This post is, obviously, talking about people who already own an iPad and now lose the ability to change their data plan as their needs suit them from month to month without losing the ability to have the unlimited data plan.
You're using two different usages of the term "contract". Just because there is no "contract" requiring you to pay $X for Y service for Z months doesn't mean that there isn't a "contract" that you have the ability to choose from 3 plans (no data, limited data, or unlimited data) from month to month and you can change which option you pick each month with no penalty.
Current customers get to keep unlimited data for $30 / month as long as they never change their plan. If they take advantage of the iPad's no contract feature and go down to the lower data plan or cancel it all together for a month (say going out of the country), they then lose the ability to get unlimited data.
It's bait and switch because they advertised $15 / month for 250 MB and $30 / month of "unlimited" (5 GB) for the iPad - you know, that same iPad that's only been on sale (well, with 3G) for about a month. AT&T advertised that you will have no contract, can change your plan at any time (go up, down, or no data all together) at no charge, and that you can have unlimited data on your iPad to watch all the Netflix, browsing, apps, etc you could want. So yes, telling a customer X to get them to buy a product and then just a couple weeks later making changes that make it impossible for the customer to use what they bought under the terms with which they purchased it, is a bait and switch.
How about wanting to be (re-)elected? The new government in the UK is expected to make spending cuts, and reduce taxes for low and middle income people. (Point 3 [bbc.co.uk].) I've been on holiday for a couple of weeks, but I think the changes should be announced within the next two-three weeks.
Well first, you're forgetting the first rule of politics which is to lie and tell the people what they want to hear. I urge you to look at exhibit A, which is all the countless instances of politicians of all levels saying X during the campaign and then after they're elected they do Y. Secondly, do you really expect those cuts (if they're made) to last? I don't. I'll bet you anything that the second the economy improves that spending will not only return to it's current level, but will increase beyond it as well. There's a reason that every government constantly increases it's power and level of spending (the two go together) - because it's part of the very nature of government.
citizens in a democracy have just as little control over the government as citizens in a dictatorship do.
Don't be stupid. I suggest you read some history books, or maybe visit a country in Eastern Europe and go to a museum (or talk to anyone over 25 from one of these countries).
Really? Ever notice how people have no choice in who the candidates are? Ever notice how, regardless of which candidate gets elected, pretty much the same policies get put in place? Ever notice how despite the massive public outcry, virtually all of the "free" countries are rapidly becoming Orwellian police states that monitor everything and where everything is a crime?
You're wanting to play the tired "We have it marginally better than those people, thus we're not a tyranny / police state!" except that it's not true. You're thinking that just because we were only beat up and mugged while the others were beat up, mugged, and raped that we're somehow "free" and "in control". We're all victims of government corruption and abuse - trying to say some aren't just because the level / type of abuse is different is just a petty detail.
Yes, I do. However, I consider paying for education a necessary investment in younger generations. In the recent UK elections I voted for a candidate whose party said they would reduce the amount students have to pay to go to university.
Except, given what I've been told by the friends I have in the UK, education is free - so how can they reduce the amount students have to pay if it's already free? Actually moving to PAY them to go to school? I'm being serious - if what my friends have told me is incorrect, please, tell me the correct situation. Yes, education is important - however it's a massive drain on society if everyone has to pay the unchecked costs of paying for "free" education. There are plenty of ways (such as getting a damn job, taking out a loan, parents helping to pay for it, etc) to pay for college without resorting to stealing from others, which is what government run education boils down to.
You are aware that, not only do you pay higher taxes than people in the US, but your median income is much lower, right? That means that for the average person, after taxes you're lucky to make about half of what the average person does in the US. I understand the selfish desire for socialism - who wouldn't want to do less work and have someone else pay their bills for them? However, it's a drain on society and very harmful to the economy (which makes everyone in the country worse off), not to mention that it's blatantly unjust for one person to be forced against their will to pay for another persons needs and wants........but that's another story. I know, you'll complain, but as I said before, there's a reason people with your views virtually never go in to Economics (as I did) - because the reality of the laws of Economics shatter the dream world where a collectivist "uto
Very true. Then there's the fact that by the very nature of the job, people who have abusive personalties and want to push people around are drawn to be cops. They felt weak and pushed around when they were younger and now they feel "Hey, I have a gun and a badge that says you can't fight back - I'm going to show them that I'm tough now!" Then there's the fact that no degree is required to become a cop, so we tend to get a lot of "bottom of the barrel" type people who, just by requiring a bachelors degree to get hired, would be eliminated from the police force.
I know what you mean - I turned on TLC one night and say a new cop show "Women of *something* County" and the first few bits the cops were assholes (when it came to WHY they were even talking to the person) but they didn't break any laws. Then a bit comes up where they're looking for a guy (because he owes a whopping $150 on a traffic fine) and they try to force their way into a womans house without a warrant. When she tells them to get one they're screaming about how anyone who insists the police actually follow the law and get a warrant is just a criminal and it automatically means they're guilty. I wrote TLC an email complaining about the fact that a channel that normally has good shows would stoop to the level of airing police blatantly breaking the law and abusing their power just to get more ratings.
You obviously haven't watched 24, where there are many instances of Jack breaking the law to punish / take down corrupt politicians / other government employees who are abusing their power. Hell, about half of this past season was Jack essentially declaring war on the government because the government was doing unjust arrests, destroying evidence, and killing people to cover up a conspiracy.
Ah, you are American. Government doesn't have to be inefficient, you know;-).
Well first I'd see a shrink about your problems with delusions. After that, I'd suggest picking up some history books. Government never has and never will be efficient because governments have slave labor to provide their money that they spend. There is no motivation at all for politicians to keep spending in check - remember, they write the laws and have the power of the police and military behind them. Despite the pretty lies we like to tell ourselves, citizens in a democracy have just as little control over the government as citizens in a dictatorship do.
Proven by whom? I'm sure there's some people that have shown the opposite is true.
Do some research on the actual cost of health care in countries where it's run by the government. Also note that there are many countries that are having serious funding issues for their government run healthcare because it's so horribly inefficient that it's going bankrupt.
I stayed until I was 18, then went to university (mostly paid for by the government)
You do realize that, due to the obscene amount of taxes you pay (and the more successful you are in life, the more obscene they'll get) that it will cost you much, much more over your lifetime for that "free" college education than it would if you paid for it yourself, right?
There's a reason that you virtually never see a collectivist getting an Economics degree.....
Well those are all things that, by their nature, require a government monopoly for them to be efficiently (or at least as efficiently as a government is capable of) run. Health care has been proven to NOT be one of the things that is most efficient when run as a government monopoly. For further explanation, take some economics classes and they'll explain why these things are the exception to the rule. Also, in general, the things you listed are all things people use equally - people do not use equal amounts of medical treatment and as such, it is unfair to charge a person who rarely needs medical treatment obscene amounts to subsidize someone who's constantly getting treated for something.
But hey, if you like to think that someone else would do a better job with your money than you can, I'd be more than happy to take control of your finances for you! =)
I'd rather just see anti-virus software on pc's incorporate definitions for mobile phone viruses / rookits as well - that way you can just run a virus scan once a week with your phone plugged into your computer and not have to worry about killing the battery life on your phone.
Sorry, I just felt the urge to point out a contradiction in your post - you wrote:
Don't try to create apps that add features to existing, basic functionality of the device either (such as trying to offer wireless iTunes syncing).
And then you immediately follow that with:
If your app brings something new and useful to an iPad/iPhone - then you should be just fine, assuming you followed the rules and didn't use off-limits APIs or something to build it.
So which do you believe in? Being able to bring something new and useful to the iDevice or that people shouldn't be allowed to create apps that improve functionality and add features?
I bought an iPhone because, at the time I bought it, it was the best device available. I'm switching to an Android phone because I'm sick of Apple keeping people from improving the software of the iPhone. If Apple doesn't want to support software feature X, that's fine. But screw them for saying that someone can't write software feature X and offer it to people who might want it. That is why I think over the next 5-10 years, we'll see the iEmpire fall. Apple didn't really have much competition the first few years of the iPhone - now it not only has competition, but Android has surpassed the iPhone in terms of hardware, software, and customization. Apple is still acting like it has no competition and that if you don't write apps for the iPhone then you can't write apps period - essentially they're in the same spot that the American car companies got into, being used to not having competition and failing to adapt once competition arrived. We all know how things turned out for the American car companies.....two went bankrupt and the third barely got by due to actually developing competitive vehicles. Apple will eventually be forced to cut the bullshit or else they'll strangle their goose that's laying the golden eggs for them.
You're thinking copy-protection, not DRM. DRM limits your ability to use and re-sell something. I can read my physical book as many times as I want, wherever I want, whenever I want. I never have to contact someone to activate it. I'm free to sell it to anyone I want and they do not get a lesser product for buying it used. No one can revoke my right to use the book I bought.
By your reasoning, you should also not yet own any type of smart phone, let alone the apps.
Wrong. A phone is hardware to run software on. It's very different to spend $100-$200 on hardware than it is to invest thousands of dollars in software to run on it.
But, now you're just pissing away your hard earned cash on something that you didn't really want anyway.
No, I wanted my iPhone. However, it had an accident and no longer works - buying an Evo costs the same as replacing the iPhone and switching to Sprint will save me $25 per month. It makes perfect sense to change phones, especially since Android is currently superior to iPhone OS.
The moment you purchase a DVD (or BluRay or whatever) it immediately depreciates in value to a level that is close to the cost of renting it.
I don't care what the monetary "value" of it is. I own it and can use it as often as I please for as long as I please.
you watch all your purchased videos multiple times, then more power to you.
I do actually. Many of my movies I've watched several dozen times and I have several entire series of tv shows that I've watched 10+ times.
Purchasing DVD/Bluray disks is not a clever way of investing money.
You're confusing buying a product that lasts (such as a dvd, car, home, clothing) with making an investment. I don't buy a car to make money off of it - I buy a car because I need one for travel purposes and as such, I'll get the best car I can (for a reasonable price). You're falling prey to the typical hypocrisy of saying that spending money on the things YOU like is a "wise investment" and anyone who spends money on things you don't like is making a "poor investment".
You forget that there is (usually) a free version of every paid app. Those apps that are paid only are virtually never worth the obscene charge that they want (such as the one app that is actually $900). And yes, unlimited internet with a very usable web browser, plus unlimited texting is worth that - however, it is a bit much, which is why I'm switching to Sprint and getting an Evo - with the discount due to where I work, I'll have an identical plan with Sprint and it'll cost me $25 less a month.
ou say it's because of lack of portability - I say it's because those apps are of no or little value to you irrespective of portability.
And what you want to CLAIM my view is has nothing to do with what my view actually is. What a novel idea - letting a person explain their view instead of trying to decide what their view is for them!
I buy things that last, at least for a decent amount of time. It is way too early to pick one phone OS as the one you want to use for "life". As such, I find it foolish to spend money on apps for a phone OS when in a couple years it might be utter crap. The same applies to why I wouldn't buy blu-ray or HD-dvd until hd-dvd died off and we have only blu-ray.
If, however, you were only holding out because of lack of inter-platform portability, AND if that same game became available for $2 from the aforementioned 'universal app store' would you then purchase it? I doubt it, as for most people it would be more economical to spend the $1 again, rather than $2 under the assumption that they'd change platforms at least twice before they got bored of the game app
As I said, I buy things that last, so no, I wouldn't have a problem paying a little more for it in order to know that I have it forever. I don't rent because that's the same as flushing your money down the toilet.
$100 can buy a good amount. Throwing it away on temporary apps is just wasting $100. If you'd like to give me $100 a year because you think it's a trivial sum, then I'd be glad to take it. =)
You did, as did the first person who responded to me.
For the price of a movie, you could buy one or two professional apps that will probably give you more time of use each and at more convenient times before you change your phone.
Funny, I've had an iPhone 3GS since the day they came out and I've yet to find an app (paid or free) that actually offered something truly worthwhile. That's why I laugh at Steve Jobs bragging about how many apps the Apple app store has and how that makes iPhone superior to Android - the overwhelming majority of apps in the Apple app store are complete and utter crap.
A video game console will run until the hardware gives out, and even then it can be repaired. A phone is outdated after 6 months plus suffers massive issues from wear and tear - not to mention that most consoles offer some form of backwards compatibility.
Also, I never complained about lock-in from Apple I complained about buying software for a pocket computer (which is really what a smartphone is) that will only run on certain pocket computers since it's a market that is rapidly evolving and as such, it's foolish to pick one platform and decide to stick with it forever or lose all of your software.
Slashdot Mirror
It's part of the TOS when you bought the iPad - that is a type of contract.
This post is, obviously, talking about people who already own an iPad and now lose the ability to change their data plan as their needs suit them from month to month without losing the ability to have the unlimited data plan.
Personally, I prefer Sprints new plan you get with the Evo even more - 100% certified unlimited bandwidth (3G or 4G).
Technically you're right, but if I remember correctly, only AT&T currently supports the Micro-SIM cards that the iPad uses (at least in the US).
You're using two different usages of the term "contract". Just because there is no "contract" requiring you to pay $X for Y service for Z months doesn't mean that there isn't a "contract" that you have the ability to choose from 3 plans (no data, limited data, or unlimited data) from month to month and you can change which option you pick each month with no penalty.
Current customers get to keep unlimited data for $30 / month as long as they never change their plan. If they take advantage of the iPad's no contract feature and go down to the lower data plan or cancel it all together for a month (say going out of the country), they then lose the ability to get unlimited data.
It's bait and switch because they advertised $15 / month for 250 MB and $30 / month of "unlimited" (5 GB) for the iPad - you know, that same iPad that's only been on sale (well, with 3G) for about a month. AT&T advertised that you will have no contract, can change your plan at any time (go up, down, or no data all together) at no charge, and that you can have unlimited data on your iPad to watch all the Netflix, browsing, apps, etc you could want. So yes, telling a customer X to get them to buy a product and then just a couple weeks later making changes that make it impossible for the customer to use what they bought under the terms with which they purchased it, is a bait and switch.
How about wanting to be (re-)elected? The new government in the UK is expected to make spending cuts, and reduce taxes for low and middle income people. (Point 3 [bbc.co.uk].) I've been on holiday for a couple of weeks, but I think the changes should be announced within the next two-three weeks.
Well first, you're forgetting the first rule of politics which is to lie and tell the people what they want to hear. I urge you to look at exhibit A, which is all the countless instances of politicians of all levels saying X during the campaign and then after they're elected they do Y. Secondly, do you really expect those cuts (if they're made) to last? I don't. I'll bet you anything that the second the economy improves that spending will not only return to it's current level, but will increase beyond it as well. There's a reason that every government constantly increases it's power and level of spending (the two go together) - because it's part of the very nature of government.
citizens in a democracy have just as little control over the government as citizens in a dictatorship do.
Don't be stupid. I suggest you read some history books, or maybe visit a country in Eastern Europe and go to a museum (or talk to anyone over 25 from one of these countries).
Really? Ever notice how people have no choice in who the candidates are? Ever notice how, regardless of which candidate gets elected, pretty much the same policies get put in place? Ever notice how despite the massive public outcry, virtually all of the "free" countries are rapidly becoming Orwellian police states that monitor everything and where everything is a crime?
You're wanting to play the tired "We have it marginally better than those people, thus we're not a tyranny / police state!" except that it's not true. You're thinking that just because we were only beat up and mugged while the others were beat up, mugged, and raped that we're somehow "free" and "in control". We're all victims of government corruption and abuse - trying to say some aren't just because the level / type of abuse is different is just a petty detail.
Yes, I do. However, I consider paying for education a necessary investment in younger generations. In the recent UK elections I voted for a candidate whose party said they would reduce the amount students have to pay to go to university.
Except, given what I've been told by the friends I have in the UK, education is free - so how can they reduce the amount students have to pay if it's already free? Actually moving to PAY them to go to school? I'm being serious - if what my friends have told me is incorrect, please, tell me the correct situation. Yes, education is important - however it's a massive drain on society if everyone has to pay the unchecked costs of paying for "free" education. There are plenty of ways (such as getting a damn job, taking out a loan, parents helping to pay for it, etc) to pay for college without resorting to stealing from others, which is what government run education boils down to.
You are aware that, not only do you pay higher taxes than people in the US, but your median income is much lower, right? That means that for the average person, after taxes you're lucky to make about half of what the average person does in the US. I understand the selfish desire for socialism - who wouldn't want to do less work and have someone else pay their bills for them? However, it's a drain on society and very harmful to the economy (which makes everyone in the country worse off), not to mention that it's blatantly unjust for one person to be forced against their will to pay for another persons needs and wants........but that's another story. I know, you'll complain, but as I said before, there's a reason people with your views virtually never go in to Economics (as I did) - because the reality of the laws of Economics shatter the dream world where a collectivist "uto
Very true. Then there's the fact that by the very nature of the job, people who have abusive personalties and want to push people around are drawn to be cops. They felt weak and pushed around when they were younger and now they feel "Hey, I have a gun and a badge that says you can't fight back - I'm going to show them that I'm tough now!" Then there's the fact that no degree is required to become a cop, so we tend to get a lot of "bottom of the barrel" type people who, just by requiring a bachelors degree to get hired, would be eliminated from the police force.
I know what you mean - I turned on TLC one night and say a new cop show "Women of *something* County" and the first few bits the cops were assholes (when it came to WHY they were even talking to the person) but they didn't break any laws. Then a bit comes up where they're looking for a guy (because he owes a whopping $150 on a traffic fine) and they try to force their way into a womans house without a warrant. When she tells them to get one they're screaming about how anyone who insists the police actually follow the law and get a warrant is just a criminal and it automatically means they're guilty. I wrote TLC an email complaining about the fact that a channel that normally has good shows would stoop to the level of airing police blatantly breaking the law and abusing their power just to get more ratings.
You obviously haven't watched 24, where there are many instances of Jack breaking the law to punish / take down corrupt politicians / other government employees who are abusing their power. Hell, about half of this past season was Jack essentially declaring war on the government because the government was doing unjust arrests, destroying evidence, and killing people to cover up a conspiracy.
Ah, you are American. Government doesn't have to be inefficient, you know ;-).
Well first I'd see a shrink about your problems with delusions. After that, I'd suggest picking up some history books. Government never has and never will be efficient because governments have slave labor to provide their money that they spend. There is no motivation at all for politicians to keep spending in check - remember, they write the laws and have the power of the police and military behind them. Despite the pretty lies we like to tell ourselves, citizens in a democracy have just as little control over the government as citizens in a dictatorship do.
Proven by whom? I'm sure there's some people that have shown the opposite is true.
Do some research on the actual cost of health care in countries where it's run by the government. Also note that there are many countries that are having serious funding issues for their government run healthcare because it's so horribly inefficient that it's going bankrupt.
I stayed until I was 18, then went to university (mostly paid for by the government)
You do realize that, due to the obscene amount of taxes you pay (and the more successful you are in life, the more obscene they'll get) that it will cost you much, much more over your lifetime for that "free" college education than it would if you paid for it yourself, right?
There's a reason that you virtually never see a collectivist getting an Economics degree.....
Well those are all things that, by their nature, require a government monopoly for them to be efficiently (or at least as efficiently as a government is capable of) run. Health care has been proven to NOT be one of the things that is most efficient when run as a government monopoly. For further explanation, take some economics classes and they'll explain why these things are the exception to the rule. Also, in general, the things you listed are all things people use equally - people do not use equal amounts of medical treatment and as such, it is unfair to charge a person who rarely needs medical treatment obscene amounts to subsidize someone who's constantly getting treated for something.
But hey, if you like to think that someone else would do a better job with your money than you can, I'd be more than happy to take control of your finances for you! =)
Seems like a happy medium would be for the government to pay for healthcare, but for private hospitals and doctors to provide it?
Or you know, people could be responsible for themselves and pay for their own treatment, just like they do for any other good or service....
I'd rather just see anti-virus software on pc's incorporate definitions for mobile phone viruses / rookits as well - that way you can just run a virus scan once a week with your phone plugged into your computer and not have to worry about killing the battery life on your phone.
Sorry, I just felt the urge to point out a contradiction in your post - you wrote:
Don't try to create apps that add features to existing, basic functionality of the device either (such as trying to offer wireless iTunes syncing).
And then you immediately follow that with:
If your app brings something new and useful to an iPad/iPhone - then you should be just fine, assuming you followed the rules and didn't use off-limits APIs or something to build it.
So which do you believe in? Being able to bring something new and useful to the iDevice or that people shouldn't be allowed to create apps that improve functionality and add features?
I bought an iPhone because, at the time I bought it, it was the best device available. I'm switching to an Android phone because I'm sick of Apple keeping people from improving the software of the iPhone. If Apple doesn't want to support software feature X, that's fine. But screw them for saying that someone can't write software feature X and offer it to people who might want it. That is why I think over the next 5-10 years, we'll see the iEmpire fall. Apple didn't really have much competition the first few years of the iPhone - now it not only has competition, but Android has surpassed the iPhone in terms of hardware, software, and customization. Apple is still acting like it has no competition and that if you don't write apps for the iPhone then you can't write apps period - essentially they're in the same spot that the American car companies got into, being used to not having competition and failing to adapt once competition arrived. We all know how things turned out for the American car companies.....two went bankrupt and the third barely got by due to actually developing competitive vehicles. Apple will eventually be forced to cut the bullshit or else they'll strangle their goose that's laying the golden eggs for them.
You're thinking copy-protection, not DRM. DRM limits your ability to use and re-sell something. I can read my physical book as many times as I want, wherever I want, whenever I want. I never have to contact someone to activate it. I'm free to sell it to anyone I want and they do not get a lesser product for buying it used. No one can revoke my right to use the book I bought.
Agreed. Until businesses get off the DRM bandwagon, I'll stick with the ultimate DRM-free solution - actual, physical books.
By your reasoning, you should also not yet own any type of smart phone, let alone the apps.
Wrong. A phone is hardware to run software on. It's very different to spend $100-$200 on hardware than it is to invest thousands of dollars in software to run on it.
But, now you're just pissing away your hard earned cash on something that you didn't really want anyway.
No, I wanted my iPhone. However, it had an accident and no longer works - buying an Evo costs the same as replacing the iPhone and switching to Sprint will save me $25 per month. It makes perfect sense to change phones, especially since Android is currently superior to iPhone OS.
The moment you purchase a DVD (or BluRay or whatever) it immediately depreciates in value to a level that is close to the cost of renting it.
I don't care what the monetary "value" of it is. I own it and can use it as often as I please for as long as I please.
you watch all your purchased videos multiple times, then more power to you.
I do actually. Many of my movies I've watched several dozen times and I have several entire series of tv shows that I've watched 10+ times.
Purchasing DVD/Bluray disks is not a clever way of investing money.
You're confusing buying a product that lasts (such as a dvd, car, home, clothing) with making an investment. I don't buy a car to make money off of it - I buy a car because I need one for travel purposes and as such, I'll get the best car I can (for a reasonable price). You're falling prey to the typical hypocrisy of saying that spending money on the things YOU like is a "wise investment" and anyone who spends money on things you don't like is making a "poor investment".
You forget that there is (usually) a free version of every paid app. Those apps that are paid only are virtually never worth the obscene charge that they want (such as the one app that is actually $900). And yes, unlimited internet with a very usable web browser, plus unlimited texting is worth that - however, it is a bit much, which is why I'm switching to Sprint and getting an Evo - with the discount due to where I work, I'll have an identical plan with Sprint and it'll cost me $25 less a month.
ou say it's because of lack of portability - I say it's because those apps are of no or little value to you irrespective of portability.
And what you want to CLAIM my view is has nothing to do with what my view actually is. What a novel idea - letting a person explain their view instead of trying to decide what their view is for them!
I buy things that last, at least for a decent amount of time. It is way too early to pick one phone OS as the one you want to use for "life". As such, I find it foolish to spend money on apps for a phone OS when in a couple years it might be utter crap. The same applies to why I wouldn't buy blu-ray or HD-dvd until hd-dvd died off and we have only blu-ray.
If, however, you were only holding out because of lack of inter-platform portability, AND if that same game became available for $2 from the aforementioned 'universal app store' would you then purchase it? I doubt it, as for most people it would be more economical to spend the $1 again, rather than $2 under the assumption that they'd change platforms at least twice before they got bored of the game app
As I said, I buy things that last, so no, I wouldn't have a problem paying a little more for it in order to know that I have it forever. I don't rent because that's the same as flushing your money down the toilet.
$100 can buy a good amount. Throwing it away on temporary apps is just wasting $100. If you'd like to give me $100 a year because you think it's a trivial sum, then I'd be glad to take it. =)
Nobody is going to disagree with saving money
You did, as did the first person who responded to me.
For the price of a movie, you could buy one or two professional apps that will probably give you more time of use each and at more convenient times before you change your phone.
Funny, I've had an iPhone 3GS since the day they came out and I've yet to find an app (paid or free) that actually offered something truly worthwhile. That's why I laugh at Steve Jobs bragging about how many apps the Apple app store has and how that makes iPhone superior to Android - the overwhelming majority of apps in the Apple app store are complete and utter crap.
A video game console will run until the hardware gives out, and even then it can be repaired. A phone is outdated after 6 months plus suffers massive issues from wear and tear - not to mention that most consoles offer some form of backwards compatibility.
Also, I never complained about lock-in from Apple I complained about buying software for a pocket computer (which is really what a smartphone is) that will only run on certain pocket computers since it's a market that is rapidly evolving and as such, it's foolish to pick one platform and decide to stick with it forever or lose all of your software.
*lone voice, sorry