Ubuntu doesn't actually contribute much source code anyhow. It takes and takes, but returns very little.
I'd like to back up your statement with some facts, since you're not getting much love from the mods.
Around 22:30 in this video you see which companies give back to the Linux kernel
Spoiler: Canonical is not in the top 10. Not by a long shot.
Windows 2000 hits end of life this summer. 2003 enters extended support which ends in 2015 - this was extended due to poor uptake of Windows 2008. They currently offer 10 years of support but they often extend if uptake of the follow on release is low.
RedHat and Novell support their enterprise linux OS products on a seven year cycle.
Novell even leaves the downloads availble for up to 10 years.
Other way around. Theora was apparently released in 2004. H.264 (according to Wikipedia), was formally approved in March 2003, but it had already been worked on since at least 2000.
From what I understand last word from HTC is still that 2.x is coming to the G1.
Personally I don't care, Cyanogenmod 5 for G1 will likely go stable in a couple of weeks and I'll be set.
I have been flamed more than a few times around here for suggesting Computer Science has not got a clue what they are doing when it comes to AI. Philosophy has been at this problem and more for the better part of the last 400+ years (more like a 1,000 years) in a serious way. The stock b.s., I get from the science fiction fan boys is that somehow natural language is a problem that can just be brute forced as if you were trying to figure out the password you forgot to your email account. Good luck with that.
By the way, language "recognition" by a computer is likly the easy part of the problem for AI researchers to crack. It is still not going to yield any real AI, just better cars and toasters.
Most (not all) antitrust legislation is aimed at preventing monopoly exploitation of alternate markets. There is little evidence that Apple has any sort of monopoly unless the category is defined so narrowly as to be useless.
Well, there is some prior case history on this. Back in the late 90's, MS was found guilty of exploiting a monopoly with Windows with regards to Netscape and Internet Explorer. They used their market position with Windows to push IE onto Windows Users. Never mind the fact that alternative operating systems existed. Never mind the fact that people COULD install other browsers once they installed Windows. They looked at the market space that was defined by Windows programs, and looked to see if MS was abusing that space. It's not a far fetched idea to translate that to the iPhone issue. Apple is locking off their internal market space by using what is a monopolistic hold on their operating system. The difference here, is that people CANNOT install competing software from another source than Apple. So in a sense, it is a clearer case than MS lost.
Users are free to choose another device if they feel that strongly about the situation.
And people were free to chose a different OS from Windows. Yet they still found the MS exploited a monopolistic hold on the OS to push IE. Apple clearly does have a monopolistic hold on the iPhone OS (Even stronger of one than MS did). The question is not are people free to choose another device, but are those with the device free to choose another avenue of operation (away from Apple). The average user isn't told that their phone won't run non-Apple approved apps before hand. The average user isn't told "If you don't like these policies, don't buy this phone". They are told "Check out what this phone can do!", and "Look at all these apps it can run!". Not to mention that once they buy the phone, they are locked into a multi-year contract which will cost them money to terminate. So at absolute least, if this is not an abuse of monopolistic power, it is a case of deceptive advertising. They are not presenting users with a fair and complete choice. They are showing one side of it, and then locking down the other. So yes, users are free to choose another device, but they aren't given enough information (without going out and knowing what to look for) to make that choice intelligently.
I still don't see why Apple aren't allowed to set the terms of participation in their program. If you sign up as an iphone/ipod/ipad developer, you know what you're getting into, and you know they can change their rules at any time.
Well, it's quite simple. They are allowed to set the terms of participation. However, I don't think they should be able to change their rules at any time (And/Or enforce them retroactively). If I signed up and agreed to their terms 6 months ago, I would be abiding by their rules to develop in {insert language x here} and convert to ObjC for submission. So I spend 6 months working on my application, only to be told today when I submit that it's no good because they "changed their rules". In my mind, there are few clearer examples of abuse of market position than that. It's an arbitrary rule set out do nothing but exact control (They have reasons why they did it, presumably to stick another knife in Adobe). But it does have significant collateral damage (being the developers who now have lost time because they were following the rules a month ago). And those interests do need to be protected.
Just my $0.02...
Real Programmers don't eat quiche. They eat Twinkies and Szechwan food.
