redial

I'll pass.

Yes. In fact, they provide "invaluable" emotional value.

> Do they generate profit at least?

Some do, after all they are like any other low margin business.

Ambiguity –or specificity– has nothing to do with why we talk the way we do. Sometimes, ambiguity is the whole point of a sentence.

Oh, the irony. The person writing a ruleset on grammar for others to follow feels uneasy when others ask the same of him. If he ever listens to hip-hop –or visits Australia– they's gonna have a meltdown.

The smartphone has reached maturity and very little more can be said that hasn't been said about the technology inside of it so maybe it's time we take a step back and rethink the place of it in our society, or maybe not or not yet. The value of at least asking that question is what I took from the article.

In other words, it is more a "review" not of the phone but of the people using it.

> Revenue and users are both increasing year over year.

They wouldn't lie, of course.

That all depends on context, if an app asks for all the permissions on first run, the user doesn't have any context to help him/her deny access.

I'm not trying to. I'm refuting the argument that they "develop drugs based on merit alone" and thus somehow because of that don't need competition.

> A drug company is free to pursue and fund development of drugs based on merit alone.

What?

The argument that only they can provide what the public needs is just an excuse to avoid competition, as it is everytime you hear it being made in any industry: Municipal broadband is not able to fulfill the requirements of the fast-pacing telecommunications market so we should outlaw it and subsidize the private sector even more so you can finally have that 1MB dsl line you were due in 1999.

The Pharma industry has been "caught" many times preferring and in some cases preventing development of "cures" to instead sell long lasting treatments. Like most businesses, the only merit they care about is what makes them the most money, and there is nothing wrong with that, but let's not make them the gallant saviors of the masses when their evident greed becomes apparent every quarterly report and lobbying all over the world to avoid any form of competition is just the latest example of it.

Nobody uses google+.

> Search is what is relevant to the custom at the moment of time.

Yes, but in 5 years? Amazon is playing the long game.

Good decisions FOR THEM.

So...No iTunes for you!

Thermal engineering is hard, but doable, most of all to the richest technology company in the world.

Apple has no monopoly on any hardware market where they are not the only one. They cannot dictate terms to any other OEM manufacturing A10-compatible computers.

> Google has prevented manufacturers wishing to pre-install Google apps from selling even a single smart mobile device running on alternative versions of Android that were not approved by Google (so-called "Android forks").

Hence the fine.

You cannot have something open and control it at the same time.

Apple might be breaking other laws, but not this one. Google is breaking this law. Hence the fine.