On 2009-06-29, Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
>> Microsoft are a monopolist with convictions for abusing that monopoly
>> (albeit not in the mobile marketplace). That makes a difference.
>
> Really? You'd rather be mugged by a "nice guy" rather than a mean one?

No, but we haven't been "mugged", you're just raising the spectre that
we *might* be in the future. If it was Microsoft doing it, we would
know they can't be trusted. If it's any non-monopolist, then the
market will probably do a good job of keeping them in line.

>> Do you have some reason to believe that that will happen, or is that
>> whole paragraph just a huge pile of FUD?
>
> It was neither. Read it slowly: it was a hypothetical- hence the use of the
> word "if". "IF the next Macs were as locked down as the iPhone, WOULD users
> agree..." I'm not suggesting this a slippery slope Apple will ride up to
> Macs- I'm just saying a lot of people here are defending practices employed
> on the iPhone that they'd be horrified to see on a computer.

That makes even less sense. An phone is not a desktop computer.
Why *should* what's done on one be appropriate for the other?

> I'm not sure it'd be that easy to "screw them over" when they could simply
> flash back to "legit" before upgrading.

.... and the upgrade could easily remove the non-official stuff.
But it doesn't, because Apple didn't make it do that, even though they
easily could.

> Not at all- just observation. Sling poo-pooed the idea of a jailbroken
> version when asked, as did Tom Tom when making noise in the press that they
> had an iPhone version "ready to roll" a year ago. There seems, from casual
> observation, to be a (perfect logical) incentive to keep a business partner
> like Apple happy, and not undermine their business model.

Or they just don't want to undermine their own brand by making "dodgy"
products.