How did this article make it through to my RSS feed? Is all you need these days to reach the masses produce infantile observations and deliver it with the noun, "Apple", in the heading?
Reading through this article is a genuine pain. The author clearly has no insight in half of his subject, has only limited insight in the other half, lacks journalistic education, is biased, makes wrongful and outdated "observations", and draws parallels where no parallels exist. Just to name a few. It's a class book example of misconclusions - and even that is giving it more credit than it deserves.
The aim here is not to present a subject for discussion (one must sincerely hope, anyway, because in that case, the author is beyond professional salvation), but a cheap trolling trick to mass up clicks and tweets pointing to his site. It's blatantly obvious, and I have to say, "Shame on you, slashdot, for letting this one slip through!"