Additionally, Apple said that in the next major iOS software release the cache would be encrypted on the iPhone, though a timeline for that was not provided.
Other than that, how's being a schmuck working for you?
Apple never stated it's going to be encrypted. Read the article you linked to, or even Apple's actual Press Release.
You might want to adjust your tinfoil hat. Not only is Apple not going to simply encrypt the information, the information in the cache isn't even from the iPhone itself, but from Apple. It's a cache of nearby cell towers and WiFi access points so that when you use Location Services, the phone can look up its location faster than it would otherwise.
To repeat: this cache is from Apple, and is a collection of nearby towers and APs that your phone has never even connected to, so that if you drive ten, or even a hundred, miles from your current location, your phone can tell that it has done so in seconds instead of minutes.
Except they aren't going to encrypt the information, and they've never hidden the fact that they collect location information and anonymously send it to Apple.
Other than that, how's the tinfoil hat working for you?
Since Apple states in their 'explanation' that they are collecting the data, using it, and intend to use it more in the future, it is pretty hard to rationalize it as a bug or an oversight.
The oversight is in not culling the file, including it in the backup, and not deleting it when Location Services is turned off. All of which will be fixed in an upcoming iOS update.
The only oversight on Apple's part would be in not hiding the fact that they are tracking users well enough.
Apple isn't tracking their users. The information is anonymous. No one is tracking each iPhone user personally, just the group in aggregate. Also, it's funny you say their oversight is "not hiding" this very well, when your previous sentence is based on a public statement by Apple that they are collecting this information. Let alone the fact that this is also stated in the iPhone EULA.
Android does this too. One main difference is Google ties a lot of information to your Google ID. I'd trust Apple to be less of a privacy invader than Google.
This file... Apparently, the timestamped location log database file was a locally-generated composite of RF signals the phone received, and nearby locations that were provided from Apple's database(Requests for which, of course, would in no way inform Apple of the user's location at a given time...). That particular file doesn't seem to have been sent back, in large part because much of it would be redundant.
However, particularly in points 3(linked above) and 8(following) of their apologia, they admit to collecting location data in a previously undisclosed way.
No, it's in the iPhone EULA.
"8. What other location data is Apple collecting from the iPhone besides crowd-sourced Wi-Fi hotspot and cell tower data? Apple is now collecting anonymous traffic data to build a crowd-sourced traffic database with the goal of providing iPhone users an improved traffic service in the next couple of years."
Covered by the EULA. They never stated the specific uses, just that they would collect location information anonymously to provide services.
I'm guessing the "sending the list of nearby cell towers and wifi APs(in a totally-you-guys-can-trust-us-that's-why-we-didn't-bother-to-tell-you) 'anonymized and encrypted' form back to Apple so that they can build their 'crowdsourced database'" behavior was not just a bug...
No, it's by design. And Apple takes privacy seriously. This is consistent across all their products. iTunes, for example, has features which send data to Apple, and they are all opt-in, and Apple makes it clear that the data is collected anonymously (for example, Genius recommendations).
In fact, Apple is one of the few companies that I think really take privacy seriously. Part of this is due to the sense of responsibility the people running Apple have (in numerous interviews, Jobs and others have stated how they feel a sense of responsibility to their users and their employees, etc.), and part of it is due to the fact that, unlike almost every other high-profile tech company (Google, Facebook, etc.), the end user is the actual customer and selling their personal info would be killing the goose that laid the golden egg.
Maintaining a local cache of recent location references is a common trick to speed up GPS fixes(even dedicated GPS chips commonly have a sliver of cap-backed RAM for the purpose); but the silently sending those data to Apple bit is pretty dodgy by any stretch.
The data is anonymous. Your cell provider collects and analyzes it. Your ISP does. Your bank does. Every service analyzes usage data for their particular service to know where to put their resources and to provide a better user experience. On the iPhone, this is no different. The only thing that's really concerning, or "dodgy", is if this information is personally identifiable. Having a full history stored on your iPhone is problematic. Backing up even a small cache is problematic. If the information is sent to Apple with your name or number or perhaps phone serial number is troubling.
But Apple just collecting a log file of WiFi AP names and cell towers isn't only not troubling, but very useful. It helps locate WiFi APs, to help with GPS acquisition time on iPhones and 3G iPads, and gives iPod touch and WiFi iPads the ability to give a general location in the first place. It also can help provide real-time traffic info.
However, if Apple ties this to a person, phone number, or a phone, they are doing it wrong. If it's just an unrelated list of "this cell tower, this WiFi AP, this time", then really, there's no big deal.
I'm fairly certain Windows works. It's not my first choice in OS, but it does work well enough to be something worth paying money for.
I'd make a jab about Linux being free, but it's actually worth paying for as well, although for most people, Windows is the better value of the two, even at their current prices.
The problem is that geeks like to learn things like emacs key combinations and such. When they are presented with an easy interface, they become both suspicious and fearful. They are suspicious of claims that something simple can be powerful, and fearful that it actually might be.
Also, they like to thumb their nose at everyone who isn't like them. Anyone who doesn't like what they like are idiots and are wrong.
Your reply makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The entire Computer Management console is complicated, but it's still there. There are tons of complicated aspects to Windows. Have you ever wandered about in the registry?
As for people complaining, who's going to complain? What "privacy" concerns? "Older people"? What the fuck?
That's a matter of opinion. I think Linux as a desktop OS is compelling in and of itself. It has significant advantages over Windows and Mac.
Of course it's a matter of opinion. That's why I said "usually". I have no doubt whatsoever that there are plenty of happy Linux users here on Slashdot.
However, very, very rarely is Linux a good choice for any particular desktop user, be it home user, corporate user, or government user. Even your average geek is highly unlikely to be running Linux at all, let alone as their primary desktop OS.
What is "artificial motivation" anyway? Did you mean extrinsic motivation, i.e. a third party influencing your decision?
Yes, extrinsic works too, but I don't mean from a third party, I mean extrinsic to the needs of the desktop user. The natural motivations for running a desktop OS are best met by Windows or Mac OS X. The artificial motivations I'm referring to are political and ideological, which have little to no value for usefulness as a desktop OS and are usually artificially added to the list of reasons.
Namely, being open source, and being highly modular and command line operable. These things have little value to 99+% of desktop users, but are touted as major reasons they should be using Linux. On the other hand, if you are a geek, these things can be of actual, practical value.
Usually, people promote Linux not because it's a good choice for the person being advised, but because the person doing the advising is driven by needs and values which do not apply to most computer users.
It's the users. Apple makes their many tens of billions each quarter from consumers, not governments, not advertisers, not any sort of silly conspiracies.
In business applications it is not that important what OS is running on the system. It is more important if you can run all that business apps. And these apps are more and more web based.
Often requiring IE6 (as insane as that sounds), and apps like Photoshop are still a long ways from being replaced by web apps in a professional environment.
So it is less important what apps are available for that OS as long there is one standard compliant web browser available. The business app is running on a Linux/Unix framework anyway using Tomcat, Glassfish or similar stuff.
If it's less and less important, then why standardize on a specific OS in the first place? Departments, and even individual employees, can pick the system that works best for them, as long as they can get a standards-compliant browser, right?
This move towards web apps cuts both ways. Before, people couldn't switch to Linux because they specifically need some particular Windows program or three. But now that they can switch, they can just as easily switch back, once they realize what a nightmare Linux is for most end users. Besides, if someone is going to switch away from Windows, they are vastly more likely to pick a Mac over Linux.
Except, of course, they're already running on OOo and an in-house application suite written in Java. Their app support isn't going to get any worse at least for their core apps.
That's fine for the generic apps that the whole organization needs, but what about the CRM software sales uses? Or the graphics software for the design team? And marketing is going to want better calendaring and resource scheduling software.
Strange, people usually sign their posts at the bottom.
You're one of the major reasons LINUX is being left in the dust.
Maybe, but the main reason is the simplest one. People simply don't want Linux. It's free, and still people don't use it. Years ago, this was blamed on MS's monopoly, and there may have been some truth to that at the time, because then computer users were a self-selecting group that was more technically adept than today, where everyone uses a computer.
But now, Linux brings nothing to the table that is of interest to most people, while instead having lots of negatives. Geeks, however, are more likely to value the ways in which Linux is still superior to Windows. These geeks are essentially the remnants of the previously mentioned self-selecting group.
I find it difficult to find any two LINUX applications or utilities that operate in the same standardised manner, or even the same manner as the underlying OS - so I have no idea how the average app user would cope.)
Have you ever used Windows? Most programs vary wildly in terms of UI, including simple things like save dialog boxes, which you'd assume would be more standardized by the OS itself.
Apple has always maintained the look and feel of their products as something unique to them. They created it, why should other companies be allowed to copy them?
Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation - where the courts ruled that "Apple cannot get patent-like protection for the idea of a graphical user interface, or the idea of a desktop metaphor [under copyright law]...". That's why.
Um... You do realize that has absolutely no bearing on the topic at hand, right?
It's really quite simple to understand, please let me show you why.
Yes, it is really simple. This lawsuit isn't that Samsung's phone is simple like Apple's. It's not about the simple things. It's about the fact that Samsung's simple design too closely matches Apple's simple design. There is a near infinite number of variations Samsung could come up with that are similarly simple, while sufficiently distinct from Apple's design. But instead of doing the hard thing and coming up with their own design, Samsung chose to take the easy road and let Apple do all the hard work, and then copy them.
Proof you are correct can be seen with bottled water for drinking. Almost anyone in the USA can easily avail themselves of free tap water to drink, this is comparable to Android which is more or less widely available at no obvious cost. Yet there is a huge market for bottled water. I may buy fifty to a hundred cases at a clip, but then I appreciate the quality and convience of Zepherhills Spring Water (charateristics of Apple products) compared to common urban tap water.
I use tap water to flush the toilet but I would never use Zepherhills Spring Water for such a common task. Both surces of water have their place in life, the free one easily dumped into the sewer and the beter quality costly one which is safer and better tasting which I carry everywhere.
I like the tap water analogy. It's especially cool, as it can be extended even further without breaking down.
I agree. Especially the part where tap water/Android is well suited for the toilet.
Most bottled water is no different in quality from tap water, Source, even though people believe that they're getting 'higher quality' water.
In short, people buy Apple for the same reason that they buy bottled water: The illusion of quality.
And some bottled water is much better than tap water. The illusion of quality indeed. Only the illusion is that Android is a quality product. The only real quality of it is that it's more open. A lot like tap water that you can easily use to flush your toilet with.
The people who have been saying the things he wrote after the elipsis that you typed in place of quoting more context of his post.
How do you know it is the exact same group of people?
By definition, it's the same group. That's what makes a group a group. He never said the people in that group never change over time, but the group, as a group, definitely exists.
Why are these people hoping Apple dies? Who benefits?
He never said that goup was rational. In fact, he seemed to be making the point that they really haven't been all that rational at all over the years.
It's completely true that Android's UI is a blatant attempt at copying iOS. It's also true that the Android fanbois are every bit as irrational and rabid as any other kind,
Prove it.
This is a false-equivalency claim that seldom gets backed up.
Simple: look at how Android looked and functioned before the iPhone and after the iPhone.
Or are you referring to the irrationality of fandroids? If so, I agree, they aren't equivalent. They are borderline insane, and blatant liars. For over a year now they have been lying by saying Android outsells iOS. And just recently lied about the F700. And in terms of irrationality, how many times a day do you see yet another post saying Steve Jobs wants to control you? Or fears that he, or Apple, are going to make it impossible to buy a generic PC that you can run Linux on?
Apple fandom has reached a fervor that I haven't seen (outside of game console fandom) since the Amiga days, and I don't think that other platforms/vendors have anything near it, either it numbers or kind.
Then you haven't seen fandroids, or freetards in general. Or Ron Paul supporters and/or tea partiers.
How is it so many people confuse "a product type" with "a copy of"? And where did anyone say later products are worse than previous products? That doesn't even make any sense.
The PS3 isn't a copy of the Wii. It's another console, but it doesn't copy the style, design, etc., of the Wii. Neither is the Xbox 360 a copy. The PS3 Move isn't a copy of the Wii-mote, and neither is MS's Kinect. They are all unique products that do similar things, each with their own styles, designs, and technologies.
I'm sure you had a specific point in mind when you made that post, but you've managed to hide it really well. Care to elaborate? For example, specific examples of where Apple's product is a copy of something else would be helpful.
And to save us both some time, "copy" does not mean "making a type of product that already exists", it means "making a product that significantly resembles something else". For example, the iPod was significantly different from any mp3 player before it. The same is true of the iPhone. The Apple II was unique in a large number of ways, and the Mac (and Lisa) systems had a large number of unique UI features that weren't present in any other GUI, and Apple had permission from Xerox to use their design as a foundation.
Slashdot Mirror
From the summary and the article:
Additionally, Apple said that in the next major iOS software release the cache would be encrypted on the iPhone, though a timeline for that was not provided.
Other than that, how's being a schmuck working for you?
Apple never stated it's going to be encrypted. Read the article you linked to, or even Apple's actual Press Release.
You might want to adjust your tinfoil hat. Not only is Apple not going to simply encrypt the information, the information in the cache isn't even from the iPhone itself, but from Apple. It's a cache of nearby cell towers and WiFi access points so that when you use Location Services, the phone can look up its location faster than it would otherwise.
To repeat: this cache is from Apple, and is a collection of nearby towers and APs that your phone has never even connected to, so that if you drive ten, or even a hundred, miles from your current location, your phone can tell that it has done so in seconds instead of minutes.
Apple: We never did anything wrong, but pardon us while we fix it anyway.
Apple: We never did anything wrong, but pardon us while we encrypt the data from now on.
There - fixed that for you.
Except they aren't going to encrypt it. They clearly outlined what they are going to do:
1. Cull the cache so it's short term.
2. No back up the file.
3. Delete the file when Location Services is turned off.
They are still going to collect it anonymously, as per the EULA and other public statements.
Except they aren't going to encrypt the information, and they've never hidden the fact that they collect location information and anonymously send it to Apple.
Other than that, how's the tinfoil hat working for you?
Since Apple states in their 'explanation' that they are collecting the data, using it, and intend to use it more in the future, it is pretty hard to rationalize it as a bug or an oversight.
The oversight is in not culling the file, including it in the backup, and not deleting it when Location Services is turned off. All of which will be fixed in an upcoming iOS update.
The only oversight on Apple's part would be in not hiding the fact that they are tracking users well enough.
Apple isn't tracking their users. The information is anonymous. No one is tracking each iPhone user personally, just the group in aggregate. Also, it's funny you say their oversight is "not hiding" this very well, when your previous sentence is based on a public statement by Apple that they are collecting this information. Let alone the fact that this is also stated in the iPhone EULA.
Android does this too. One main difference is Google ties a lot of information to your Google ID. I'd trust Apple to be less of a privacy invader than Google.
This file... Apparently, the timestamped location log database file was a locally-generated composite of RF signals the phone received, and nearby locations that were provided from Apple's database(Requests for which, of course, would in no way inform Apple of the user's location at a given time...). That particular file doesn't seem to have been sent back, in large part because much of it would be redundant.
However, particularly in points 3(linked above) and 8(following) of their apologia, they admit to collecting location data in a previously undisclosed way.
No, it's in the iPhone EULA.
"8. What other location data is Apple collecting from the iPhone besides crowd-sourced Wi-Fi hotspot and cell tower data?
Apple is now collecting anonymous traffic data to build a crowd-sourced traffic database with the goal of providing iPhone users an improved traffic service in the next couple of years."
Covered by the EULA. They never stated the specific uses, just that they would collect location information anonymously to provide services.
I'm guessing the "sending the list of nearby cell towers and wifi APs(in a totally-you-guys-can-trust-us-that's-why-we-didn't-bother-to-tell-you) 'anonymized and encrypted' form back to Apple so that they can build their 'crowdsourced database'" behavior was not just a bug...
No, it's by design. And Apple takes privacy seriously. This is consistent across all their products. iTunes, for example, has features which send data to Apple, and they are all opt-in, and Apple makes it clear that the data is collected anonymously (for example, Genius recommendations).
In fact, Apple is one of the few companies that I think really take privacy seriously. Part of this is due to the sense of responsibility the people running Apple have (in numerous interviews, Jobs and others have stated how they feel a sense of responsibility to their users and their employees, etc.), and part of it is due to the fact that, unlike almost every other high-profile tech company (Google, Facebook, etc.), the end user is the actual customer and selling their personal info would be killing the goose that laid the golden egg.
Maintaining a local cache of recent location references is a common trick to speed up GPS fixes(even dedicated GPS chips commonly have a sliver of cap-backed RAM for the purpose); but the silently sending those data to Apple bit is pretty dodgy by any stretch.
The data is anonymous. Your cell provider collects and analyzes it. Your ISP does. Your bank does. Every service analyzes usage data for their particular service to know where to put their resources and to provide a better user experience. On the iPhone, this is no different. The only thing that's really concerning, or "dodgy", is if this information is personally identifiable. Having a full history stored on your iPhone is problematic. Backing up even a small cache is problematic. If the information is sent to Apple with your name or number or perhaps phone serial number is troubling.
But Apple just collecting a log file of WiFi AP names and cell towers isn't only not troubling, but very useful. It helps locate WiFi APs, to help with GPS acquisition time on iPhones and 3G iPads, and gives iPod touch and WiFi iPads the ability to give a general location in the first place. It also can help provide real-time traffic info.
However, if Apple ties this to a person, phone number, or a phone, they are doing it wrong. If it's just an unrelated list of "this cell tower, this WiFi AP, this time", then really, there's no big deal.
I'm fairly certain Windows works. It's not my first choice in OS, but it does work well enough to be something worth paying money for.
I'd make a jab about Linux being free, but it's actually worth paying for as well, although for most people, Windows is the better value of the two, even at their current prices.
Yeah, it's weird how some people expect you to pay them to make things.
The problem is that geeks like to learn things like emacs key combinations and such. When they are presented with an easy interface, they become both suspicious and fearful. They are suspicious of claims that something simple can be powerful, and fearful that it actually might be.
Also, they like to thumb their nose at everyone who isn't like them. Anyone who doesn't like what they like are idiots and are wrong.
Your reply makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The entire Computer Management console is complicated, but it's still there. There are tons of complicated aspects to Windows. Have you ever wandered about in the registry?
As for people complaining, who's going to complain? What "privacy" concerns? "Older people"? What the fuck?
That's a matter of opinion. I think Linux as a desktop OS is compelling in and of itself. It has significant advantages over Windows and Mac.
Of course it's a matter of opinion. That's why I said "usually". I have no doubt whatsoever that there are plenty of happy Linux users here on Slashdot.
However, very, very rarely is Linux a good choice for any particular desktop user, be it home user, corporate user, or government user. Even your average geek is highly unlikely to be running Linux at all, let alone as their primary desktop OS.
What is "artificial motivation" anyway? Did you mean extrinsic motivation, i.e. a third party influencing your decision?
Yes, extrinsic works too, but I don't mean from a third party, I mean extrinsic to the needs of the desktop user. The natural motivations for running a desktop OS are best met by Windows or Mac OS X. The artificial motivations I'm referring to are political and ideological, which have little to no value for usefulness as a desktop OS and are usually artificially added to the list of reasons.
Namely, being open source, and being highly modular and command line operable. These things have little value to 99+% of desktop users, but are touted as major reasons they should be using Linux. On the other hand, if you are a geek, these things can be of actual, practical value.
Usually, people promote Linux not because it's a good choice for the person being advised, but because the person doing the advising is driven by needs and values which do not apply to most computer users.
Your users or world governments?
Advertisers.
Sorry, you're thinking of Google.
Your users or world governments?
It's the users. Apple makes their many tens of billions each quarter from consumers, not governments, not advertisers, not any sort of silly conspiracies.
Usually, switching to Linux is based on political motives. As a desktop OS, Linux is hardly compelling without some artificial motivation.
In business applications it is not that important what OS is running on the system. It is more important if you can run all that business apps. And these apps are more and more web based.
Often requiring IE6 (as insane as that sounds), and apps like Photoshop are still a long ways from being replaced by web apps in a professional environment.
So it is less important what apps are available for that OS as long there is one standard compliant web browser available. The business app is running on a Linux/Unix framework anyway using Tomcat, Glassfish or similar stuff.
If it's less and less important, then why standardize on a specific OS in the first place? Departments, and even individual employees, can pick the system that works best for them, as long as they can get a standards-compliant browser, right?
This move towards web apps cuts both ways. Before, people couldn't switch to Linux because they specifically need some particular Windows program or three. But now that they can switch, they can just as easily switch back, once they realize what a nightmare Linux is for most end users. Besides, if someone is going to switch away from Windows, they are vastly more likely to pick a Mac over Linux.
Except, of course, they're already running on OOo and an in-house application suite written in Java. Their app support isn't going to get any worse at least for their core apps.
That's fine for the generic apps that the whole organization needs, but what about the CRM software sales uses? Or the graphics software for the design team? And marketing is going to want better calendaring and resource scheduling software.
Arrogant wanker.
Strange, people usually sign their posts at the bottom.
You're one of the major reasons LINUX is being left in the dust.
Maybe, but the main reason is the simplest one. People simply don't want Linux. It's free, and still people don't use it. Years ago, this was blamed on MS's monopoly, and there may have been some truth to that at the time, because then computer users were a self-selecting group that was more technically adept than today, where everyone uses a computer.
But now, Linux brings nothing to the table that is of interest to most people, while instead having lots of negatives. Geeks, however, are more likely to value the ways in which Linux is still superior to Windows. These geeks are essentially the remnants of the previously mentioned self-selecting group.
I find it difficult to find any two LINUX applications or utilities that operate in the same standardised manner, or even the same manner as the underlying OS - so I have no idea how the average app user would cope.)
Have you ever used Windows? Most programs vary wildly in terms of UI, including simple things like save dialog boxes, which you'd assume would be more standardized by the OS itself.
Apple has always maintained the look and feel of their products as something unique to them. They created it, why should other companies be allowed to copy them?
Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation - where the courts ruled that "Apple cannot get patent-like protection for the idea of a graphical user interface, or the idea of a desktop metaphor [under copyright law]...". That's why.
Um... You do realize that has absolutely no bearing on the topic at hand, right?
Because the iPhone isn't the only iOS device.
It's really quite simple to understand, please let me show you why.
Yes, it is really simple. This lawsuit isn't that Samsung's phone is simple like Apple's. It's not about the simple things. It's about the fact that Samsung's simple design too closely matches Apple's simple design. There is a near infinite number of variations Samsung could come up with that are similarly simple, while sufficiently distinct from Apple's design. But instead of doing the hard thing and coming up with their own design, Samsung chose to take the easy road and let Apple do all the hard work, and then copy them.
Proof you are correct can be seen with bottled water for drinking. Almost anyone in the USA can easily avail themselves of free tap water to drink, this is comparable to Android which is more or less widely available at no obvious cost. Yet there is a huge market for bottled water. I may buy fifty to a hundred cases at a clip, but then I appreciate the quality and convience of Zepherhills Spring Water (charateristics of Apple products) compared to common urban tap water.
I use tap water to flush the toilet but I would never use Zepherhills Spring Water for such a common task.
Both surces of water have their place in life, the free one easily dumped into the sewer and the beter quality costly one which is safer and better tasting which I carry everywhere.
I like the tap water analogy. It's especially cool, as it can be extended even further without breaking down.
I agree. Especially the part where tap water/Android is well suited for the toilet.
Most bottled water is no different in quality from tap water, Source, even though people believe that they're getting 'higher quality' water.
In short, people buy Apple for the same reason that they buy bottled water: The illusion of quality.
And some bottled water is much better than tap water. The illusion of quality indeed. Only the illusion is that Android is a quality product. The only real quality of it is that it's more open. A lot like tap water that you can easily use to flush your toilet with.
You people...
Who?
The people who have been saying the things he wrote after the elipsis that you typed in place of quoting more context of his post.
How do you know it is the exact same group of people?
By definition, it's the same group. That's what makes a group a group. He never said the people in that group never change over time, but the group, as a group, definitely exists.
Why are these people hoping Apple dies? Who benefits?
He never said that goup was rational. In fact, he seemed to be making the point that they really haven't been all that rational at all over the years.
Hey, I hope Apple sticks around.
Then you clearly aren't in that group.
It's completely true that Android's UI is a blatant attempt at copying iOS. It's also true that the Android fanbois are every bit as irrational and rabid as any other kind,
Prove it.
This is a false-equivalency claim that seldom gets backed up.
Simple: look at how Android looked and functioned before the iPhone and after the iPhone.
Or are you referring to the irrationality of fandroids? If so, I agree, they aren't equivalent. They are borderline insane, and blatant liars. For over a year now they have been lying by saying Android outsells iOS. And just recently lied about the F700. And in terms of irrationality, how many times a day do you see yet another post saying Steve Jobs wants to control you? Or fears that he, or Apple, are going to make it impossible to buy a generic PC that you can run Linux on?
Apple fandom has reached a fervor that I haven't seen (outside of game console fandom) since the Amiga days, and I don't think that other platforms/vendors have anything near it, either it numbers or kind.
Then you haven't seen fandroids, or freetards in general. Or Ron Paul supporters and/or tea partiers.
How is it so many people confuse "a product type" with "a copy of"? And where did anyone say later products are worse than previous products? That doesn't even make any sense.
The PS3 isn't a copy of the Wii. It's another console, but it doesn't copy the style, design, etc., of the Wii. Neither is the Xbox 360 a copy. The PS3 Move isn't a copy of the Wii-mote, and neither is MS's Kinect. They are all unique products that do similar things, each with their own styles, designs, and technologies.
I'm sure you had a specific point in mind when you made that post, but you've managed to hide it really well. Care to elaborate? For example, specific examples of where Apple's product is a copy of something else would be helpful.
And to save us both some time, "copy" does not mean "making a type of product that already exists", it means "making a product that significantly resembles something else". For example, the iPod was significantly different from any mp3 player before it. The same is true of the iPhone. The Apple II was unique in a large number of ways, and the Mac (and Lisa) systems had a large number of unique UI features that weren't present in any other GUI, and Apple had permission from Xerox to use their design as a foundation.