Astroturf? We get daily Iphone Slashvertisements, and any pro-Apple comment is modded up, whilst any criticism is modden down, and when someone makes a single comment in favour of by far the most used OS on the planet, that's obviously astroturfing? If you say so.
And if you want to talk at companies being good at marketing, even if all they had was shrink-wrapped poo, there's a company I have in mind who do that job far better than Microsoft...
Why should he cater to this community, anyway? A community that cheers on Pirate Bay and other piracy that directly impacts what John Carmack does for a living?
Er... leaving aside the flawed comparison, I thought polls showed that most people in "this community" used Windows, so by that logic, he shouldn't be doing a Windows port.
If you are actually claiming that piracy is more common on Linux than Windows, let's see your reliable sources?
The obvious counter-example to your assertion is Facebook - still plenty of idiots there, using their real names.
Even if it was true, I think privacy has more important implications (e.g., people who don't want to implicate their company, or future job interviews seeing pics of wild parties in your youth) than whining about someone being unpleasant on a forum.
Indeed, people here usually ridicule Facebook users for posting so much information publically.
In RL, there is no anonymity.
People in real life can see my real name? I don't think so. The only difference is seeing my appearance. I'd also argue that privacy is more important online, because there is often a long lasting or permanent record of everything done, which can often be easily searchable. If this was the case with real life, you can bet that people would be a lot more careful about showing themselves.
And even if it was true, there is your counter-example: last time I looked, there were still plenty of idiots there in real life.
In fact, I am becoming more in favor of making everyone use their real name, all the time
If you are merely going to say that people shouldn't "try to hide it", even though people can still post with pseudonyms and not post any information, then how will that stop the "ridiculous-ness, the hateful content" etc that he talked about? How will it be any different to what we have now, in fact?
If there's one lesson that institutional science should have learned from its history it's that one.
Nonsense. The very fact that these things are now scientifically accepted shows that science adapts to new evidence.
The problem was never with people who claimed they saw certain things - the problem is those who claimed that therefore, "sprites" existed (as in, actual creatures). Far from proving them right, on the contrary, this shows that there is a rational explanation, and therefore they are proven wrong.
Will they learn your lesson, and accept that they were wrong?
Rather than shouting down or marginalizing the minority who disagree, we should be promoting their dissent so long as it's scientific in nature.
Right, and who is shouting down scientific theories?
And btw, "I saw something weird, it must have been caused by sprites" is not scientific.
Now sure, sometimes scientists are slow to accept new ideas (e.g., Einstein and quantum mechanics), but let's not conflate that with any fringe idea that comes under the umbrella of "alternative".
I agree, and consider if it was the other way round: if a man didn't fit neatly into the stereotypical assumption of what men should be like, would they then be allowed to compete as a woman (and hence win more easily?) I doubt it!
On that note, I have to despair that TFS refers to "press reports" and links to the Daily Fail. For non-UK readers, this is a bigoted tabloid, that has a history of both xenophobia and transphobia. I mean for heaven's sake, has anyone actually read the article? Their answer to the question of one's sex is "Wouldn't wear dresses and sounds like a man on the phone". My god, according to them large numbers of women aren't actually women.
The irony is that if a man liked to wear dresses and therefore demanded he should compete as a woman, the Daily Mail would be first in line to criticise that decision too! (Even when it comes to transsexuals, they have ran stories criticising m2f transwomen).
Well indeed - it makes sense to have a "male" and "female" division in many sports, as otherwise it would all be dominated by men.
But the point is: if someone doesn't fit into that model, then the model is wrong. Either fix the model, or let her play whatever. The answer is not to assume that the person is wrong, let alone to subject her to humiliation and harrassment. I don't think all of sporting is going to fall apart just because one woman has a "genetic advantage", as that applies to many people with different genetics. One woman isn't going to stop all other women from competing.
Maybe I should whine that there ought to be a sporting category for "people with unfit bodies that are crap at sports", so I have a chance of winning...
I don't think anyone is claiming that what Apple should do should be illegal. Yes, that factor applied to the Netscape/MS case, but even if it was legal, even if they weren't a monopoly, it would still be annoying if MS actively prevented you from running Netscape (and note that they didn't actually do that, the legality issue was over something else, so again, your point is completely irrelevant and off-topic).
Would you like Windows if you couldn't run apps that MS hadn't approved? Would you like any platform - monopoly or not - where that was true?
If you want the open platform with hackability and freedom from the closed, carefully controlled vertical architecture then there's Android. There are also a ton of other phones out there
Yes, and that is exactly the point being made. It's why people are criticising the Iphone - so that people know about its flaws, and look to other phones. No one is claiming that Apple are breaking the law - that's a straw man. But it is fair game for people to criticise them for offering such a locked down product.
I mean, people bash Windows all the time - do you go pleading "But you could run Linux" and suggest they not be allowed to criticise anything about Windows? Indeed, most of the criticism likely comes from people who run Linux or have a Mac - why are they allowed to criticise Windows, but non-Iphone users are not allowed to criticise Iphones?
I only wish we heard more of these alternative phones on Slashdot. Instead it's all Iphone Iphone Iphone.
Ah here we are - whenever Apple are doing something that's bad for their consumers, someone always comes along with the argument of "But they're only trying to make as much profit as possible".
Sure. When there's a story about MS doing something annoying, do you go "Well what are they supposed to do, let competitors have a chance to make some money, when MS could make even more?"
Sorry. We judge them on their actions. If I see a company offering a poor service, it's fair game to criticise them. No one steps in to plead "But don't you know they could make even more profit by screwing you over? What are they supposed to do!" Except when it's Apple, it seems.
If the only defence for their actions is that it benefits Apple, that's hardly a ringing endorsement. And every other phone on the market can run applications from anywhere without needing corporate approval, so the answer to "What the hell is Apple supposed to do" is "Do what every other company manages to do".
I agree. Note that the only reason that OS X is any good at all is because it's a completely different OS (derived from Next), and not descended from the joke that was "classic" MacOS (that only looked good compared to the even worse offerings from MS like DOS). I do find it amusing that after years of Mac fans claiming MacOS was superior back then (whilst I, like you, favoured AmigaOS), Apple themselves turned round and ditched MacOS for something else.
Of course in response they bury their heads in the sand, and insist the new OS is now "MacOS".
I agree about XP (and 2000 is good too). In a similar manner, it's a separate OS line to DOS/Windows 9x, and it's a perfectly fine OS. The irony is that Mac fans still bash Windows XP based on their experiences of Windows 9x ("it crashes all the time!"), despite the fact that if we judged OS X by our experiences of classic MacOS, it'd be a laughing stock ("what's that? You can't even multitask?").
If you wanted to understand how a computer program I wrote behaved, would you have better luck watching the program run, or would you study me instead?
(At best, you might argue you could learn something by communicating with me, but that's not the same as "studying" me, nor is it necessarily a better way. And there's no evidence that people who claim they are communicating with God are doing so - if this was really a good way, how come no discoveries have come from this method, and how come they all disagree with each other?)
Sure, but even if there is a god, there seems little evidence that theologians have any way of knowing anything about this god. How do we know if it's true? How come they all disagree so much - they can't all be right!
So even if there is a god, the idea that theologians will be sitting smugly thinking they knew it all along is rather absurd.
Put it another way - if there is a god, then why isn't there a single example where theologians have discovered something through studying god[*]? So either their methods don't work, or there isn't a god. In either cases, the theologians are of no use.
If there is a god, and god can be studied, then why is that outside of the realm of science anyway? It certainly is in the realm of science. And if either there isn't a god, or god can't be studied - then theologians won't have any better luck. Jastrow falls for the common fallacy that limitations of science can easily be overcome if only we took some different method (usually religious, but it's never explained how). The reality is that the limitations apply to any method we apply.
[*] To anyone reading, please take note of this point in italics before butting in with an example of "But religious people practiced things thousands of years ago that we later discovered was a good idea after all".
I thought someone would do that - replace "theologically" to mean "things that were practiced by religions".
So try again. Obviously there are lots of things that people have known before we fully understood them, but we still knew them through observation, which is the first step in scientific progress.
When Jastrow talked about a "band of theologians", I do not think that this is what he meant. Moreover, it implies that not only did they know the facts, but also knew the theories that explain the facts.
And if Jastrow really did mean "sometimes lay people know things before scientists investigate them", then sure, I entirely agree. But that's got nothing to do with science versus religion, or "atheistic view" versus "theistic view"! This just means that humans are capable of understanding things from observation, and not just scientists. It has nothing to do with whether God exists or not.
It's a common fallacy - claim that religion is better than science, or something like that, and then back-peddle to a position of saying that thousands of years ago people who happened to be religious knew things, citing an example where they found these facts out through observation and testing (you know, just like science). I mean what, are you suggesting they discovered the facts by speaking to God? The point is exemplified by the fact that Jews are a race.
This is no better than homeopaths who claim that because certain traditional medicines were found to work (e.g., bark as a painkiller), science must be somehow lacking, and there must be something better about "their" way.
There are many studies that attribute various benefits to meditation/relaxation/prayer. Spending a small amount of time each day in prayer is good for you, just like religion has been saying for years.
Just to clarify: as a form of relaxation, mediation, or a placebo, sure, but prayer does not work in anyway beyond that. So claiming that as a success to theology seems rather misleading.
And those studies were, I hope, scientific, not "theological studies" (I'm not sure what that would involve?), so again, you are talking about science here.
I am no fan of Microsoft's, but you are still making the fallacy of "MS are bad, therefore anyone else must be better, despite evidence to the contrary".
You can argue about MS vs Apple all you like - what I want is mobile computing devices that are based on open standards - not built by MS or Apple - and isn't locked down. And an OS (whoever it's made by) that I can run applications for, without needing approval. You know, just like PCs, and now netbooks. I hope that trend continues.
My point is that Apple - since they build hardware, unlike MS - are in direct opposition to this. You can whine about other problems that MS may have, such as DRM, but that's irrelevant to my point. Even if I'm running Windows, I can still buy the hardware from who I like, and run what applications I like.
We need to get rid of this mentality that we need a single monopolist to set standards and own all of the market.... but I chose Apple to set milestones for other players
Brilliant!
Yes, I entirely agree we need to get rid of mentality. By all means hate MS as much as you like, but if you support Apple instead, you're not leaving that mentality in the slightest. Support something like Linux or Android if you'd rather.
Like Mac OS X does on MacBooks, iMacs, and Mac Pros? While the iPhone and iPod touch are locked down, Apple's other hardware isn't.
My post was talking about the mobile market - netbooks or smaller. The only thing Apple have in that market is the Iphone/Touch. And my point was about the fear of Apple becoming the dominant platform - if that happens, it's going to be a development of the Iphone, and not a Mac (firstly as no Mac exists in that market, secondly they're even more of a niche than the Iphone, and receiving far less hype these days).
There's nothing stopping Apple from releasing the touch UI in the general version of Mac OS. So if Apple does release a tablet / touch device, they have a choice of which OS variant they can install. Until then it's rumours.
Well having to install an OS into a locked down Iphone (is that even possible?) would still be a pain. Moreover, the market for it would be tiny - consider, if I'm a developer, the fact that I'm willing to install a new OS doesn't help me if Apple are refusing to approve my application. There's no way I can get all my potential users to install a new OS!
And you might as well say "There's nothing stopping Apple from no longer locking the Iphone down". True, but until that happens, I'll judge them on their current and past behaviour.
Yes, I agree about tablets. I prefer a keyboard, even on a phone, and certainly on something bigger like a netbook.
Yes and no - when it comes to the problems with phones in general (e.g., being tied to one network), I agree this is the phone carriers, and is nothing specific to Apple. But whether or not it's Apple's fault isn't really relevant here - my point being is that I would rather mobile computing to evolve from what we have as netbooks today, rather than locked down phones; and if Apple win, it'll be a descendent on the Iphone, not the Mac. But if Windows 7 becomes domininant, there's more choice than Windows powered phones (I can't believe that all of them are locked down like that?)
And on top of that, the specific issues to Apple (such as needing approval from Apple to distribute an application) are Apple's fault. Even if the phone carrier told them to do it - after all, there are plenty of phones out there that don't have these restrictions. And all the while there is more than one hardware manufacturer, at least there is choice, and more chance you can find one who doesn't lock things down.
I heard in Europe its a different story and you can actually buy one phone and use it on several networks and there are no ridiculous contracts.
In the UK, phones are usually tied to a network, but I think you can buy ones that can be used on any. Also we either pay for a phone (and have no contract), or pay a contract (and get the phone free). None of this "pay loads of money for the phone, and be locked into an expensive contract" that the Iphone has introduced.
(And not sure why you were modded Troll - yet more mod point abuse.)
Slashdot Mirror
Astroturf? We get daily Iphone Slashvertisements, and any pro-Apple comment is modded up, whilst any criticism is modden down, and when someone makes a single comment in favour of by far the most used OS on the planet, that's obviously astroturfing? If you say so.
And if you want to talk at companies being good at marketing, even if all they had was shrink-wrapped poo, there's a company I have in mind who do that job far better than Microsoft...
This is the third article this week you've taken to trolling.
And how many articles have you trolled, Anonymous Coward??
Why should he cater to this community, anyway? A community that cheers on Pirate Bay and other piracy that directly impacts what John Carmack does for a living?
Er... leaving aside the flawed comparison, I thought polls showed that most people in "this community" used Windows, so by that logic, he shouldn't be doing a Windows port.
If you are actually claiming that piracy is more common on Linux than Windows, let's see your reliable sources?
Thank you, Captain Logic. But it's also irrelevant to the original point being made about market share. Unless you think that one buyer is sufficient.
The obvious counter-example to your assertion is Facebook - still plenty of idiots there, using their real names.
Even if it was true, I think privacy has more important implications (e.g., people who don't want to implicate their company, or future job interviews seeing pics of wild parties in your youth) than whining about someone being unpleasant on a forum.
Indeed, people here usually ridicule Facebook users for posting so much information publically.
In RL, there is no anonymity.
People in real life can see my real name? I don't think so. The only difference is seeing my appearance. I'd also argue that privacy is more important online, because there is often a long lasting or permanent record of everything done, which can often be easily searchable. If this was the case with real life, you can bet that people would be a lot more careful about showing themselves.
And even if it was true, there is your counter-example: last time I looked, there were still plenty of idiots there in real life.
No, that's not what he said. He said:
In fact, I am becoming more in favor of making everyone use their real name, all the time
If you are merely going to say that people shouldn't "try to hide it", even though people can still post with pseudonyms and not post any information, then how will that stop the "ridiculous-ness, the hateful content" etc that he talked about? How will it be any different to what we have now, in fact?
The same Einstein who was reluctant to accept quantum mechanics, which turns out to be one of the most accurate descriptions of nature we have...
If there's one lesson that institutional science should have learned from its history it's that one.
Nonsense. The very fact that these things are now scientifically accepted shows that science adapts to new evidence.
The problem was never with people who claimed they saw certain things - the problem is those who claimed that therefore, "sprites" existed (as in, actual creatures). Far from proving them right, on the contrary, this shows that there is a rational explanation, and therefore they are proven wrong.
Will they learn your lesson, and accept that they were wrong?
Rather than shouting down or marginalizing the minority who disagree, we should be promoting their dissent so long as it's scientific in nature.
Right, and who is shouting down scientific theories?
And btw, "I saw something weird, it must have been caused by sprites" is not scientific.
Now sure, sometimes scientists are slow to accept new ideas (e.g., Einstein and quantum mechanics), but let's not conflate that with any fringe idea that comes under the umbrella of "alternative".
I agree, and consider if it was the other way round: if a man didn't fit neatly into the stereotypical assumption of what men should be like, would they then be allowed to compete as a woman (and hence win more easily?) I doubt it!
On that note, I have to despair that TFS refers to "press reports" and links to the Daily Fail. For non-UK readers, this is a bigoted tabloid, that has a history of both xenophobia and transphobia. I mean for heaven's sake, has anyone actually read the article? Their answer to the question of one's sex is "Wouldn't wear dresses and sounds like a man on the phone". My god, according to them large numbers of women aren't actually women.
The irony is that if a man liked to wear dresses and therefore demanded he should compete as a woman, the Daily Mail would be first in line to criticise that decision too! (Even when it comes to transsexuals, they have ran stories criticising m2f transwomen).
Well indeed - it makes sense to have a "male" and "female" division in many sports, as otherwise it would all be dominated by men.
But the point is: if someone doesn't fit into that model, then the model is wrong. Either fix the model, or let her play whatever. The answer is not to assume that the person is wrong, let alone to subject her to humiliation and harrassment. I don't think all of sporting is going to fall apart just because one woman has a "genetic advantage", as that applies to many people with different genetics. One woman isn't going to stop all other women from competing.
Maybe I should whine that there ought to be a sporting category for "people with unfit bodies that are crap at sports", so I have a chance of winning...
Straw man. Who said anything about it being illegal?
I don't think anyone is claiming that what Apple should do should be illegal. Yes, that factor applied to the Netscape/MS case, but even if it was legal, even if they weren't a monopoly, it would still be annoying if MS actively prevented you from running Netscape (and note that they didn't actually do that, the legality issue was over something else, so again, your point is completely irrelevant and off-topic).
Would you like Windows if you couldn't run apps that MS hadn't approved? Would you like any platform - monopoly or not - where that was true?
If you want the open platform with hackability and freedom from the closed, carefully controlled vertical architecture then there's Android. There are also a ton of other phones out there
Yes, and that is exactly the point being made. It's why people are criticising the Iphone - so that people know about its flaws, and look to other phones. No one is claiming that Apple are breaking the law - that's a straw man. But it is fair game for people to criticise them for offering such a locked down product.
I mean, people bash Windows all the time - do you go pleading "But you could run Linux" and suggest they not be allowed to criticise anything about Windows? Indeed, most of the criticism likely comes from people who run Linux or have a Mac - why are they allowed to criticise Windows, but non-Iphone users are not allowed to criticise Iphones?
I only wish we heard more of these alternative phones on Slashdot. Instead it's all Iphone Iphone Iphone.
Ah here we are - whenever Apple are doing something that's bad for their consumers, someone always comes along with the argument of "But they're only trying to make as much profit as possible".
Sure. When there's a story about MS doing something annoying, do you go "Well what are they supposed to do, let competitors have a chance to make some money, when MS could make even more?"
Sorry. We judge them on their actions. If I see a company offering a poor service, it's fair game to criticise them. No one steps in to plead "But don't you know they could make even more profit by screwing you over? What are they supposed to do!" Except when it's Apple, it seems.
If the only defence for their actions is that it benefits Apple, that's hardly a ringing endorsement. And every other phone on the market can run applications from anywhere without needing corporate approval, so the answer to "What the hell is Apple supposed to do" is "Do what every other company manages to do".
I agree. Note that the only reason that OS X is any good at all is because it's a completely different OS (derived from Next), and not descended from the joke that was "classic" MacOS (that only looked good compared to the even worse offerings from MS like DOS). I do find it amusing that after years of Mac fans claiming MacOS was superior back then (whilst I, like you, favoured AmigaOS), Apple themselves turned round and ditched MacOS for something else.
Of course in response they bury their heads in the sand, and insist the new OS is now "MacOS".
I agree about XP (and 2000 is good too). In a similar manner, it's a separate OS line to DOS/Windows 9x, and it's a perfectly fine OS. The irony is that Mac fans still bash Windows XP based on their experiences of Windows 9x ("it crashes all the time!"), despite the fact that if we judged OS X by our experiences of classic MacOS, it'd be a laughing stock ("what's that? You can't even multitask?").
Apple, it Just Works! It Just Works Just so long as you know how to work around it!
Personally I prefer to Think Different by not having an iPhone...
Not to be a troll, but pointing out the particular logical fallacies in use like that gives you a real air of 'douchebag'
Not a troll - that's an ad hominem.
If you wanted to understand how a computer program I wrote behaved, would you have better luck watching the program run, or would you study me instead?
(At best, you might argue you could learn something by communicating with me, but that's not the same as "studying" me, nor is it necessarily a better way. And there's no evidence that people who claim they are communicating with God are doing so - if this was really a good way, how come no discoveries have come from this method, and how come they all disagree with each other?)
Sure, but even if there is a god, there seems little evidence that theologians have any way of knowing anything about this god. How do we know if it's true? How come they all disagree so much - they can't all be right!
So even if there is a god, the idea that theologians will be sitting smugly thinking they knew it all along is rather absurd.
Put it another way - if there is a god, then why isn't there a single example where theologians have discovered something through studying god[*]? So either their methods don't work, or there isn't a god. In either cases, the theologians are of no use.
If there is a god, and god can be studied, then why is that outside of the realm of science anyway? It certainly is in the realm of science. And if either there isn't a god, or god can't be studied - then theologians won't have any better luck. Jastrow falls for the common fallacy that limitations of science can easily be overcome if only we took some different method (usually religious, but it's never explained how). The reality is that the limitations apply to any method we apply.
[*] To anyone reading, please take note of this point in italics before butting in with an example of "But religious people practiced things thousands of years ago that we later discovered was a good idea after all".
I thought someone would do that - replace "theologically" to mean "things that were practiced by religions".
So try again. Obviously there are lots of things that people have known before we fully understood them, but we still knew them through observation, which is the first step in scientific progress.
When Jastrow talked about a "band of theologians", I do not think that this is what he meant. Moreover, it implies that not only did they know the facts, but also knew the theories that explain the facts.
And if Jastrow really did mean "sometimes lay people know things before scientists investigate them", then sure, I entirely agree. But that's got nothing to do with science versus religion, or "atheistic view" versus "theistic view"! This just means that humans are capable of understanding things from observation, and not just scientists. It has nothing to do with whether God exists or not.
It's a common fallacy - claim that religion is better than science, or something like that, and then back-peddle to a position of saying that thousands of years ago people who happened to be religious knew things, citing an example where they found these facts out through observation and testing (you know, just like science). I mean what, are you suggesting they discovered the facts by speaking to God? The point is exemplified by the fact that Jews are a race.
This is no better than homeopaths who claim that because certain traditional medicines were found to work (e.g., bark as a painkiller), science must be somehow lacking, and there must be something better about "their" way.
There are many studies that attribute various benefits to meditation/relaxation/prayer. Spending a small amount of time each day in prayer is good for you, just like religion has been saying for years.
Just to clarify: as a form of relaxation, mediation, or a placebo, sure, but prayer does not work in anyway beyond that. So claiming that as a success to theology seems rather misleading.
And those studies were, I hope, scientific, not "theological studies" (I'm not sure what that would involve?), so again, you are talking about science here.
I agree, Android does look interesting, and I hope it becomes more popular.
I am no fan of Microsoft's, but you are still making the fallacy of "MS are bad, therefore anyone else must be better, despite evidence to the contrary".
You can argue about MS vs Apple all you like - what I want is mobile computing devices that are based on open standards - not built by MS or Apple - and isn't locked down. And an OS (whoever it's made by) that I can run applications for, without needing approval. You know, just like PCs, and now netbooks. I hope that trend continues.
My point is that Apple - since they build hardware, unlike MS - are in direct opposition to this. You can whine about other problems that MS may have, such as DRM, but that's irrelevant to my point. Even if I'm running Windows, I can still buy the hardware from who I like, and run what applications I like.
We need to get rid of this mentality that we need a single monopolist to set standards and own all of the market. ... but I chose Apple to set milestones for other players
Brilliant!
Yes, I entirely agree we need to get rid of mentality. By all means hate MS as much as you like, but if you support Apple instead, you're not leaving that mentality in the slightest. Support something like Linux or Android if you'd rather.
Like Mac OS X does on MacBooks, iMacs, and Mac Pros? While the iPhone and iPod touch are locked down, Apple's other hardware isn't.
My post was talking about the mobile market - netbooks or smaller. The only thing Apple have in that market is the Iphone/Touch. And my point was about the fear of Apple becoming the dominant platform - if that happens, it's going to be a development of the Iphone, and not a Mac (firstly as no Mac exists in that market, secondly they're even more of a niche than the Iphone, and receiving far less hype these days).
There's nothing stopping Apple from releasing the touch UI in the general version of Mac OS. So if Apple does release a tablet / touch device, they have a choice of which OS variant they can install. Until then it's rumours.
Well having to install an OS into a locked down Iphone (is that even possible?) would still be a pain. Moreover, the market for it would be tiny - consider, if I'm a developer, the fact that I'm willing to install a new OS doesn't help me if Apple are refusing to approve my application. There's no way I can get all my potential users to install a new OS!
And you might as well say "There's nothing stopping Apple from no longer locking the Iphone down". True, but until that happens, I'll judge them on their current and past behaviour.
Yes, I agree about tablets. I prefer a keyboard, even on a phone, and certainly on something bigger like a netbook.
Yes and no - when it comes to the problems with phones in general (e.g., being tied to one network), I agree this is the phone carriers, and is nothing specific to Apple. But whether or not it's Apple's fault isn't really relevant here - my point being is that I would rather mobile computing to evolve from what we have as netbooks today, rather than locked down phones; and if Apple win, it'll be a descendent on the Iphone, not the Mac. But if Windows 7 becomes domininant, there's more choice than Windows powered phones (I can't believe that all of them are locked down like that?)
And on top of that, the specific issues to Apple (such as needing approval from Apple to distribute an application) are Apple's fault. Even if the phone carrier told them to do it - after all, there are plenty of phones out there that don't have these restrictions. And all the while there is more than one hardware manufacturer, at least there is choice, and more chance you can find one who doesn't lock things down.
I heard in Europe its a different story and you can actually buy one phone and use it on several networks and there are no ridiculous contracts.
In the UK, phones are usually tied to a network, but I think you can buy ones that can be used on any. Also we either pay for a phone (and have no contract), or pay a contract (and get the phone free). None of this "pay loads of money for the phone, and be locked into an expensive contract" that the Iphone has introduced.
(And not sure why you were modded Troll - yet more mod point abuse.)
The WiFi button on my laptop is clearly marked. You should learn not to post about things you know absolutely nothing about. But you won't.