I never said they purposely go and try to close down projects. LLVM was BSD from the beginning and they hired one of guys who was working on it to form a team to develop it more. They benefit from it and thus have no incentive to close it. I never said they close projects.
Clang was developed as a front-end for LLVM, as I assume you know, and thus has been part of the LLVM releases. It's part of LLVM now and BSD.
Name me one new technology that Apple developed, not something Apple acquired or an extension of something they acquired, that wasn't a proprietary Apple lock-in? I don't claim they go around closing down the things they acquire. Nor do I go around saying they are hostile to open source. I'm just saying that everything that Apple develops ends up being proprietary lock-in to further their ecosystem.
I don't know of any project that Apple released under Apache or BSD license that wasn't a project already under that license which they acquired and just decided to keep under the same license.
I'm not saying that Apple is open source hostile, I'm saying they are ambivalent. They do not push for open source, nor for open standards. What keeps Apple from abandoning the projects is that they are still useful and are used by Apple. It wouldn't benefit them to spend the developer man-power to develop proprietary replacements. However, whenever Apple comes up with something entirely new, it is always locked down and proprietary.
Hmm, perhaps you missed that this is Apple. Of course it won't. It has to lock you in.
Will it only work with proprietary Apple software?
Doesn't everything new that Apple makes have that requirement? Sure they have a log of some open source things like WebKit and CUPS that they still maintain and are forced to keep open due to GPL, but otherwise everything Apple does is proprietary and locked to their software.
If so, then what is the entire point?
They paid the lables $150 million and must conform to their demands, which seem to directly line up with their own goals. As such, the point is that Apple will still make money because the average user hears "Cloud" and doesn't realize that they're, once again, being conned by marketing speak.
Actually, it's more likely that Microsoft paid them to use Silverlight to hurt Linux, seeing as Linux is the only desktop platform that you cannot instantly stream to due to Silverlight.
If you can prove that they actually lost hundreds of thousands of dollars, not only will it no longer be a moment for lulz, but the MPAA and many movie companies will pay you handsomely.
You see, no one has yet proven any lost revenue caused by filesharing, they have only said "hey look, they didn't pay us. They could have paid us and didn't! Thus look at all this money we lost!" potential income is not money lost and thus, until then, there are lulz. =D
By definition, if you compare a platform with a single managed source for new applications and a platform with an unlimited number of sources for new applications, the latter is considered to have more functionality simply because it has the functionality that the former has (a single managed source) in addition to having other functionality (a multitude of other sources). Thus, iOS in this case has less functionality due to not having the functionality of allowing installation from anywhere.
Actually....patents are supposed to protect only a particular implementation of an idea. Software patents have expanded to the point where they are encompassing the idea itself and that is the problem.
Marvel has no creative control over the Spider-man movies nor the X-Men movies. They are solely owned by Sony and Fox respectively. As long as Sony and Fox continue to churn out these horrible movies, they retain the rights to continue making them.
Unless he intends to say that he enjoyed "X-Men Origins: Wolverine" better than any of the other X-Men movies which means he needs to be put out of his misery...
There is a real difference between rooting the computer in a university computer lab and breaking into someone's house. The fact that so many fail to see the difference, frightens me.
The list of people who "earn a living" publishing content with copy-friendly licenses isn't what you should look at. It's the ratio of this number as compared to the total number of people who publish with copy-friendly licenses. There's only a short list of people who "earn a living" from it, because there's a short list of people who actually do it. Just from personal experience of people I've known and/or heard of --- yes, i know it's anecdotal evidence --- the pendulum is shifting so that it's more likely you'll earn a living or at least be less in debt (advances from a record company combined with a failed band is murder) if you self publish and use copy-friendly licenses than both successfully being distributed by a "traditional distributor" and being successful enough to "make a living".
A good CS Unix class should cover much, much more than the basics of the operating system.
Things as simple as creating directories were covered
Unless you're talking about the design and architecture of the file system and what "creating a directory" actually entails at the low level, then that should have been part of the "here's the basic commands you'll need to know at the beginning" type stuff during the first week of the class. If the class only went over the usage of Unix as an operating system, then it doesn't belong as a Computer Science class.
Years ago I took a "300-level" Unix class (well, we used 3000, but it's the same damn thing). After the mini-intro to using Unix since majority of the class had never dealt with it, we started going over how you would actually program in a Unix environment and what utilities/libraries are available to you. Using POSIX standards and how to program a basic shell, socket programming, using curses for providing interfaces in the terminal, etc. Many might look at this and go "that's programming, CS should be more academic," and I'd agree with you. However, most schools currently still make CS synonymous with software engineering. Either way, basic usage of an operating system or basic usage of an application (like word processing) is by not Computer Science by any imagination. So unless your Unix class covered how the operating system worked (like, algorithmically, theoretically, the data structures and ideas that went into designing it as a system) or how to create programs and system utilities (we created our own versions of basic Unix utilities like a shell, du, wget, etc.) or something more than basic usage, you can't seriously call it a Computer Science class.
Regardless of the subjective nature of 'Computer Science' it's pretty obvious that using word processing, spreadsheets, etc. is not it. However, do not construe this with offence. I wholeheartedly agree with you that there is no reason to be offended. It's important for people to learn the difference between Computing and Computer Science and Software Engineering. They are often conflated to be the same or very similar while there is no explanation given as to the differences.
1: Lusers who mod their phones, "brick" [1] them, then return it. Locking bootloaders means that they don't get returns or support calls on these types.
As opposed to the people who will attempt to mod their phones with the complicated routes people create to get around the locked bootloaders? It's inevitable that someone will find a way around it and it'll be complex enough to cause people who might not have otherwise "bricked" their phone to screw up.
3: It makes cellular carriers happy in four ways:
Looking at all your reasons it seems you have confused rooting with the advantages of unlocking the bootloader. A phone with a locked bootloader can still be rooted and thus all those features the carriers are happy about don't apply.
Unfortunately the trademark has already been diluted because the trading floor image of the NYSE is already seen as a generic "stock trading" image. In fact, if they filed a lawsuit over this, I hope that trademark gets invalidated.
It seems just absurd to trademark the floor of the NYSE considering that it's been the generic "stock trading" image for decades.
Doesn't matter, you can argue against a restraining order and contest it, there is notification. In this case the DOJ can just get their court order without the knowledge of the person running the site and they have, effectively, no recourse.
You'll also then discover that 250GB monthly caps are incredibly large.
Not if you use Netflix. And before you continue with "Stop consuming the content" in reference to Netflix. The point of supporting Netflix is supporting their model of freedom and all you can watch, legally. Services that the media companies should have provided long ago.
There is absolutely no 100% safe and effective medicinal treatment for anything. No matter what it is, there is both the possibility it might not work, might have a side effect, or what not. To claim that any medical treatment is 100% safe and effective proves that you are just shilling.
No you would not need to customize the interface because the interface is very good and not fucked up by some phone manufacturer that does not know software at all but wants to stand out
Uhm, that's a matter of opinion. Personally I believe the stock Android interface is much better than the iPhone interface. And maybe every so often I just want to change up the way my phone looks or works? Or maybe add some widgets that give me useful information. You can't do that on the iPhone and lots of Android users love being able to do this.
The Iphone has a better battery live than most android phones so no need to under-clock
Dude, if you're going to defend your phone at least spell it correctly. Little 'i', big 'p'. iPhone. Come on. Also, life, not live. Anyways, the battery life of an iPhone varies but even the iPhone under heavy use doesn't have as much battery life as an Android phone with SetCPU and a low voltage kernel using profiles to underclock the CPU. Not only that, you forgot the ability to overclock and get more performance out of the hardware, particularly on the older phones. I could be wrong, but you can't do that on the iPhone.
It works very well without customising and android does not if have to believe Shihar
Android works very well without customizing also, the fact that you can customize it also is what makes it great. As for the second half of that sentence, wtf is Shihar, and why should I believe it?
Carrier locked, walled garden, locked down out of the box = little choice, little freedom
You're only carrier locked due to carrier technology like EVERY other phone in the US. The GSM android phones with sim cards are just as unlocked as any other GSM phone with a sim card. Etc. There's no walled garden, you can install applications by side loading or from different markets or the google market. It's not locked down, it does everything it says it can and much much more.
Must root to be able to use important features
Like what? Rooting adds features like overclocking/underclocking, upgrading to the newest version of the OS beyond what the manufacturer will support. None of these are "important" to anyone except a power user who wants to tinker and mess with his phone, a small subset of users.
When you root, you are locked out of other important features
The only thing you're locked out of will be this Movie Market. That's it.
Fewer apps than iOS = Less choice = less freedom
One could argue that there's more diversity in apps than iOS which = more choice and more freedom. This is a false argument that doesn't have any merit for or against android. I almost want to say you sound like a fanboy
Less polished user interface, more fragmentation = less flexibility, smaller userbase, less choice = less freedom
Ok, you're definitely a fanboy. There's fragmentation in the iOS camp too (can you run the latest and greatest version of iOS on the iPhone 3? How about the iPhone 2?). Smaller userbase? Eh, that's debatable depending on where you get your numbers from. In the US there are more android phones than iPhones. Claiming that Android is less flexible than iOS is just ignorance to what you can do with one versus the other. I prefer the Android interface to the iPhones anytime. I like being able to customize my interface beyond a wall paper and ordering my apps. I like my widgets:)
how not all apps are compatible
Which is due to features available based on the hardware or the version of the OS. Rooting makes MORE apps available, not less, just as jailbreaking does the same for iPhone. However, unlike the iPhone, it's not necessary to root your Droid to get out of the closed garden.
won't have access to things like movies
No, won't have access to a movie rental service that is new. I fail to see the problem
May create problems with carriers
You can always revert to stock. And if you're worried about your carrier more than you want the added features of rooting than don't do it. You aren't the type of user that would benefit from rooting much then.
Unlike those poor iOS users that must "jailbreak" their phones
Nothing wrong with jailbreaking, but I don't have to root my android phone to install applications that aren't from the market. An iPhone has to be jailbroken to do that. Etc.
it's the same damned act, with the same damned consequences, only in the case of the jailbreak, you end up with more funcitonality and more choice in the end.
I don't think anyone advocating rooting looks at jailbreaking as evil or bad. They look at the reasons for jailbreaking are things that you have in Android without having to root. You end up with more functionality with a rooted Android phone than you do with a jailbroken iPhone. For example, a rooted android phone can always upgrade to the latest version of the OS. A jailbroken iPhone is stuck until someone finds an exploit to the newest version. The difference here is the availability of the source for the community to create a rom.
The reasons to root are things that a normal user wouldn't want/need to do. Whereas the need to jailbreak an iPhone does give things a normal user would want to do, like being able to download an application and install it without using the Apple App Store.
when Android devices have by and large been much the same: closed until you open it.
Please give an example how Android devices are closed until you open it? Unless you're on AT&T where they removed the ability to side-load applications (which is why i never recommend buying an Android phone from AT&T) then every Android phone can install applications from more than just the Google App Store, they can use the amazon app store, side-load applications, or a bunch of others if they want. They can install new interfaces like LauncherPro, replace the default functionality with a new text messaging app, or completely different actual browser (not just Opera Mini which is not really a browser so much as it downloads and renders on an outside server and then forwards the results rather than browsing directly on the phone), etc.
The only reasons to root are to overclock/underclock your phone, remove stock apps placed by the manufacturer (not all manufacturer's do this), completely install an entire new interface over the entire phone, and update beyond what your carrier is willing to suppport.
For example, is that iPhone 2 running iOS4? Don't think so. Is that iPhone 3 running the latest version of iOS? Nope. Yet my original Droid is running gingerbread right now because I rooted it. The average user has no need to do this.
Talk about what benefits the source of Android offers that isn't available to iOS users by virtue of its closed source.
Choice! Android users have the choice of TONS of different phones from a multitude of carriers. As a result of Android's open source nature, soon Blackberrys will be able to run Android applications. (You really think they would have done that if it wasn't free and open source and available?) As a result of Android's open source nature there's an entire community that builds Roms from source which turn out to be faster and more efficient and better than many of the default roms that manufacturers put on their own phones. And I'm not talking about rooting with that. You just can't do that with iPhone because it's closed source. The benefits for a power user are huge due to the community and Roms and tweaking and hacking. The benefits for the average user is that when the manufacturer stops supporting a phone, they can update it and breathe new life into an old phone due to people making Roms and tweaking the code to function on older phones.
Wait, without jailbreaking you can customize the interface on your iPhone? Oh wait...no you can't. All you can do is change a wallpaper. You can overclock and underclock the CPU on an iPhone without jailbreaking? Nope. You can replace existing functionality with different functionality that you might like better for default phone functions? Nope. You can uninstall default apps that Apple put on the phone to begin with? Nope.
Hmm...how is a normal user who wants to root their android phone better off buying an iPhone? They would just have to jailbreak the iPhone and even then they wouldn't be able to do all the same things.
Slashdot Mirror
I never said they purposely go and try to close down projects. LLVM was BSD from the beginning and they hired one of guys who was working on it to form a team to develop it more. They benefit from it and thus have no incentive to close it. I never said they close projects.
Clang was developed as a front-end for LLVM, as I assume you know, and thus has been part of the LLVM releases. It's part of LLVM now and BSD.
Name me one new technology that Apple developed, not something Apple acquired or an extension of something they acquired, that wasn't a proprietary Apple lock-in? I don't claim they go around closing down the things they acquire. Nor do I go around saying they are hostile to open source. I'm just saying that everything that Apple develops ends up being proprietary lock-in to further their ecosystem.
I don't know of any project that Apple released under Apache or BSD license that wasn't a project already under that license which they acquired and just decided to keep under the same license.
I'm not saying that Apple is open source hostile, I'm saying they are ambivalent. They do not push for open source, nor for open standards. What keeps Apple from abandoning the projects is that they are still useful and are used by Apple. It wouldn't benefit them to spend the developer man-power to develop proprietary replacements. However, whenever Apple comes up with something entirely new, it is always locked down and proprietary.
Never said that Microsoft didn't do the same thing of using the marketing speak version of "Cloud"
Nice try.
Let's answer some of these:
Will iCloud not work with a normal browser?
Of course not. This is Apple
Will it not have an open API?
Hmm, perhaps you missed that this is Apple. Of course it won't. It has to lock you in.
Will it only work with proprietary Apple software?
Doesn't everything new that Apple makes have that requirement? Sure they have a log of some open source things like WebKit and CUPS that they still maintain and are forced to keep open due to GPL, but otherwise everything Apple does is proprietary and locked to their software.
If so, then what is the entire point?
They paid the lables $150 million and must conform to their demands, which seem to directly line up with their own goals. As such, the point is that Apple will still make money because the average user hears "Cloud" and doesn't realize that they're, once again, being conned by marketing speak.
Flash is available on Linux, where's the Silverlight on Linux? Oh! Right! It's not cross-platform.
Actually, it's more likely that Microsoft paid them to use Silverlight to hurt Linux, seeing as Linux is the only desktop platform that you cannot instantly stream to due to Silverlight.
If you can prove that they actually lost hundreds of thousands of dollars, not only will it no longer be a moment for lulz, but the MPAA and many movie companies will pay you handsomely.
You see, no one has yet proven any lost revenue caused by filesharing, they have only said "hey look, they didn't pay us. They could have paid us and didn't! Thus look at all this money we lost!" potential income is not money lost and thus, until then, there are lulz. =D
By definition, if you compare a platform with a single managed source for new applications and a platform with an unlimited number of sources for new applications, the latter is considered to have more functionality simply because it has the functionality that the former has (a single managed source) in addition to having other functionality (a multitude of other sources). Thus, iOS in this case has less functionality due to not having the functionality of allowing installation from anywhere.
Actually....patents are supposed to protect only a particular implementation of an idea. Software patents have expanded to the point where they are encompassing the idea itself and that is the problem.
Marvel has no creative control over the Spider-man movies nor the X-Men movies. They are solely owned by Sony and Fox respectively. As long as Sony and Fox continue to churn out these horrible movies, they retain the rights to continue making them.
Unless he intends to say that he enjoyed "X-Men Origins: Wolverine" better than any of the other X-Men movies which means he needs to be put out of his misery...
There is a real difference between rooting the computer in a university computer lab and breaking into someone's house. The fact that so many fail to see the difference, frightens me.
The list of people who "earn a living" publishing content with copy-friendly licenses isn't what you should look at. It's the ratio of this number as compared to the total number of people who publish with copy-friendly licenses. There's only a short list of people who "earn a living" from it, because there's a short list of people who actually do it. Just from personal experience of people I've known and/or heard of --- yes, i know it's anecdotal evidence --- the pendulum is shifting so that it's more likely you'll earn a living or at least be less in debt (advances from a record company combined with a failed band is murder) if you self publish and use copy-friendly licenses than both successfully being distributed by a "traditional distributor" and being successful enough to "make a living".
A good CS Unix class should cover much, much more than the basics of the operating system.
Things as simple as creating directories were covered
Unless you're talking about the design and architecture of the file system and what "creating a directory" actually entails at the low level, then that should have been part of the "here's the basic commands you'll need to know at the beginning" type stuff during the first week of the class. If the class only went over the usage of Unix as an operating system, then it doesn't belong as a Computer Science class.
Years ago I took a "300-level" Unix class (well, we used 3000, but it's the same damn thing). After the mini-intro to using Unix since majority of the class had never dealt with it, we started going over how you would actually program in a Unix environment and what utilities/libraries are available to you. Using POSIX standards and how to program a basic shell, socket programming, using curses for providing interfaces in the terminal, etc. Many might look at this and go "that's programming, CS should be more academic," and I'd agree with you. However, most schools currently still make CS synonymous with software engineering. Either way, basic usage of an operating system or basic usage of an application (like word processing) is by not Computer Science by any imagination. So unless your Unix class covered how the operating system worked (like, algorithmically, theoretically, the data structures and ideas that went into designing it as a system) or how to create programs and system utilities (we created our own versions of basic Unix utilities like a shell, du, wget, etc.) or something more than basic usage, you can't seriously call it a Computer Science class.
Regardless of the subjective nature of 'Computer Science' it's pretty obvious that using word processing, spreadsheets, etc. is not it. However, do not construe this with offence. I wholeheartedly agree with you that there is no reason to be offended. It's important for people to learn the difference between Computing and Computer Science and Software Engineering. They are often conflated to be the same or very similar while there is no explanation given as to the differences.
Hmmm
1: Lusers who mod their phones, "brick" [1] them, then return it. Locking bootloaders means that they don't get returns or support calls on these types.
As opposed to the people who will attempt to mod their phones with the complicated routes people create to get around the locked bootloaders? It's inevitable that someone will find a way around it and it'll be complex enough to cause people who might not have otherwise "bricked" their phone to screw up.
3: It makes cellular carriers happy in four ways:
Looking at all your reasons it seems you have confused rooting with the advantages of unlocking the bootloader. A phone with a locked bootloader can still be rooted and thus all those features the carriers are happy about don't apply.
Apparently enough users care to get HTC to make a change.....
Unfortunately the trademark has already been diluted because the trading floor image of the NYSE is already seen as a generic "stock trading" image. In fact, if they filed a lawsuit over this, I hope that trademark gets invalidated.
It seems just absurd to trademark the floor of the NYSE considering that it's been the generic "stock trading" image for decades.
Anyone who is a victim of it, has had their rights taken so they aren't capable of suing.
Doesn't matter, you can argue against a restraining order and contest it, there is notification. In this case the DOJ can just get their court order without the knowledge of the person running the site and they have, effectively, no recourse.
You'll also then discover that 250GB monthly caps are incredibly large.
Not if you use Netflix. And before you continue with "Stop consuming the content" in reference to Netflix. The point of supporting Netflix is supporting their model of freedom and all you can watch, legally. Services that the media companies should have provided long ago.
There is absolutely no 100% safe and effective medicinal treatment for anything. No matter what it is, there is both the possibility it might not work, might have a side effect, or what not. To claim that any medical treatment is 100% safe and effective proves that you are just shilling.
No you would not need to customize the interface because the interface is very good and not fucked up by some phone manufacturer that does not know software at all but wants to stand out
Uhm, that's a matter of opinion. Personally I believe the stock Android interface is much better than the iPhone interface. And maybe every so often I just want to change up the way my phone looks or works? Or maybe add some widgets that give me useful information. You can't do that on the iPhone and lots of Android users love being able to do this.
The Iphone has a better battery live than most android phones so no need to under-clock
Dude, if you're going to defend your phone at least spell it correctly. Little 'i', big 'p'. iPhone. Come on. Also, life, not live. Anyways, the battery life of an iPhone varies but even the iPhone under heavy use doesn't have as much battery life as an Android phone with SetCPU and a low voltage kernel using profiles to underclock the CPU. Not only that, you forgot the ability to overclock and get more performance out of the hardware, particularly on the older phones. I could be wrong, but you can't do that on the iPhone.
It works very well without customising and android does not if have to believe Shihar
Android works very well without customizing also, the fact that you can customize it also is what makes it great. As for the second half of that sentence, wtf is Shihar, and why should I believe it?
Carrier locked, walled garden, locked down out of the box = little choice, little freedom
You're only carrier locked due to carrier technology like EVERY other phone in the US. The GSM android phones with sim cards are just as unlocked as any other GSM phone with a sim card. Etc. There's no walled garden, you can install applications by side loading or from different markets or the google market. It's not locked down, it does everything it says it can and much much more.
Must root to be able to use important features
Like what? Rooting adds features like overclocking/underclocking, upgrading to the newest version of the OS beyond what the manufacturer will support. None of these are "important" to anyone except a power user who wants to tinker and mess with his phone, a small subset of users.
When you root, you are locked out of other important features
The only thing you're locked out of will be this Movie Market. That's it.
Fewer apps than iOS = Less choice = less freedom
One could argue that there's more diversity in apps than iOS which = more choice and more freedom. This is a false argument that doesn't have any merit for or against android. I almost want to say you sound like a fanboy
Less polished user interface, more fragmentation = less flexibility, smaller userbase, less choice = less freedom
Ok, you're definitely a fanboy. There's fragmentation in the iOS camp too (can you run the latest and greatest version of iOS on the iPhone 3? How about the iPhone 2?). Smaller userbase? Eh, that's debatable depending on where you get your numbers from. In the US there are more android phones than iPhones. Claiming that Android is less flexible than iOS is just ignorance to what you can do with one versus the other. I prefer the Android interface to the iPhones anytime. I like being able to customize my interface beyond a wall paper and ordering my apps. I like my widgets :)
how not all apps are compatible
Which is due to features available based on the hardware or the version of the OS. Rooting makes MORE apps available, not less, just as jailbreaking does the same for iPhone. However, unlike the iPhone, it's not necessary to root your Droid to get out of the closed garden.
won't have access to things like movies
No, won't have access to a movie rental service that is new. I fail to see the problem
May create problems with carriers
You can always revert to stock. And if you're worried about your carrier more than you want the added features of rooting than don't do it. You aren't the type of user that would benefit from rooting much then.
Unlike those poor iOS users that must "jailbreak" their phones
Nothing wrong with jailbreaking, but I don't have to root my android phone to install applications that aren't from the market. An iPhone has to be jailbroken to do that. Etc.
it's the same damned act, with the same damned consequences, only in the case of the jailbreak, you end up with more funcitonality and more choice in the end.
I don't think anyone advocating rooting looks at jailbreaking as evil or bad. They look at the reasons for jailbreaking are things that you have in Android without having to root. You end up with more functionality with a rooted Android phone than you do with a jailbroken iPhone. For example, a rooted android phone can always upgrade to the latest version of the OS. A jailbroken iPhone is stuck until someone finds an exploit to the newest version. The difference here is the availability of the source for the community to create a rom.
The reasons to root are things that a normal user wouldn't want/need to do. Whereas the need to jailbreak an iPhone does give things a normal user would want to do, like being able to download an application and install it without using the Apple App Store.
when Android devices have by and large been much the same: closed until you open it.
Please give an example how Android devices are closed until you open it? Unless you're on AT&T where they removed the ability to side-load applications (which is why i never recommend buying an Android phone from AT&T) then every Android phone can install applications from more than just the Google App Store, they can use the amazon app store, side-load applications, or a bunch of others if they want. They can install new interfaces like LauncherPro, replace the default functionality with a new text messaging app, or completely different actual browser (not just Opera Mini which is not really a browser so much as it downloads and renders on an outside server and then forwards the results rather than browsing directly on the phone), etc.
The only reasons to root are to overclock/underclock your phone, remove stock apps placed by the manufacturer (not all manufacturer's do this), completely install an entire new interface over the entire phone, and update beyond what your carrier is willing to suppport.
For example, is that iPhone 2 running iOS4? Don't think so. Is that iPhone 3 running the latest version of iOS? Nope. Yet my original Droid is running gingerbread right now because I rooted it. The average user has no need to do this.
Talk about what benefits the source of Android offers that isn't available to iOS users by virtue of its closed source.
Choice! Android users have the choice of TONS of different phones from a multitude of carriers. As a result of Android's open source nature, soon Blackberrys will be able to run Android applications. (You really think they would have done that if it wasn't free and open source and available?) As a result of Android's open source nature there's an entire community that builds Roms from source which turn out to be faster and more efficient and better than many of the default roms that manufacturers put on their own phones. And I'm not talking about rooting with that. You just can't do that with iPhone because it's closed source. The benefits for a power user are huge due to the community and Roms and tweaking and hacking. The benefits for the average user is that when the manufacturer stops supporting a phone, they can update it and breathe new life into an old phone due to people making Roms and tweaking the code to function on older phones.
Wait, without jailbreaking you can customize the interface on your iPhone? Oh wait...no you can't. All you can do is change a wallpaper. You can overclock and underclock the CPU on an iPhone without jailbreaking? Nope. You can replace existing functionality with different functionality that you might like better for default phone functions? Nope. You can uninstall default apps that Apple put on the phone to begin with? Nope.
Hmm...how is a normal user who wants to root their android phone better off buying an iPhone? They would just have to jailbreak the iPhone and even then they wouldn't be able to do all the same things.