What are, in your opinion, three applications that I am missing on the iPhone, that really should be there ? I've heard this claim of "tons of apps", but nobody follows it up with "for example, ********, is the best application for ******, but Apple wouldn't let it in the store". I have no idea what I am missing out on.

I don't subscribe to Andy's tweets. This is true for nearly 100% of people who own a smartphone.

Haha. AC has a point. MacOS is the UNIX on the desktop and laptop that linux was never able to achieve.

People with iPhones are more likely to have social friends, as opposed to people that seek out the most open, developer friendly phone. People with friends are more likely to party and drink. People with developer friendly phones are likely to sit in a padded chair in their home. Drunk people drop phones a lot, even in traffic. Developer people drop phones too, but on couches, tables, and carpeted floors. That is my theory.

You know nothing of freedom. Rights are not granted, we are born with them. People don't have rights revoked, rights aren't revokable. People not able to exercise their rights are oppressed. I've demonstrated in solidarity with oppressed people for the better part of my adult life. I consider that a better way to protect people than using a more open app store on my phone. I guess we all fight for different causes. Good luck with yours.

I used my freedom and free will to sign the contract. I think you have freedom confused with something else. I knew what I was getting when I walked into the store. I participated in the free market. Don't equate my choices with supporting a government intrusion, Apple didn't intrude into my life. I had to go out of my way to make the purchase.

I have a frogPad, it helps.

I bought the iPhone because I know they are controlling the user experience. I'm greatly enjoying my user experience on my iOS devices. I feel like I got what I paid for, and am likely to get more apple products in the future.

People drive without a license all the time. Take their car, and the possession of a license means little.

If there is an open beer in a car, you can't prove the driver was drinking.
If there is a call or text using the drivers phone from within the car, you can't prove the driver did it.
If there is any phone activity within the car, you can't prove the driver did it.
Phone use in cars causes accidents, and the solution is to remove the cars from the possession of drivers who endanger everyone else. Having to listen to someone else on the phone is still a distraction to the driver, so it really doesn't matter if the owner or someone else is using the phone. Numerous studies show that half conversations take attention away from people who can hear them, thus, by allowing this to take place in a vehicle you control is putting others at risk. I don't think it matters who is using the phone, if a phone is in use in your car, and you crash, you should lose your car.
Besides :
1) Most cars are single occupant these days during the commute hours when most accidents happen, so it won't even be an excuse for most people.
2) Most passengers are either kids, who aren't calling or texting your contacts on your phone. Again,
3) Most other passengers are adults with their own phones.
People can drive without a license. Take the vehicle.

If you don't value the form factor, or the SSD, or the increased battery life, then yes, those are probably comparable for your purposes.

BP is run by a profit driven capitalist terrorist group. Money makes the decisions at BP. To think people run the corporations is just plain silly.

thanks for correcting that.

I have several websites using google apps, each domain name comes with its own accounts. I didn't RTFA, so I don't even know if this comment is applicable to the topic.

Science journalism is fine. All the people I work with take great care in choosing their words and laying out their articles to be precise and as unambiguous as possible. The sensationalist articles written for the public lack this attention to detail.