What behavior? You're damn near the only person arguing strongly against Apple in this story, and you haven't said once what they did that you think is wrong!

Tim Cook should go to jail? For selling books? For letting the publishers pick the prices they sell them at? You're a fucking idiot. But worse, you're a fanboy who thinks proper business practices are "evil" for simply being done by the wrong company.

Aside from being Apple, which you hate irrationally, what exactly is your complaint? What do you think Apple did that was wrong? They used an existing model, which is legal. They broke a monopoly, which is not only legal, but generally considered beneficial. They brought eBooks to more people.

And in the end, Amazon is still the top eBook seller, so Apple didn't even take a controlling share of the market. So what did they do wrong?

Amazon had a monopoly which they used to abuse the publishers. Apple made separate deals with each publisher (which is not collusion or price-fixing) which broke Amazon's monopoly.

This is exactly how the market is supposed to work. Where once there was one eBook provider, there are now four major providers. Apple is not even the biggest one! How can that be a monopoly or even a trust?

Seriously, how can you say something like this with a straight face? That's straight-up trolling.

Emphasis theirs. I don't see how it can be more clear than that! It's the most prominent text on their page about Gmail.

Um, that is the exact distinction they made in their Scroogled campaign. It's the entirety of their whole argument against Gmail!

I figured I'd follow up on your post than on mine. I've found an article that obliquely mentions targeted ads for Outlook.com: nbcnews.com

It's not very meaty in terms of evidence or details, but definitely concerning. Before I made my first reply to you, I checked my Outlook.com inbox to see if the ads were contextual, and they most certainly weren't, but I almost never use that address, so it's hard to be sure.

However, if that article is correct about targeted ads, then you're quite correct in your first sentence. I'm still interested in reading about MS "selling *data* to outside interests".

Spam filters and malware scanning is different from scanning your email for keywords, storing them in your user profile, and showing you ads.

One serves the end user, the other serves the company. That is a huge difference. Of the two, in terms of privacy, MS is much more sincere and honest about it. Too bad the company itself has a long history of otherwise inappropriate behavior and (generally speaking) inferior products and services (outside of the corporate world).

Bullshit. MS does not show ads based on the contents of your email.

Lol. People can *say* they've seen anything, doesn't make it true.

Provide a link so that those of us that have to read your assertions can make up our own minds instead of just taking your word for it.

MS has done a lot of horrible things, but protecting user privacy has been better than average. And the reasoning behind this is pretty simple: MS makes their money by selling (and now, subscriptions to) software. That's their bread and butter, and where they are going to focus.

I don't like the company much, and don't generally prefer their products, but let's not be fanboys and make up shit just because we don't like the company, ok?

Lol, when it's iOS or Macs under discussion, you always ask what poor people are supposed to do, or how can you do this while riding on a bus.

But when it's Android, just buy some extra bulky stuff!

There's no polite way to put this, but it's not "tablets and phones" that are dominating the handheld gaming market, it's iPhones, iPod touches, and iPads. Android gaming lags iOS gaming by a wide margin at the moment.

That's not to say there aren't some great games on Android, just that if you want to see the best representation of mobile (tablet/phone) gaming, you'll need to look at the other OS.

There's still quite a bit of value in dedicated gaming hardware, like the 3DS. Primarily, the physical buttons. But the convenience of having one device instead of multiple devices is more important to most people. Additionally, gaming on iOS has increasingly come to fit well with a touch screen, as opposed to merely trying to adapt traditional games with little more than a virtual d-pad and button overlay.

We'll know more in two days, but this, and other indications that Google has been working on the lag issues on Android, shows a lot of promise.

You clearly misunderstood the question. On iOS, you can buy, install, and run any app that wants permissions that you might not like, and deny those permissions at run time (or even afterwards in iOS's Settings app). On Android, you can only just do as you suggest, which is not install the app at all, unless you root your phone and rely on a set of hacks which require significantly more effort to keep up with than on iOS.

Though now that I think about it, I might be wrong. I don't think you misunderstood the question at all. You're just fanboying, as usual.

Thanks for the link, and no, that's not Apple keeping a cleartext copy of your device encryption key. Could you clarify which sentence or paragraph has phrasing which makes you say otherwise?

And back to your original post, device restores wouldn't require the encryption key anyway. iCloud backups don't simply copy the encrypted filesystem (which would need the key, however even then, the key would itself by encrypted with the user password or some other token, same as on the device). Additionally, this would be entirely optional, which while you never said it wasn't, would significantly weaken any purported issue such a policy would cause.

In short: Apple doesn't hold a direct copy of your device encryption key.

As usual, jumping to the most anti-Apple conclusion. Since we are comparing iOS to Android, Android doesn't even encrypt your OS by default, iOS does. Were I a fanboy like yourself, I'd claim that makes Android shit. I'd never do that, though. Android supports encryption, which is good, and I personally believe it should be enabled by default, but what the hell, right, not everything has to operate exactly the way I determine.

And the article even points out that Google goes much further than Apple in helping law enforcement. They simply reset the password and give the government the new password!

The sad thing here is that every single conclusion you've jumped to without sufficient evidence has been both the least favorable towards Apple, and wrong. Well, "here", that's probably not sad, in fact it'll gain you plenty of mod points. Though *that's* sad, so it all works out in the end.

No, it's a question of people such as yourself jumping to unsupported conclusions, merely because they hate Apple.

Citation needed.

Earlier you claimed this was "absolute proof", and that's the problem. There are far too many simpler explanations than that Apple has put in a back door.

If it is a back door, this needs to be proclaimed broadly and loudly. But before that happens, you need to quite being so credulous, simply for it supporting your lame fanboy bullshit.

Doubtful, but if you'd be so kind as to link to that portion of their freaking policy? Surely if you know it's there, it can't be that difficult.

Otherwise, this is simply yet another baseless claim, like all the rest.