No, because it really is irrelevant. In your attempt to scrape any last shred of a point out of your refuted argument about Apple providing iCloud services for free apps, it's the only thing you could find to stubbornly stand behind to make yourself feel right about something.

The part of iCloud we were discussing was the developer APIs, which require a paid developer membership to use. You said Apple was paying for hosting fees for apps not in the paid developer program, remember? Thought you might need a little reminder after all your goalpost-moving.

You keep going on about the fees not changing as if that somehow proves something. Apple only provides iCloud API access to paying developers; that really should be the end of the argument, but, well, you're you.

iCloud storage is free. The only purchase on the part of users is the extra storage beyond the free 5GB. iCloud is more than file storage and doesn't require any fees from users, which you keep ignoring because you don't actually have an argument at this point. You're floundering along looking for a foothold and will probably pull out some puppetmaster/trolling schtick at any moment once you realize there's no other way out.

Next.

iCloud integration is more than disk storage. The expanded disk space is irrelevant to the argument and is a separate product from the sync APIs.

It isn't irrelevant--you claimed it, and it was wrong. You're focused on user disk storage when it's only relevant to the iCloud APIs as a location for persistent stores (and even then, a highly restricted one). But iCloud is more than just an online disk drive, a point you keep ignoring.

This tangent about user backups is irrelevant. You originally said that Apple pays hosting expenses for apps from which they derive no income, but that's not true because only paid developers can integrate with iCloud. There's more to app iCloud integration than simply storing files; it's an active syncing service that pushes out to all configured devices.

And if you ship an app that doesn't use the space, someone else's will.

Another go-nowhere project from Microsoft's social research group Fuse Labs, following in the footsteps of Live Labs, a previous group that disbanded in 2010. Anyone remember Pivot? Deepfish? Listas? Photosynth? And about 10 other discontinued products.

We all know this will be swept under the rug and forgotten faster than you can say "Google Wave", but it's amusing seeing Betteridge's Law of Headlines at play in the coverage, such as this gem from Fox News: "Is this the next Facebook? Microsoft unveils so.cl social network" The best part is that the article spends its first six paragraphs definitely answering its own headline with a no. Mainstream tech coverage is barely above tabloids.

There's a bunch of raw imagery up from Cassini at the CICLOPS imaging lab site here.

iCloud's introduction date is irrelevant. Apple has a revenue stream coming from members of the developer program, and paying members are the only ones who can take advantage of Apple's online services. For instance, they're also the only ones who can use push notifications. Put two and two together.

The statement about storage allotment doesn't make sense, because if a developer doesn't use iCloud in their app because they didn't pay for the developer program, then obviously the storage will instead be used by some other app that did pay.

App store hosting requires being a member of the $100/year developer program regardless of app pricing.

I don't know...I don't think freedom of travel and freedom from unreasonable search is being violated, as you're not being barred from travelling and you're not being searched. And I don't necessarily believe the legality of something changes simply because technology can do what humans can't. That argument of scale is the same argument the RIAA makes to differentiate P2P technology and 80s tape-trading.

I mean, I'd prefer not to be scanned, but I just don't feel like my rights are being violated if it's known that I'm driving down the freeway, after having driven through who knows how many security cameras at intersections and shown my photo ID who knows how many times just to buy beer and M-rated videogames. I'm usually an anti-government surveillance guy, but I don't feel as if I'm giving up more information than I usually do.

Not saying you're wrong or trying to argue with you. I agree with you that the storage is the real issue here, and I think two years is too long. The scanning itself just doesn't bother me for some reason. But it's possible other posters will make convincing arguments that could change my mind.