If 10 million people choose the 16G phone and the incremental cost is $5/phone to take it to 64GB (which I don't believe but won't debate), that's $50M that Apple didn't need to spend to satisfy those customers.

But it does make it all the more sweet to overcharge those that want 64GB for the difference.

I used to think that too, but I've had a Samsung phone that I *could* put an SDcard in for four years now and I've never put one in. But I still value the option of doing so enough that I won't consider an iPhone until they have an SDcard slot.

I don't think you appreciate how bizarre this sounds to those of us who used to have cassette tapes.

I'm guessing because there's no compelling reason to do so. They put out a RFQ to the major disk manufacturers and they get competitive prices.

The claim wasn't that there was only one CNC company or only one laser drilling company. It's that there was only one at the time that could meet their specs and they could afford to just buy those companies, which you with your startup can't do. So don't expect to compete with Apple on the manufacturing quality because they can afford the very best and in many cases you can't.

How do you explain Microsoft's recent purchase of Mojang or Facebook's $19B purchase of WhatsApp?

It absolutely does happen, but it's lottery. Most little companies that try to introduce some new cool product fail. A minority stumble along barely making it for a few years. A tiny tiny number get the attention of The Big Boys and get bought out with The Big Boys' monstrous piles of cash.

And often, there's no significant tech or product being acquired. They're buying what's popular because of its popularity hoping they can somehow turn that into even more monstrous piles of cash.

But Microsoft and Facebook and Apple continue to make almost all their money from their organically grown businesses and very little from their acquisitions.

Nobody ever needs to know their complete genome and nobody ever will need to. Instead, you'll go to a doctor with a complaint and if they suspect a genetic component, they'll do a cheek swab and a quick test tuned to look for the particular genetic condition you might have. Or if something really exciting and common is discovered, you'll be offered an opportunity to get a new test to see if you're at risk for living to be 200. (You need to be warned because you probably won't have saved enough for near-permanent retirement.)

Who cares? I will still have about 30 trillion intact copies.

It implies the designers had previously refused to bend, stubbornly adhering to a more complex UI.

What law do you think they broke?

What's the upside? Doesn't this just make it easier for multinational corporations and criminal organizations to evade enforcement of US laws?

1. Police seize iPhone
2. Police arrest owner.
3. Police tell owner to unlock the phone.
4. Owner refuses.
5. Police grab finger, press to button/fingerprint reader.
6. Phone is unlocked.

What encryption?

Won't last. Someone will forget his passcode about 8 seconds after the iOS 8 goes public. Then comes the flood of unhappy customers locked out of their unbreakably encrypted phones. "Sorry, we can't help you" won't be accepted as an answer.

There will either be a back door or a user revolt.