Yes, but isn't that the point? We don't have any right to "technological liberty" from the company's perspective. I mean would this whole discussion even be happening if Apple were some small company and the ipod and iphone were niche products without a large user base? I don't think anyone would care that they required using their products (macs and sdk) to write code for their other products (ipods/iphones). Developer's want to write code for their products because they are so widely adopted and offer the capability to use a lot of the functions of the device. And they have an advantageous model for marketing and making some profit from that code. So does Android now, but I think it is safe to say the iphone sdk opened up a lot of possibilities first.
(Feel free to correct me, if I am wrong on all that.)

So hypothetically... If Apple's products were a niche market and they could do what they want, is it fair to expect them to change because they were successful and became popular?

I didn't get the heat that people felt about this argument at first, but some of that is because I already have a mac. If I was looking at developing iphone apps and had to buy one just for that, I now see how that would upset a developer.

Still though, big picture it seems to me that Apple has created a market for itself by controlling hardware and software more tightly and ensuring greater reliability and usability in their desktop/laptops. Shouldn't we have all assumed they would want to do the same thing for their mobile products?

I'm not a fanboy of Apple and I'm not excusing all the PR spin they used in this argument. But I'm not sure where this expectation comes from that Apple should do what angry developers demand of them. When that means developers moving to a development pattern where they have no control or even influence.

I don't know, someone convince me I should be more ticked off about this.

It occurs to me that Adobe and Apple might have been able to resolve all of this with some agreements to have Adobe adopt all new iphone features in their products in a timely fashion and Apple working with Adobe to give them some lead time for new developments in iphone/ipad etc. Then a little coordination to prevent "flash crashes" and save battery life. But then neither one would have complete control. And maybe the unwillingness of either company to give that up is what this thing is really all about.

Granted, I know next to nothing about this controversy or Medieval history. But before conveniences like the printing press I believe it was pretty common to write out a draft and then copy very carefully the final version without errors. If someone could throw out any pages they made a mistake on, it wouldn't be too hard to come up with an error free manuscript given enough time and attention to detail. Even if the whole thing was done on some kind of prebound book, if someone had alot of practice making careful copies like this and went slow enough, an error free manuscript doesn't seem too far fetched to me.

That's not to say it isn't nonsense, but I don't know that the error rate is that strong an indicator.

But I thought freedom was just another word for having nothing left to lose?

Now, I'm so confused...

There already is a central fund, but I'm sure it differs from what you had in mind. After all it was not a product of one person but of House, Senate legislation and Administrative regulations. It is the Superfund. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfund

Simple. They already got the 14 billion. Now they can do anything they want. The problem isn't the government as an entity being beholden to the cell phone companies. It is that plenty of individual members of congress and the senate get contributions from them and there is no well organized call for reining in their pricing from a consumer special interest group with as much clout as the cell phone companies. As it is, I've heard some members are calling for hearings on unfair text message pricing. That alone means next to nothing, but it is usually how change gets started in Washington.

Yes, well I was going for a humorous comment in the "be careful what you wish for" vein. But even so, I'm not sure what scale you are using for the supposed maturation process. Toddler brain at 16, so what 3 to 1? 4 to 1? That means you would have to suffer through those difficult teenage years for nearly 20 years or so?!? I still think I'd stick with the body I've got, old and imperfect though it is. Plus you'd have to expect that unless your parents were similarly slow developing, they would be much more likely to up and die on you before you reached maturity. A long period of foster care could result.

But I guess if everyone was this way and the whole society changed to suit it, you would get a much longer life.

Uhm... "...with the mental capacity of a toddler"? Forgive me, if I don't stop by your assisted living facility corner to say "Hi". I hope to be too busy taking interesting college courses in my retirement with my old broken down looking body and wise old dude mind.

I think Andre the Giant had a posse comitatus...

Thank you...
I'm in town all week...

His running joke is that he will sell out in nearly any way to get his name out there. He'd probably love the idea and go on his show next week and urge viewers to write to WHO to ask for the rename.

Yes, I'd love to have parts of my body involved with someone else's body parts on a subatomic level with impossible to predict effects. And I would like that body part to be both irreplaceable and in very close proximity to my brain.