If it's $129 when sold on a contract, then the phone's not really $129, is it?
Surely the price of the handset varies depending on how expensive the contract is, and hence saying it's being 'sold for $129' is meaningless?
I can get the iPhone 5 for £0 if I take out a £37/month contract, but it doesn't necessarily make it good value!
I got to the bit where you suggested that Apple has a near-monopoly market position in mobile devices, and gave up. If the first sentence is a complete lie, what does that say about the rest of the article? Don't even get me started with:
For goodness' sake, start thinking about this like a typical consumer rather than somebody who posts on an Apple enthusiast forum. It wouldn't be mocked whether it was Apple or not, because 99% of the population doesn't know and doesn't care exactly how many phone models Apple or any other manufacturer has produced. What would seem absurd to the general population is calling a product 'iPhone 6' when the last product was the 4S. People may have short memories, but...
The concern is that Webkit is coming close to having a monopoly in the browser market. It effectively already does in the mobile and tablet space.
When one rendering engine has a monopoly, that engine becomes the standard, complete with its bugs and foibles. That isn't good for an open, progressive internet. Webkit may have fewer bugs than IE6, but web standards are evolving all the time and the risk is that the Webkit way becomes the only way.
You must be joking, right? The iPad is a great device, but it isn't close to having the capabilities of a bargain-bin special laptop, let alone a high-end one. You can't even have two apps on screen at the same time. Computers could do that 20 years ago!
What's tiresome is this binary way of looking at the situation - that you have to be 'pro-Google' or 'pro-Apple', and that there's no room for looking at issues in an unbiased way. It encourages one-sided debates and the stifling of opposing views, neither of which are exactly great things for a discussion forum. If you want to, then go ahead - take it off. But if your response to divergent views is to brand them as 'crap' and expunge them from the site, then it...
Sometimes it doesn't really seem like it, given the way that posts in favour of Google or other competitors are frequently met with torrents of vitriol or derision which are long on angry rhetoric and short on facts. It's a discussion forum which provides little or no scope for not toeing the party line. What's the point of 'discussion' if you can't diverge from the common view without being called a 'fandroid troll', a 'Google shill', 'misinformed' or the various...