If you are compiling your own operating systems, maybe you should get a developer phone? You can install anything you want on those.

That's FUD. If your phone is locked down by your carrier or manufacturer, yes you'd need to root it. However, that's where similarities stop - i.e. try compiling your own version of iOS - that's right, you can't, it's NOT open source. That's the difference.

Most are locked down. Dev phones are not. Most that are locked down are easily rooted.

The big difference, again, is the operating system, not a device. Anyone - i.e. any startup tech company - can take Android source code and start making and selling their own cool devices based on it. That's the advantage of it being open source.

No need to look up dictionary on this one, or perform some kind of "common sense" self-enlightenment - you just need to read history behind the term "open source" and how it was coined and what it has meant throughout.

MS Windows sources are "open" to many governments and large corporations, therefore, it's open source too, right? Wrong. Try a more common sense and industry recognized definition, where redistribution is one of the most important aspects.

That's because if you just say "infinity" it means nothing, and it's easily confusing. It is only meaningful within context. Most will understand it when they have context. But you also have to keep in mind infinite sets have different cardinalities - that is where you lose most people.

You can't assume that at all. The ADP1 from Google wasn't locked down in any way either - it wasn't career locked, it came with full root access out of the box, and unlocked bootloader allowing you to load an OS of your choice on the device; and even change the bootloader.

Wrong.

Sure, it's convenient to limit the thinking to "both" sides of the spectrum. All you have to do is pick the middle, and even a first grader could do that. Notice how "both" means there are only 2 sides you need to concern yourself with.

If you are balancing between left and right you'll always get the middle. If you are balancing black and white, you'll get a shade of gray while the answer you are looking for may be closer to pink. If you are balancing between -100 and 100, you'll end up with 0, while the answer you want may not be even be a number. These 2-sided views on most issues - i.e. black vs. white, left or right, up or down, good or bad, etc. - are what results in a balance that's in a different dimension from reality.

So, if you limit yourself to a one-dimensional spectrum depicted to you by two oversimplified "ideological over-reactions" you are limiting the scope of your thinking to those agendas. Copyright should not be a "balance" between some kind of intellectual property dictatorship vs. no copyright at all, just for the sake of achieving one. Instead, think public good, freedom of expression, progress of science and useful arts, the Internet, global role, enforcement, economy, industries, fair use, fair trade, safe harbor, encryption, exclusive rights, etc., etc. - care to add a few? Then gather some facts and strike a "balance" between all the factors that come into play.

This story reminded me of Steve Jobs' analysis of HDCP:

Q: How is HDCP helping the antipiracy effort?

A: We didn’t invent the stuff. The problem is that Hollywood doesn’t want what happened to the music industry to happen to them. You can’t blame them. But content protection isn’t their business and they’re grasping at straws here. But we’ve got to deal with their restrictions.I feel your pain.

A prototype which didn't have the fully functioning OS; which was presented to Jobs to demo the advanced touchscreen; which was used as a base for all that followed for iPhone, including most of the iOS development; and which now Apple has turned around and used as marketing/PR bullet point for iPad.

First, that "new product" was the iPhone, not the iPad. Second, the part you highlighted is about Jobs noticing the R&D money spent. Third, the prototype design was for the touchscreen device, which likely didn't have a fully functioning OS.

After seeing device touchscreen, Jobs promptly ordered them to start working on the phone, NOT on the tablet. So, if anything, you could argue most of iOS development was geared towards a phone.

In any case, the "intended for" argument is irrelevant as the core of the OS is flexible - people seem to have missed that point.

No, he didn't. That article states Jobs instructed his people to produce a better phone, and they took the "video iPod" idea and put a big glass screen on it and replaced hardware with software.

That's a sharp contrast to iOS being "intended for" an iPad-like tablet device. That was marketing and PR then for iPhone, and that is also what it is currently for iPad.

iOS was designed to be flexible from the start, PR and marketing statements from Apple and media notwithstanding.

But they did - as of now it's listed at $199 w/free shipping, and an HDMI cable thrown in too.

From the "ground up" it was designed as a flexible OS that could be scaled to different hardware and resolutions, Jobs' marketing statements, iPad launch PR, and initial "mockups" and ideas notwithstanding.

I am not sure what you mean, but yes, Jobs states the idea started from a "tablet" but quickly switched to phone after seeing the initial mockup. That was also during the time of iPad announcement/launch. Nothing like extra marketing for the new device - "hey I've got a secret for you, come closer near the mike."

Google's statement of needing a "phone" to use App Market is an artificial/business limitation, not a technical one. This is also NOT a limitation of Android OS.

As far as your iPad claims, why are there 20K apps for iPad, and 250K apps for iPad/iPod touch? Your guesses are not facts.

That's just some extra marketing for iPad during the time that iPad was announced. They weren't going to say - "hey this iOS thing worked well for iPhone, so we've slapped it onto this thing and hope it works out just the same." I'm not saying that's the case - I'm saying it was designed to be flexible from the beginning.