I can't quite think of it...
Don't worry, I'm sure someone will use it in a response to me somewhere on this site before the day is out.
Apple has a history of booting apps that work around restrictions.
Especially restrictions set for the benefit of third parties (usually phone service providers).
Beyond things that have to do with network restrictions and the one example where congress gave Apple shit over DUI checkpoint apps (both of which are reasonable actions on Apple's part, and completely irrelevant to the topic at hand), care to list any examples? And it would be especially helpful if they were in any way pertinent to the topic at hand.
even within the "walled garden", there are other browsers available which will let you spoof the user-agent string.
For now. Apple has a history of booting apps that work around restrictions.
You still seem to have a problem separating fantasy from reality. There's absolutely no reason to think Apple is going to boot other browsers for allowing this beyond nerd paranoid fantasy about how Apple is some sort of despotic iron-fisted overlord.
Um... This has absolutely *nothing* to do with the so-called "walled garden". The real moral here is that slashdot nerds will twist anything about Apple to portray them as the bad guys.
Over 200 million people have iOS devices, over 20 million have iPads. If this "walled garden" really existed in the way it seems to in the minds of the local nerd population, you wouldn't expect Apple to be able to sell so many devices. People don't buy them because they are forced to, or because they are stupid. They buy them because they *want* them.
Good thing you didn't quote his question before you provided your answer, because it was completely non sequitur.
A: "iPad is a walled garden!" B: "Why don't you seem to know there are other browsers?" C: "Durr, because iPad owners are stupid!"
If you care about this, you are completely free to work around it. If you don't care about this, you can just use the app. No big deal. I don't see how the end user's knowledge of other browsers has anything to do with whether the iPad is a "walled garden", or whether the NY Post's device detector is circumventable.
After all, if they were doing this on Android (which they just as easily can), you wouldn't be bending over backwards to find a way to call it a "walled garden" or calling Android users too dumb to know how to work around it.
You can leave a garden (so-called by the owners) as easily as enter it. Since iPad users are prevented from leaving, it could as easily be referred to as a jail by its inmates.
When iPad users say things like, "I just can't stop using it", that's not what they mean. When you buy an iPad, you are allowed to use other systems, if you so wish.
Those who would pay for confinement inside a walled jail must really fear the outside world...
When you talk like this out in the "real world", don't you ever wonder why people don't take you seriously?
People pay for things they enjoy and that meet their needs. Jails are things that people do not like to be in and are rather unenjoyable. iPads are things people seek out to buy and use, and are quite enjoyable. Well over 20 million of them have been bought to date, all voluntarily.
Given Apple's history and current position on locking down devices, they don't deserve the benefit of the doubt.
Benefit of *what* doubt? That they didn't invent this? That's all a patent is, a legal claim to an invention.
There's no reason, other than paranoid fantasy, to believe Apple is going to implement this. All they have done is invented it. Ooh, how awful of them!
The established market player who first released their tablet more than a year ago has more market share than the newcomer who released their first serious tablet less than 4 months ago, and where many more tablets are still in the process of launching throughout the year... I'm shocked and amazed!
Um, that's what happened to Microsoft.
As for "serious" Android tablets, there has yet to be one. Android fans have been predicting the doom of the iPad for over a year now, *always* at the hands of some fabled batch of Android tablets that are due any day now. First is was summer 2010, then fall 2010, now it's "throughout the year".
Yawn. Wake me up when this actually happens.
Come back next year (or better yet in 2-3 years) and we'll look at the numbers again.
The only reason you say that is because the numbers for Android suck so bad right now. So, sure, "just you wait!" is all you have.
Ok, I'll be waiting. And while I wait, me and 20 million other iPad users to date, will use a fantastic tablet while you blather on about some future scenario, the very same future scenario, in fact, that was supposed to have already happened many times over.
As for "iOS vs Android" that's just a ridiculous statement because you're comparing an OS that's in phones, tablets, tv boxes, music players, and more, to an OS that has essentially been just a phone OS until early this year and is only just now branching out in to tablets.
It's only "ridiculous" because Android is doing so poorly. Android has been on tablets for the better part of a year now (if not more). When you say, "it's just branching out in to tablets", what you mean is that all Android tablets to date have been shit. That's my point. They've existed and people haven't wanted them. But *now* they are better? Sure, better, but still no one wants them.
Oh, but they'll be even better later this year? That's nice. And so will the iPad. Like I said, wake me up when people *actually* want them. All this talk about what's gonna happen is silly.
Now to be fair, I don't think this is a case of Apple "send(ing) out the dogs" but more likely a case of an Apple fan boy who just hasn't done an unbiased review. But to say that Apple has nothing to be scared of is also a little ridiculous considering that, if history is any indicator, they are about to loose a huge portion of their market share (Not overnight, but in the long run.)
What? Apple is afraid that Android tablets will do to the iPad what Android phones have done to the iPhone? Made it the number one phone on the planet, and made Apple the most profitable phone maker ever?
Android phones have been available on carriers and in locations where iPhones aren't. That's a huge benefit to Android that has nothing to do with people preferring them. Also, carriers have eaten a large part of the cost of Android phones (including buy one get one free promotions). The handset market is more susceptible to pressures outside of consumer preference. The tablet market is much less prone to these sorts of issues.
So, we'll see how it plays out. Maybe some company *will* manage to out-engineer and out-design Apple. Maybe consumers *will* prefer Android tablets. But there's no reason other than fandroid fantasy to expect it to be inevitable. And, in fact, plenty of reason to think otherwise.
After all, to use your own phrasing, "if history is any indicator", people love them some iPads, and not so much the Android tablets. Another "history" is the iPod, which without the external factors like those that exist in the handset market, has dominated the mp3 player market for a decade.
Oh yes they do. You say about 3G killing battery life. My 2007 Nokia N82 has no problem with 3G. It still holds about three days on a charge with 3G on after all these years.
And how much did the N82 battery have to power? The iPhone had a *HUGE* touchscreen, while still maintaining a small size. Plenty of phones had shit battery life on 3G in 2007.
You didn't need apps when the Iphone was launched, and web apps were going to be enough for everybody.
They *never* said, "you don't need apps". They did try to use web apps as the official SDK for the iPhone shortly after launch, but it wasn't because they didn't think people wanted native apps, it's because they wanted to keep the OS secure, and web apps was a good attempt at that.
Unfortunately, it didn't work so well for actual apps. So they implemented the secure app model we have today.
O about multitasking killing battery life - that wasn't true for the competitors, but Apple lied and said it as if it was.
Bullshit. Multitasking causes undue battery drain. Just look at any Android review on the topic, or look into the task managers people recommend for Android.
Or about a front facing cam - third party apps such as Skype would have used it, as they have done on other devices.
And, again, Apple never said "you don't need a front facing camera". Sure, something like Skype would have used it, and it does. Not sure what your point is.
but Apple wanted to have FaceTime ready and sell it as the best thing since sliced bread
Yes, Apple likes to do things better and easier than the competition. This is news to you?
even if I could do it on my phone 5 years before. In fact one of the selling points for the 3G implementation in Europe was the possibility of having video calling.
FaceTime > 3gp video calls by a huge margin. Front facing cameras weren't even a commonly expected feature until the past year or two.
But, again, where has Apple said, "you don't need a front camera"?
Apple said you don't need MMS. I don't want to get in to an argument about how stupid it is to say that email is a simple replacement (it isn't, give up now).
Where did they ever say, "you don't need MMS"?
Lo and behold Apple finally added MMS to the iPhone after YEARS of people bitching about it.
Exactly. Apple doesn't dictate to its users the way you seem to think. Users wanted MMS, they got MMS!
I'm anxious to see how you will spin that in to "Apple just wanted to give users a superior experience."
Not implementing a feature is not the same as saying you don't need it. Later implementing a feature is not the same as reversing a decision.
Slashdot Mirror
Fan is short for fanatic. You went from an Apple fanatic, to an anti-Apple fanatic.
There has to be a reason behind their decisions. You can't come up with an actual reason, so you just wave your hands and cry "Apple hates freedom!" Pathetic.
C'mon, that's not difficult. The only reason Apple needs is some sort of agreement, probably involving money changing hands, with any content publishing industry.
I said "actual reason", not imaginary reason.
The only rule they need to add to the software requirements is that any web browser needs to state the correct device and OS version in the user agent string.
No such rule exists, and there's no indication such a rule is likely to ever exist.
It's not exactly a stretch to assume that's possible.
No, but it's a huge fucking stretch to assume it's even remotely likely.
Apple likes its agreements with third parties, even if they screw the customers.
[citation needed]
Apple makes the agreements it needs to in order to gain access to important third party goods and services. Music, movies, TV shows, etc., and cell networks. And not a single one of these "screw the customers".
That being said, this entire thread is a joke.
Yes, it's a farce, but that hasn't stopped the "Insightful" and "Informative" mods about how this is an example of Apple's so-called "walled garden".
This is an article about a web site doing browser sniffing, and it devolves into attacks and defenses on Apple has a company. This has nothing to do with Apple, this is a story about the New York Post doing browser sniffing.
Yet even *you* engaged in attacking Apple. And your lumping together of "attacks and defenses" is unreasonable. The attacks are non sequitur (as you've just stated), but the defenses naturally follow from the unwarranted attacks.
They've been an ass in the past, and they probably will continue to be in the future, but they haven't done anything wrong with regard to this specific issue and there's no reason to either attack them over it OR defend them over it.
Um... There's no reason to attack them. The attacks are the reason to defend them.
Then there wouldn't have been any need to make such a complex statement. Simply saying:
Possibly because the intersection of the set of "People who browse dumb sites like the NY Post" and "People who understand what a User-Agent String is" is pretty much a null set.
Would have more accurately conveyed your interpretation. On this site, calling Apple customers "stupid" is seen as insightful.
And regardless of the interpretation, it's still non sequitur.
again they have equal parts blame
Um, no. The NY Post is making the restriction, not Apple. Apple has nothing to do with it. In fact, Apple offers apps on their store which circumvent this restriction.
NY times wants to be hip and down with apple, apple marketing says fuck the web go with an app
Interesting. Care to point to a specific example of Apple marketing saying anything like this? Where they've said, "web sites should block access to mobile Safari and require users to download an app instead"?
I cant make it any simpler so either your one of the sheeple that loves apple no matter what or your stupid
Making it simpler won't make it any more correct. The NY Post has done this entirely on their own. Funny you should use a term like "sheeple". You're the sheep here. Everything iOS somehow has to be bad and has to be Apple's fault in some way. That's what the slashdot nerd sheep bleat.
In other words, you simply went from one type of fanboy to another. I take it your username here is meant to be ironic?
Your fantasy isn't that Apple has banned apps, it's that they will ban any app discussed on slashdot in a positive light. There's absolutely no reason, other than your paranoid fantasy, to think Apple is going to pull browsers that allow the user to change their user agent.
What makes you (and far too many nerds here) think otherwise?
Apple has proven by its actions that it has no commitment to freedom. Apple changed its App market policies often, and done so for the better only when responding to immense public pressure and doing damage control. I think Apple's track record speaks for itself.
In other words, there's no reason to believe Apple will remove browsers that allow one to change their user agent string other than your paranoid fantasies.
Apple doesn't look at an app and think, "oh no, this gives the user freedom to do something, this must stop!" There has to be a reason behind their decisions. You can't come up with an actual reason, so you just wave your hands and cry "Apple hates freedom!" Pathetic.
I did read, you are applying blame to Apple for something the NY Post has done.
iOS 5 wirelessly syncs with your PC over WiFi.
You misread what he wrote.
You blame Apple... for something the NY Post has done entirely on its own?
even within the "walled garden", there are other browsers available which will let you spoof the user-agent string.
I use the "Atomic" web browser on my iPad and iPod Touch
For how long will "Atomic" remain available?
Um, for as long as the developer wishes it to be? What makes you (and far too many nerds here) think otherwise?
No, the point here is obvious: slashdot nerds will bend over backwards to make anything about Apple fit their irrational hatred of Apple and the notion of some sort of offensive "walled garden". You are correct, however, in citing "cognitive dissonance", you've just applied it to the wrong target.
I think the point was that people who use other systems don't have to keep reading about alternative software, hacks and jailbreaks to do what other people do. No disrespect.
Nice try. This isn't a "hack" or "jailbreak". Lumping in proper third-party software with these sorts of things to try and paint iOS as a bad system is dishonest.
There's nothing inherent to Android (or other systems) that prevents the NY Post from doing the same on it. Well, other than the fact that the market for Android tablets is microscopic. But the NY Post could just as easily detect you are on an Android tablet, and direct you to download their app.
It's amazing, Apple gets the slashdot nerds all riled up by having a "closed" app store, and they get the very same nerds riled up by offering third party apps that give users the freedom to work around things like this. There's a word for fanatics who twist everything to fit their own preferences, logic, rationality, and consistency be damned. I can't quite think of it...
Don't worry, I'm sure someone will use it in a response to me somewhere on this site before the day is out.
Apple has a history of booting apps that work around restrictions.
Especially restrictions set for the benefit of third parties (usually phone service providers).
Beyond things that have to do with network restrictions and the one example where congress gave Apple shit over DUI checkpoint apps (both of which are reasonable actions on Apple's part, and completely irrelevant to the topic at hand), care to list any examples? And it would be especially helpful if they were in any way pertinent to the topic at hand.
even within the "walled garden", there are other browsers available which will let you spoof the user-agent string.
For now. Apple has a history of booting apps that work around restrictions.
You still seem to have a problem separating fantasy from reality. There's absolutely no reason to think Apple is going to boot other browsers for allowing this beyond nerd paranoid fantasy about how Apple is some sort of despotic iron-fisted overlord.
So all the smartest people in the world (Apple Users) will now be the best informed. ;)
Well, the status of "smartest" and worst informed user population has already been taken...
Um... This has absolutely *nothing* to do with the so-called "walled garden". The real moral here is that slashdot nerds will twist anything about Apple to portray them as the bad guys.
Over 200 million people have iOS devices, over 20 million have iPads. If this "walled garden" really existed in the way it seems to in the minds of the local nerd population, you wouldn't expect Apple to be able to sell so many devices. People don't buy them because they are forced to, or because they are stupid. They buy them because they *want* them.
Good thing you didn't quote his question before you provided your answer, because it was completely non sequitur.
A: "iPad is a walled garden!"
B: "Why don't you seem to know there are other browsers?"
C: "Durr, because iPad owners are stupid!"
If you care about this, you are completely free to work around it. If you don't care about this, you can just use the app. No big deal. I don't see how the end user's knowledge of other browsers has anything to do with whether the iPad is a "walled garden", or whether the NY Post's device detector is circumventable.
After all, if they were doing this on Android (which they just as easily can), you wouldn't be bending over backwards to find a way to call it a "walled garden" or calling Android users too dumb to know how to work around it.
You can leave a garden (so-called by the owners) as easily as enter it. Since iPad users are prevented from leaving, it could as easily be referred to as a jail by its inmates.
When iPad users say things like, "I just can't stop using it", that's not what they mean. When you buy an iPad, you are allowed to use other systems, if you so wish.
Those who would pay for confinement inside a walled jail must really fear the outside world...
When you talk like this out in the "real world", don't you ever wonder why people don't take you seriously?
People pay for things they enjoy and that meet their needs. Jails are things that people do not like to be in and are rather unenjoyable. iPads are things people seek out to buy and use, and are quite enjoyable. Well over 20 million of them have been bought to date, all voluntarily.
That's *a* reason.
Given Apple's history and current position on locking down devices, they don't deserve the benefit of the doubt.
Benefit of *what* doubt? That they didn't invent this? That's all a patent is, a legal claim to an invention.
There's no reason, other than paranoid fantasy, to believe Apple is going to implement this. All they have done is invented it. Ooh, how awful of them!
The established market player who first released their tablet more than a year ago has more market share than the newcomer who released their first serious tablet less than 4 months ago, and where many more tablets are still in the process of launching throughout the year... I'm shocked and amazed!
Um, that's what happened to Microsoft.
As for "serious" Android tablets, there has yet to be one. Android fans have been predicting the doom of the iPad for over a year now, *always* at the hands of some fabled batch of Android tablets that are due any day now. First is was summer 2010, then fall 2010, now it's "throughout the year".
Yawn. Wake me up when this actually happens.
Come back next year (or better yet in 2-3 years) and we'll look at the numbers again.
The only reason you say that is because the numbers for Android suck so bad right now. So, sure, "just you wait!" is all you have.
Ok, I'll be waiting. And while I wait, me and 20 million other iPad users to date, will use a fantastic tablet while you blather on about some future scenario, the very same future scenario, in fact, that was supposed to have already happened many times over.
As for "iOS vs Android" that's just a ridiculous statement because you're comparing an OS that's in phones, tablets, tv boxes, music players, and more, to an OS that has essentially been just a phone OS until early this year and is only just now branching out in to tablets.
It's only "ridiculous" because Android is doing so poorly. Android has been on tablets for the better part of a year now (if not more). When you say, "it's just branching out in to tablets", what you mean is that all Android tablets to date have been shit. That's my point. They've existed and people haven't wanted them. But *now* they are better? Sure, better, but still no one wants them.
Oh, but they'll be even better later this year? That's nice. And so will the iPad. Like I said, wake me up when people *actually* want them. All this talk about what's gonna happen is silly.
Now to be fair, I don't think this is a case of Apple "send(ing) out the dogs" but more likely a case of an Apple fan boy who just hasn't done an unbiased review. But to say that Apple has nothing to be scared of is also a little ridiculous considering that, if history is any indicator, they are about to loose a huge portion of their market share (Not overnight, but in the long run.)
What? Apple is afraid that Android tablets will do to the iPad what Android phones have done to the iPhone? Made it the number one phone on the planet, and made Apple the most profitable phone maker ever?
Android phones have been available on carriers and in locations where iPhones aren't. That's a huge benefit to Android that has nothing to do with people preferring them. Also, carriers have eaten a large part of the cost of Android phones (including buy one get one free promotions). The handset market is more susceptible to pressures outside of consumer preference. The tablet market is much less prone to these sorts of issues.
So, we'll see how it plays out. Maybe some company *will* manage to out-engineer and out-design Apple. Maybe consumers *will* prefer Android tablets. But there's no reason other than fandroid fantasy to expect it to be inevitable. And, in fact, plenty of reason to think otherwise.
After all, to use your own phrasing, "if history is any indicator", people love them some iPads, and not so much the Android tablets. Another "history" is the iPod, which without the external factors like those that exist in the handset market, has dominated the mp3 player market for a decade.
Oh yes they do. You say about 3G killing battery life. My 2007 Nokia N82 has no problem with 3G. It still holds about three days on a charge with 3G on after all these years.
And how much did the N82 battery have to power? The iPhone had a *HUGE* touchscreen, while still maintaining a small size. Plenty of phones had shit battery life on 3G in 2007.
You didn't need apps when the Iphone was launched, and web apps were going to be enough for everybody.
They *never* said, "you don't need apps". They did try to use web apps as the official SDK for the iPhone shortly after launch, but it wasn't because they didn't think people wanted native apps, it's because they wanted to keep the OS secure, and web apps was a good attempt at that.
Unfortunately, it didn't work so well for actual apps. So they implemented the secure app model we have today.
O about multitasking killing battery life - that wasn't true for the competitors, but Apple lied and said it as if it was.
Bullshit. Multitasking causes undue battery drain. Just look at any Android review on the topic, or look into the task managers people recommend for Android.
Or about a front facing cam - third party apps such as Skype would have used it, as they have done on other devices.
And, again, Apple never said "you don't need a front facing camera". Sure, something like Skype would have used it, and it does. Not sure what your point is.
but Apple wanted to have FaceTime ready and sell it as the best thing since sliced bread
Yes, Apple likes to do things better and easier than the competition. This is news to you?
even if I could do it on my phone 5 years before. In fact one of the selling points for the 3G implementation in Europe was the possibility of having video calling.
FaceTime > 3gp video calls by a huge margin. Front facing cameras weren't even a commonly expected feature until the past year or two.
But, again, where has Apple said, "you don't need a front camera"?
Apple said you don't need MMS. I don't want to get in to an argument about how stupid it is to say that email is a simple replacement (it isn't, give up now).
Where did they ever say, "you don't need MMS"?
Lo and behold Apple finally added MMS to the iPhone after YEARS of people bitching about it.
Exactly. Apple doesn't dictate to its users the way you seem to think. Users wanted MMS, they got MMS!
I'm anxious to see how you will spin that in to "Apple just wanted to give users a superior experience."
Not implementing a feature is not the same as saying you don't need it. Later implementing a feature is not the same as reversing a decision.
There are a lot of non-Android geeks who prefer an Android tablet over an iPad, despite the bugs, and the lack of shipped features.
[citation needed]
Android tablet sales have been abysmal. Maybe you are using a different definition for "a lot" than the common one?