Right. Like, for instance, I need some line smoothing code, but I don't want to use that in my closed source project because I don't know how far GPLv3 infects my project.
Be warned, that code is GPLv3. I don't know the specific legal issues with using it or porting it to another language, but if you're going to use it you should check.
But who wants to pay to tweet? With the business and culture they've built, they don't have a way to go back. They have to stay free for everyone, they have to show ads to make money, and they have to kill 3rd party apps to make sure the ads get seen their way.
If you want Twitter-that-was, ADN is your best bet at this point.
Because their customers are advertisers, and their users are people who follow Ashton Kutcher and Justin Bieber. It's not the same service as it was when it started, when the API was important to them.
Fine. How much does it cost to build the machine that mills the case out of a block of aluminum? How much does it cost to employ the people that design the hardware, that write the software? How much does it cost to market, distribute and sell on a global scale? The cost of an iPhone, or any mass-produced product, is WAY more than the cost of each individual part from NewEgg.
"This iTunes need eliminates a large segment of technophobes."
Really? It wasn't even 3 years ago when all iPhones required iTunes syncing to load music. Every single iPod, since the very first one in 2001, have required it all along, and they've done fine with "technophobes".
Press can get (or at least request) a press badge that is keynote only. For those who can't get one, is there really $1600 plus expenses worth of value in blogging the event? Especially when all the usual suspects are live-blogging, the news comes out instantly, and the video is posted within a day?
What kind of psychotic, suicidal investors group would kick out the board that has secured the kinds of returns this board has? I mean, I understand what you're saying but it seems like it would go against common sense to do something like that.
My problem with this, and all other stories on the same theme, is "Why?" Why does Apple NEED to do anything with its cash reserves?
The story says: "Last month Mr Cook admitted that the firm has more cash than it needs for its operations. It’s a nice problem to have. The obvious solution would be to give cash back to shareholders, either via dividends or share buybacks." They claim having more cash than they need as a problem, and then spend 5 paragraphs detailing solutions, without further explaining WHY it's a problem.
Speaking as an (extremely minor) shareholder, I have no desire for dividends or anything else. My AAPL portfolio has gained 100% in 2 years, that's good enough for me.