It's a copyright, so much longer duration: https://www.copyright.gov/circ...

How else would you get credit for the calories burned?

The counterargument here is pretty obvious. They're doing the same thing as almost every other tech company has been doing for years (including Google). They're giving away apps for free to make the barrier for leaving their ecosystem more costly (in time and effort) to consumers. I am pretty much guaranteed to buy an Android phone when mine dies, because I have used Google apps for years (Docs, Gmail, Music, Maps, Photos, Search, Chrome, etc.) and the time to migrate everything would be significant. Most (maybe all?) of these are available on iPhones, but that hasn't always been the case, and with how these companies feud, who knows if they will always be available.

As for Apple's apps, they give them away for free and lose that 30% revenue from an $1.99 app sale. So they lose a few dollars per iPhone user, who cares? They make hundreds of dollars per iPhone sale ($500 per iPhone XS Max according to a quick Google search), and people upgrade every year, two years, three years, four. It doesn't matter if a person only upgraded every decade. If they upgrade to a new iPhone, Apple will probably still make out like a bandit.

Banning cell phones isn't just a goal of "greedy concert promoters." It is very distracting, as someone paying a lot of money to see a performance, to have hundreds of people in the rows in front of you holding up screens the whole time. I've also seen comments from long time performers that can remember "the good old days" about the lack of interaction of a lot of the audience. Many people are watching their screens rather than what is in front of them. I'm not saying whether any of this is good or bad, and people are free to enjoy their experiences how they want (within reason). Just stating that there may be reasons other than greed to ban the use of cell phones--or at least banning people from holding them up--while a band is performing.

Not all sports, and generally games are blacked out. I can stream all of the Pens games, except any when they're playing the Capitals. And the playoffs are all blacked out. Plus, there is no option for NFL or a lot of college football games that I want to watch. Even if there were (non blacked out) options for all of the sports that I care about, I guarantee it would be more expensive than cable. Just look at how expensive the NFL package on DirecTV is.

You're making the (incorrect) assumption that these channels aren't blacked out. Everyone within a huge radius of DC cannot stream most major networks that carry the sports I care about. And we are out of range for an antenna.

This is what is keeping me on DirecTV. Most of the major networks are blacked out on streaming options in my area since I'm close to DC, so no go there. Granted, when we finally get the option to pick and choose channels and sports (that I care about) to stream, I'm sure the cost will be comparable (or much more). Either way, someone is getting my money. I just make sure to call once a year and threaten to switch to FIOS TV. That keeps costs in check somewhat.

You can wobble trillions of times a second, but that doesn't really matter. Bandwidth usage is driven by the baudrate of the signal. That's true regardless of your frequency band.

Darn! That lines up with the rumored release date of the Droid 3 ...

And then, when the Republican is in office, it will be all of the Democrats bitching about the new president. Everything one party criticizes the other for when in or out of office, they themselves are guilty for. I'm not saying that I am in support of most of Bush's policies, but you couldn't go anywhere without hearing complaints about him from the day he was elected. And Clinton, And Bush 1. And Reagan. Etc ...