Whereas Apple is relying on their lock-in to the "we get a cut of the action, see" iTunes store. It is a tried and true method.

Except iOS devices aren't loss leaders for Apple. Apple makes a negligible amount of profit off of its App Store. The bulk of Apple's profit comes from every device that goes out the door—whether it's paid for by you or by a combination of you and your mobile carrier.

[...] it doesn't seem reasonable to me to expect other companies to delay their work out of respect while Apple keeps on doing their work out of respect.

Who expected other companies to delay their work? Apple clearly didn't.

The only glaringly obvious omission seems to be sticking with 3G instead of adding LTE or HSPA+ support.

Current LTE chipsets are too bulky and use too much power. It also has HSPA+.

If you believe that liberty has no conditions, such as equality, then you might be thinking of the word license.

I actually think you have that backwards--if you think that liberty has conditions, then you might be thinking of the word license.

The GPL grants many things. Perpetual access to the source code of derived works is one of those things. Liberty is not.

That's because it's not liberty for YOU (that's already been granted) but for whomever gets it from you.

If you're restricting how I can use something, you may have granted me a license, but you haven't granted me liberty.

Stop being so greedy and self-centered with your thought process.

Stop redefining words.

Not liberty for you, jackass, liberty for the people you distribute too. The original author is preventing YOU from exploiting downstream users. Your "freedom" to screw people over is not "freedom". You are being saved from yourself, and your shortsightedness.

So it's "free" as in "don't do that," then. Gotcha. That's fine. Just call it what it is instead of calling it freedom.

Let me guess, you're a libertarian? Yeah? That would explain your moral autism on the issue.

Moderate Democrat who wants more regulation in the financial industry, but thanks for trying.

Where all of you GPL-haters keep failing in this argument is that you want to deny rights to software makers

I have no desire whatsoever to infringe on a copyright holder's right to distribute his or her code as he or she sees fit.

My problem stems from the use of the word "liberty" to describe a license as restrictive as the GPL.

So by your definitional of liberty you can do whatever the hell you want to? Like going on a killing spree, because that is your liberty? Moron

I don't, actually, have the liberty to go on a killing spree, because it turns out that we have laws against that.

Apparently you don't.

I do. Create whatever restrictions you like. I don't have to use your code.

So it's "orwellian" to insist that the people who receive my software, via you, have the same rights as you did, and can use altered versions of it freely in place of the versions you gave them?

Not at all; that's not even what I said.

What I said is that it's "Orwellian doublespeak" to use the word "liberty" to describe a scheme where you've set restrictions on how I can use and distribute something.

There is nothing "jacked up" about this.

I fully support your right to put restrictions on how I can modify or distribute something you created. Calling these restrictions "liberty," however, is just Orwellian doublespeak.

The GPL license is free as in liberty. Developers who wish to base products on existing GPL software must agree to maintain the liberty of the derived software's users to use the software with the same liberties that the developer did.

If you associate the words "must agree" with the word "liberty," I think you have pretty jacked up definition of liberty.

So was I. But this is something I don't quite get. The iPhone was innovation there's no doubt about it. But the iPad... it's the same thing, bigger, with a feature removed. I have used the iPad several times and the overriding thought is always: there's nothing this thing does that my phone doesn't and it's too big to fit in my pocket... and if I have my backpack why wouldn't I just carry a laptop?

It's really not just the same thing, bigger, with a feature removed (if it were, the iPad wouldn't have UI elements like UIPopover that iPhone/iPod Touch doesn't have), but I'm clearly not going to be able to convince you otherwise. But even if the iPad had no unique UI elements, its larger display still would make it more useful for certain tasks than an iPhone--just like I'd rather write code on a 24" display (preferably two) than a 13" display.

Like you, I consume almost all of my news via RSS (using Reeder and Instapaper on both iPhone and iPad and Google reader on desktops/laptops). If I'm on the couch, in bed, or, yes, even in the restroom, the iPad is the perfect form factor to read through my feeds and mail (and even reply to the occasional mail) and watch video. It's large enough that I can generally see an entire article without scrolling, and a laptop isn't nearly as comfortable to use in those places. Plus, unlike a laptop, I can actually use it all day on a single charge without plugging it in. This alone is huge.

Since then he's stopped reading it, and the iPad now rarely seems to come out of the drawer. Yet Apple is praised for innovating a new market out of nothing.

Probably because that's what they did.

Innovating? Is that what we call releasing a phone that is too big to fit in a pocket and can't be used as a phone?

Well, I'm pretty sure the Galaxy Tab can indeed place phone calls, but I was talking about Apple, not Samsung.

Or it could have gone this way:
(1 year ago)
Apple: We like the 10" screen you make; we'd like to buy out all of them for the next year.
Supplier CEO: Ka-Ching!

(6 months ago)
Everyone else: Hey we'd like to make a small order for 10" screens. We've looked at the market and yours is the only one that's ready for production and has our price point.
Supplier CEO: We're all sold out. Sorry.
Everyone else: $&^%!

I guess that's what the rest of the market gets for betting their futures on shitty netbooks instead of innovating.

He's talking about the market of "By Neckbeards, For Neckbeards" devices.