Most home buyers have the home inspected to make sure there are no hidden or undisclosed defects. In addition, there are companies that offer insurance and even laws in many places that protect the consumer when buying a home so that you don't get burned by a defect that is not disclosed by the seller.

So, your analogy does not relate to your argument. You do have protection from getting burned when buying a home. You do not when buying games, movies, music or software.

Very good. I had not even thought about AppleTV. Considering how the networks are trying to eliminate the skipping of ads in Tivo and other DVR setups, that sounds like a very plausible use.

Have you considered that Steve may have conceived an application of this patent that you have not considered that WILL affect and bother you???

Sorry, I personally don't like to assume that I have the ability to foresee every potential future use of a piece of technology.

Just because someone uses one Apple product or service does not mean they use ALL Apple products and services. There are quite a few people who own an iPod or iPhone that do not own a Mac.

If they did, Apple would have a much larger share of PC sales. But they do not, so I guess they have room for improvement in that area. Consider how many Mac vs. PC ads you see on TV and tell me Steve doesn't want more avenues to push Mac ads.

"Does anyone in this thread really think that Apple, a company utterly obsessed with aesthetics, good design, usability, and marketing would put ads in their operating system?"

Fixed that for you.

While this may truly be a defensive filing, I don't think it is that far fetched that a control-crazed company like Apple wouldn't use this in some fashion. As long as the ads are for Apple products and services, I'm sure Steve Jobs sees nothing wrong with it.

iAds...coming soon to OS X 10.7 Frozen Kitten

You seem to be overlooking a crucial element in the "OS Wars". As many proponents of Linux or Mac OS seem to do. The issue is consistency and familiarity. These are the primary reasons that MS has stayed on top as long as it has.

First, you may point out that Linux "scales up extremely well, and scales down extremely well." You can also point out that Linux is "free, legal, [and] has no viruses." However, you can't really say it is easier to use than Windows. Not for someone who has never used Linux or any other OS besides Windows.

Whether XP is their first OS or they have progressed through the iterations from Win 3.1, they know Windows. They know where they need to go in the UI to perform the tasks they need to accomplish. They have spent valuable time learning how to perform these tasks in Windows. They are comfortable with it and they become proficient (to some degree) in its use.

Now, one day their Windows is taken away and they are given Ubuntu or Mac OS X. They have no idea where to go to perform the tasks they used to perform with ease. They have to spend their valuable time to relearn a new OS with a new UI. Their actual productivity takes a big hit and they are frustrated that they can't just get their work done. Imagine if that was everyone in your company!! Sure, the company could spend numerous man-hours training the users on the new OS, or they'll have to beef up their IT department to hand hold every user as they painfully become acquainted with the new OS. Or, they can keep using Windows.

Sure, MS makes some minor changes from time to time, but these are done gradually and limited. This gives time for the users to acclimate without making them feel lost. I would love to see MS "wake up real quick with a real, next-generation operating system of the future. It needs to be secure, flexible, low-latency, scalable, modular and customizable." However, look at the backlash they got from the changes they made to the UI in Vista and Office 2007. You can argue about the effectiveness of MS's implementation choices, but the underlying factor is they tried to change Windows for the better (at least that is their intent) and users hated it. I would argue that is one reason Apple and Linux saw an increase in adoption.

I'm still not sure how well Win 7 will go over as it has the same UI as Vista. As I recently moved my Windows box to Win 7 from XP, I can attest to the minor inconvenience of finding where MS has put things in this UI, and I consider myself pretty adept with computers and technology in general. Overall though, I like Win 7 much better so far.

The bottom line: advanced users and computer enthusiasts can adapt to a new and different OS much easier than the average user. Corporations are not going to go through the headache and growing pains of switching all their users to a new OS when many of the users do not know much more about Windows than what is required to accomplish their daily tasks. I believe Windows continues to persist as the dominant OS because MS does not make drastic changes to the OS. If users have to relearn how to use Windows, then they might as well learn another OS. That is when Linux and Apple benefit.

"If a console does not have functionality on day one, or by default, then you cannot tack on additional requirements, especially when it comes to games. Developers already worried about how small your console demographic really is cannot risk further decimating their audience by requiring people to buy some new fangled, overpriced gadget in order to play your game. People are not going to be willing to fork out double the cost on an accessory and a game, when they could just buy two regular game, usually of higher wuality, for the same price."

"It's not possible to get all owners to upgrade their consoles at once so that developers aren't looking at a decimated pool of players."

I would have to disagree with this assessment. Look at Guitar Hero and Rock Band. Both required spending a considerable amount of money on "new fangled, overpriced gadget(s)" to play the games and that is exactly what people did. I think the underlying issue is that MS and Sony need a flagship game (i.e. Halo) to launch these new accessories and therefore create the market for future development that uses the accessories.

Personally, I was hoping for a next gen console from MS or at least for them to roll out a hardware revision that would resolve the issues that have plagued the 360.

"And if the console is still under warranty, they fix it. It it isn't under warranty, they charge. That is pretty standard as far as business practices go."

I don't care if my console is under warranty or not. If the manufacturer supplies a firmware update that is in all essence mandatory (You have to upgrade or do without online services or playing any new games that require that particular firmware) and that update breaks my system, then I expect them to fix it at no cost as a minimum. There should also be some sort of compensation for their screw up that caused the consumer a hassle.

Look at it this way, if a cellphone service provider required an update to their software that bricked your cellphone, do you think it is OK that they charge you to replace your phone??? (I'm not talking about hacked phones) Of course by your reason, you could just disconnect from the service and not install the update. You could still use all the offline features of your phone, just not make any calls or use any data services. But that kind of makes the cellphone pointless then doesn't it? Same difference with a PS3.

I consider the approach that Sony is taking to definitely be "worse than most companies." You can rightly bash MS for their 360 hardware screw ups, but at least they cover the issues at no charge, cover shipping, extend the warranty AND provide free XBox Live time as compensation. That doesn't make their problems magically go away, but at least they are taking responsibility for it and providing a reasonable response rather than a big F*ck You to all their customers.

Sony's arrogance keeps growing as they continue to screw over their customers and fanbois like you just keep defending them. Just check out the new PSP that is more limited in functionality than the first version. Nice job Sony!!! Yeah, If I owned a PSP, I would like to be able to play the games I own on the new version. I guess Sony doesn't feel that is a necessary feature. I guess they have the same philosophy as with the PS2 compatibility on PS3: You can just keep your old PS2 plugged in and cluttering up your entertainment system. Why not carry around TWO PSPs!!!!

The Zune HD supports HD video AND radio. The Touch does not. In fact, you can output the Zune HD over HDMI. Check out the full spec comparison on cnet.

"Of course, if it's a bargin you want you can also go to Apple's web site and buy refurbished Macs and save 10-20%."

If I want a refurb system, then I'll buy the equivalent PC refurb which is still cheaper. I shouldn't have to purchase an older model refurb Mac to get the same price point of a new current spec PC.

"On the flip side, like certain cars Macs also have a fairly high resale value. After a year or so you might be able to resell that Mac for half (or more) of what you paid for it."

I guess that depends on whether you buy new hardware every year or two. Most people do not. Just like most people don't trade in their cars every year or two. Most of us buy a car and use it for several years. I do the same with my computer. I do not work in high-end graphics nor do I play the cutting edge games, so I don't need to upgrade constantly.

In addition, a Mac which costs more up front SHOULD get more when you sell it.

I have also seen this offered multiple times on more than one windows box at work. We use Filemaker which installs Bonjour as a component. I enabled the Apple software update to keep Bonjour updated not to install Safari, Quicktime, iTunes or the iPhone Configuration BS.

I declined the install on the PCs I noticed them on, but I'm not sure about how many other users at work just clicked update without knowing any better. The Apple update should only offer updates relevant to the programs already installed, not use it as a platform to install additional unrelated software.

You can complain about MS all you want, but aside from the malware tool they occasionally send, they do not push NEW software over their updates. They offer them through the Windows Update website as optional / recommended updates that are NOT preselected.

If I want Apple's software, I will go to their website and download it. If they really want people to use Safari, Quicktime, etc., why don't they spend some of that iPhone marketing money on pushing their software instead of sneaking it in on the back of other products.

Everyone knows that Rule #1 is "Don't talk about Fight Club."

Perhaps you missed the "Home" link at the bottom of the page which leads to http://iase.disa.mil/index2.html. Since the page the training course resides on is only one page of a larger website, I would conclude that it is not a website in and of itself.

Furthermore, if you go to the homepage, you will not find one single instance of Flash. So, I would conclude this is not a "Flash-heavy" website, but a Flash presentation that is part of a non-flash-heavy website.

As previously stated, this is no different than a powerpoint presentation or slideshow that is presented as a linked resource. You, and everyone else playing this URL game, think you're being clever but you only come off as an ass.

"That's a poor analogy. Web browsers were not a key service of Windows when Netscape Navigator was released. The primary function of iPhone is the phone service. If Apple allows Google to change that, it would be like allowing Microsoft to change the Linux kernel or Linux hackers changing Windows kernel or its GUI, a bad thing, obviously."

True. Internet Explorer did not even ship with the original release of Win95.

My point is that Google is not altering the phone service of the iPhone. Rather it is providing a different interface and additional features using the core Apple system. This is the same thing that Netscape was doing on Windows. It used the same components of the OS to route the data. It just provided a different interface and arguably better features.

Furthermore, every cell phone's "primary function is the phone service". What causes people to buy one phone over the other in most cases are the features that phone provides above just making phone calls.

When have you seen an Apple iPhone commercial focused on the phone service of the iPhone? Instead you see commercials about all the other functions and apps it provides.

Well, what the hell is [Microsoft] supposed to do? Allow [Netscape] to provide [a] key service of its product: [web browsing]? That's like Pepsi shipping Coke inside their bottles. [Netscape] should promote their service in their own product, not encroach into [Microsoft]'s turf.

Do you still like your line of thinking?