This would seem very reasonable, but think about it: if Apple cares so much about open standards why wait until the last moment to reveal such minor details or, better yet, why not donate such patents for the sake of the common good, i.e. HTML5?

Yes, Apple is not a charity, blah blah blah. Bu then what's the point of supporting HTML5 and, at the same time, preventing useful features to be incorporated into the standard? As I wrote, I can't think of any other reason but laying the foundation for Apple version of HTML5. And just when I thought the days of "best view with Internet Explorer" where finally gone!

Also, last time I checked, it seems that you still need QuickTime to watch the trailers at trailers.apple.com, so excuse me if I have difficulties seeing Apple as a staunch supporter of open standards. Or could be that proprietary technologies are bad only when they're not Apple's?

RT.

No, Apple is pushing its own version of HTML5 and, as a matter of fact, Apple is using patents to undermine the development of Web standards and block their finalization.

RT.

Okay, I'll admit that the article is very high in troll content but, as someone who has spent plenty of money on Apple products over the last 6 years, let me add that I'm getting more and more disgusted with their behaviour and I won't buy anything else from them for the foreseeable future.

That said, let me add more reasons to strongly dislike (if not boycott, let alone hate) Apple :

All apps on the Mac App Store will be required to run in the so-called App Sandbox

Apple sues but loses design lawsuit against Spanish tablet maker (producing a tablet nothing like the iPad)

Apple is using patents to undermine the development of Web standards and block their finalization

Apple has given valuable patents to a patent troll (which is using them to sue top technology companies)

And, last but not least, I don't know whether to laugh or cringe about this one:

Apple threatens 20-seat restaurant that sells only drinks, sandwiches and desserts because it's called AppleADay

RT.

Paul Venezia is not wondering why more folks aren't using FreeBSD on the desktop: on the first page he tells us about the uptime of his server (which runs FreeBSD) and whatever he has to say about other uses of FreeBSD is on page two -- and quoted in full in the summary. In other words, he's not making a strong case in favor of FreeBSD on the desktop, except for a generic reference to "performance and stability" which, let's be honest, could be said just about any recent OS.

That said, my desktop of choice is FreeBSD and not because I dislike Linux, but because I like FreeBSD better and, assuming you have the right hardware, it makes for a more than viable desktop. And no, I don't think that hardware support is as limited as it used to be: for instance my little ZOTAC HD-AD01 is fully supported (video, audio, wired and wireless network all work with a plain FreeBSD 8.2-RELEASE).

Anyway, since Paul Venezia also mentions virtualization, I'll go ahead and leave with a shameless plug about VirtualBSD which, as the name implies, offers a virtualized (but desktop oriented) FreeBSD that can be used with VMware or, after a few tweaks, VirtualBox.

Oh, and version 9.0 will be out as soon as FreeBSD 9.0 is ready! ;-)

RT.

Not according to this judge -- and that's what really matters.

Not a small problem, is it? ;-)

RT.

Only because (shocking, I know) there is nothing distinctive enough in Apple's design. From OS News:

Regarding the design related stuff - the Community Designs - of the iPad, the judge threw it all out, citing loads of prior art (like the Compaq TC1x00). In addition, the judge stated that only the front of the device shows some resemblance, while everything else is entirely different. The Kinght Ridder is also cited as relevant prior art - the judge threw out Apple's defense that the product never made it to market. To round it out, the judge also mentioned 'form-follows-function' several times. Most interesting note: the judge specifically mentions that by having such a minimalist design, the iPad basically makes itself less viable for design protection.

RT.

What's the point of a cheat free economy on a single player game? Because of the auction house? You pay with real money, no?

RT.

Not entirely true. Here's a sample of current european prices for the most popular tablets:

Samsung Galaxy Tab 10", WiFi + 3G, 16 GB: 549.00 Eur
iPad 2, Wi-Fi + 3G, 16 GB: 599.00

Motorola Xoom, WiFi only, 32 GB: 465.00 Eur
Asus Eee Pad Transformer, WiFi only, 32 GB: 499.00 Eur
HP TouchPad, WiFi Only, 32 GB: 579.00 Eur
iPad 2, WiFi only, 32 GB: 579.00 Eur

Motorola Xoom, WFi + 3G, 32 GB: 579.00 Eur
iPad 2, Wi-Fi + 3G, 32 GB: 699.00 Eur

Okay, the difference is not that big and, for some people, there are still plenty of reasons to prefer Apple's offerings, but I would not say that price is one of them.

RT.

As I see it, if we concentrate on the software rather than the hardware, the model that springs to mind is SaaS.

Of course Google is not going to ask for money as such, and I expect the markup on the official netbooks for Chrome OS will be microscopic, but an ever increasing audience for targeted advertising is still worth a lot of money.

Anyway, I wrote a lot more about it here -- in case anyone cares...

RT.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I've noticed that Google doesn't mention cloud computing once in the press release, so what if the applications could also be hosted locally?

Think about it: if you run a web server and an SQL server on your computer, web applications don't really need an internet connection -- and of course the moment you move the back-end online, the very same application can be used "on any standards-based browser on Windows, Mac and Linux" (as per the same press release).

RT.