There is no DRM in the hardware of the iPhone/iPad. It is absolutely no better than the worst Android device, and there are available cracks to rip Netflix streams on a jailbroken iOS device.
However there is the illusion of security in that it is a supposedly closed system. As Android is arguably open, that illusion doesn't hold.
I've spent somewhere in the range of $20 on various apps in the Android market. That includes one single game -- an okay racing game. Do I want to spend more? Absolutely (I spend an average $50 a month in Steam on the PC) Why don't I? Because there is an dearth of high quality applications.
So when Carmack -- as a leader of high quality applications -- does his survey's and unsurprisingly find that people haven't purchased many apps (the platform runs on the power of Google's apps, which for most has to suffice), he's presenting a chicken/egg situation. If Rage were available on Android it would sell very well. The general absence of good apps would virtually guarantee that it go gangbusters.
He is acting like a follower. Eventually A-games will come to Android and id will have missed a remarkable opportunity. He can then do his poll and say "Gosh, I guess it's a good platform now" and can wander over and be just a me too competitor in a crowded market.
I personally used to use downvoting to sink comments that are of no particular interest to me, and to promote other branches of the thread that I'd like more people to look at and comment on.
This is exactly what is wrong with HN. It is essentially a (rather desperate) attempt to create reality through votes.
The math is difficult, but honestly I would like good statistical correlations to happen, such that people like you are excluded from the vote counts (or the impact of the same) that I see.
If there are circles of people who want to manufacture a delusion of a particular blend of crazy, the correlation engine should see their common ambitions and reflect that for just them. I don't want those potentially useful comments hidden, or trite sophistry at the top, simply because some subset of users wants to impose that will.
it's also worth remembering that for google you are the product (clicks) as well as the customer.
There aren't many exceptions to this. It is certainly true of Apple, where you are a consumer of their platform, and a conduit of their payment system, as much as you're a consumer of a specific product.
There's a reason Apple locks down their platform, and it isn't because they're looking out for your financial or competitive choice interests.
That you bought an iPhone is simply the first step, and that consumer-capture will be exploited for years. Apple wants to be your conduit of music and movies, applications, information and subscriptions, etc. They have no interest in selling you a device just to bid you adieu.
Especially in the case you've brought up here. Microsoft's financial might in the 90's was all about strategic relationships, three dimensional chess and out-maneuvering their competition, definitely not creating value for users.
Microsoft and Apple both engage in identical behaviors. Many Microsoft boosters used the identical "for the consumer" arguments in defending Microsoft activities. Forcing IE while prohibiting competitive browser installations, for instance, simplified and created a cleaner, more user-accessible platform that would just work, blah blah blah. Same sort of nonsense you hear today.
That you would link to the anti-trust decree is bizarre. Do you think I or anyone else don't know about that? Do you think Apple's actions are so different, or is Apple simply not in control as much market as Microsoft (yet). Then again, they've already drawn anti-trust attention, so ten years from now some booster of the then-big-dog will point back at the DOJ-vs-Apple lawsuit as proof of....something.
Apple makes massive profit margins by doing right by the customer (as they see it).
Sure, and so does Microsoft. That argument works for any company.
The problem is that many of Apple's transparent positions aren't held on their merit, but instead are shrouded behind layers of sanctimonious bullshit. See the anti-Flash screeds as an example of this. That you would claim that insult about Google, in this case, is quite laughable.
Though I see that HN is once again a bastion of pro-Apple delusion as the more enlightened fled.
No silly holy wars or sanctimonious proclamations.
I'm really torn trying to figure out which parts of your post is sarcasm. Because if you're really claiming that Apple hasn't pursued almost every initiative with "sanctimonious proclamations", you must not be paying attention. Gruber echos the Apple talk points, and they all revolve around "just trying to do right by the customer" (instead of "just trying to ensure massive profit margins aided by complete control and industry domination).
? Not a fan of Flash, but video-playback is a very, very small part of the Flash platform (and even then it's often producer-friendly in the form of supporting extensive DRM for the illusion of content control), while it is virtually all of QuickTime. QuickTime is completely obsolete. Flash is just mostly obsolete.
I don't disagree with your observations about a pre-Gingerbread device, however it is remarkable how much 2.3 has improved. It is very competitive with the iPhone now from a spit and polish perspective, even on older hardware. So imagine the shine on a device like an upcoming Galaxy S II.
This segues to arguments that have a freshness dating. Android used to have crap hardware (the G1 was junk). Now it has amazing hardware. Android used to have no apps. Now it has an unbelievable number of apps, and almost all of the top tier apps. Android used to be a duct-tape clunky mess. Now (Gingerbread) it's a completely different beast: It is actually a loveable operating system.
So if Android made most of its gains when it was a shadow of what it is now, what are the detractors left with?
In Sicily you fit perfectly in a category called "cowards"
Weak. I read HN occasionally but haven't contributed in many months. I do pay attention to database theory / NoSQL stories, and I have noticed that you always appear always moving the goalposts around, in a manner that I think actually diminishes productive conversation.
To your core point, the author isn't saying they're all "the same". They're pointing out that the underlying premise is more alike than many -- who perhaps don't spend as much time on the nuances -- might not realize.
While much is made about passwords being sent across the open net, almost every site short of banks allow you to reset a password with an email, which is a close to identical problem.
"Redis is an open source, advanced key-value store"
I'm not sure what sort of extended commentary you expected about Redis - it isn't quite as important of a project as you seem to think it is (seriously, are you always commenting on HN?)
EDIT: In case this wasn't already painfully clear, Antirez has an annoying habit of constantly moving the goal lines, making it virtually impossible to discuss Redis in any context unless it is pure, unbridled awe and praise. Then again, Antirez is a HN "celebrity" so expect nonsense like the above to be voted up by the proles.
However there is the illusion of security in that it is a supposedly closed system. As Android is arguably open, that illusion doesn't hold.