http://newsroom.t-mobile.com/n...

" itâ(TM)s also completely free for music streaming providers. No backroom deals. No paid prioritization. Just you and your music â' unleashed. "

I can only assume that T-mobile demanded that the FM radio be disabled, in order to get people to use up all their data listening to streaming music.

That must be it! Especially considering T-mobile doesn't count music streaming services as part of your data allotment.

http://www.t-mobile.com/offer/...

On a second thought, that reasoning makes no sense at all.....

Google allows you to unbundle all of the google-centric services from your phone and use whatever cloud APIs or App stores you want.

http://www.engadget.com/2010/0...

Nokia's smart move would have been to embrace Android

Yes because all of the Android manufacturers are making profits hand over fist....

App competing with Apple removed from Apple App Store without any explanation

2008 wants their arguments back....

Their are plenty apps on the app store that compete with iTunes, iTunes Radio, Beats Music, Mail, Maps, iBooks, Podcasts, and basically every other app.

That shows that the reason people buy Android phones isn't actually the OS (which I personally think is pretty shitty), people buy Android phones because they actually want Google apps and services.

Most people buy Android phones because they are cheap only few care about the supposed "openness". Google Services are not a differentiation between Android and iOS. I have an iPhone an iPad and a Nexus 7. Google apps are just as good on the iPhone as they are on Android.

What alternatives to Itunes exist? Are any big enough to challenge it?

Amazon Music, Google Play,

Apple have been able to use their market position to push around media companies. Media companies for fuck sake, the most pig headed, obnoxious and obstinate arseholes in the game.

That must be why Apple is having such an easy time getting unbundled cable channels.....

Apple have also been suing it's competitors left, right and centre just for being competitors.

Apple hasn't been slapped down for unfairly using FRAND patents. Motorola was while owned by Google.

Apple "limited choice" because other carriers weren't willing to allow Apple to update phones directly and wanted to put carrier crap on it. Apple went to Verizon first.

Hindsight being what it is, which was the better choice? Allowing carriers to put their own crap on the phone and to control updates or to force their hand?

In fact VP9 spec was finalized quarters before H.265, and Google has the ear and other anatomical bits of all the hardware manufactures in the Android world, so VP9 hardware support from the start is in very good shape.

All of the hardware manufacturers in the Android world? Google has no control over half of the Android phones in the world -- those selling in China and India running AOSP.

Ask Adobe how far anything on the web gets without Apple's support.

If a business chooses not to serve everyone they don't deserve the protections being a business entity gives them -- limited liability, trademark/copyright protection, etc.

The Catholic Church is not a for profit business and has nothing to do with the law.

So is anything the article said factually incorrect? What if Hobby Lobby were run by Jehovah Witnesses who don't believe in blood transfusions and someone needed blood? Why should a company be able to decide what type of medical care their employee receives?

The law Clinton signed did not allow private for profit companies to discriminate. The Indiana law did -- including a private ambulance service.

http://www.theatlantic.com/pol...

The problem with this statement is that, well, itâ(TM)s false. That becomes clear when you read and compare those tedious state statutes. If you do that, you will find that the Indiana statute has two features the federal RFRAâ"and most state RFRAsâ"do not. First, the Indiana law explicitly allows any for-profit business to assert a right to âoethe free exercise of religion.â The federal RFRA doesnâ(TM)t contain such language, and neither does any of the state RFRAs except South Carolinaâ(TM)s; in fact, Louisiana and Pennsylvania, explicitly exclude for-profit businesses from the protection of their RFRAs.

The new Indiana statute also contains this odd language: âoeA person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.â (My italics.) Neither the federal RFRA, nor 18 of the 19 state statutes cited by the Post, says anything like this; only the Texas RFRA, passed in 1999, contains similar language.

What these words mean is, first, that the Indiana statute explicitly recognizes that a for-profit corporation has âoefree exerciseâ rights matching those of individuals or churches. A lot of legal thinkers thought that idea was outlandish until last yearâ(TM)s decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, in which the Courtâ(TM)s five conservatives interpreted the federal RFRA to give some corporate employers a religious veto over their employeesâ(TM) statutory right to contraceptive coverage.

Second, the Indiana statute explicitly makes a businessâ(TM)s âoefree exerciseâ right a defense against a private lawsuit by another person, rather than simply against actions brought by government. Why does this matter? Well, thereâ(TM)s a lot of evidence that the new wave of âoereligious freedomâ legislation was impelled, at least in part, by a panic over a New Mexico state-court decision, Elane Photography v. Willock. In that case, a same-sex couple sued a professional photography studio that refused to photograph the coupleâ(TM)s wedding. New Mexico law bars discrimination in âoepublic accommodationsâ on the basis of sexual orientation. The studio said that New Mexicoâ(TM)s RFRA nonetheless barred the suit; but the stateâ(TM)s Supreme Court held that the RFRA did not apply âoebecause the government is not a party.â

The widespread discrimination against women and minorities is well documented, but I guess as a white male those kinds of discrimination aren't worth talking about,

There are a whole lot of reasons that many tech companies don't have a large minority percentage or woman --- what percentage of minorities and women have STEM degrees compared to white males?

Before you accuse me of being a racist White Male, not only are some of my best friends Black, so are both of my biological parents......

The difference is that it is a different law that says something different. See how easy that was? If the law was exactly the same, why would the state need to pass it at all?