And Samsung's success has come largely from ripping Apple off. I don't like what this case says about our patent system, but when you look at what Samsung has done, it's hard to argue the jury got it wrong.

You're anecdotal evidence doesn't mean shit. How many devices that were launched pre-ICS have official upgrades available?

Wow, so the S3 is outselling a phone that:

1) Has been out for almost a full year
2) Was a minor refresh of a phone that came out a year before *that*
3) Is about to be replaced in ~30 days?

It must be awesome then. I'm guessing you won't be so eager to use units sold as a proxy for how good the phone is in another month or so...

Sorry, here in the US the phone itself typically runs $199 with a 2 year contract (carrier subsidized). That's the only premium I can think the OP would be referring to, since monthly charges don't take your device into account.

Highly rated by whom? They may be fine devices, but mostly I'm flabbergasted by the notion that you think Samsung is an innovator here. Regardless of whether I think it deserves a lawsuit, Samsung has done nothing but copy Apple nearly verbatim, even down to the fucking icons. Not to mention if the S3 is so great, when can we expect to see it on AT&T? T-mobile? You won't because of the deals Samsung has to make with the carriers to get them to push these phones for the next month until the next whiz bang Android device comes out.

The difference is that I choose Apple, and I can choose another phone at any time. The carriers are all the same.

Um, what premium do you pay? Pretty sure $199 is the standard for pretty much all high end smartphones nowadays. And seriously you're complaining about upgrades with an iPhone? Did you pay for iOS5? What about iOS6 when it comes out next month? Ask an Android user how many upgrades they've gotten on their phones (rooted phones excluded). The Android upgrade paradigm is a joke. It's predicated on carriers doing the work to qualify and release them for every phone, and they have exactly zero incentive to do it.

Well isn't that just tough shit for the poor poor carriers. IMO the fact that the buying an iPhone screws the carriers is a point in it's favor. The bottom line is that Apple is building a phone users want. The Android manufacturers are building the phones the carriers tell them to build; phones intended to discourage competition and keep them from becoming a commodity, which is exactly what they should be. I have nothing in particular against Google or Android, but I'm not going to support a platform that the real Bad Guys are using to screw consumers.

Yeah, cause everybody knows there's way more crappy Java code out there than crappy C code. Gimme a fucking break.

Then you obviously don't get what we're all talking about.

Agreed. The notion that iOS is more fragmented than Android is laughable. All iPhone models short of the original are fully capable of running the latest iOS, if some *users* choose not to upgrade for whatever reason that is *their* choice. Unlike Android where even newly purchased lower tier models don't ship with the latest version, and may very well never be able to upgrade to it.

Yeah, because there's plenty of carriers out there you can give your business to, especially ones that don't come with shitty customized software.....oh wait. No one is saying Android itself as an OS nor the pace at which it's developed is a weakness. What people are saying is that it's bullshit when you have to replace a device that's less than a year old just to take advantage of new features. You can't trust carriers to guarantee an upgrade path at all, let alone a timely one.

It's nice to see this issue getting some attention. I read an article the other day outlining the problems with the notion that Android is "open". The question is, for who? The bottom line is that Google has given virtually all of the "openness" to the carriers and manufacturers, and left none for consumers. Carriers like Verizon still get to throw out tons of stock UI and features and replace them (or not) with garbage. Then they get to deny you updates to the latest and greatest Android revision. It's not Apple vs Google; it's Apple vs the carriers and in that matchup I'll choose Apple everytime.

I don't understand why people can't get this through their head. Apple is a premium brand. By definition they cost more. "Overpaying" is a totally subjective term that discounts how much a person may value things like OS X, which of course requires a Mac. I just wish Apple haters could be OK with the fact that their entire argument boils down to "I'd drive a BMW if it only cost as much as my Chevy". After all the Chevy has A/C, power everything and gets me from point A to point B, so they're equivalent right? Right??

As much as I would like to see a non-integrated, upgradeable Mac at a reasonable price, I understand why Apple doesn't make one. Seriously, who upgrades hardware anymore? Everything you would have needed an add in card for years ago is on the mainboard now. Sure, a gamer might want to throw in the newest 110000e25 GT, but we're talking about a Mac right?