How about the days when people did not have to worry about breaking the law just to the software they wanted to run on the computers they legally purchased?
I don't have to break the law to run the software I want to run on the computer I legally purchased - and I purchased it from Apple and and running an OS from Apple. I just happened to buy the right computer for that purpose - one of the computers running Mac OS X, rather than one of the computers running iOS.
The first is that non-technical users simply don't understand the concept of right or left clicking, and adding buttons that can be clicked just confuses.
I'd phrase that as "less sophisticated users"; I suspect many of the more sophisticated users who are "non-technical" understand context menus.
There's also a menu up top already with all the same things and more... when should I use which?
Use the menu button if 1) the thing you want to do is, or might be, on the context menu and 2) you don't want to have to move the mouse to get a menu.
The second reason is that Apple selling a single-button mouse (not sure if they still do though)
That depends on what you call a "button"; the only mouse I see is the Magic Mouse.
forces UI designers to make their products single-button navigable.
No, because Command+Click pops up a contextual menu, just as right-click does in several other GUIs. Yes, they say "Always ensure that contextual menu items are also available as menu commands. A contextual menu is hidden by default and a user might not know it exists, so it should never be the only way to access a command. In particular, you should not use a contextual menu as the only way to access an advanced or power-user feature.", which I agree with - on any GUI, even those used on systems with multi-button mice. The GNOME people agree with that ("Since the user may not be aware of their presence, do not provide functions that are only accessible from popup menus unless you are confident that your target users will know how to use popup menus."), and so does Microsoft ("Don't make commands only available through context menus. Like shortcut keys, context menus are alternative means of performing commands and choosing options. For example, a Properties command is also available through the menu bar or the Alt+Enter access key.").
"All your Apps in one Place" - shouldnt that read "only the apps we (apple) deem to be runnable on your box" ?
Yeah, it's unlikely that an app compiled for one of the Debian Linux MIPS ports would work, as it's not been deemed runnable by Apple, as Apple doesn't give a damn about 1) supporting Linux binaries or 2) supporting MIPS binaries. Or were you referring to some other form of "we (apple) deem to be runnable on your box"? If the app won't run, there's not much point in having it in the Launchpad....
Most users don't need a compiler? Themselves, no. The guy helping them (aka poor me) sometimes. You'd be surprised at the rather advanced requests one may have from users, some of which might require the installation/modification of Free Software. Which in turn requires a compiler. Of course, I could just tell them to give up -- but maybe I like a challenge. What I don't like is the insulting registration process I have to go through. Insulting because it exists at all.
Presumably you're referring to the registration process when you first boot OS X, because there's no registration process for the compiler - as indicated, you just stick the CD in and install it.
Having just switched to a Mac, my biggest irritation (other than the odd keyboard) is that the menu bar is always at the very top of the screen and is not attached to the window. When you have lots of small windows open, it just drives me crazy having to go to the menu at the top of the screen.
Any way to fix this short of installing Linux on the machine?
Come on.. proper data structure design is stuff that they teach in first year at university in CS courses...
Presumably you mean "properly keeping the documentation of the data structures up to date", as there's nothing at all improper about stuffing the data of small files into the same data structure as the file metadata (nor, for that matter, anything unique to Microsoft or NTFS about it).
Many, many things. The MFT (Master File Table) which contains all your file system info... may also contain actual files if they are small enough to fit into the remaining space (i.e. disk block sizes matter). Why is this a problem? file wiping software usually won't go near the MFT since you twiddle the wrong bits in the MFT and the entire file system is likely to go poof.
The fact that NTFS doesn't happen to conform to a particular naive model of "how file systems work", namely "all file data is stored in blocks separate from file headers", might be an annoyance to developers of third-party file wiping software, but I wouldn't consider that to be something "wrong" with it. If Microsoft don't supply a file-wiping API that allows user-mode code to request that all the data in a file be wiped, regardless of how that data might happen to be stored for particular files on a particular version of a particular file system, one might consider that to be something "wrong" with Windows, but that's another matter.
Oh the MFT is also basically not documented properly, I actually had an MS employee that owed me a favor try to find the docs on it and he couldn't.
That's not a problem with NTFS, it's a problem with Microsoft's software development practices (although it's probably not the only piece of software for which the documentation of the data structures lags behind the current data structures).
He didn't say "app" means "small widgets of code for smartphones", he said it became synonymous with that. Try asking someone outside of IT "what's an app?" and you'll find the author is entirely right
Try asking someone outside of IT "what's an app?" and they probably will have no clue whether it's a "small widget" or not. iMovie is an "app" for the iPhone, but I doubt it qualifies as a "small widget". I doubt that the notion that some people have that "apps" are either all "small widgets" or all "for smartphones" will last; I suspect most people who think of an "app" as just a "small widget of code for a smartphone" will end up using the term for applications in general.
Yeah - a better way to think of it is that a lot of Web site are "apps" - fully running programs written in a programming language, which just happens to be JavaScript, and if you go to the Web site, it hands you a program, and it runs in your browser.
Isn't the use of the acronym "PC" extremely misused as well? PC =/= just Windows machines. Macs and Unix machines are also PCs; heck, wouldn't a phone even be considered a PC?
Yeah, "PC" is arguably just an abbreviation of "personal computer", but it tends in practice to mean "Wintel machine" - Macs aren't "PC's" and a Linux/*BSD/Solaris box isn't a "PC" even if it was one before you overwrote Windows with your OS of choice; perhaps even a "Winarm" box running Windows 8 on an ARM processor wouldn't be a "PC".
The US can be a manufacturing powerhouse again tomorrow - All we have to do is just roll back all the ridiculous regulations and the ever-increasing cost of trying to comply with the the myriad dictates of ever increasing armies of "bureaucrats armed and clerical" ("trying", because it's impossible to actually fully comply, by design.)
Just out of curiosity, do you happen to know how the regulatory burden in the US compares with, say, the regulatory burden in seems-to-be-doing-OK-in-manufacturing Germany?
May be official background included NSA just to throw off the exact thinking, that if he was a mole, his background
wouldnt include NSA. So by including NSA background, they are trying to give impression that he is
not associated with NSA anymore ?
Well, all the smart people on Slashdot figured that one out. So clearly the right strategy is not to include any NSA background, so that none of the smart people will think he's part of the NSA.
But, then again, if the NSA wanted to get a mole in place, his official background would not include the NSA.
Welcome to Another Infinite Loop. Lather, rinse, repeat. (Or step back and laugh at the smart people on Slashdot.)
... Stalin, Mao, even Saddam Hussein and Pol Pot were elected at first.
[citation needed] Were any of those elected in a free election by the general electorate (as opposed to a "one candidate only" election, or a "funny, 99 44/100% of the people voted for them, I guess they're popular" election, or a choice by the leadership of the ruling party)? (I'll let you have Hitler and Mussolini for that one, but even those might be subject to review.)
Wait - what? You're for freedom of information but not people?
Perhaps he's for freedom of information and people - people including Julian Assange - and arguing in favor of the latter by saying that perhaps people who argue against freedom for some people could and should have their arguments turned against them, including saying "if person X thinks person Y should be prosecuted because they {blah blah blah}, person X should be prosecuted for {something like blah blah blah}"?
Everything in the Universe attracts everything, with varying degrees of force. Magnets are just better at it because of their atomic structure/alignment.
(Simplified explanation.) Everything in the universe may attract everything because of gravity (if it has energy-momentum, it has a gravitational field). Two things with the same sign of electrical charge repel each other because of electromagnetism, so you have gravitational attraction and electrical repulsion competing. Magnets attract because of electromagnetism.
(Cue the Insane Clown Posse in 5...4...3...2...1...)
And what exactly is it about a store to sell third-party applications that's an indication that Apple can do without third-party developers? If they didn't want third-party developers, they, err, umm, wouldn't have published an SDK and created an app store. Or do you mean that so many third-party apps have been developed that Apple has figured out that they don't need them?
If you actually read my previous posts, you'd understand (even if you didn't agree with) my reasoning. I'm not interested in covering the same ground again.
I've read all of them several times. I haven't seen any reasoning to support your belief that somehow an App Store is a sign that third-party apps are considered something to eliminate.
You can add new application if you've purchased it through their app store and (i.e. it has their approval). You can develop new hardware that attaches to the dock connector if you work out a license with them to use their patented dock, otherwise you risk getting your ass sued off (http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/09/21/apple_sues_hypermac_accessory_maker_over_magsafe_ipod_cables.html).
I never said otherwise. The question is whether "they don't want people tampering with iOS devices" means "they wish they could seal them in plastic and not let anything non-Apple on" or "they want to keep out applications and peripherals of which they don't approve". You appear to have a firm opinion that it's the former; I have no firm opinion one way or the other, and, in particular, see no strong case that it's the former.
That's Job's whole justification for the walled garden - to ensure that third party apps don't diminish the users experience. Appliance simply means the device is usable by someone with little or no technical expertise. The Apple IIe and Radio Shack TRS-80 were termed "appliance computers" because you didn't need a soldering iron to get them up and running. You simply plugged them in and pressed a switch. It's doesn't mean they can't be upgraded or enhanced or anything of the sort.
So, again, "they don't want people tampering with them" does not necessarily imply "they'd like to cut off third-party appliances and peripherals", and does not inherently strongly suggest that the plan is to return iOS to the "the only programs that run on it are created by Apple or at Apple's behest" state it was in before 2.0.
You may actually be right on this point. 25% may be a more accurate estimate. The information I was basing this on was for desktop sales and not combined desktop/laptop sales. However, interestingly enough, if you read the very article you reference, you'll notice that even they are speculating that Apple's has been trending toward mobility and may discontinue their consumer desktop line altogether.
So? This doesn't say anything whatsoever about iOS vs. Mac OS X; it's just a shift within the market segment of Mac OS X devices. A similar shift is taking place within the market segment of devices that ship running Windows 7.
Oh - sorry - it's a valid analysis when it makes your point, but I'm sure any information supporting my argument within the same article is a bogus, unsupported claim. Got it.
No, it's just information that doesn't support your argument. Shifting from desktops to laptops is not the same as shifting from Mac OS X to iOS.
Or right. Only time will tell. However, if you find a line of thinking on one Mac blog, you can take it with a grain of salt. When you find the same line of thinking on nearly every (pro-Apple) blog, it does tend to increase the likelihood that it may be correct.
Or it might just be that they're all reinforcing each other's prejudices. When it comes to long-term speculations - which is what we're talking about here, not "Apple will probabl
I know about the spat between the 2 companies, but this sounds highly farfetched.
You must be new here. Discussions in an article that mentions Apple specialize in the highly-farfetched (no matter what side the person's on), and this also involves the GPL, which can be another farfetchedness magnet. Now if it involved guns, we'd have won the Trifecta....
Nothing other than the dev filing the complaint works for Nokia. This is anticompetitive behaviour. I would not be surprised if his boss at Nokia bribed him to do it.
sorry, but this is utter nonsense.
Which part is nonsense? The fact that he works for Nokia or or that he made false claims that the appstore is incompatible with GPLV2 or that other GPLV2 apps exist on the store after the terms of the store where modified to allow the developer to satisfy the terms of the license.
The "this is anticompetitive behaviour" part? Nobody's provided any evidence that Remi did this at the behest of somebody in a position of power at Nokia; it's quite conceivable that:
he's unhappy that a GPLed work to which he contributes is distributed via a mechanism that he (and the FSF) think imposes extra restrictions on the distribution of the app (which would violate the GPL);
he works for Nokia;
the first of those has nothing to do with the second of those (his LinkedIn page says he works on what appear to be lower-level mobile phone stuff on Linux, not on media-player stuff, at Nokia).
The GPL is a source license and it applies to the use and distribution of the source to any interested party after a binary is distributed from modified source code.
Or unmodified source code (see clause 3 of GPLv2).
It does not apply to the end user as it is not a EULA
It "applies to the end user" in that it imposes conditions on what restrictions you can impose on the recipient of GPLed software, whether that recipient is "the end user" or not (see clause 6 of GPLv2).
Why is it that only the Nokia employee objected to the iOS VLC app?
Because the VLC developer who's a Nokia employee is also a VLC developer who's a bit grumpier about the requirements of the GPL? I've seen nothing that indicates that the only explanation possible is that this is all part of an Evil Plot by Nokia to sabotage Apple.
Slashdot Mirror
How about the days when people did not have to worry about breaking the law just to the software they wanted to run on the computers they legally purchased?
I don't have to break the law to run the software I want to run on the computer I legally purchased - and I purchased it from Apple and and running an OS from Apple. I just happened to buy the right computer for that purpose - one of the computers running Mac OS X, rather than one of the computers running iOS.
The first is that non-technical users simply don't understand the concept of right or left clicking, and adding buttons that can be clicked just confuses.
I'd phrase that as "less sophisticated users"; I suspect many of the more sophisticated users who are "non-technical" understand context menus.
There's also a menu up top already with all the same things and more... when should I use which?
Use the menu button if 1) the thing you want to do is, or might be, on the context menu and 2) you don't want to have to move the mouse to get a menu.
The second reason is that Apple selling a single-button mouse (not sure if they still do though)
That depends on what you call a "button"; the only mouse I see is the Magic Mouse.
forces UI designers to make their products single-button navigable.
No, because Command+Click pops up a contextual menu, just as right-click does in several other GUIs. Yes, they say "Always ensure that contextual menu items are also available as menu commands. A contextual menu is hidden by default and a user might not know it exists, so it should never be the only way to access a command. In particular, you should not use a contextual menu as the only way to access an advanced or power-user feature.", which I agree with - on any GUI, even those used on systems with multi-button mice. The GNOME people agree with that ("Since the user may not be aware of their presence, do not provide functions that are only accessible from popup menus unless you are confident that your target users will know how to use popup menus."), and so does Microsoft ("Don't make commands only available through context menus. Like shortcut keys, context menus are alternative means of performing commands and choosing options. For example, a Properties command is also available through the menu bar or the Alt+Enter access key.").
"All your Apps in one Place" - shouldnt that read "only the apps we (apple) deem to be runnable on your box" ?
Yeah, it's unlikely that an app compiled for one of the Debian Linux MIPS ports would work, as it's not been deemed runnable by Apple, as Apple doesn't give a damn about 1) supporting Linux binaries or 2) supporting MIPS binaries. Or were you referring to some other form of "we (apple) deem to be runnable on your box"? If the app won't run, there's not much point in having it in the Launchpad....
Most users don't need a compiler? Themselves, no. The guy helping them (aka poor me) sometimes. You'd be surprised at the rather advanced requests one may have from users, some of which might require the installation/modification of Free Software. Which in turn requires a compiler. Of course, I could just tell them to give up -- but maybe I like a challenge. What I don't like is the insulting registration process I have to go through. Insulting because it exists at all.
Presumably you're referring to the registration process when you first boot OS X, because there's no registration process for the compiler - as indicated, you just stick the CD in and install it.
Having just switched to a Mac, my biggest irritation (other than the odd keyboard) is that the menu bar is always at the very top of the screen and is not attached to the window. When you have lots of small windows open, it just drives me crazy having to go to the menu at the top of the screen.
Any way to fix this short of installing Linux on the machine?
If you choose the "install Linux" approach, be careful.
For the home user, who does not want to shell out an extra $500 for OSX Server Edition...
For Lion, there is no server edition; you just set up Lion as a server.
Which further proves his point. Bringing in an American MS guy is not in line with the aforementioned strategy.
Angry but polite mob of Canadians arriving in 5... 4... 3... 2....
(Yeah, I know, the reply will say "North America", but, still....)
Come on.. proper data structure design is stuff that they teach in first year at university in CS courses...
Presumably you mean "properly keeping the documentation of the data structures up to date", as there's nothing at all improper about stuffing the data of small files into the same data structure as the file metadata (nor, for that matter, anything unique to Microsoft or NTFS about it).
What's wrong with NTFS?
Many, many things. The MFT (Master File Table) which contains all your file system info... may also contain actual files if they are small enough to fit into the remaining space (i.e. disk block sizes matter). Why is this a problem? file wiping software usually won't go near the MFT since you twiddle the wrong bits in the MFT and the entire file system is likely to go poof.
The fact that NTFS doesn't happen to conform to a particular naive model of "how file systems work", namely "all file data is stored in blocks separate from file headers", might be an annoyance to developers of third-party file wiping software, but I wouldn't consider that to be something "wrong" with it. If Microsoft don't supply a file-wiping API that allows user-mode code to request that all the data in a file be wiped, regardless of how that data might happen to be stored for particular files on a particular version of a particular file system, one might consider that to be something "wrong" with Windows, but that's another matter.
Oh the MFT is also basically not documented properly, I actually had an MS employee that owed me a favor try to find the docs on it and he couldn't.
That's not a problem with NTFS, it's a problem with Microsoft's software development practices (although it's probably not the only piece of software for which the documentation of the data structures lags behind the current data structures).
He didn't say "app" means "small widgets of code for smartphones", he said it became synonymous with that. Try asking someone outside of IT "what's an app?" and you'll find the author is entirely right
Try asking someone outside of IT "what's an app?" and they probably will have no clue whether it's a "small widget" or not. iMovie is an "app" for the iPhone, but I doubt it qualifies as a "small widget". I doubt that the notion that some people have that "apps" are either all "small widgets" or all "for smartphones" will last; I suspect most people who think of an "app" as just a "small widget of code for a smartphone" will end up using the term for applications in general.
HTML is not a programming language.
Yeah - a better way to think of it is that a lot of Web site are "apps" - fully running programs written in a programming language, which just happens to be JavaScript, and if you go to the Web site, it hands you a program, and it runs in your browser.
Isn't the use of the acronym "PC" extremely misused as well? PC =/= just Windows machines. Macs and Unix machines are also PCs; heck, wouldn't a phone even be considered a PC?
Yeah, "PC" is arguably just an abbreviation of "personal computer", but it tends in practice to mean "Wintel machine" - Macs aren't "PC's" and a Linux/*BSD/Solaris box isn't a "PC" even if it was one before you overwrote Windows with your OS of choice; perhaps even a "Winarm" box running Windows 8 on an ARM processor wouldn't be a "PC".
...and I have never heard someone use the term 'app' to refer to a stand-alone desktop software.
I have.
The US can be a manufacturing powerhouse again tomorrow - All we have to do is just roll back all the ridiculous regulations and the ever-increasing cost of trying to comply with the the myriad dictates of ever increasing armies of "bureaucrats armed and clerical" ("trying", because it's impossible to actually fully comply, by design.)
Just out of curiosity, do you happen to know how the regulatory burden in the US compares with, say, the regulatory burden in seems-to-be-doing-OK-in-manufacturing Germany?
May be official background included NSA just to throw off the exact thinking, that if he was a mole, his background wouldnt include NSA. So by including NSA background, they are trying to give impression that he is not associated with NSA anymore ?
Well, all the smart people on Slashdot figured that one out. So clearly the right strategy is not to include any NSA background, so that none of the smart people will think he's part of the NSA.
But, then again, if the NSA wanted to get a mole in place, his official background would not include the NSA.
Welcome to Another Infinite Loop. Lather, rinse, repeat. (Or step back and laugh at the smart people on Slashdot.)
... Stalin, Mao, even Saddam Hussein and Pol Pot were elected at first.
[citation needed] Were any of those elected in a free election by the general electorate (as opposed to a "one candidate only" election, or a "funny, 99 44/100% of the people voted for them, I guess they're popular" election, or a choice by the leadership of the ruling party)? (I'll let you have Hitler and Mussolini for that one, but even those might be subject to review.)
It's effectively like having a polish Linux system
I.e., it's like this?
Hey, kids! He-he-ha-ha-ha!
I think you meant to say Fucking magnets, how do they work?. HTH.
I thought the USA was the world's shining hope, and what other countries should aspire to become.
You must be an American, then.
Time to recalibrate your sarcasm detector.
Wait - what? You're for freedom of information but not people?
Perhaps he's for freedom of information and people - people including Julian Assange - and arguing in favor of the latter by saying that perhaps people who argue against freedom for some people could and should have their arguments turned against them, including saying "if person X thinks person Y should be prosecuted because they {blah blah blah}, person X should be prosecuted for {something like blah blah blah}"?
Everything in the Universe attracts everything, with varying degrees of force. Magnets are just better at it because of their atomic structure/alignment.
(Simplified explanation.) Everything in the universe may attract everything because of gravity (if it has energy-momentum, it has a gravitational field). Two things with the same sign of electrical charge repel each other because of electromagnetism, so you have gravitational attraction and electrical repulsion competing. Magnets attract because of electromagnetism.
(Cue the Insane Clown Posse in 5...4...3...2...1...)
Have we finally figured out they're the same thing?
Are you certain that they are? (And what does "same thing" mean in this context?)
And what exactly is it about a store to sell third-party applications that's an indication that Apple can do without third-party developers? If they didn't want third-party developers, they, err, umm, wouldn't have published an SDK and created an app store. Or do you mean that so many third-party apps have been developed that Apple has figured out that they don't need them?
If you actually read my previous posts, you'd understand (even if you didn't agree with) my reasoning. I'm not interested in covering the same ground again.
I've read all of them several times. I haven't seen any reasoning to support your belief that somehow an App Store is a sign that third-party apps are considered something to eliminate.
You can add new application if you've purchased it through their app store and (i.e. it has their approval). You can develop new hardware that attaches to the dock connector if you work out a license with them to use their patented dock, otherwise you risk getting your ass sued off (http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/09/21/apple_sues_hypermac_accessory_maker_over_magsafe_ipod_cables.html).
I never said otherwise. The question is whether "they don't want people tampering with iOS devices" means "they wish they could seal them in plastic and not let anything non-Apple on" or "they want to keep out applications and peripherals of which they don't approve". You appear to have a firm opinion that it's the former; I have no firm opinion one way or the other, and, in particular, see no strong case that it's the former.
That's Job's whole justification for the walled garden - to ensure that third party apps don't diminish the users experience. Appliance simply means the device is usable by someone with little or no technical expertise. The Apple IIe and Radio Shack TRS-80 were termed "appliance computers" because you didn't need a soldering iron to get them up and running. You simply plugged them in and pressed a switch. It's doesn't mean they can't be upgraded or enhanced or anything of the sort.
So, again, "they don't want people tampering with them" does not necessarily imply "they'd like to cut off third-party appliances and peripherals", and does not inherently strongly suggest that the plan is to return iOS to the "the only programs that run on it are created by Apple or at Apple's behest" state it was in before 2.0.
You may actually be right on this point. 25% may be a more accurate estimate. The information I was basing this on was for desktop sales and not combined desktop/laptop sales. However, interestingly enough, if you read the very article you reference, you'll notice that even they are speculating that Apple's has been trending toward mobility and may discontinue their consumer desktop line altogether.
So? This doesn't say anything whatsoever about iOS vs. Mac OS X; it's just a shift within the market segment of Mac OS X devices. A similar shift is taking place within the market segment of devices that ship running Windows 7.
Oh - sorry - it's a valid analysis when it makes your point, but I'm sure any information supporting my argument within the same article is a bogus, unsupported claim. Got it.
No, it's just information that doesn't support your argument. Shifting from desktops to laptops is not the same as shifting from Mac OS X to iOS.
Or right. Only time will tell. However, if you find a line of thinking on one Mac blog, you can take it with a grain of salt. When you find the same line of thinking on nearly every (pro-Apple) blog, it does tend to increase the likelihood that it may be correct.
Or it might just be that they're all reinforcing each other's prejudices. When it comes to long-term speculations - which is what we're talking about here, not "Apple will probabl
I know about the spat between the 2 companies, but this sounds highly farfetched.
You must be new here. Discussions in an article that mentions Apple specialize in the highly-farfetched (no matter what side the person's on), and this also involves the GPL, which can be another farfetchedness magnet. Now if it involved guns, we'd have won the Trifecta....
Nothing other than the dev filing the complaint works for Nokia. This is anticompetitive behaviour. I would not be surprised if his boss at Nokia bribed him to do it.
sorry, but this is utter nonsense.
Which part is nonsense? The fact that he works for Nokia or or that he made false claims that the appstore is incompatible with GPLV2 or that other GPLV2 apps exist on the store after the terms of the store where modified to allow the developer to satisfy the terms of the license.
The "this is anticompetitive behaviour" part? Nobody's provided any evidence that Remi did this at the behest of somebody in a position of power at Nokia; it's quite conceivable that:
The GPL is a source license and it applies to the use and distribution of the source to any interested party after a binary is distributed from modified source code.
Or unmodified source code (see clause 3 of GPLv2).
It does not apply to the end user as it is not a EULA
It "applies to the end user" in that it imposes conditions on what restrictions you can impose on the recipient of GPLed software, whether that recipient is "the end user" or not (see clause 6 of GPLv2).
Why is it that only the Nokia employee objected to the iOS VLC app?
Because the VLC developer who's a Nokia employee is also a VLC developer who's a bit grumpier about the requirements of the GPL? I've seen nothing that indicates that the only explanation possible is that this is all part of an Evil Plot by Nokia to sabotage Apple.