They have migrated towards a "core of control" in one device area - the phone/ipod/ipad.
As for their other products, they really have "gone towards a core of control" by adopting zeroconf, usb, webkit, sata, h.264, intel cpus, exchange support out of the box, SMB, NFS, open sourcing libdispatch, numerous other projects...
The Mac of today is *considerably* more interoperable with other OSes and devices than the Mac of old - even going as far as bundling software and drivers to run Windows on it if you so choose.
You claim that no choice is offfered, but there is always a choice - if it doesn't meet your requirements, the consumer can simply not buy it.
The iPhone clearly doesn't meet your needs because you don't meet the system requirements. Might as well complain that I can't play Crysis because I don't have a graphics card cooled with liquid helium. No one is suggesting you should swap OSes for a phone - that would be silly. You're just not the target market for the iPhone. They don't need to do anything of the sort regarding "opening the phone for third party drivers" - you claim it is done in the interests of the almighty dollar, but surely if they opened it, they would sell more phones... So, which is it?
Because it was a contractual requirement of the store at the time - non-drm files couldn't be sold in competition with the DRM stuff from the big players.
So quick to jump to "malice" on Apple's part.
They were dead set against DRM from the start but their hands were tied if they wanted the content. They even went so far as to put up a message every time you downloaded to back up your purchases to Audio CD (DRM free) from within iTunes itself (even with the quality loss). It was the best they could do to get around it at the time.
Right, everyone knows that the iPod/iPad/iPhone doesn't fit *some* geeks' needs, but where the real disconnect happens is when the doom of the device is claimed because it doesn't do what some geeks want.
I have heard the argument "Even if it is designed for 'normals' then they come to me about purchasing decisions and I will tell them to keep away, Apple needs to cater to the geeks or no one will buy it!" - so other than excluding products that may work for the person offering advice, and showing a huge lack of understanding about what other people might want from a device, it's really not working anyway. I wonder how many "don't buy an iPhone/iPad/iPod" geeks really affected the sales of those devices.
You claim that the slashdot opinion will hold true, that the iPad is " a substandard device" - and while that is technically correct (since it is an opinion and not a fact) it doesn't "make us all poorer for it" - if it's so substandard for the price then the competitor product should be able to easily trounce it in sales right? Or if not beat it in sales, be the obvious choice for the geek looking for a tablet. If other companies won't compete in that market then it's not Apple's fault - they have a product for sale that they didn't have before - the existence of that product should drive competition, so everyone is better off if it exists, whether you buy one or not. If you feel it is substandard then buy the superior competitor.
It's ok to disagree with Apple's product decisions and business model, but it's a mistake to claim that anyone who buys one is somehow "locked in" regardless of what their actual needs are. Maybe it works for them, if not for you. My car has a locked down firmware and in day to day use, it just works. Sure I could drive a car with no ECU (and I did for many years) but my current one is just fine. If it needs fixing I can take it to a dealer and pay to have it fixed. Sure, I pay for that but the cost is worth the convenience. My time is worth more to me so I exchange money for convenience. The Apple stuff I use is much the same - I have an iPhone (3G) and it has yet to present me with a situation where I've thought "damn, I wish I could do X" because I researched it before I bought it. It fit my needs at the time so I bought one. If those needs change down the line, I will reevaluate my purchase decision.
The feeling I have seen on this site more and more (especially in the wake of the iPhone becoming hugely popular) is that it's not just enough to disagree with Apple's products, it's that the world would be somehow better if they were all killed with fire, and that the continued success of Apple in the face of a sliver of geeks on a tech site trashing every product and decision it comes up with is somehow a call to arms that the monster must be slain at all costs.
No, they wanted to do it all along - the original stated goal of the iTMS from Apple themselves was no DRM, but they had no choice since the people providing the product would not play ball. Eventually they gave in (in exchange for variable pricing, so the net cost of the more popular stuff is more now than it was, while the total average price per song is approximately the same).
It wasn't part of some "do or die" strategy - it was in the business plan from day 1.
You realise that a tampon is a small cylindrical object and never called a "pad" right? Maxi pads and tampons are two different things that do a similar job.
It does't surprise me that you don't seem to know the difference though - I mean, that would first mean you would need to get close an actual girl.
Don't worry about it - he pops up with that biased site every time an Apple/Google/Big business story shows up. Ending software patents as a whole is a noble goal, but they're going about it the wrong way with that wiki. Shame, it could be quite a good resource.
Hey, I have no problem with military servicemen, and I'm also not a Democrat (or a Republican) - they are both much too right wing for my tastes.
My issue is merely to raise the ad hominem attack problem. You want to talk about military service being something to brag about - sure. John Kerry was in the military. They had no problem trying to discredit him rather than championing his war record, since his opponent's record didn't compare. I just hope that the money paid to those "swift boat vets for untruth" helped to soothe their consciences (or whatever it was that made them drag a fellow vet through the mud with often easily disproved lies).
Serving your country is an honourable thing to do, and deserves great respect, regardless of the political party you run for. If you want to set it up as an untouchable pedestal though, you had better not be totally hypocritical the first time you face an opponent with an excellent war record.
While my post harps on Bush's two main foibles, in general character assassination helps no one. Obama went a different direction with his life - it doesn't make him less of an able leader or man in general. The fact that Bush served in the forces doesn't make him an able leader either, but I respect him for joining up (apart from the awol bit).
The model you are quoting there seems to be the ice cores - which appear to show that temperature rises lag CO2 concentration. The deniers have jumped on these graphs without reading the text - the dating of the temperature and CO2 lines is not perfect and has a couple of thousand year error bar (which is not bad for a 650,000 year timespan) and that the CO2 measurements appear to have a 1000 year offset compared to the temperature ones (ie, the recording of the information in the ice core, not the atmospheric conditions at the time).
So, we take this data, which is not conclusive on its own - it just shows that temperate and CO2 levels follow matched graphs, so that there is some connection, but we need other tests to determine what might be happening in actuality, and look to other hypotheses - what happens to a greenhouse with double the CO2 concentration compared to a control greenhouse? What happens if we heat the greenhouse up and keep it at high temperature, does this make the plants release more CO2. The experiments are not that simple, but it's a combination of multiple theories (scientific theories, not just "hunches" as the common term for theory - the deniers have jumped on this terminology too) and understanding that has led us to the conclusions we have today.
If you take two greenhouses, one with twice the CO2 concentration of the other and measure the temperature changes over time, the on with higher CO2 gets warmer. Combine that with the ice core data and the reasonable assumption is that temperature rises because of CO2 concentration increase, not the other way around. Add that to the chemistry angle - that the bonds in the CO2 molecule absorb IR and vibrate, giving an atomic-scale view of what is going on. It can be shown quantitatively that CO2 absorbs IR quite easily - you can look at the specific wavelengths of light that it absorbs and compare it with the wavelengths of light that the earth re-radiates when the sun heats it up.
They are by no means finalised (we continue to work on refining them), but a clear trend has emerged, just as it did with the nature of CFCs and their interaction with ozone gas, that have caused concern.
It's not just "one specific hypothesis" that will prove this one way or the other (or ever actually "prove" it since scientific methods are about probable conclusions rather than absolute proof).
You are missing the point - they are of course not legitimate expenses, but the way the system was set up, it did not matter.
There is nothing to be done - it was all legal (slimy and dishonest, but legal). The rules have been changed to prevent this, but you can't prosecute someone for something they did before the laws and the rules had changed.
The reason CO2 traps heat is because it can absorb infrared radiation because of the way the bonds in the molecule vibrate. Not all molecules absorb IR, and some absorb it better than others. When that molecule absorbs the energy it moves more quickly (energy must be conserved - it gains kinetic energy) and is thus "hotter".
The bulk of the re-radiated IR from the earth's surface is lost to space (and is very variable depending on local conditions - water absorbs IR too, which is why cloudy nights are warmer and why the desert is so cold at night with very little water in the atmosphere to help trap the heat). As the global CO2 and other GHGs concentrations increase, more IR will be trapped. It's basic science. Whether this is a human phenomenon is what is under debate. Looking back over the past 650,000 years though, the global CO2 concentration has never been this high - the result is that the heat trapped due to this effect is going to be higher. Again, whether this is an issue for the human race is under debate.
I think you are getting confused about the way the atmosphere is composed. If you fill a balloon with a gas that has a molecular weight above the average for "air" (which is really a mixture, but we'll assume the MW of nitrogen, which makes up nearly 80% of it) so over 28, then the balloon will sink. If that balloon is popped, however, while a lot of the gas will stay near the ground, diffusion will ensure that it spreads out to fill all available space from areas of high to low concentration. Even the heavier atoms will do this. It's not just gravity at work - there are thermal gradients, winds, concentration gradients and other factors all involved in stirring up the atmosphere.
You can test this at home. Put some food that smells in the oven and wait upstairs while it cooks. If you can smell it then the molecules that make that smell have somehow miraculously overcome the power of gravity and made it all the way upstairs to your nose. Many molecules that smell are heavier than air, especially in foods and perfumes.
In "Science-land" the composition of the atmosphere and the way gasses fill it is well understood. I suggest you go read up on it.
Not all opposing views are branded as heresy - but the bulk of the deniers really have no understanding of what is going on (or assume that the atmosphere is made up the way you described in your post). Science is all about testing the hypotheses that we create to refine them and get closer and closer to the truth. It's not about giving the time of day to anyone who *thinks* they understand the science or the scientific process.
What they did was not illegal though, which is the point. The police investigated for illegal activities that the bulk of them were not involved in.
Those that did break the law are being prosecuted.
The expenses system as it existed was pretty scandalous (claiming for moat cleaning, duck islands, family members as employees etc), but it was not illegal.
Well, they make it all the way to the Earth, but then can't fire any weapons because the driver for the plasma cannon is not open source, and everyone else passed the buck on writing one. "Oh, that'll be done sometime on the trip".
The UI was also poorly thought out and the "Raise defensive shields" box was too big to fit on the screen so the "OK" button was not clickable and not selected by default.
The humans, running "inferior" software shoot them all down.
Multi-touch is what *makes* it simple to use - no need for a set of buttons to toggle a zoom tool - just pinch, no need for a button to go between images/pages - just swipe, no need to have a button for selecting text, just tap and drag.
The gestures enabled by multi touch are one of the reasons the UI is nice and simple.
In the rest of the world (ie, not the USA), you can take your iPhone to whatever carrier you want.
Some nerds might want the iPhone if it does what they need. If not, then there's Android or some other option. I have a 3G and am perfectly happy with it. I don't need to add my own video and audio codecs, I can't get Hulu in the UK (but iPlayer in the UK, which uses flash on the web, works on the iPhone anyway), don't really need multitasking - the apps save state and it's relatively quick to hop between them, but would be nice to have.
You don't understand - this is slashdot. The rules work like this:
1. Dredge up some random rumour site from the depths of the internet with possible Apple product info. This is usually wild speculation and based on the Mountain-Dew-fueled ramblings of an Apple fan.
2. Bash this "finished product" on slashdot because it doesn't do x, y or z, or because it doesn't run Linux and use totally patent free technology.
3. Complain that Apple is getting free publicity and that they are mentioned too much.
4. Bring up comparisons to Apple in totally unrelated stories. Go to step 3 several times.
5. Apple announces product.
6. Complain that product is nothing like the rumour sites *guaranteed* it would be.
7. Complain that it's locked down (again) and that anyone who buys one for any reason is a clueless sheep.
8. Claim that the product is "proof" that Apple will soon fall.
9. Wait for netcraft to confirm it.
10. Assuming non-confirmation after two quarters of continued profitability for Apple, and large sales numbers of the "doomed" product, go to step 1.
iPlayer already works on the iPhone - they specifically added H.264 streams to support it - just one of the developments away from Flash that people are looking for.
Not that the non-Apple-prohibition on multitasking is really useful, but that sequence of steps can be shortened - the apps save state when the home button is pressed (or really should - the apple ones like sms, email etc do), so step 1 and 2 are the same. Locate app and open app can be combined - if it's on the same screen then you just need to touch, else swipe and touch.
8 and 9 are not needed - the app opens to where it was when you pressed the home button in step 1.
Paste.
Step 11 can be removed with careful copying - you just added it to pad the list.
I want the ability to enable multitasking for non-Apple apps as much as the next person, but the iPhone UI was designed from the outset to not need it - it would just be useful to have. Sort of like the one button mouse on OS X - you can do everything in the OS with the left mouse button *only*, but adding the context click with the right mouse button adds usefulness. It's not a requirement. (and yes, I have a Microsoft 2 button mouse with scrollwheel on my iMac, the computer police can come and arrest me any time).
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, so that first result on google: http://www.android.com/market/
Where's the search box?
They have migrated towards a "core of control" in one device area - the phone/ipod/ipad.
As for their other products, they really have "gone towards a core of control" by adopting zeroconf, usb, webkit, sata, h.264, intel cpus, exchange support out of the box, SMB, NFS, open sourcing libdispatch, numerous other projects...
The Mac of today is *considerably* more interoperable with other OSes and devices than the Mac of old - even going as far as bundling software and drivers to run Windows on it if you so choose.
You claim that no choice is offfered, but there is always a choice - if it doesn't meet your requirements, the consumer can simply not buy it.
The iPhone clearly doesn't meet your needs because you don't meet the system requirements. Might as well complain that I can't play Crysis because I don't have a graphics card cooled with liquid helium. No one is suggesting you should swap OSes for a phone - that would be silly. You're just not the target market for the iPhone. They don't need to do anything of the sort regarding "opening the phone for third party drivers" - you claim it is done in the interests of the almighty dollar, but surely if they opened it, they would sell more phones... So, which is it?
What if I don't own a G1 and want to see what apps are on the marketplace?
Because it was a contractual requirement of the store at the time - non-drm files couldn't be sold in competition with the DRM stuff from the big players.
So quick to jump to "malice" on Apple's part.
They were dead set against DRM from the start but their hands were tied if they wanted the content. They even went so far as to put up a message every time you downloaded to back up your purchases to Audio CD (DRM free) from within iTunes itself (even with the quality loss). It was the best they could do to get around it at the time.
Right, everyone knows that the iPod/iPad/iPhone doesn't fit *some* geeks' needs, but where the real disconnect happens is when the doom of the device is claimed because it doesn't do what some geeks want.
I have heard the argument "Even if it is designed for 'normals' then they come to me about purchasing decisions and I will tell them to keep away, Apple needs to cater to the geeks or no one will buy it!" - so other than excluding products that may work for the person offering advice, and showing a huge lack of understanding about what other people might want from a device, it's really not working anyway. I wonder how many "don't buy an iPhone/iPad/iPod" geeks really affected the sales of those devices.
You claim that the slashdot opinion will hold true, that the iPad is " a substandard device" - and while that is technically correct (since it is an opinion and not a fact) it doesn't "make us all poorer for it" - if it's so substandard for the price then the competitor product should be able to easily trounce it in sales right? Or if not beat it in sales, be the obvious choice for the geek looking for a tablet. If other companies won't compete in that market then it's not Apple's fault - they have a product for sale that they didn't have before - the existence of that product should drive competition, so everyone is better off if it exists, whether you buy one or not. If you feel it is substandard then buy the superior competitor.
It's ok to disagree with Apple's product decisions and business model, but it's a mistake to claim that anyone who buys one is somehow "locked in" regardless of what their actual needs are. Maybe it works for them, if not for you. My car has a locked down firmware and in day to day use, it just works. Sure I could drive a car with no ECU (and I did for many years) but my current one is just fine. If it needs fixing I can take it to a dealer and pay to have it fixed. Sure, I pay for that but the cost is worth the convenience. My time is worth more to me so I exchange money for convenience. The Apple stuff I use is much the same - I have an iPhone (3G) and it has yet to present me with a situation where I've thought "damn, I wish I could do X" because I researched it before I bought it. It fit my needs at the time so I bought one. If those needs change down the line, I will reevaluate my purchase decision.
The feeling I have seen on this site more and more (especially in the wake of the iPhone becoming hugely popular) is that it's not just enough to disagree with Apple's products, it's that the world would be somehow better if they were all killed with fire, and that the continued success of Apple in the face of a sliver of geeks on a tech site trashing every product and decision it comes up with is somehow a call to arms that the monster must be slain at all costs.
No, they wanted to do it all along - the original stated goal of the iTMS from Apple themselves was no DRM, but they had no choice since the people providing the product would not play ball. Eventually they gave in (in exchange for variable pricing, so the net cost of the more popular stuff is more now than it was, while the total average price per song is approximately the same).
It wasn't part of some "do or die" strategy - it was in the business plan from day 1.
There's a foolproof way if determining the truth: if the Daily Mail says it is true, then it is false. If the Daily Mail says it is false, it is true.
This is 100% accurate.
Indeed, while the GPU may be similar, the screen is bigger.
Bigger LCD screens cost more than smaller ones.
You realise that a tampon is a small cylindrical object and never called a "pad" right? Maxi pads and tampons are two different things that do a similar job.
It does't surprise me that you don't seem to know the difference though - I mean, that would first mean you would need to get close an actual girl.
Just because you don't have root on it doesn't mean it's not there.
It would be nice to have it out of the box, but then, most people don't need it - they can buy a Nexus One.
Don't worry about it - he pops up with that biased site every time an Apple/Google/Big business story shows up. Ending software patents as a whole is a noble goal, but they're going about it the wrong way with that wiki. Shame, it could be quite a good resource.
Hey, I have no problem with military servicemen, and I'm also not a Democrat (or a Republican) - they are both much too right wing for my tastes.
My issue is merely to raise the ad hominem attack problem. You want to talk about military service being something to brag about - sure. John Kerry was in the military. They had no problem trying to discredit him rather than championing his war record, since his opponent's record didn't compare. I just hope that the money paid to those "swift boat vets for untruth" helped to soothe their consciences (or whatever it was that made them drag a fellow vet through the mud with often easily disproved lies).
Serving your country is an honourable thing to do, and deserves great respect, regardless of the political party you run for. If you want to set it up as an untouchable pedestal though, you had better not be totally hypocritical the first time you face an opponent with an excellent war record.
While my post harps on Bush's two main foibles, in general character assassination helps no one. Obama went a different direction with his life - it doesn't make him less of an able leader or man in general. The fact that Bush served in the forces doesn't make him an able leader either, but I respect him for joining up (apart from the awol bit).
The model you are quoting there seems to be the ice cores - which appear to show that temperature rises lag CO2 concentration. The deniers have jumped on these graphs without reading the text - the dating of the temperature and CO2 lines is not perfect and has a couple of thousand year error bar (which is not bad for a 650,000 year timespan) and that the CO2 measurements appear to have a 1000 year offset compared to the temperature ones (ie, the recording of the information in the ice core, not the atmospheric conditions at the time).
So, we take this data, which is not conclusive on its own - it just shows that temperate and CO2 levels follow matched graphs, so that there is some connection, but we need other tests to determine what might be happening in actuality, and look to other hypotheses - what happens to a greenhouse with double the CO2 concentration compared to a control greenhouse? What happens if we heat the greenhouse up and keep it at high temperature, does this make the plants release more CO2. The experiments are not that simple, but it's a combination of multiple theories (scientific theories, not just "hunches" as the common term for theory - the deniers have jumped on this terminology too) and understanding that has led us to the conclusions we have today.
If you take two greenhouses, one with twice the CO2 concentration of the other and measure the temperature changes over time, the on with higher CO2 gets warmer. Combine that with the ice core data and the reasonable assumption is that temperature rises because of CO2 concentration increase, not the other way around. Add that to the chemistry angle - that the bonds in the CO2 molecule absorb IR and vibrate, giving an atomic-scale view of what is going on. It can be shown quantitatively that CO2 absorbs IR quite easily - you can look at the specific wavelengths of light that it absorbs and compare it with the wavelengths of light that the earth re-radiates when the sun heats it up.
They are by no means finalised (we continue to work on refining them), but a clear trend has emerged, just as it did with the nature of CFCs and their interaction with ozone gas, that have caused concern.
It's not just "one specific hypothesis" that will prove this one way or the other (or ever actually "prove" it since scientific methods are about probable conclusions rather than absolute proof).
You are missing the point - they are of course not legitimate expenses, but the way the system was set up, it did not matter.
There is nothing to be done - it was all legal (slimy and dishonest, but legal). The rules have been changed to prevent this, but you can't prosecute someone for something they did before the laws and the rules had changed.
The reason CO2 traps heat is because it can absorb infrared radiation because of the way the bonds in the molecule vibrate. Not all molecules absorb IR, and some absorb it better than others. When that molecule absorbs the energy it moves more quickly (energy must be conserved - it gains kinetic energy) and is thus "hotter".
The bulk of the re-radiated IR from the earth's surface is lost to space (and is very variable depending on local conditions - water absorbs IR too, which is why cloudy nights are warmer and why the desert is so cold at night with very little water in the atmosphere to help trap the heat). As the global CO2 and other GHGs concentrations increase, more IR will be trapped. It's basic science. Whether this is a human phenomenon is what is under debate. Looking back over the past 650,000 years though, the global CO2 concentration has never been this high - the result is that the heat trapped due to this effect is going to be higher. Again, whether this is an issue for the human race is under debate.
I think you are getting confused about the way the atmosphere is composed. If you fill a balloon with a gas that has a molecular weight above the average for "air" (which is really a mixture, but we'll assume the MW of nitrogen, which makes up nearly 80% of it) so over 28, then the balloon will sink. If that balloon is popped, however, while a lot of the gas will stay near the ground, diffusion will ensure that it spreads out to fill all available space from areas of high to low concentration. Even the heavier atoms will do this. It's not just gravity at work - there are thermal gradients, winds, concentration gradients and other factors all involved in stirring up the atmosphere.
You can test this at home. Put some food that smells in the oven and wait upstairs while it cooks. If you can smell it then the molecules that make that smell have somehow miraculously overcome the power of gravity and made it all the way upstairs to your nose. Many molecules that smell are heavier than air, especially in foods and perfumes.
In "Science-land" the composition of the atmosphere and the way gasses fill it is well understood. I suggest you go read up on it.
Not all opposing views are branded as heresy - but the bulk of the deniers really have no understanding of what is going on (or assume that the atmosphere is made up the way you described in your post). Science is all about testing the hypotheses that we create to refine them and get closer and closer to the truth. It's not about giving the time of day to anyone who *thinks* they understand the science or the scientific process.
What they did was not illegal though, which is the point. The police investigated for illegal activities that the bulk of them were not involved in.
Those that did break the law are being prosecuted.
The expenses system as it existed was pretty scandalous (claiming for moat cleaning, duck islands, family members as employees etc), but it was not illegal.
So you missed the results of the expenses enquiry then. Sort of hard given all the news coverage it got.
Plus, newspapers don't contain "damming evidence" they contain editorialised content designed to sell newspapers.
If Bush 2 had flown the plane though, he'd have shown up 18 months late for the fight, with a blood alcohol level of 74 mg/100
Well, they make it all the way to the Earth, but then can't fire any weapons because the driver for the plasma cannon is not open source, and everyone else passed the buck on writing one. "Oh, that'll be done sometime on the trip".
The UI was also poorly thought out and the "Raise defensive shields" box was too big to fit on the screen so the "OK" button was not clickable and not selected by default.
The humans, running "inferior" software shoot them all down.
Multi-touch is what *makes* it simple to use - no need for a set of buttons to toggle a zoom tool - just pinch, no need for a button to go between images/pages - just swipe, no need to have a button for selecting text, just tap and drag.
The gestures enabled by multi touch are one of the reasons the UI is nice and simple.
11. Post AC, claiming that the post you disagree with is full of trolling and flamebait, but lacking the stones to say so with your own account.
In the rest of the world (ie, not the USA), you can take your iPhone to whatever carrier you want.
Some nerds might want the iPhone if it does what they need. If not, then there's Android or some other option. I have a 3G and am perfectly happy with it. I don't need to add my own video and audio codecs, I can't get Hulu in the UK (but iPlayer in the UK, which uses flash on the web, works on the iPhone anyway), don't really need multitasking - the apps save state and it's relatively quick to hop between them, but would be nice to have.
Not all nerds need all those things.
You don't understand - this is slashdot. The rules work like this:
1. Dredge up some random rumour site from the depths of the internet with possible Apple product info. This is usually wild speculation and based on the Mountain-Dew-fueled ramblings of an Apple fan.
2. Bash this "finished product" on slashdot because it doesn't do x, y or z, or because it doesn't run Linux and use totally patent free technology.
3. Complain that Apple is getting free publicity and that they are mentioned too much.
4. Bring up comparisons to Apple in totally unrelated stories. Go to step 3 several times.
5. Apple announces product.
6. Complain that product is nothing like the rumour sites *guaranteed* it would be.
7. Complain that it's locked down (again) and that anyone who buys one for any reason is a clueless sheep.
8. Claim that the product is "proof" that Apple will soon fall.
9. Wait for netcraft to confirm it.
10. Assuming non-confirmation after two quarters of continued profitability for Apple, and large sales numbers of the "doomed" product, go to step 1.
iPlayer already works on the iPhone - they specifically added H.264 streams to support it - just one of the developments away from Flash that people are looking for.
Not that the non-Apple-prohibition on multitasking is really useful, but that sequence of steps can be shortened - the apps save state when the home button is pressed (or really should - the apple ones like sms, email etc do), so step 1 and 2 are the same. Locate app and open app can be combined - if it's on the same screen then you just need to touch, else swipe and touch.
8 and 9 are not needed - the app opens to where it was when you pressed the home button in step 1.
Paste.
Step 11 can be removed with careful copying - you just added it to pad the list.
I want the ability to enable multitasking for non-Apple apps as much as the next person, but the iPhone UI was designed from the outset to not need it - it would just be useful to have. Sort of like the one button mouse on OS X - you can do everything in the OS with the left mouse button *only*, but adding the context click with the right mouse button adds usefulness. It's not a requirement. (and yes, I have a Microsoft 2 button mouse with scrollwheel on my iMac, the computer police can come and arrest me any time).