Seriously, I'd like to see you present a single example where Apple has been benevolent towards the OSS community.
Clang? ALAC? libdispatch? mDNSResponder (Bonjour)? Their CalDAV & CardDAV server? Darwin Streaming Server?
Thanks for providing some concrete examples. So let us walk through your list:
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).
If the FOSS community adopts Swift and offers compilers and apple isn't a douche about giving the FOSS community some support, I might even learn it.
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'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?
You're not quite right, wasn't it when CSS 2.1 was released that MS was bragging that they're fully compliant?
Although, CSS 2.1 was actually a subset of 2.0.
Make sure your code does nothing gracefully.