...because ripping DVD's is deemed illegal (now defended by DMCA provisions), and the MPAA goes after any major player who's offered that by default? (CD's don't have such copy protection measures.)

They can't at all STOP it, of course, and it's perfectly easy to pick up the apps you need to rip your DVD's how you like, but the MPAA gets testy if major software allows it out of the box. (Nero used to, for instance.) They destroyed DVD X Copy's studio back in 2004.

You'll have to take it up with them.

Apple's a lot worse a programming for Windows, and you want them to start screwing up on LINUX too? ;-)

Universal problem with Linux, though... Just aren't enough people willing to support it right now. It would certainly be nice for Apple to "officially license" one Linux developer and let that app function at the very least for proper media syncing duties.

They've complicated the iTunes platform more and more, though, so I don't see them adopting that option at this point. Should really swallow up some teams to start moving a few pertinent apps Linux-a-ways, though. What better way to continue to erode the omnipresence of Windows than by being able to point at how many platforms can use your devices and software?

They are. Also, their formats are not "proprietary," just the Fairplay DRM. (While, amusingly, MP3 is a proprietary format. Just the de-facto standard.) And since Apple was basically instrumental in getting the RIAA to back off music DRM everywhere (short of subscription rentals, of course), I'm not sure why people continue to have a stick up their butt on what was inherently RIAA-demanded DRM, and the problems that surrounded that and their licensing and distribution model.

Put files in the music storage directories (which are hidden, so you have to show those first) and you can. iPods support drag-and-drop in that fashion, as they read generic data off the ID3 tags.

Some features will be broken without the iTunes link, but obviously since some other programs like Winamp can be made to sync to your iPod, there are more options. And for anyone just looking for "generic song playing," they'll work just fine. (I'm pretty sure drag-and-drop playlist management would be a PITA to do, though, so you're likely still going to need a control program for that. Unless you're satisfied doing it the "on the fly" way on the iPod itself, which tends to be irritating.)

I did just that. Right now. (Classic. Not sure about Touch.)

Just so long as you put them in the right place, the iPod can read off the ID3 tags. Not all features will work without the internal databasing (like playlists, favorite tracking, Genius listing and whatnot; things that are iTunes-specific features), but general song playing works.

Exclusivity is what they used to open the door to their design decisions, not pushing ANY of the carrier-based nickel-and-diming features (ringtones, "GetItNow," etc.), making back-end changes to be able to support visual voicemail, offering unlimited data plans at a non-premium price, handling all firmware update themselves, all feature updates themselves, all software sales through themselves, sharing part of the monthly subscription revenue rather than having the conventional hardware subsidizing... What other bargaining chip did they have than saying "we'll bring you a lot of new customers if only you can offer our phone"?
The first ROKR is what you got when Apple was allowed to stick a few features onto another phone with the carrier's permission. The iPhone is what you got when Apple designed THEIR phone.

...because the iPhone App Store doesn't have free apps? Heck, like they can't be open source? Perhaps you don't get get that feeling from the proprietary distribution network, but what's stopping anyone from openly hosting the source code themselves and allowing anyone to modify it for their own free apps?

I tend to see Android lagging behind primarily because "open source" is not a salve that makes everything all better. The iPhone/Touch has an untouchable advantage in that you can quite easily target just ONE spec, whereas the more widely adopted Android is, the harder it becomes to program for all the devices. (Does Android even have a "minimum spec" target that is required, so at the very least there's a dependable lowest common denominator?) Plus, Apple has a wider brand image and platform strength that brings people there for a variety of different reasons, while Android--for the time being--is sought out primarily by people looking for THAT smartphone.

Where I see Android being able to pick up ground depends quite a lot on the software and services Google itself wraps around Android, because their software tends to be quite exceptional, and they are commonly expanding services that no one thinks they want... until they discover them and WANT them. If they offer software that overshadows what the iPhone comes with out of the box, and quality services for free that Apple is trying to charge $99/year for, and if they can integrate all their tools well... it will make Android much more noticable, and THAT--I think--will more than make up for anything else.

Almost no one believes Apple "invented" them. (Besides which, it's usually hard to credit who "invents" one thing and when, especially since general tech concepts tend to have a very long "conceptual" stage to begin with, from prognosticators to research papers, to actual research, to who gets it to market first and in what form...)

Very few, however, will disagree that Apple brought those and more to the public, in mature and accessible form, and prompted explosions in popularity.

McLean is Dilger. If you head over to RD, you'll notice he links over to every McLean article on Appleinsider.

Offhand, though, I haven't really detected any "shades of" styling when reading one article or another. Perhaps when writing AI articles he's not as apt to put gratuitous Microsoft-bashing in it, and anything that's simply "news reporting" over editorializing is apt to appear on AI primarily and not matter as much for him to blog about on RD, but the writing style has always been similar, and when doing more editorializing on AI, it's always been pronounced.

Offhand, I think you're unconsciously under-emphasizing what shows up on AI, and over-emphasizing what shows up on RD.

Just baptize the mom first... The fetus is already awash in fluid inside her!

Osmostism.

I switched to Chrome precisely because I was always getting slowdowns and freezes on Firefox. I played around with it for a while and hoped the 3.0 upgrade would fix things, but it continued right on through. Not OFTEN, but often enough to bug me.

Prince McLean is the pseudonym Daniel Eran Dilger uses for articles on AppleInsider. He cross-links pretty liberally.

Speaks kind of poorly that the Wired author can get so utterly and obviously humiliated by "lunatic fringe," though, don't it? Not to mention the people he "quotes" in his article. (And has since modified.) Not to mention having his points specifically contradicted by the June 2008 Wired article he links to.

Kinda the point. The AI article treats it pretty realistically (if perhaps overly-hopeful) and in an actual, informed context, whereas the Wired article smacks of yellow journalism.

If Mr. Chen at Wired had actually used information and opinions from the reply sent to him by the guy he specifically asked "I was wondering if you could happened to know why the iPhone is failing there?" it would have been... you know... a decidedly different article. At the VERY least, a decidedly different quote. (Though I rather imagine he wouldn't have been mentioned at all, because his reply was in the opposing direction of the tale Chen wanted to tell.)