A great retort. Yet, you've been unable to answer the single question I posed earlier - care to name the malware that have got through Google Play?

Given how many people got headaches from the over-the-top animations in iOS7, and (up to a point) who could have got rid of said animations by simply going into the settings (but didn't figure this out before it was pointed out to them by multiple articles online), isn't the toggle in the settings really akin to a jailbreak? The majority of users will never venture there.

I think you are either ignorant or just deliberately dim - for the benefit of the doubt, I'll guess the former category. When it comes to the vast majority of Android devices being sold, by default they can only access Google Play. Yes, there is a checkbox you can check in the settings, allowing one to install apps from wherever (when that option is selected, there is naturally a warning). As an analogy, think jailbreaking your device, only it is not such a cat-and-mouse game, the ability is there should you want it. Then one can install apps from local files or add additional app sources. But before that it is Google Play only.

Really, apart from the soundbites given by evangelicals such as Cook, how many actual pieces of malware have slipped through the Play Store? Yes, installing random software from the net can be quite harmful, I guess that is given (there have been attacks on jailbroken iPhones as well). Personally, I like to have the ability to choose (yay for HumbleBundle), but I can see the point of the walled garden. Then again, Apple App Store is no panacea, as was proven quite recently.

With also the result that non-Safari browsers cannot run their own JS engine, having to use JavaScriptCore. Whereas Safari runs on Nitro. But hey, alternative browsers, it's great right?

There there, don't feel bad, have an apple. :)

...and I suppose, paying a monthly fee or not, there are clients for Android and Linux too, right?

Thanks for providing some concrete examples. So let us walk through your list:

Clang

I'll grant you that.

ALAC

Yes, that was open-sourced at some point. They could have worked on improving FLAC much before that, but at least it is OSS now.

libdispatch

As a Linux user, not so useful to me, but again, thumbs up.

mDNSResponder

I really had no idea what this was, had to google it. It seems most of the results are "what the hell is this thing and how do I turn it off" - but yes, I can see it being useful to someone.

Their CalDAV & CardDAV server

There are quite a few competing implementations, but again kudos for the effort.

Darwin Streaming Server

Hey, great, we've actually come to an example that seems to be generally beneficial.

But what I'm getting at is that despite their ample cash flow, you don't see "Apple Summer of Code" (just as an example - there are plenty of things to dislike about Google as well).

I think it is pretty obvious why they elected to do so, to hinder cross-platform development (amongst other platforms, iOS is a target for me professionally). But that was a response to the parent, who hoped that "Apple wouldn't be a douche and give the OSS community some support", to paraphrase - I think we've moved beyond the benefit of a doubt quite some time ago.

The thing about the net is that you never really know if someone is being sarcastic, smileys or not. I'm assuming you're not. So, given how hospitable Apple has been to HTML5 (I hate the term, but ok, latest HTML/CSS/JS spec), do you honestly think they'll change course? The Nitro engine used in mobile Safari is quite capable indeed. But should you make a HTML5 app on iOS, it'll run on the nowadays-quite-antiquated JavaScriptCore engine, with some really obvious performance disadvantages.

Seriously, I'd like to see you present a single example where Apple has been benevolent towards the OSS community. No, Webkit and CUPS are not proper examples; the first one is a fork of KHTML (yes, they've refined it a lot since, but it would not be LGLP out of kindness of Apple) and the latter also is an OSS project Apple bought, again due to the license (GPL) they were unable to close-source it.

I usually like to think that the physical reality we live in is much more interesting than the supernatural world some people seem to live in. However, I have a precognition. Within seconds, we'll have SuperKendall and BasilBrush telling us how iCloud Drive is much superior to the current offerings. Coming in 3, 2, 1...

But Google (or any other search engine) is not the source of this information. Why not go to the source? Google (and I'm assuming other search engines) update their index quite frequently, if the source is gone then so will be the search result. And WRT the article, yes, he might be found innocent. But the fact that he's on trial for multiple cases (and these are of the more severe kind - I don't know what the official term is in English, felony fraud? at any rate a charge that is not placed easily) I have hard time believing that he's innocent at all. Especially given his actions with the newspaper.

Uhh, no we don't have jurors. Nor do I think the results should be hidden, too much of MiniTruth for me.

I'm European and do think that privacy is very valuable. I also think the decision was utterly retarded, ripe for abuse and obviously made by people who have no idea about technology.

So, what is Google supposed to erase from the web? An example is here - in Finnish, I'm sorry, but I'll try to paraphrase a bit (you can run it through the translation service of your choice, if you wish). A person approached Helsingin Sanomat, a major Finnish newspaper, offering to be interviewed about why he wants his info removed from the web. He had committed some felonies a decade ago. He felt that he had already served his punishment (given how lenient our sentencing is, he most certainly has) and wanted a fresh start.

But the reporters dug a bit deeper into his life - turns out that there are ongoing court cases against him for both attempted fraud and fraud. After this was pointed out to him, he refused to be interviewed or his name associated with the article.

In this case, it was the reporters who found out about this. But they had only a single person to process. Should Google themselves figure out individually which claims have merit? Or should Google just automatically censor everything on request (let's face it, that's what this really is)? And most importantly, Google does not host the content. If there is an issue with the content, shouldn't one contact the content provider?

Where did I imply I want to get into partisan bickering, or that I'm 'murican for that matter? I just find it very odd that such laws have existed so recently, enforced or not.