Re:As the "computer guy" for a large circle of peo
on
Apple iPad Reviewed
·
· Score: 1
Is this the same Slashdot crew that predicted that the iPhone would be a complete failure?
And the same Slashdot crew that greeted the first iPod with "No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame."?
And the same techno-pundits who are, once again, predicting the spectacular failure of a new device which, by all indications, appears to be headed for a spectacularly successful product launch?
Yeah, I'm sure Steve Jobs is sweating bullets over the opinions of some AC's here at Slashdot.
But if the Iphone is anything to go buy, the sad fact is that even if it's a niche product in the market, you'll still be here talking as if they're the market leader.
So you think that building to the #3 share (~14% of the smartphone market) in just 2 years, with a single product line (contrast with the multitude of RIM & Nokia devices) makes someone a "niche" player? That's an odd definition of niche.
Yes, there are normal users who only care about being hip, but plenty of normal users do care about features too - if you really think otherwise, then you are the one suffering from a typical geek fallacy.
Of course "normal users" care about features. They care about iphone features like: "easy to use," "has the functionality I want," "simple to load apps on," and yes, even "looks pretty." Geeks here get awful frothy about: "Openness," "multitasking," "cut & paste," and "tethering." This is not to say that geeks don't care about some of the same things as "normal users," but it is not a device that is intended to be your one-stop all-purpose whiz-bang science fiction wet dream.
Geeks are used to being catered to when it comes to gadgets. My personal belief is that they get so off-the-rails upset about Apple products because the new products are generally sexy-looking new pieces of kit that they lust after, and Apple just doesn't care whether or not they like it, because (and here's the rub) the geeks are not the target market for this sexy-looking new gadget.
This is something I could give my grandma, or my deeply tech befuddled mother and just say "Poke the little button with the app and follow the instructions on the screen!" and they know everything they need to know about it.
On the nose. When I showed my (somewhat tech-phobic) parents my iphone, it was the first time I've ever seen my mother excited by a gadget. Excited enough that she went out that weekend and bought an iphone. Excited enough that she now has about 25 different apps loaded from the iphone store because "I can make my phone do this cool thing, look!"
If you're ready to dismiss a device that engenders that sort of enthusiasm from non-geek users because "I can't load Seti@Home on it and run it in the background," you're missing the boat. Maybe it's not the device for your technical requirements. But it *is* a device for a large portion of the population that aren't power-users with high-end technical requirements.
In what world do you live where the production of food, housing, clothing, and transportation are not already "highly mechanized"??
Your dreams of an egalitarian, communal world where nobody wants more than what they already have are, thankfully, a fantasy. If we're supposed to be happy with "free" housing, clothing, and some food, then there wouldn't be much incentive for us to have ever advanced beyond a semi-primitive state - living in caves (free); wrapping ourselves with fig leaves and animal skins (free); eating whatever nuts & berries we manage to gather (these literally grow on trees!).
In that state, the only "work" required was solely focused on subsistence - gather enough food to eat today, find a dry cave to sleep in, and maybe some furs to keep yourself warm. If that's all you want, you're welcome to return to that state. Personally, I'll go with the whole "do productive work to maintain a comfortable modern lifestyle" option. Don't come around demanding that I spend my time and effort on building machines to give you the same lifestyle I'm working hard to provide for myself when you have nothing of value to offer in return other than some bones and twigs.
Or are you saying that it's somehow my job to create the trappings of a comfortable modern lifestyle for you for free, and that I can't have a new car until everybody has a new Honda sitting in their driveway? Be careful what you wish for - when you wish for the enslavement of those above you on the socioeconomic ladder, don't forget that there's a lot of people below you wishing for the same thing.
So for the overwhelmingly middle & upper-middle class, majority-liberal software engineers, a profound concern with "feeding my family" is an actual existential threat?
Or is it that Software Patent litigation is a pressing concern for the poor because if IP laws were amended, suddenly every poor disenfranchised liberal who's been held down by the uncaring and heartless right-wingers for generations could write software and lift themselves out of poverty?
Do you even begin to realize how ridiculous you sound?
I have no problem with mechanization, I have plenty of worldly concerns, I have no need or desire for Rogaine, and I have no problem with someone getting something for free - if it is freely given by the donor.
All of which demands the simple question: What does any of this have to do with software patents?
I don't know, I pointed out that your vapid platitudes have zero bearing on the discussion at hand. That's got to count for something.
Or were you proposing to feed & clothe the poor with your self righteousness, and that the same self-righteousness would also solve software patent issues somehow?
If we as a society devoted as much effort to making food clothing, and shelter freely available (through mechanization) or close to it (through fair business dealings and efficiency) as we do on making hair sprout on bald heads, we'd likely have succeeded by now (except for the inevitable political squabbles from right wingers who would prefer to starve out half the planet rather than risk having even one poor person get "something for nothing").
Breathtaking. In 3 short lines, you've managed to miss the point, quote directly from a 3rd grade "If I ruled the world," essay that dramatically oversimplifies complex issues, write a bumper sticker, and take a swipe-by-infantile-generalization at all those evil right wingers.
Bravo, good sir. This must truly be your magnum opus.
Tridgell talks about how to avoid infringing, and if you're accused of it, how to best defend yourself under the current system. Free Software advocates want to blast the whole of the current system to bits.
Free Software thinks if they show enough bogus, stupid, ignorant patents, it will become obvious that the system is broken & should be scrapped. Most companies involved in patent litigation are not interested in spending millions or billions of dollars to change the system over the next 20 years. They want the pain to stop and the problem to go away, NOW.
Entirely different goals, which should help explain why the approaches advocated by the two are so... well, different.
Not necessarily, since the product may already be released, and the project to create it may be already completed.
You work at places where the software is released, and never touched again? That's amazing. You should probably patent your process for creating complete v1.0 software.
You're comparing the effort required to produce a crop with the effort required to copy an existing piece of software, once it's already been produced. You omit the whole "design, write code, test, debug, package, distribute, support" effort involved in software - all of which takes time, effort, money, tools, and a significant amount of skill & knowledge.
There are certainly great arguments against software patents. Your analogy is not one of them, since it conflates copyrights with patents.
I agree with your conclusion, but your arguments are fairly weak.
Now that's usually pretty good, like 1 in a million or something. However not so useful if your sample size is 300,000,000 and growing.
If the match was a probability of 1 in 1 million, and you have 300 million samples, then you would expect three hundred (300) matches. For the purpose of finding a criminal, narrowing down your list of suspects to 300 "likely" candidates based on a DNA or fingerprint match, you can very quickly narrow down your search to people who: a) could have been present at the scene of the crime during its commission; and b) have a possible motive to commit the crime in question.
"We know that 1 of these 300 people probably committed this crime. Now the police simply have to investigate to figure out which of them are likely to be tied to this crime either by proximity or possible motive." How is that not useful, from a law enforcement standpoint? You just narrowed your list of potential suspects from 300 million to 300, a large number of whom could probably be eliminated simply because they are not remotely related to the victim in any way, spatially or socially.
Now, that said, I agree that there is huge potential for a tool like this to be misused and abused, and I don't like the idea of "the government" tracking people in this manner. But to claim that a 1 in a million sensitivity makes the tool entirely useless to law enforcement isn't much of a compelling argument against it.
Also there's the fact that DNA tests aren't cheap, or particularly quick.
Technology marches on, and the cost and time required get smaller and smaller all the time. And imagine how much the price would fall when you create - by law - a market of 300 million customers.
They aren't the kind of thing you can use for every criminal case
But it'd make finding high-profile criminals who leave DNA samples behind a lot faster, wouldn't it?
it'd be way too expensive, not to mention unnecessary.
What's "way too expensive"? People react pretty strongly to stories of serial murder, rape, and the like. Often times there is DNA evidence that can be collected, but law enforcement doesn't have a match for the DNA, so they don't have a lead as to who might have committed the crime - they're just waiting to find a suspect who they can test the DNA evidence against. With this, they could collect DNA evidence, run it against a database, and instantly have a fairly small set of leads for people who are very likely candidates.
Hypothetical: Serial rapist is terrorizing New York City. Police have a DNA sample. With a database like this, they could pull a list of 300 people "who might be the serial rapist." They can rapidly go through that list and say "okay, in that 300 people, 50 of them live within 300 miles of New York City. Let's start interviewing those people, and see what turns up." If the matches are *accurate* (and this is the point you must really attack if you want to argue against this sort of a database), then it's overwhelmingly likely that one of those 50 people would turn out to be your criminal.
Now, if you can demonstrate that the DNA matching is inaccurate, leads to false positives, or sends law enforcement down blind alleys with false leads, then this database is a "bad idea." If you can't demonstrate that, then I'm sorry to say, but most of the public is going to say "This is a great thing, because it will allow us to catch rapists and murderers faster." And I'd be inclined to agree - if it could be guaranteed that this type of law enforcement is the only thing the database were used for, and that the DNA fingerprinting technique is accurate. Do you want to be the person who stands up and says, "Sorry, I don't want to spend $100 on a DNA test to prevent a half a dozen more murders?"
It's working really great. What does that have to do with anything? It simply underscores the point that people are not clamoring for "open"/"free" as a feature point. If they were, BSD would be destroying Mac OS X market share. Instead, you see that people are opting for the consistent & well-integrated experience from Apple - the one which curtails their "freedom" to do something that 90+% of computer owners have zero ability to actually do - modify their software and hack their hardware as they see fit.
Yes, because nobody sells processors on the open market. Apple owns them all and refuses to cut deals with any competitors.
90+% of the people "do not have the technical expertise" to write code for their own devices and thus do not care about the "openness" of the device. In terms of music/video content, this is a big ipod. You don't have to buy through the itunes store, you can load & play un-DRM'ed content quite handily on it, just like I do every day on my iPod.
Apple has chosen NOT to "allow installation of unsigned apps." Just like Ford has chosen not to "install a diesel engine" in the Focus. If you need, or want, a diesel engine, buy a vehicle that offers that option. Go buy an Android phone, or an OpenMoko. Vote with your dollars, and when (if) Apple notices that a significant portion of the market is steering clear of their devices "because it's not open," they have the choice of opening it up, or foregoing revenues from that segment of the market.
As far as Apple keeping people technologically ignorant, that's just plain silly. They offer a way for you to write applications for their device, and a way to publish those applications for use. It may not be the way YOU would choose to do it, but they are not exactly saying "sorry, no developer access."
Freedom of choice is a funny thing. If you want people to respect yours, you have to allow others to choose to do what you consider the wrong thing to the extent that they are not harming you. Nobody is forcing you to pay money to Apple, or buy their products - therefore they are not "harming" you with their choices.
Yes, because there is only one $KNOWN_BRAND of any given device category on the market.
Multiple vendors never compete profitably in the same space with shockingly similar products.
I must have been dreaming about all the manufacturers who make laptops, desktops, smartphones, tablet devices, and other electronics. I will now endeavor to wake up!
So what you're admitting is that freedom isn't all that compelling a sales point for most people, and that nobody would invest in a product that is an iPad "but free of lock-in" because it wouldn't sell except to a couple hundred of you neckbeards who get all frothy about your freedom to tinker?
Seriously though, thanks for chiming in to agree with me, I appreciate your support.
Ugh. In my defense, it was early when I read this, and the general tone of most of the responses have been whining and bitchy - chalk one up to my annoyance at all the people who think whining on slashdot will somehow change the world.
Few people actually want to speak up in public. So obviously there's not much value in free speech. Right?
Considering Apple is not the government, has no ability to "punish" you for hacking your device, and the ability to hack your device and its software is not a natural ability of most people, your analogy sucks.
Sure, because it's so easy to get into every market where something bad happens
What, other than laziness, prevents you from designing a product, pitching it to investors, and bringing it to market? I didn't say it was easy or trivial - I said it was possible.
any self-respecting person should be able, at the same time, to mass-produce and sell computers, printers, smart phones and gaming consoles, write all sorts of software, write books, music and web sites and produce movies
What, other than laziness, is preventing you from finding like-minded people, developing a business plan, finding investors, and doing this? No business starts as a 50 billion dollar a year business. But good ideas, well-executed, become 50 billion dollar a year businesses. And there is absolutely nothing to stop you from designing a business plan around "free" and "open" software and devices, recruiting other like-minded people to your cause, lining up investors, and launching your business. If the market is as desperate for this feature as you imply, then it should be wildly successful, and you should have a line of investors in the street outside waiting for you to take their money.
and obviously everyone has the necessary money to start such a business
Of course not - but venture capitalists and other investors do.
Up until recently, we the 10% were the ONLY market for these devices.
Which devices? The iPod that made Apple a household name? Mac workstations which are used widely by creatives? The iPhone which from day 1 was derided as too closed / not functional enough by the geek cognoscenti here at Slashdot?
It was our buying that put Apple in the position that made it what it is.
Scary thing is, I think you actually believe this. But you're wrong. Apple did not become a 50Bn company by catering to a couple thousand neckbeards in their parents' basements. You did not "put" Apple where it is, and they do not "owe" you anything. If you like their products, buy them. If you don't like their products, don't buy them. If you think they've overlooked a segment of the market and you have a killer idea, go into business and compete with them.
Now they're taking "Our" devices and retargeting them at a new market, nine times our size, and ignoring everything we say.
"our" devices? ignoring "everything we say"? If you don't like it, GO MAKE YOUR OWN. If there's as much demand as you seem to think, you should be wildly successful.
I don't think anybody would be complaining if Apple had a nice, tidy app store, but still let people run arbitrary code on their stuff.
You're fooling yourself. There would STILL be people complaining about it. People still bitched about Itunes DRM, even though you never had to buy a single track from the itunes store, and could load any non-DRM'ed track you liked on your ipod.
When Apple is involved, people here at Slashdot will always find a reason to bitch.
Slashdot Mirror
Is this the same Slashdot crew that predicted that the iPhone would be a complete failure?
And the same Slashdot crew that greeted the first iPod with "No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame."?
And the same techno-pundits who are, once again, predicting the spectacular failure of a new device which, by all indications, appears to be headed for a spectacularly successful product launch?
Yeah, I'm sure Steve Jobs is sweating bullets over the opinions of some AC's here at Slashdot.
And how much did it cost, again? Not exactly a netbook at $1,850US MSRP.
So you think that building to the #3 share (~14% of the smartphone market) in just 2 years, with a single product line (contrast with the multitude of RIM & Nokia devices) makes someone a "niche" player? That's an odd definition of niche.
Of course "normal users" care about features. They care about iphone features like: "easy to use," "has the functionality I want," "simple to load apps on," and yes, even "looks pretty." Geeks here get awful frothy about: "Openness," "multitasking," "cut & paste," and "tethering." This is not to say that geeks don't care about some of the same things as "normal users," but it is not a device that is intended to be your one-stop all-purpose whiz-bang science fiction wet dream.
Geeks are used to being catered to when it comes to gadgets. My personal belief is that they get so off-the-rails upset about Apple products because the new products are generally sexy-looking new pieces of kit that they lust after, and Apple just doesn't care whether or not they like it, because (and here's the rub) the geeks are not the target market for this sexy-looking new gadget.
On the nose. When I showed my (somewhat tech-phobic) parents my iphone, it was the first time I've ever seen my mother excited by a gadget. Excited enough that she went out that weekend and bought an iphone. Excited enough that she now has about 25 different apps loaded from the iphone store because "I can make my phone do this cool thing, look!"
If you're ready to dismiss a device that engenders that sort of enthusiasm from non-geek users because "I can't load Seti@Home on it and run it in the background," you're missing the boat. Maybe it's not the device for your technical requirements. But it *is* a device for a large portion of the population that aren't power-users with high-end technical requirements.
In what world do you live where the production of food, housing, clothing, and transportation are not already " highly mechanized "??
Your dreams of an egalitarian, communal world where nobody wants more than what they already have are, thankfully, a fantasy. If we're supposed to be happy with "free" housing, clothing, and some food, then there wouldn't be much incentive for us to have ever advanced beyond a semi-primitive state - living in caves (free); wrapping ourselves with fig leaves and animal skins (free); eating whatever nuts & berries we manage to gather (these literally grow on trees!).
In that state, the only "work" required was solely focused on subsistence - gather enough food to eat today, find a dry cave to sleep in, and maybe some furs to keep yourself warm. If that's all you want, you're welcome to return to that state. Personally, I'll go with the whole "do productive work to maintain a comfortable modern lifestyle" option. Don't come around demanding that I spend my time and effort on building machines to give you the same lifestyle I'm working hard to provide for myself when you have nothing of value to offer in return other than some bones and twigs.
Or are you saying that it's somehow my job to create the trappings of a comfortable modern lifestyle for you for free, and that I can't have a new car until everybody has a new Honda sitting in their driveway? Be careful what you wish for - when you wish for the enslavement of those above you on the socioeconomic ladder, don't forget that there's a lot of people below you wishing for the same thing.
So for the overwhelmingly middle & upper-middle class, majority-liberal software engineers, a profound concern with "feeding my family" is an actual existential threat?
Or is it that Software Patent litigation is a pressing concern for the poor because if IP laws were amended, suddenly every poor disenfranchised liberal who's been held down by the uncaring and heartless right-wingers for generations could write software and lift themselves out of poverty?
Do you even begin to realize how ridiculous you sound?
I have no problem with mechanization, I have plenty of worldly concerns, I have no need or desire for Rogaine, and I have no problem with someone getting something for free - if it is freely given by the donor.
All of which demands the simple question: What does any of this have to do with software patents?
I don't know, I pointed out that your vapid platitudes have zero bearing on the discussion at hand. That's got to count for something.
Or were you proposing to feed & clothe the poor with your self righteousness, and that the same self-righteousness would also solve software patent issues somehow?
Breathtaking. In 3 short lines, you've managed to miss the point, quote directly from a 3rd grade "If I ruled the world," essay that dramatically oversimplifies complex issues, write a bumper sticker, and take a swipe-by-infantile-generalization at all those evil right wingers.
Bravo, good sir. This must truly be your magnum opus.
You're right - my apologies. I misread the headers and thought you had made the original analogy as well.
And for what it's worth, your analogy *is* better. Though since it wouldn't fit on a bumper sticker, it'll probably be modded down.
Tridgell talks about how to avoid infringing, and if you're accused of it, how to best defend yourself under the current system. Free Software advocates want to blast the whole of the current system to bits.
Free Software thinks if they show enough bogus, stupid, ignorant patents, it will become obvious that the system is broken & should be scrapped. Most companies involved in patent litigation are not interested in spending millions or billions of dollars to change the system over the next 20 years. They want the pain to stop and the problem to go away, NOW.
Entirely different goals, which should help explain why the approaches advocated by the two are so... well, different.
You work at places where the software is released, and never touched again? That's amazing. You should probably patent your process for creating complete v1.0 software.
Could be that your original analogy was poor.
You're comparing the effort required to produce a crop with the effort required to copy an existing piece of software, once it's already been produced. You omit the whole "design, write code, test, debug, package, distribute, support" effort involved in software - all of which takes time, effort, money, tools, and a significant amount of skill & knowledge.
There are certainly great arguments against software patents. Your analogy is not one of them, since it conflates copyrights with patents.
Was this marked as Troll simply because there was some bold text in it?
I'm baffled by the choice of moderation - this is an informative response.
I agree with your conclusion, but your arguments are fairly weak.
If the match was a probability of 1 in 1 million, and you have 300 million samples, then you would expect three hundred (300) matches. For the purpose of finding a criminal, narrowing down your list of suspects to 300 "likely" candidates based on a DNA or fingerprint match, you can very quickly narrow down your search to people who: a) could have been present at the scene of the crime during its commission; and b) have a possible motive to commit the crime in question.
"We know that 1 of these 300 people probably committed this crime. Now the police simply have to investigate to figure out which of them are likely to be tied to this crime either by proximity or possible motive." How is that not useful, from a law enforcement standpoint? You just narrowed your list of potential suspects from 300 million to 300, a large number of whom could probably be eliminated simply because they are not remotely related to the victim in any way, spatially or socially.
Now, that said, I agree that there is huge potential for a tool like this to be misused and abused, and I don't like the idea of "the government" tracking people in this manner. But to claim that a 1 in a million sensitivity makes the tool entirely useless to law enforcement isn't much of a compelling argument against it.
Technology marches on, and the cost and time required get smaller and smaller all the time. And imagine how much the price would fall when you create - by law - a market of 300 million customers.
But it'd make finding high-profile criminals who leave DNA samples behind a lot faster, wouldn't it?
What's "way too expensive"? People react pretty strongly to stories of serial murder, rape, and the like. Often times there is DNA evidence that can be collected, but law enforcement doesn't have a match for the DNA, so they don't have a lead as to who might have committed the crime - they're just waiting to find a suspect who they can test the DNA evidence against. With this, they could collect DNA evidence, run it against a database, and instantly have a fairly small set of leads for people who are very likely candidates.
Hypothetical: Serial rapist is terrorizing New York City. Police have a DNA sample. With a database like this, they could pull a list of 300 people "who might be the serial rapist." They can rapidly go through that list and say "okay, in that 300 people, 50 of them live within 300 miles of New York City. Let's start interviewing those people, and see what turns up." If the matches are *accurate* (and this is the point you must really attack if you want to argue against this sort of a database), then it's overwhelmingly likely that one of those 50 people would turn out to be your criminal.
Now, if you can demonstrate that the DNA matching is inaccurate, leads to false positives, or sends law enforcement down blind alleys with false leads, then this database is a "bad idea." If you can't demonstrate that, then I'm sorry to say, but most of the public is going to say "This is a great thing, because it will allow us to catch rapists and murderers faster." And I'd be inclined to agree - if it could be guaranteed that this type of law enforcement is the only thing the database were used for, and that the DNA fingerprinting technique is accurate. Do you want to be the person who stands up and says, "Sorry, I don't want to spend $100 on a DNA test to prevent a half a dozen more murders?"
It's working really great. What does that have to do with anything? It simply underscores the point that people are not clamoring for "open"/"free" as a feature point. If they were, BSD would be destroying Mac OS X market share. Instead, you see that people are opting for the consistent & well-integrated experience from Apple - the one which curtails their "freedom" to do something that 90+% of computer owners have zero ability to actually do - modify their software and hack their hardware as they see fit.
*sigh* "Free as in freedom, not free as in beer," jackass.
And yet the G1 still made it to market... and other touchscreen phones like the droid and the nexus one have also been released!
I can see what you mean. When Apple refuses to license their technology, it's absolutely impossible to release a competing device.
Yes, because nobody sells processors on the open market. Apple owns them all and refuses to cut deals with any competitors.
90+% of the people "do not have the technical expertise" to write code for their own devices and thus do not care about the "openness" of the device. In terms of music/video content, this is a big ipod. You don't have to buy through the itunes store, you can load & play un-DRM'ed content quite handily on it, just like I do every day on my iPod.
Apple has chosen NOT to "allow installation of unsigned apps." Just like Ford has chosen not to "install a diesel engine" in the Focus. If you need, or want, a diesel engine, buy a vehicle that offers that option. Go buy an Android phone, or an OpenMoko. Vote with your dollars, and when (if) Apple notices that a significant portion of the market is steering clear of their devices "because it's not open," they have the choice of opening it up, or foregoing revenues from that segment of the market.
As far as Apple keeping people technologically ignorant, that's just plain silly. They offer a way for you to write applications for their device, and a way to publish those applications for use. It may not be the way YOU would choose to do it, but they are not exactly saying "sorry, no developer access."
Freedom of choice is a funny thing. If you want people to respect yours, you have to allow others to choose to do what you consider the wrong thing to the extent that they are not harming you. Nobody is forcing you to pay money to Apple, or buy their products - therefore they are not "harming" you with their choices.
Yes, because there is only one $KNOWN_BRAND of any given device category on the market.
Multiple vendors never compete profitably in the same space with shockingly similar products.
I must have been dreaming about all the manufacturers who make laptops, desktops, smartphones, tablet devices, and other electronics. I will now endeavor to wake up!
So what you're admitting is that freedom isn't all that compelling a sales point for most people, and that nobody would invest in a product that is an iPad "but free of lock-in" because it wouldn't sell except to a couple hundred of you neckbeards who get all frothy about your freedom to tinker?
Seriously though, thanks for chiming in to agree with me, I appreciate your support.
Ugh. In my defense, it was early when I read this, and the general tone of most of the responses have been whining and bitchy - chalk one up to my annoyance at all the people who think whining on slashdot will somehow change the world.
Considering Apple is not the government, has no ability to "punish" you for hacking your device, and the ability to hack your device and its software is not a natural ability of most people, your analogy sucks.
What, other than laziness, prevents you from designing a product, pitching it to investors, and bringing it to market? I didn't say it was easy or trivial - I said it was possible.
What, other than laziness, is preventing you from finding like-minded people, developing a business plan, finding investors, and doing this? No business starts as a 50 billion dollar a year business. But good ideas, well-executed, become 50 billion dollar a year businesses. And there is absolutely nothing to stop you from designing a business plan around "free" and "open" software and devices, recruiting other like-minded people to your cause, lining up investors, and launching your business. If the market is as desperate for this feature as you imply, then it should be wildly successful, and you should have a line of investors in the street outside waiting for you to take their money.
Of course not - but venture capitalists and other investors do.
Which devices? The iPod that made Apple a household name? Mac workstations which are used widely by creatives? The iPhone which from day 1 was derided as too closed / not functional enough by the geek cognoscenti here at Slashdot?
Scary thing is, I think you actually believe this. But you're wrong. Apple did not become a 50Bn company by catering to a couple thousand neckbeards in their parents' basements. You did not "put" Apple where it is, and they do not "owe" you anything. If you like their products, buy them. If you don't like their products, don't buy them. If you think they've overlooked a segment of the market and you have a killer idea, go into business and compete with them.
"our" devices? ignoring "everything we say"? If you don't like it, GO MAKE YOUR OWN. If there's as much demand as you seem to think, you should be wildly successful.
You're fooling yourself. There would STILL be people complaining about it. People still bitched about Itunes DRM, even though you never had to buy a single track from the itunes store, and could load any non-DRM'ed track you liked on your ipod.
When Apple is involved, people here at Slashdot will always find a reason to bitch.