I can appreciate that you prefer Android and Windows CE phones over Apple phones, some people do. But to say that Apple went from a non-player in the mobile phone space to a dominant force almost overnight on the coattails of a "horrid" first iPhone with "build quality very low" and then didn't get any better until Android came along (although unveiled in 2007, first Android phone was released way later in October 2008, btw), is just revisionist history. Don't take my word for it, here are some actual quotes from 2007 reviews, a full 15 months before the release of the first Android set:

ENGADGET:

• if we had to boil the iPhone's SMS down to a one-word description, "purty" would certainly be a finalist
• The iPhone's calendar may possibly be the most usable we've ever seen on a cellphone
• For two megapixels, no autofocus, and no flash, we're about as impressed as we can be.

NEW YORK TIMES:

• The iPhone matches most of its hype

And it went on and on, and the rest is history... Yes, Android is great too. Windows CE, well, you hang on to that one.

Um... I'm no fan of all the lawsuits, patents, etc, but honestly, does anybody actually remember what cell phones were like before the iPhone came out? They were just awful. I built a catapult for my Motorola Q just so I could launch it off my roof.

I'm no fan of Apple's lawsuits, but I also can admit that they did move the ball forward by leaps and bounds beyond the plastic pieces of shit we were all messing with in 2006.

Eeen Sovyet Rusha... I meen eeen Amereekan Redmond, kompuuter yoozes you!

lol... it's preventative...

Games are a bit different with regards to frame rate, since there is no physical camera, so there is no full frame-to-frame motion blur. That's why you need to have higher frame rates for games to look comparable to movies (otherwise games look choppy at 24fps). Movie frames blend into one another since the capture of each frame takes time (based on the shutter speed), and the playback just shows you each frame with the motion blur bakes in (at whatever frame rate). To take that concept a step further, if you were to get a light-sensitive movie camera and crank up the shutter speed while maintaining 24fps, you'll still get similar choppy motion from a movie camera since the increased shutter speed/angle will decrease the frame-to-frame motion blur. Also, if you're panning quickly, 24fps motion blur becomes very extreme and difficult to watch. So, moving to 48-fps isn't really "better" per se in any objective measure, it's just different. You sacrifice frame-to-frame motion blur as the fps goes up, which means it isn't really "smoother", it's just "different".

Motion blur can be a very good thing, and is regularly used stylistically in photography, motion graphics, and video. It's used for effect and implies motion, and IMO, doesn't require a "cure."

I personally have more of an issue when the GMO's have cross-species genetic modifications, not so much with selective breeding (biased selection) applied within a species. When my dog tries to mount my cat, sure, it's funny, but I wouldn't eat the offspring...

Lol... You've clearly never worked in the advertising space, where Google only provides price breaks on things like Adwords API credits to companies spending over approx $1M/mo. Those sorts of policies result in all "small" advertisers being charged exorbitant rates for equivalent ad space, effectively subsidizing large advertisers. Their behavior is similar to how big-box stores get discounted anchor rates per square footage in strip malls, which forces unsustainably high rates onto small shops, effectively putting non-venture backed businesses out of business.

I'm not saying they don't have the right to abuse the little guy, but let's not pretend that "Don't be evil" is anything more than a catchy slogan, carefully crafted and pushed by an ambitious in-house marketing team?

Yeah, but "$50" to "$50 million" reads better...