As more and more devices of varying features and sizes have been released by Apple, there's been more and more work developers have had to do to adopt the different sizes/features of those devices (I still see new releases on the app store that state a new feature of "Support for iPhone 5S size" or similar)

It hasn't been until recently that Apple has given developers the tools to create views that don't need to know the specifics of the device it's running on, thereby avoiding silly checks like
if(device == IPHONE) {....} else if(device == IPAD) {....}

Answer is 'No' to both, precisely for the reasons I've given.

I don't want to pay to see 15-20 mins of commercials before a movie. And no, the "theatre experience" doesn't make up for it - not by a long shot.

I'd much rather wait whatever amount of time for it to show up on Netflix/whatever services, and watch it in the comfort of my home, without a bunch of strangers augmenting the 'experience'.

Proper quote of OP is:

Apple will not attempt to create a TV set top box unless the business model allows then to somehow reap revenue from both the subscriber and the content creator

Indeed, "Apple" is synonymous with "Copycat"

Tablets? Phablets? Nope, Apple didn't think of those.

Because ads are only the beginning.

Once they see they can subject you to ads, they'll start enforcing them on you.

Then they'll make them interactive in such a way that you can't ignore them if you want to see the content you're paying for.

That's why I think fines should be based on a percentage of revenue for the timeframe of the infraction, instead of a fixed (usually capped) amount. That would make it difficult for them to say with certainty that it would cost less to break the law than to actually deal with it (not to mention the investors' backlash if it affects dividends, etc).

I agree with this too. I understand their desire to make sure people don't post things that are "too long", but 140 is too damn short! I way to potentially solve the problem: give one @-user mention and 1 URL link free - that don't count towards the limit; that would make conversations a lot more useful without adding stupid bloat.

Of course, because they've got balls for trying to get this done as if it weren't "surveillance".

Google's right to order its search results as it sees fit.

You mean, to present them from least relevant to totally irrelevant?

It also replaces 30% with nothingness, since, as you said, you still need your sales and marketing departments.

I've yet to read any developers say that the MAS replaced their departments, thereby making the "Apple MAS Tax" of any real value.

I'm pretty sure nobody at LEGO or the producers of the movie signed off on any of that!