And if everyone can just come along and copy your R&D, and companies become ever weary about spending millions upon millions knowing some cheap Chinese clone company will just produce crap copies, how do you think *that's* going to effect you?
The lawsuits really have very little negative impact on the end user. Companies pay licenses for using the property and ideas of others. That's fair. They pay for the chips they buy and the metal and plastic, etc. What's wrong with paying for the ideas? (not that I'm saying patents don't need reformation, but the basic idea is valid)
Samsung can make tablets, but they shouldn't look almost exactly like iPads. HTC can make phones, but they will have to license some of the features invented by others. MS can make a phone OS by making it almost completely unlike anything anyone else has on the market. Apple can make phone hardware, but they have to license the industry standard radio technology.
If instead of looking at these lawsuits as anticompetitive war tactics, look at them as the proper means of companies resolving disputes, because that's exactly what it is. First you negotiate, but if both sides can't agree, you ask a disinterested and trustworthy third party to solve the issue.
This sounds ideal. How would you do it differently? Somehow remove disputes and differing opinions from the world? Good luck with that!
Um, are you suggesting there isn't? There are counterexamples, but it's a good indicator.
We aren't talking about just a mild difference in popularity, but an overwhelming landslide difference, and there's no significant reason to think this is due to people begrudgingly buying iPads or iPhones, which is something counterexamples to this correlation tend to have.
For example, McDonald's is fast, cheap, dependable, ubiquitous, and addictive. MS Windows is what people had at work, and, in spite of all its downsides, was widely supported and relatively inexpensive. Android was available on more carriers, and was often subject to large discounts and promotions.
So, what is your explanation for people liking, in overwhelming numbers, the iPad, and not Android tablets? The common response among geek circles is some variation on "people are stupid", which really just means "people like something that I don't".
Apple's hardware is not magical, it is actually pretty average in terms of performance and power consumption, so there really is no technical reason at all why they had to break older chargers.
They didn't break anything. The older chargers still work with the devices they always worked with. The new iPhones come with their own chargers, and Apple licenses and carries chargers from other makers. The licensing fees are minuscule and an inconsequential income source, but they do provide a means of making sure a third party charger isn't going to burst into flames.
Apple has changed the charging in their newer devices because they draw more power. The site you linked to wasn't some official product, it was a hacked up charger that couldn't communicate to the iPhone that it can handle the power draw. What would you rather see, iPhones causing chargers to catch fire?
And you still haven't explained how this is a money-scheme. Instead, it perfectly fits the idea that this is about making a seamless and problem-free product.
Face it, Apple bent you over and made you their bitch, and you loved it.
The timing sucks (the OtherOS removed months after the commitment to the project), but nothing lasts forever. Their cluster will work wonderfully as it currently stands, and PS3s aren't notorious for breaking down (unlike another console which also lacks OtherOS...).
The point being, the cluster did not instantly become useless, like eldavojohn claimed. It'll work just fine for many years.
I think there would be some other people somewhat upset if you just dropped hundreds of thousands of dollars on what are now tiny black bricks useless to you. Accounts, commanding officers, taxpayers, etc.
Except they didn't become useless bricks. These PS3s are not used for gaming, and so can quite easily avoid the update.
If you bought the PS3 in order to use OtherOS, the update wasn't mandatory. It's only mandatory for games. No one had OtherOS forcibly removed.
Not that I agree with their choice, but a Linux PS3 and a Gaming PS3 have different requirements. What was lost was the ability to have both fully functioning at the same time. This seems like something they should have been able to articulate to the judge, but if they just focused on "it's a mandatory update", which is a false statement, I can see how it would be dismissed.
I just showed you how Apple deliberately breaks peripherals for profit.
No you didn't. You showed that the technology changes.
How can you say that them preventing older chargers or speakers or car stereo docks working with the latest hardware that has precisely the same dock connector and the same OS is "making sure people know they can buy something that will work"? They are making sure people will buy stuff that/doesn't/ work in a year or two.
Not deliberately or maliciously. Technology is changing, but Apple does try to keep things less of a hassle.
When I said that they are making sure you know things will work, I was referring to the licensing program itself (which you claim to be a profit-motivated endeavor). This ensures that there aren't a lot of sub-standard shit cables and docks that *don't* work. It's not perfect, but it's much better than the status quo.
Apple made you their cash cow. Amazon wants to do it, Sony does do it... It is hardly a new concept and hardly limited to Apple.
Hardware is their cash cow, always has been, and always will be.
I've noticed you like to talk a lot about things which you have little to no direct experience of, so I'll be kind and explain that Siri does not require you to look at the screen. I don't believe for one second your claim that you "played with Siri in the car" in any serious sense.
"Play the Beatles" "Take me to school" "Set an alarm for 6:30" "Read my message"
These all work, and you don't ever have to look at the screen. If you are talking to Siri via handsfree, it reads things to you that it doesn't read to you if you are using it non-handsfree.
But you "played with it in the car", so I guess you're an expert or something...
I hate to break it to people, techies included, but talking on your phone and driving kills people.
No it doesn't. It can, but that's an entirely different statement.
Driving while sick can also. Hell, driving while perfectly healthy can!
Ultimately this is the states' call, but if it was your kid, significant other, or friend who got killed by someone texting/talking on their phone would you let it go?
What does that even mean, "let it go"? Your scenario hasn't provided sufficient context. Did they swerve off the road into a crowd of children? Did they run a red light because they were texting? Or was my "kid, significant other, or friend" jaywalking? Were they texting or using hands-free speakerphone?
Here's another example for you. A few times a year, you hear about some old person who runs through a crowd of people because their "pedal got stuck". It's funny how this only seems to happen to old people. Would I forgive them? If they decided to give up driving after that incident, and there were no warning signs before, probably. If they had a series of similar (but less tragic) "malfunctions", and blindly decided to keep doing it, I'd probably do everything in my power to try to have their license revoked (which I imagine is basically "nothing").
Remember the Toyota issue from a while back? Turns out, these cases tended to be old people and there was no sign of actual malfunction. But I'm not going to call for a ban on old people driving (though I would support some sort of competency exam after a certain age or triggered by certain events).
The same goes for phone usage. Texting and non-handsfree are logical. Some of the laws are silly, though. For example, hitting the Siri button on an iPhone is presumed to be illegal in California, even though it requires no undue attention being taken off the road.
But life's full of risks, and we're entering the territory of diminishing returns. What happens next? There will be some other thing that's dangerous (eating while driving, controlling the radio, driving with a cold), and since we've solved the big ones (seat belts, car seats, drunk driving, texting), the remaining minimal risks will be appealing targets to those tasked with improving safety.
Apple is afraid that the tablet market will mimic what happened in the smartphone market
They are afraid that the iPad will become the most successful tablet out there, like the iPhone is the most successful phone? They are afraid they will make more money than all the competition combined?
What exactly are they supposed to be afraid of? That Android will ship on more units than iOS? Well, it's hard to see how that has worked out bad for Apple in the past.
They aren't trying to block Android itself. They are simply, and consistently, taking the position that the competition can do whatever it wants, as long as they come up with their own designs.
Sure, there are plenty of iPhone loyalists, but Android has taken over as the top platform. The same thing appears to be happening in tablets.
lol, wut?
This brings us back to the 7" tablet market, the Fire has everything that people want: Facebook, Netflix, and periodicals and shopping from Amazon. Amazon provides for tablets what iTunes provides for music, and generally at lower cost.
Except somehow the iPad outsells it by such a wide margin as to make it irrelevant, just like every other tablet on the market. Apple isn't afraid of Android, but they can't simply allow others to clone their design.
Also, you'll note that Apple has not sued Amazon. If they are supposed to be so afraid, and the Fire is such a big threat, where's the lawsuit?
The answer is your premise is flawed. The Fire does not look almost exactly like an iPad, unlike the Galaxy Tab.
That's the problem with the iPad. And sitting there going "Wah, you don't understand me and I think the iPad is the best therefore you're arrogant!" is pretty arrogant by itself. The iPad is more expensive and less functional than its Android cousins, but the latter aren't selling. They would be if the functionality, rather than the looks, was what was driving iPad sales. That's the objective truth.
No, it's not arrogance, it's the truth. You DON'T understand, so you are just calling the hundreds of millions of Apple users idiots who only buy them because they are pretty. you are displaying arrogance by saying those that disagree with you are mindless drones buying things solely on aesthetics. No one is saying Anything equivalent about your preferences, but about your analysis. Your flamebait "Apple users are dumb" bullshit is extremely arrogant.
The thing you don't understand, because your nerd sensibilities are getting in the way of looking at the matter objectively, and instead applying nothing but your own subjective view onto everyone else, is that people actually like the iPad. They aren't idiots or fashionistas. They enjoy the products. And all the nerd nonsense about "netbooks are better" or "Android is freer" or "the iPad is too big" (really?) don't amount to jack shit, because those things are not important to them. They aren't nerds, they don't have nerd opinions.
You are and you do. No one is saying you are stupid for liking Android or not liking Apple products. Why do you feel so insecure that you can't offer the same courtesy to those with different needs than you?
I mean, really, high heel shoes? Could you be any more obvious with the "Apple users, lol, chicks and homos, durr, hurr!!!"
If it was only an added value, Apple wouldn't be so reactive to rooting, and would make it easier to install third party software on their products.
Do please explain your logic, because it is rather non sequitur.
The response to jailbreaking on iOS is all about adding value. There's a dichotomy between geeks and everyone else on that specific matter. For some geeks, it greatly removes value. For the regular person, it greatly adds value.
One of the greatest things about owning Apple products is the general lack of problems compared to other products. The iOS security model adds to this.
Apple seems to want both the hardware and the store as main revenue sources.
Then they are doing a piss poor job of it. They make very little on their iTunes stores.
Apple sells hardware. Virtually all other sales and services are there to provide value to the hardware. The dock connected licensing has nothing to do with generating revenue, and everything to do with making sure people know they can buy something that will work.
The same is true of apps, media, etc.
It's not completely as simple as that. Apple does make money on their services, but generally just enough to keep things healthy and growing. But if you had to boil any random choice Apple makes, it generally revolves around, "does this make our product better or worse?"
A lot of Slashdotters are incapable of grasping this because to them, locked up devices and services are unforgivable sins. They trump any other choice, and make the answer to that question almost universally "no, it destroys the product and makes it unforgivably worse".
But for your average human? These things are of absolutely *ZERO* importance. Instead, the fact that it makes things Just Work is what matters, and it's extremely clear that this is working out great for Apple.
It's failed (and will never succeed at) becoming an iPad killer.
And it's funny to hear you say the "real" Fire is coming later. That points out the failure path the current Fire is presently on, and is a recurring theme among those that seem to be emotionally vested in seeing Apple fail, that the "real" savior device or OS is coming soon. We've been hearing this same story for years now.
I'm pretty sure they know, that's why they designed the UI with books and newspapers in the first two positions.
Well, that settles it then! Whatever you do, don't go to Amazon's Kindle Fire page and look at the images, screenshots, or marketing copy, all of which prominently highlight movies, music, apps, web browsing, etc.
First, Android 3.2 is a good tablet operating system,
According to who, exactly?
regardless of how many units are shipped.
Exactly. You assert that it's a good system, but nobody's buying them. Makes me seriously question your judgement.
But devices like the EEE Transformer have been very successful.
I'm wondering if the words "very" and "successful" have alternate definitions I'm not aware of...
You can tell how much of a threat Android tablets are to Apple by the "thermonuclear war" Apple has been fighting against them. Android tablets would have shipped a lot more if Apple hadn't used dirty tricks to keep devices like the Samsung tablets from market.
Again, nothing but assertion on your part, with absolutely nothing to back it up other than pure conjecture.
Answer this: what, exactly, do you think Apple is afraid of? If the Galaxy Tab were so dangerous, you'd expect demand for it to be phenomenal, right? Well, reality doesn't quite agree here.
Your assertions are so thoroughly contradicted by reality, they appear little more than the ravings of a lunatic.
Yes, the latter has been successful. So are high heeled shoes, which fail every objective test for the usefulness of a shoe. Just saying.
And the iPad is, objectively, the most useful tablet out there. Your analogy is absurd.
You are a nerd. Your analogy should be sneakers vs. boots. Boots are more useful in specific contexts, but not useful in general situations the way sneakers are. You are like a lumberjack saying sneakers (the iPad) are merely successful because people are stupid and blinded by shiny. When the reality is that your needs are not common, and therefore neither is your opinion.
At least have the decency to not denigrate people just because they don't have your nerd cred and like different things than you.
Only you have it exactly backwards. iOS isn't about locking you into Apple's services. The services are about adding value to the hardware. That's why the Fire is a budget device and the iPad is not.
Slashdot Mirror
And if everyone can just come along and copy your R&D, and companies become ever weary about spending millions upon millions knowing some cheap Chinese clone company will just produce crap copies, how do you think *that's* going to effect you?
The lawsuits really have very little negative impact on the end user. Companies pay licenses for using the property and ideas of others. That's fair. They pay for the chips they buy and the metal and plastic, etc. What's wrong with paying for the ideas? (not that I'm saying patents don't need reformation, but the basic idea is valid)
Samsung can make tablets, but they shouldn't look almost exactly like iPads. HTC can make phones, but they will have to license some of the features invented by others. MS can make a phone OS by making it almost completely unlike anything anyone else has on the market. Apple can make phone hardware, but they have to license the industry standard radio technology.
If instead of looking at these lawsuits as anticompetitive war tactics, look at them as the proper means of companies resolving disputes, because that's exactly what it is. First you negotiate, but if both sides can't agree, you ask a disinterested and trustworthy third party to solve the issue.
This sounds ideal. How would you do it differently? Somehow remove disputes and differing opinions from the world? Good luck with that!
This already exists. It's called Sprint 3G.
Um, are you suggesting there isn't? There are counterexamples, but it's a good indicator.
We aren't talking about just a mild difference in popularity, but an overwhelming landslide difference, and there's no significant reason to think this is due to people begrudgingly buying iPads or iPhones, which is something counterexamples to this correlation tend to have.
For example, McDonald's is fast, cheap, dependable, ubiquitous, and addictive. MS Windows is what people had at work, and, in spite of all its downsides, was widely supported and relatively inexpensive. Android was available on more carriers, and was often subject to large discounts and promotions.
So, what is your explanation for people liking, in overwhelming numbers, the iPad, and not Android tablets? The common response among geek circles is some variation on "people are stupid", which really just means "people like something that I don't".
Apple's hardware is not magical, it is actually pretty average in terms of performance and power consumption, so there really is no technical reason at all why they had to break older chargers.
They didn't break anything. The older chargers still work with the devices they always worked with. The new iPhones come with their own chargers, and Apple licenses and carries chargers from other makers. The licensing fees are minuscule and an inconsequential income source, but they do provide a means of making sure a third party charger isn't going to burst into flames.
Apple has changed the charging in their newer devices because they draw more power. The site you linked to wasn't some official product, it was a hacked up charger that couldn't communicate to the iPhone that it can handle the power draw. What would you rather see, iPhones causing chargers to catch fire?
And you still haven't explained how this is a money-scheme. Instead, it perfectly fits the idea that this is about making a seamless and problem-free product.
Face it, Apple bent you over and made you their bitch, and you loved it.
Face it, you're a troll.
But, what happens when one breaks down?
Life's not perfect. They'll survive.
The timing sucks (the OtherOS removed months after the commitment to the project), but nothing lasts forever. Their cluster will work wonderfully as it currently stands, and PS3s aren't notorious for breaking down (unlike another console which also lacks OtherOS...).
The point being, the cluster did not instantly become useless, like eldavojohn claimed. It'll work just fine for many years.
I think there would be some other people somewhat upset if you just dropped hundreds of thousands of dollars on what are now tiny black bricks useless to you. Accounts, commanding officers, taxpayers, etc.
Except they didn't become useless bricks. These PS3s are not used for gaming, and so can quite easily avoid the update.
Are they guaranteed? If so, the case for a class action suit shouldn't be difficult.
My suspicion is that they are not guaranteed.
If you bought the PS3 in order to use OtherOS, the update wasn't mandatory. It's only mandatory for games. No one had OtherOS forcibly removed.
Not that I agree with their choice, but a Linux PS3 and a Gaming PS3 have different requirements. What was lost was the ability to have both fully functioning at the same time. This seems like something they should have been able to articulate to the judge, but if they just focused on "it's a mandatory update", which is a false statement, I can see how it would be dismissed.
Yes, geeks and Linux enthusiasts at the Air Force.
The mere existence of a jailbreak causes problems for people, even if they never jailbreak.
I just showed you how Apple deliberately breaks peripherals for profit.
No you didn't. You showed that the technology changes.
How can you say that them preventing older chargers or speakers or car stereo docks working with the latest hardware that has precisely the same dock connector and the same OS is "making sure people know they can buy something that will work"? They are making sure people will buy stuff that /doesn't/ work in a year or two.
Not deliberately or maliciously. Technology is changing, but Apple does try to keep things less of a hassle.
When I said that they are making sure you know things will work, I was referring to the licensing program itself (which you claim to be a profit-motivated endeavor). This ensures that there aren't a lot of sub-standard shit cables and docks that *don't* work. It's not perfect, but it's much better than the status quo.
Apple made you their cash cow. Amazon wants to do it, Sony does do it... It is hardly a new concept and hardly limited to Apple.
Hardware is their cash cow, always has been, and always will be.
I've noticed you like to talk a lot about things which you have little to no direct experience of, so I'll be kind and explain that Siri does not require you to look at the screen. I don't believe for one second your claim that you "played with Siri in the car" in any serious sense.
"Play the Beatles"
"Take me to school"
"Set an alarm for 6:30"
"Read my message"
These all work, and you don't ever have to look at the screen. If you are talking to Siri via handsfree, it reads things to you that it doesn't read to you if you are using it non-handsfree.
But you "played with it in the car", so I guess you're an expert or something...
I hate to break it to people, techies included, but talking on your phone and driving kills people.
No it doesn't. It can, but that's an entirely different statement.
Driving while sick can also. Hell, driving while perfectly healthy can!
Ultimately this is the states' call, but if it was your kid, significant other, or friend who got killed by someone texting/talking on their phone would you let it go?
What does that even mean, "let it go"? Your scenario hasn't provided sufficient context. Did they swerve off the road into a crowd of children? Did they run a red light because they were texting? Or was my "kid, significant other, or friend" jaywalking? Were they texting or using hands-free speakerphone?
Here's another example for you. A few times a year, you hear about some old person who runs through a crowd of people because their "pedal got stuck". It's funny how this only seems to happen to old people. Would I forgive them? If they decided to give up driving after that incident, and there were no warning signs before, probably. If they had a series of similar (but less tragic) "malfunctions", and blindly decided to keep doing it, I'd probably do everything in my power to try to have their license revoked (which I imagine is basically "nothing").
Remember the Toyota issue from a while back? Turns out, these cases tended to be old people and there was no sign of actual malfunction. But I'm not going to call for a ban on old people driving (though I would support some sort of competency exam after a certain age or triggered by certain events).
The same goes for phone usage. Texting and non-handsfree are logical. Some of the laws are silly, though. For example, hitting the Siri button on an iPhone is presumed to be illegal in California, even though it requires no undue attention being taken off the road.
But life's full of risks, and we're entering the territory of diminishing returns. What happens next? There will be some other thing that's dangerous (eating while driving, controlling the radio, driving with a cold), and since we've solved the big ones (seat belts, car seats, drunk driving, texting), the remaining minimal risks will be appealing targets to those tasked with improving safety.
Apple is afraid that the tablet market will mimic what happened in the smartphone market
They are afraid that the iPad will become the most successful tablet out there, like the iPhone is the most successful phone? They are afraid they will make more money than all the competition combined?
What exactly are they supposed to be afraid of? That Android will ship on more units than iOS? Well, it's hard to see how that has worked out bad for Apple in the past.
They aren't trying to block Android itself. They are simply, and consistently, taking the position that the competition can do whatever it wants, as long as they come up with their own designs.
Sure, there are plenty of iPhone loyalists, but Android has taken over as the top platform. The same thing appears to be happening in tablets.
lol, wut?
This brings us back to the 7" tablet market, the Fire has everything that people want: Facebook, Netflix, and periodicals and shopping from Amazon. Amazon provides for tablets what iTunes provides for music, and generally at lower cost.
Except somehow the iPad outsells it by such a wide margin as to make it irrelevant, just like every other tablet on the market. Apple isn't afraid of Android, but they can't simply allow others to clone their design.
Also, you'll note that Apple has not sued Amazon. If they are supposed to be so afraid, and the Fire is such a big threat, where's the lawsuit?
The answer is your premise is flawed. The Fire does not look almost exactly like an iPad, unlike the Galaxy Tab.
That's the problem with the iPad. And sitting there going "Wah, you don't understand me and I think the iPad is the best therefore you're arrogant!" is pretty arrogant by itself. The iPad is more expensive and less functional than its Android cousins, but the latter aren't selling. They would be if the functionality, rather than the looks, was what was driving iPad sales. That's the objective truth.
No, it's not arrogance, it's the truth. You DON'T understand, so you are just calling the hundreds of millions of Apple users idiots who only buy them because they are pretty. you are displaying arrogance by saying those that disagree with you are mindless drones buying things solely on aesthetics. No one is saying Anything equivalent about your preferences, but about your analysis. Your flamebait "Apple users are dumb" bullshit is extremely arrogant.
The thing you don't understand, because your nerd sensibilities are getting in the way of looking at the matter objectively, and instead applying nothing but your own subjective view onto everyone else, is that people actually like the iPad. They aren't idiots or fashionistas. They enjoy the products. And all the nerd nonsense about "netbooks are better" or "Android is freer" or "the iPad is too big" (really?) don't amount to jack shit, because those things are not important to them. They aren't nerds, they don't have nerd opinions.
You are and you do. No one is saying you are stupid for liking Android or not liking Apple products. Why do you feel so insecure that you can't offer the same courtesy to those with different needs than you?
I mean, really, high heel shoes? Could you be any more obvious with the "Apple users, lol, chicks and homos, durr, hurr!!!"
If it was only an added value, Apple wouldn't be so reactive to rooting, and would make it easier to install third party software on their products.
Do please explain your logic, because it is rather non sequitur.
The response to jailbreaking on iOS is all about adding value. There's a dichotomy between geeks and everyone else on that specific matter. For some geeks, it greatly removes value. For the regular person, it greatly adds value.
One of the greatest things about owning Apple products is the general lack of problems compared to other products. The iOS security model adds to this.
Apple seems to want both the hardware and the store as main revenue sources.
Then they are doing a piss poor job of it. They make very little on their iTunes stores.
Absolutely not.
Apple sells hardware. Virtually all other sales and services are there to provide value to the hardware. The dock connected licensing has nothing to do with generating revenue, and everything to do with making sure people know they can buy something that will work.
The same is true of apps, media, etc.
It's not completely as simple as that. Apple does make money on their services, but generally just enough to keep things healthy and growing. But if you had to boil any random choice Apple makes, it generally revolves around, "does this make our product better or worse?"
A lot of Slashdotters are incapable of grasping this because to them, locked up devices and services are unforgivable sins. They trump any other choice, and make the answer to that question almost universally "no, it destroys the product and makes it unforgivably worse".
But for your average human? These things are of absolutely *ZERO* importance. Instead, the fact that it makes things Just Work is what matters, and it's extremely clear that this is working out great for Apple.
It's failed (and will never succeed at) becoming an iPad killer.
And it's funny to hear you say the "real" Fire is coming later. That points out the failure path the current Fire is presently on, and is a recurring theme among those that seem to be emotionally vested in seeing Apple fail, that the "real" savior device or OS is coming soon. We've been hearing this same story for years now.
I'm pretty sure they know, that's why they designed the UI with books and newspapers in the first two positions.
Well, that settles it then! Whatever you do, don't go to Amazon's Kindle Fire page and look at the images, screenshots, or marketing copy, all of which prominently highlight movies, music, apps, web browsing, etc.
You are truly a master at ignoring reality.
First, Android 3.2 is a good tablet operating system,
According to who, exactly?
regardless of how many units are shipped.
Exactly. You assert that it's a good system, but nobody's buying them. Makes me seriously question your judgement.
But devices like the EEE Transformer have been very successful.
I'm wondering if the words "very" and "successful" have alternate definitions I'm not aware of...
You can tell how much of a threat Android tablets are to Apple by the "thermonuclear war" Apple has been fighting against them. Android tablets would have shipped a lot more if Apple hadn't used dirty tricks to keep devices like the Samsung tablets from market.
Again, nothing but assertion on your part, with absolutely nothing to back it up other than pure conjecture.
Answer this: what, exactly, do you think Apple is afraid of? If the Galaxy Tab were so dangerous, you'd expect demand for it to be phenomenal, right? Well, reality doesn't quite agree here.
Your assertions are so thoroughly contradicted by reality, they appear little more than the ravings of a lunatic.
Yes, the latter has been successful. So are high heeled shoes, which fail every objective test for the usefulness of a shoe. Just saying.
And the iPad is, objectively, the most useful tablet out there. Your analogy is absurd.
You are a nerd. Your analogy should be sneakers vs. boots. Boots are more useful in specific contexts, but not useful in general situations the way sneakers are. You are like a lumberjack saying sneakers (the iPad) are merely successful because people are stupid and blinded by shiny. When the reality is that your needs are not common, and therefore neither is your opinion.
At least have the decency to not denigrate people just because they don't have your nerd cred and like different things than you.
Only you have it exactly backwards. iOS isn't about locking you into Apple's services. The services are about adding value to the hardware. That's why the Fire is a budget device and the iPad is not.
All the other functions of the Kindle Fire are secondary and are gravy.
You might want to tell Amazon that.
There's a lot of assertion and very little substance in your reply.
Where are all the successful Android 3.2 tablets? What makes you think the Fire, which has worse hardware, would be any better?
Care to quote the part where I said it wasn't possible? Because it's nowhere to be found.
Perhaps you should reread it first.