Unfortunately, the US does not have free market capitalism on broadband communications. In most areas it is either monopoly or duopoly

That's what a free market will usually naturally gravitate to. Competition is bad for all competitors, so cartels or monopolies are strong attractors in the system. If you want competition and choice you need market regulation to make it happen.

Pure nitrogen is a little lighter than air (not that it makes much difference here).

Time to "dust off" the old "server", I presume?

the functionality of the devices is about the same

It's very different. On Android, you have to decide whether to grant permission before you've ever run the application, and it's all or nothing. On iOS, you run the application before deciding whether or not to grant it permission. You have the ability to deny permission while still running the application. You can also allow permission for some things but not others.

This functionality is partially available to Android users who root their phones and install the right tools, but that's far from the common case.

then, you also need to include the other app stores as well (Google Play, Amazon, Windows)

Alpine Linux uses 130 MB

The first version of Slackware I tried ran on two floppies - one for the kernel, and one for the userspace. This didn't include a graphical interface though - you needed to download the CD image for that.

It's true that the majority of the profits in App Store sales is focused at the extreme top, but it's not true that 99.999% of the rest make "near 0". This analysis estimates that the top 3,175 applications earn at least the average annual income for a US household per year, and applications that rank about number 6000 still earn $25K/yr.

And that's only counting App Store revenue. I've earned a lot more than average since I started developing for iOS, and most of the applications I've worked on are free. You don't see things like banking applications earn revenue directly, but the developers responsible certainly profit from it. The Facebook application is free, but you don't think its developers are working on it for free do you? I've been paid to built plenty of enterprise applications that will never appear in the App Store.

There is a huge amount of profit in the "app economy" that will never be accounted for merely by looking at App Store profits. The "app economy" is much bigger than the App Store.

It depends on how cynical you want to be. Corporations will pull sponsorship from events or people that fail to exhibit traits with which they want to be associated. Drop the shoe deal with the sports star who is exposed as a racist or whatever. Of course, does the company really care about race relations, or do they just want to avoid bad press from a populace who does?

I saw commercials recently that CVS Pharmacy stopped selling cigarettes. I don't think anybody was boycotting them over that, or there was any real notice of their tobacco sales at all. And they must have been making non-zero dollars. But perhaps the decline in smoking and hassle of keeping up with laws made the shelf space more valuable for something else.

There are definitely principled companies that are privately held. Pretty sure Ben and Jerry drink their own koolaid.

You're right, though, it's rare. Zuck's billions are not enough. Gotta make more more more even if it means contributing to the oppression of people living under a censorship regime.

Which is perfectly reasonable. If I ran a website over which I had editorial control, I wouldn't post Muhammed pics either because I'd be scared of getting blowed up and my staff killed. But I'd admit it was out of fear, not "respect." I have no respect for people who would kill because of something said or written or expressed.

That's not what the FB deal is about, though. They're not censoring themselves, they're censoring their users. And they're enforcing the censorship of another government rather than not do business there.

I kind of want the opposite. I've got a big, capable laptop at home, and several computers at work. When I go out, though, I'm not going to do any real programming or make a presentation or things like that when I'm at a cafe with my wife, or sitting on the train home from work. I'll surf the web, read a paper or play games. A tablet lets me do that just fine.

A small, light laptop has too many compromises; little memory, slow CPU (that gets throttled after more than a few seconds at 100%), small screen and keyboard. And it's still much heavier than the Tablet Z I carry. The tablet is light and thin enough that I really don't notice it in my bag at all.

We're all hunting for the impossible: a matchbox-size computer with the power of a workstation and a 40" screen. Instead we have to compromise. And we all end up with different compromises. I've even thought of cancelling my smartphone and go back to a small, light feature-phone. It's cheaper, more durable and the battery lasts for a week. Use only the tablet for apps.

Sure, LifeInvader should operate within the laws of nations where they do business. But if those laws compromise your principles, you shouldn't do business there. That has nothing to do with American arrogance. I wouldn't do business in North Korea if I had to contribute to the oppression of their people. That won't be on me.

Zuck expressed the right principle. "We believe in free speech." If Turkish law says "no Muhammed pics" then let them hunt down people who post them. Sucks, but you don't have to help them. If the Turks ban FB because they won't do their dirty censorship work for them...so be it. That would be the principled stance.

It would send a message to Turks that their culture is fucked up. Lots of people would be upset about no longer having access to FaceBook, and a conversation might break out amongst Turks about the nature of their government's limits on expression. This instead just supports the status quo.

I'm coming at that from my American, free-speech-at-nearly-any-cost point of view. Turks may not care about freedom of expression, and that's their prerogative. But my sentiment echoes what Zuck said (not what he did). For my part, I would not go telling the Turks to change. But I absolutely would not help them censor, either. I would keep my network neutral. Common carrier. You can post whatever you want. If your local authorities want to persecute you for it, that's on them (and your culture). But I'm not going to help them oppress you.