The point is that whether the iPad is any good or not, there was no market before the iPad. List all the Android tablets on the market prior to Spring of 2010.

Wouldn't I be subjected to the same long and expensive contract if I bought an S3, or does Samsung provide free data plans? (You can purchase both the iPhone and the S3 no commitment)

It's actually more like 93% and very slowly diminishing (given Apple's high costs). I suspect over time we'll also see a small percentage of people become tablet-only.

However, it's interesting to see the sentiment shift. Years ago, the assumption about PC use was that Microsoft's unfair business tactics, rather than the superiority of the platform, were what caused the dominance.

As others have pointed out, users waiting for BB10 have nothing to do with lack of growth: those users are part of the current userbase, and wouldn't result in growth.

Interesting point to make. Google has contracted to be the default in iOS (OSX too?), Firefox, Opera, and of course it's the default on Chrome and Android. There's conflicting reports about whether or not an Android vendor could use Bing or DuckDuckGo and still be allowed to ship with Google Play. Pointing out Microsoft's behavior as an example of abuse isn't exactly a supporting argument, as Google's behavior is very similar.

It's not maintaining. It just is.

Not to mention the contracts they have (or on what they produce) to be the search box defaults: iOS, Android, Chrome, Firefox, Safari.

Remember, Microsoft didn't manufacture their own computers, yet had a monopoly.

Remind me again why Microsoft is required to show alternate browsers, when IE is free?

(They've actually failed and the EU is back after them, but that's besides the point)

Moreover, a majority of "search" boxes default to Google, as opposed to a customer making a choice. (iOS, Android, FF, Chrome, Safari)

As I pointed out in my other post, using some of your video around scientific facts could be construed as satire. However, using your image and name isn't cool, if they haven't identified it as satire. Even if they did, I think this isn't a copyright issue, but a libel issue. The video isn't the issue, but your personal character and reputation. Moreover, I believe libel claims have less gray area than copyright, and even if the video isn't a for profit venture, you can get money out of a libel claim.

Not sure why the religious org would lie and claim ownership. After all, I think fair use applies (whether or not you agree with the use):

1) Satire.
2) Did you create the video (looks to be an animated rendering), or is it mashed up? If it's your original content, then there's some protection there, but you can't copyright facts. The same organization could take the source data, and assuming they used the same software you used, would the end product be materially different?

That said, IANAL, but I do believe there are limits on how much of the original content one uses. I can create a satirical derivative of your work all day long, but I don't think I can use the entire thing, only a portion.

Wait, it's a "religious organization", in which case all values fly out the window. If this was an atheist organization pilfering a church's video and redubbing, it'd be "fair use", no?

Public defenders are for those accused of criminal acts. This is a civil case. So no, the OP can't spend tax payer dollars to enforce their copyright.

However, you might be thinking of finding a copyright friendly attorney to do it pro bono, it which case there's no limitations.

How many users are on the Nexus, as opposed to HTC, Motorola, and Samsung devices?

1) User groups, conferences: network network network
2) Volunteer to speak, and put that up on your blog
3) Oh yeah, start a blog. Blog regularly
4) Build your own sites/sample sites

Good approach to getting work: build site, find clients later. Most websites aren't that different. Pick an industry (say, air conditioning repair). Build a generic air conditioning repair site. Then go pitch it to those businesses (Google and start with the ones with current ugliest site); they'll always have you make customizations.

I prefer version number, but they rev so fast that it's irrelevant. Not to mention that when they released on iOS (which is merely a wrapper on WebKit, not a full app with some of the original Chrome bits), they didn't start at 1.0. Had Chrome on my phone for a couple of months, and it's telling me I have an update available for 21.0.1180.80.

I believe the poster was referring to the real version number, not the marketing title. They've incremented more or less in the same way since v 1.0, and for years have included revision/build number (Windows 7 Service Pack 1 is 6.1.7601.17514)