How is that modded insightful?

I don't think anyone with a hint of awareness thought that Android sounded like a crazy project when they announced it. I think everyone who had a clue recognized it as a bold move into a new market that would make a big difference. And, lo and behold, it was.

Also, quite frankly, I find it amusing when people describe Android as "owning the market for mobile operating systems" because it's a narrowly defined definition of "owning the market".

Are they owning marketshare for the larger mobile market? Yes.

Smartphones (no, not feature phones disguised as smartphones - I'm talking actual smartphones)? That's debatable and hard to accurately measure (since so many Android manufacturers sell "smartphones" that are really feature phones running a smartphone OS). Entirely likely this one is pretty much a draw.

Tablets? Not at all. Getting crushed.

Are they owning the market dollars for the mobile market? Nope. That's iOS's crown. And, for many, this is what "owning the market" might mean which makes your claim incorrect.

The mobile market is actually quite complex with various facets and layers and "owning the market" is a claim that no operating system (well, neither Android nor iOS - the others don't matter any more) can make. You have to be much more specific in what you're talking about before you can say anything is being owned. Otherwise it's simply too vague a claim to be taken seriously.

But, back to the original point - I think the only people who thought Google was crazy for creating Android were blog writers looking to generate page views and controversy. Anyone with a clue saw it as anything but crazy.

Not for sale yet. Available this fall.

Given your complaints (seriously? Worried about spilling a drink _ON_ your computer and it going straight into the machine?), I seriously question your assertion that you are a Pro.

And others have already pointed out the failures in your specific complaints.

Even assuming the numbers in these two articles are off a bit and slightly dated, I don't think "relatively small" is an accurate representation of Apple's impact on Samsung's revenue. Feel free to cite contradicting numbers if you can find any but I seriously doubt you will - Apple is a massive client for Samsung.

http://www.idownloadblog.com/2012/08/07/apple-now-accounts-for-8-8-of-samsungs-revenue/

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2269565/apples-iphone-and-ipad-chips-generated-83-percent-of-samsungs-processor-revenue

That said, Samsung may have still decided to go for the short term direct profit route of increasing their device sales at the cost of their long term relationship with a massive client, but don't think for a second that Apple is a small part of Samsung's revenue stream.

Apparently, in Europe, you have competition whereas those of us who live in North America (well, Canada and the US - not sure about Mexico) have collusion. The big telcos don't actually attempt to compete on price - they just offer the same things with different names. Thus, there is no attempt to drive price down because they know they don't need to get into a price war with their "competition".

It's cute that you think that monthly bills will be lower if people are required to pay full price for their phones...

Other companies need Apple to come up with new ideas.

I'll let you fill in the reason why...

I'm sure many people would have said similar things about RIM and Nokia. Look at them now.

When you run from police and ENGAGE IN A FIREFIGHT AND LOB EXPLOSIVES AT THE POLICE, I'm willing to drop the "suspect" description and assume the police have the right guys. Thanks.

They don't. They certainly don't make it easy to proceed without a credit card but you _can_ set up an iTunes account and download and update free apps without a credit card. My apologies for not having a step-by-step available (it's been a while since I had to set up a CC-free account) but you can find the details with a little google-fu. But, it is possible.

Apple should make it _easier_, but it is possible.

Forget that - what about games like Injustice: Gods Among Us which makes it IMPOSSIBLE to continue playing unless you use a consumable to refresh your energy pool (or to stop playing entirely for an hour or more)? And, when I say impossible to continue, I'm not exaggerating - you cannot fight if your characters' energy level is too low and that happens _VERY_ fast (you can find yourself unable to play in ten or fifteen minutes, even with "smart" energy management). It's an awesome game that I enjoy a great deal (*), so I'm sorry I'm slagging on it right now but I find the fight energy mechanic unforgivable - it outright makes it impossible to play the game after a very short period of time.

*There is a work around (I won't say hack or cheat - it's more of a trick). If not for that trick, I wouldn't still be playing the game - I'd have deleted it from my iPad. The trick simply involves changing your device's time setting to make the game think time has passed when it has, in fact, not.

You're right. Apple is reacting to Motorola's initial lawsuit.

No, I believe he's implying that Apple AND GOOGLE are using lawsuits as a business strategy against each other.

If they go to Apple _WITH_ a warrant, Apple can surely provide them with the information (well, I'd be shocked if they couldn't comply with a warrant).

That's not what the DEA wants, however - they want to be able to read the messages _WITHOUT_ a warrant. I imagine that is where they are having difficulties intercepting and reading iMessages.