For the most part Apple does what they always do: they work to make things easy for the consumer. Before Apple, you could buy music online. The sites were terrible to navigate and sometimes it wasn't even easy to pay. Pricing was ludicrous. Then you had to get your music software to authorize and then sync it to your device. PlaysForSure was almost an ironic name back then.

So here comes Apple: Consumers use iTunes for everything. payment, navigation, downloading are all integrated. All songs are the same price. Syncing your iPod was seamless. It's no small wonder that people were throwing their money at Apple as Apple made it ridiculously easy to buy music.

So Apple can automagically remove all DRM from music you owned? What thinks Apple has the right to do so? As for existing DRM music they will continue to work; you could strip them manually if you want if you want to transcode from one lossy format to another. Or you could pay the music companies an additional fee to strip it and upgrade your music to a higher bit rate. I personally avoided DRM as much as possible so my upgrade price was a few dollars when the time came to remove it.

You seem to miss some relevant details. First of all, Apple's browser can be removed. MS argued that they couldn't remove IE or it would break Windows. Second, the core components of Apple's browser was built on open source. Chrome is built on these components. How anti-competitive is it to not only choose open source for their browser but release additional parts beyond what was mandated by the license (JavaScriptCore and WebCore)? And you call those tactics "dirty"?

Yes it was. People who didn't know about are OUTRAGED! They are outraged at NASA two years later for a problem that was fully disclosed and really was not their fault.

Then every device is bad for customers by your logic

When bypassing the DRM involved breaking the security of a device, that's bad for consumers.

And when Apple removed DRM from their music in 2009, you were cheering, no?

Waned in popularity != never use. Today music streaming is more normal for teens and young adults.

And you 100% they didn't?

This was reported by BusinessWeek almost a year ago.

Your binary thinking is a major flaw in your thinking. Nature is not necessarily binary and you asserting AB is not advantageous without evidence. There are many examples of gradients like the fact that humans have remnants of a third eyelid. Transitional forms are not AB entirely.

Again, what? You are stating as a fact that none of AB survive long term. You don't know that. The fossil record clearly shows that transitional forms have existed and do exist like the giant panda..

Again stating something as fact when the fossil record says otherwise.

Do you? All your arguments are about A marching towards B. That is not how evolution works.

Again this is flawed understanding of evolution. You keep stating using the term "results" when you mean goals. There are no goals in evolution. There are no results in viability. A species is viable if it lives.

You just contradicted yourself

Again evolution is not a ladder from A to B with AB in the middle. There could be C, D, E, F, and G which all are in between and become their own species.

You contradicted yourself above.

Again your binary thinking is frustrating. Everything is not 1/2 steps. Again dolphins and whales are not half fish.

What? Your understanding of evolution is highly flawed. A is not mutating towards B as some sort of goal. A will mutate. B may eventually come out of it. Any steps in between isn't temporary if it lasts millions of years. C, D, and E could result. That is what is in the fossil record. See cats. See dolphins.

AGAIN, B is not the end goal. "Superiority" is a judgement. There is no such thing as reverting back because evolution always takes place. Take for example the cheetah. By your logic, the cheetah must be faster to keep evolving. That is not understanding of evolution. They cheetah could evolve to become a longer distance runner or ambush by stealth like jaguars. You cannot say that either method of killing is better.

No, dogs descended from wolves. The DNA proves it. Unless you are serious denial of facts (which at this point I don't doubt). And my hypothesis is not a hypothesis; it is a fact that wolves had advantages over dogs and disadvantages over dogs.

If you want to keep a tame wolf around your family, then you are an idiot. As for dogs being tamed by humans, please don't conflate the subject. Wild dogs are not tamed and you know it.

Bahahaha. Are you aware how communicable diseases work? Apparently not.

The problem I see with many people is that they see evolution as binary. Everything must be an advantage to be passed on and that mutations are bad. No, mutations are normal with some providing advantages and some are disadvantages. And as you pointed out, some traits have no effect whatsoever. Other traits appear to be a disadvantage or an advantage given the right environment. Fair skin, for example, is advantage in places like Norway where more vitamin D is produced with less light. It is a terrible disadvantage in places of high sunlight like the Sahara, American Southwest, etc.

And some traits are both an advantage and disadvantage like sickle cell anemia. It cuts the lifespan by years and is painful to deal with. However genetically it provides those with the genes an advantage when it comes to malaria which can cause death.

Again, evolution is not goal driven. Your second sentence contradicts your first admission. A trait survives when it provides or benefit or is neutral. You keep forgetting a trait that provides no advantage can be passed. The issue is really if a trait that proves to be a disadvantage affects a species ability to procreate.

I can take from your long-winded and illogical sentence that you're never seen a dolphin or whale in your life? ,a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cetacea">Cetaceans are water animals yet they breathe air. Again, you keep insisting goal driven results of advantages.

Again, evolution is not goal driven. You keep insisting that B must be "superior" to A will surely mean that all As dies. In many ways dogs are "superior" to wolves but yet wolves still exist. They exist because "superior" is a judgement not science. Wolves have advantages over dogs and disadvantages over dogs. One of the main disadvantages is that dogs can live with humans whereas wolves cannot; however, wolves are much better suited to living in the wild than dogs.

Well that would be true if Apple decided to be exclusive with Samsung. Apple has contracted TMSC for other chips. Right now Samsung is one of the few companies that can make the chips Apple wants. Apple is treating Samsung more like a supplier than a partner. As such they are less dependent on them than in the past.

Because counterfeiting something as complicated as a chip like the A9 will not be easy. Yes a Chinese company can get a sample of one and analyze all the structures. Making a chip will be harder as chip foundries are not easy to build. It would have been far easier if Apple contracted out a Chinese company to make their chips and then that company sold "defective" ones to counterfeiters.