"But we haven't found a way to translate that limited usage into widespread adoption in the daily health routines of millions of people.

We're not rolling around in money from all you fitness freaks while we quietly try to sell your soul to advertisers.

"Secondly, the logo combines the wireless logo (which is standard and is not an invention of this student) with the sync logo (two arrows round a circle) which is again standard and predates this student's app.

Someone trolled "fanboi" but let's take a look at that logo...

Hmm, Apple Airport - released in 1999 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AirPort). Note that wireless icon there, it looks rather familiar, eh? If you click the picture, you'll note the original picture was uploaded in April 2007 (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/archive/a/a0/20110415032314%21Connectwaves_20070109.png), months before the iPhone was released.

Might just be a coincidence, right?

Well, what about iSync? Uses the icon as depicted here. Looks familiar too! It's only been in use since 2003, so his "original" artwork is obviously compromised.

Damn, dirty Apple and their stealing of their icons!

"Since the official rejection, Hughes's app has become one of the most popular offered in the Cydia store, with more than 50,000 sold in the past 13 months. Throughout that time, Wi-Fi Sync has cost $9.99, not including occasional promotional discounts."

I wish I could come up with a rejection that earned me a few hundred grand. He must be crying while rolling around in all that money.

I can blame the "retina screen" for poor translation to actual size... "No, really, you need to lower your resolution a bit to appreciate it!"

Which one will be able to be upgraded to Honeycomb? I wouldn't buy an Android tablet before their tablet version of software became available, regardless of the hardware. Are there any upgrade paths that *either* vendor (Dell or Samsung) has specified? I feel some early adopters will be left out in the cold.

"Google wants a good cleam fresh start. Why? Because they are primarily content providers, that's why. Their stake is more closely aligned with the users of the internet as we share a common interest -- good, usable content, without irregularities or problems. Good for us; good for Google."

Pardon? Google exists as a corporation; to make money. Period. Look at WebM as an untapped, unrestricted ad platform and you'll see Google's market. To think of this as an open source crusade is ludicrous.

I prefer that as my video playback of choice. I don't want want the sub par solution.

At what point does Google become a really useful resource to one that becomes downright creepy?

IANAL, but the way this was explained to me:

I work for a government agency and the pictures we take on taxpayer's time are public property. I've seen photos we've shot being used in magazines, web sites, screen savers and in industry publications (which were actually photoshopped to promote their products). It's the reason NASA releases all sorts of neat images because it's a publicly funded entity.

I wish the guy the best of luck but I doubt he's going to get any compensation.

"No-one truly needs an iPhone. Either go without or buy a more open alternative."

How about us people that went with the less sucky alternative? I don't give a rat's ass if it's open source or not, give me something that works. I bought a few smartphones before the iPhone came on the scene and frankly, they fucking sucked. Windows Mobile had how many years to perfect their operating system? Yet they sat on their ass until the iPhone came along. The same can be said of Nokia, SE, HTC and just about every phone manufacturer. Don't diss Apple's iPhone for it's walled garden and tight control; Be ecstatic that for once there's competition in the mobile space. If Apple hadn't come along with their iOS we'd still be using shitty WAP browsers and complaining about our data plans.

Oh wait, we still do that.