"Doing quite nicely thanks to Google's large bank balance" is actually what the article expects to happen.
That's simply not the article's premise. The article's premise is almost exactly what you so smugly proposed should be its premise.
Did you not read it?
Arrogant, but accurate. Sounds like the FSF to me.
Unfortunately app permissions on Android are currently "all-or-nothing" and, worse, they're requested all at once at installation, so users are conditioned to just click through it and make the app work. (See also: Windows UAC prompts.) It's a design issue, not a user intelligence issue.
They'd fail the technical requirements checklist and never be allowed on the store.
You realise you're arguing against something the article never says, while providing a hypothesis which is exactly what the article thinks will happen?
Ultimately, the record labels are still calling the shots. And upstarts like Spotify, Rdio and the rest are learning that lesson the hard way, calling for sympathy while the shot-callers wring them out. In this old game, the dealer always wins. That is, unless you're a company with an excellent poker face and deep pockets to boot—and only Apple, Google and Amazon spring to mind as that kind of player.
They are involved in "all of that other boring scientific stuff". The fact that they do one thing does not preclude them from doing other things. I mean, you're posting on Slashdot right now, only a complete moron would accuse you of completely wasting your life by ignoring literally every other possible activity. It's a nonsequeter.
"Without access, you can only take them on trust" would seem to be the FSF's actual argument. I don't honestly believe that people would actually compile all their tools from source code they've reviewed personally to check for security holes, but at least represent their argument accurately.
(Well, robust but fake...)
Actually, you know what? This is wrong. Somehow my memory has completely overstated the measles thing - perhaps because it was pretty robust research - and completely neglected that the paper also had an autism hypothesis.
On the other hand it's entirely possible that it's produced by the "good" bacteria and metabolised away by other good bacteria, and what's important is the balance. It simply hasn't been evaluated either way.
His research was ostensibly to show whether the MMR vaccine - specifically the measles component - was the source of the digestive problems. The idea that the vaccine caused both the digestive problems and the autism was made up out of whole cloth for a press conference, to be blunt.
Wakefield was in the employ of lawyers at the time - he received government legal aid money, in fact - who were pursuing the autism-vaccination claim. Of course even if such a link could be found statistically, the strong causal evidence required would be much harder to obtain just because the disorder is so poorly understood. By contrast the gut disorder-measles link is quite simple to get at. If Wakefield's actual paper was confirmed, then a parent whose autistic child had bowel problems could then get damages for that particular problem in court, at the very least. Wakefield tried to get funding from his hospital to set up a company to design and make the diagnostic kits needed.
That's an interesting hypothesis, but the only bacterium they controlled for was one that helps not one that was causing any problems.
They make people take a "food diary" when they think there's some sort of dietary involvement in a problem. You write down everything you consume so that you don't have to remember what you had in the three days before that migraine or outbreak of stomach cramps, or whatever. Could be interesting to blanket-issue food diaries and health questionnaires to a large population.
The wonderfully unhelpful myth that one can only use open source software to produce open-source things.