Rename it to "Forbes 30 (years to life) Under 30" and then you really have something

Yes. And I can continue to access my email as long as Google lets me have an account. Or view my movies as long as Amazon lets me access my âoepurchasedâ account. I get your point about Apple and the ecosystem, and worrying about all that. If that worries you, donâ(TM)t give Apple a dime!

Look, I *like* the fact that Apple only has 19% market share. I am a happy iOS/iPhone user. I don't *want* Apple to make a lot of the changes Android users would want. I like the platform the way it is, and at 19% market share, it's hard to argue "MONOPOLY!" (yes, they have a 100% "monopoly" on iOS, but to me that's about as useful as saying Google has a 100% monopoly on gmail). And to be clear: I am very happy Android is out there and people have choices! That's great! And I can easily see why people prefer Android, think it's superior, etc. Cool. But that should be the alternative; not forcing Apple to do things they (and customers like me) aren't interested in.

If you say so. My wife is still using her 2010 MacBook Pro.

Intel thinking of Apple as a `Lifestyle Company` is one of the reasons that they are in this situation.

If you want to do it just for yourself (i.e. not "enterprise" wide) and are willing to compile any code, then you *don't* need to pay. Apple is making it so you can use XCode and install on your device without paying the $99 to become a registered developer. You only need to do that (and incur the fee) if you want to submit to the App Store.

Not quite as convenient / insecure / freedom enabling (pick your sentiment) as Android, and only practical for open source / personal projects, but still better than it used to be.

That's nice, but Apple is deprecating their port of *Java* and the *Java Virtual Machine*. Has nothing to do with the (unfortunately named) Javascript, which they are NOT deprecating.

First off, IBM and HP maintain their own JVMs (as did Microsoft until the Sun/MS lawsuit). Secondly, Apple insisted on being the one to port their JVM. Reading the blog post by Gosling will tell you that. And thirdly, they didn't do it "for free" (at least in the early days - not sure about the last few years). I was at Javasoft back then, and Sun funded some Apple engineers to work on the port.

I don't have a problem with someone else (say, Sun^H^H^HOracle) doing the port - it would be more timely, up-to-date, etc. I just wish they would have had a something worked out saying "We're not gonna support our JVM, and Oracle will be doing this starting on ...