The reason the App store and perhaps even the iPhone itself was such a success is because there is only one place you need to go to find Apps.

That's debatable. Where is your evidence that it's the reason for the success of the platform? Just saying it isn''t enough.

It doesn't really have to provoke a paradigm shift in Google's Play Store. It simply needs to provide an alternative paradigm, and be widely adopted. As in, being the default App Store, or an alternative preinstalled App Store, on a wider variety of Android platforms.

If it was superconducting, it'd be a rather horrible capacitor, actually.

Apple always chooses a 'worthy' opponent to pose against. Samsung is a market leader, so Apple can posture in such a way that their customers are an elite minority, bucking the market leader's product that all the common people use. Similarly in the past, Apple posed consistently against 'IBM' with their computers, even long after IBM wasn't the leading Personal Computer vendor. There was even a little transition period before Apple united with IBM for PowerPC, when Apple was putting IBM OEM hard drives in Powerbooks and Apple customers' heads went asploding when they discovered it.

When you're running a cult, you need a proper Emmanual Goldstein type figure for your customers to shout about at product introductory events.

They will just repeal the law of anthropogenic gravity. We're stuck with gravity. It's not our fault, though, and we can tear down our economy, but it's not going away.

Are you sure that wasn't a recent case-modder magazine?

In a perfect world, though, I could drive by the construction site and see all those frail kindergarten teachers digging trenches along the road. On my way to my job producing extra-large aprons for the new oversized burly males serving milk to the kindergarteners.

The rest of us could pull open the customization menu and remove the icons we didn't need (or simply those we didn't understand what they did, I suppose) and add in just the ones we wanted. With 'The Ribbon' we're forced to do whatever we're steered into doing by a broken design forced on us by 'Experts' who know better than us how we should be using the software.

If Microsoft was courageous, the 'Ribbon' would have been an option. Problem is, nobody would be using it. And: the real reason for 'The Ribbon' was to reduce support costs. If people are making expensive calls to customer support, take away what they were asking questions about. It's Office, they'll be forced to use it no matter what, so the Feature List isn't important anymore.

To taunt the user, with a battery they can see, but still not replace?

Nothing in the world is 'total coincidence.'

(it's all due to a dark conspiracy. Probably the Koch brothers have a secret cabal, some network of operatives keeping those kindergarten teachers down)

the main REASON they are under-represented is because of the sexism of other men !

No, that's wrong. I don't, and would never, look down on men seeking to obtain jobs wiping kindergartener's noses and cleaning up their milk spills. I do, however, recognize that few people of any type want such jobs. Perhaps sexism in the workplace in general forces women who would otherwise be able to get a GOOD job somewhere into those positions.

For most job positions at most companies, there is a surplus of over-qualified people that could be hired to do the job. Forget the 'awesome work' bit. Ludicrous adjectives belong in Apple's marketing (though HR probably feels they can pepper the walls inside the company with them to boost productivity.) Since there is a large population of qualified applicants to pick from, it should be easy to skew things as needed to fulfill 'diversity' requirements.

Apple can take advantage of the PR opportunity. Cook recognizes that, and probably hopes it can serve as cover for the ongoing, continuing, lackluster product road map. Apple makes cellphones and niche computers. They also sell music (sugar water) to kids.

If they can become 'The Diverse' company it will help them remain prominent for a bit longer than otherwise would be the case. Possibly long enough for the stock value to stay up for some planned time span.

Apple is a notorious NIHNI! (Not Invented Here? Not Interested!) operation. Adding more women at the lower levels isn't going to bring more diverse ideas to the table. Apple will always struggle with their mono-idea malady. Their 'one white guy' problems are essentially over because that guy is gone, but sweeping changes to introduce more diversity won't 'fix' a very complex problem for Apple. All the thing can really do from this point forward is wind down. Oracle will die with Ellison the same way, though the long wind-down makes it hard to recognize while it's happening.

The guy working on his degree probably wouldn't have stayed in the position long enough. Remember, the people doing the hiring likely wanted somebody who would stick around after learning what was expected of him. The mediocre guy probably fit the bill best because of his mediocrity.

Most jobs are easy enough that the 'best qualified' candidate doesn't need to be hired. Other considerations are important as well.

That sounds like a great 'filter' process. The unpaid internship will filter out anybody who expects to get paid. Hiring the best of the willing-to-work-for-free candidates after a year is an excellent idea. But what defines 'best' in that case? The one who starved to death the least?