Remember, these criminals essentially get these parts for "free", they can undercut Apple even if Apple sells at cost.

And Apple never sells anything at cost.

I mean, yeah, they would be cheaper, but that's the case for anything stolen. Yet we don't have an epidemic of all shops in the USA selling stolen goods they got for cheap.

Apple is not necessarily good, but 1000 times more trustworthy when it comes to user privacy.

Google is the cult leader of sucking every little details off its users because it genuinely believes it has the right to do so, nay, it has the moral obligation to do so for the good of all humanity.

In China even a small city with 400000 population (that is small in China, don't argue.) located 1000 miles from sea would at least have fresh clams and a few live sea fish in watertanks at walmart.

In America all you average consumers buy are vacuum-sealed squares of bland fillet.

Still I do not understand Reginald's reasoning. The world or reddit for that matter does not revolve around a single person. Sure, visit or don't, do what you see fit. But the grand standing is pretty hollow if I may say so.

Then I remembered the worshiping of free speech in the west and people's reprehension upon mentioning PRC's tight control over media, or on a lesser scale, people's reaction to Apple's walled garden approach. Well, now some company is walking the walk (kinda, with caveats), quite hilariously it becomes poison and the Antichrist.

EDIT：Also I'd like to remind Reginald: The ilks of /r/CoonTown are huge obstacles to reddit's monetization plan, the fact is plainly obvious I really do not get the "blood money" angle.

You can see this in the fact that the Constitution guarantees speech, and a right to bear arms, and a right to assemble --- but not a right to privacy, or to bodily integrity, or even to true equality under the law between genders. Those latter rights are also rights, acknowledged implicitly by the Constitution (as Locke --- who also didn't support unfettered free speech --- would say, the government protects rights, but doesn't grant them). Why are these specific rights in the Bill of Rights? Because they're the ones deemed most important to ensuring self-governance.

Second, 'raganwald isn't saying Reddit should be forbidden to host hate groups. He's saying he refuses to patronize businesses that are incentivized to host hate groups and do so without restriction. The antidote to bad speech is more speech, and that's what 'raganwald is doing, both out loud and with his pocketbook.

That’s an interesting point to discuss, but before we do, are we talking about Reddit?

Any forum that has moderation in the form of downvotes and/or flags does not have a "free exchange of ideas." If we state something unpopular, we get downvoted and/or flagged and our speech disappears rapidly.

The ideal is that downvoting is for making poor arguments, not unpopular arguments. But few people believe this is what happens in practice. In practice, Reddit is moderated, it’s just that the moderation within a forum is carried out by the very people arguing with each other.

In a subreddit like/r/CoonTown, we are not going to find a free exchange of ideas with respect to race. If we want that, we have to go to a subreddit like /r/AskScience, where there is very active and aggressive moderation, and that moderation is associated with a set of laws restricting what you can and cannot say.

I think that there is a great deal of value in the idea of free speech, and in the utopian ideal of a free exchange of ideas. But I am not convinced that allowing all and sundry to create their own subreddits that represent finer and finer slices of single-issue society is the mechanism for enabling a free exchange of ideas.

Second, at the time IE was stale beyond belief and quite obviously inventing compatibility issues just to further its own dominance. Safari team have done none such thing, they just move at their own pace, doing the usual Apple thing, you can complain about their obliviousness but still attribute malice? That's rich. Webkit is opensource FFS.

The case against IE was not that Microsoft bundled it with the OS. Its completely different from what Safari on iOS is. The problem with IE back in 2000 was that Microsoft was:

1. Bundling their browser with their OS. 2. Had 90% of the browser market share as a result of (1). 3. Using that market share to break web standards and implement proprietary IE only features that broke html for everyone else and made it impossible to compete, because if you made a standards compliant web browser in 2002 it would not render pages properly that were designed for IE.

I don't exactly know what made the US fed care so much about preserving web standards over a lot of other violated standards by monopolistic entrenched interests, but their suit was entirely about Microsoft using its position as an overwhelming market dominator of web browsers to usurp web standards.

Apple really can't do that. Safari's market share, even as the only iOS browser engine, is peanuts. All they are doing is making their own platform irrelevant, and since they are not doing the whole "proprietary web that cannot render right in Chrome" thing, they aren't an antitrust case for being incompetent.

You can read all about it here (search for Netscape): http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm

Even when the EU looked into IE specifically, they weren't directly concerned with web standards: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-09-15_en.htm?local...

Well, Chrome is doing exactly that today. Extending HTML with proprietary features, leading to situatons where websites work "best in Chrome", even today.

The reason Microsoft was on the hook was because it was a software vender forcing its choice. Apple is a hardware+software vendor, and when you own both the software and the hardware, you can make more restrictive choices and are not open to the same class of laws.

it's dumb, but that's the main legal difference here as to why the microsoft case doesn't apply to apple.