Instead of just saying too many rules, do you have points in the list that you object to? One of the problems with rejection until now was the lack of specific guidelines about what would be rejected. It seems to me that a comprehensive document would unavoidably have many rules, and the prohibitions that I read seemed reasonable.

The tipping point was "no card counting". While card counting may be against the rules at a particular casino, it's not illegal in general and does not belong in the "legal" section.

Whenever Apple is confronted with a situation where the user could use a feature or tool for something that's "against the rules", they tend to disable the feature. See, for example, iTunes' inability to import music from an iPod. It could be 100% legal for me to do that, but Apple doesn't provide that feature, even though iTunes "knows" how to do it.

(I stopped using Apple products about 5 years ago when they added PT_DENY_ATTACH.)

> I stopped using Apple products about 5 years ago when they added PT_DENY_ATTACH.

You mean the ptrace() flag that's trivial to bypass? Been a while since I dealt with it, but ISTR it's as simple as:

    br ptrace
    commands
    ret
    cont
    end

Counting cards by using just your brain is legal. But using a device is illegal in many places, like Nevada.

I have seen this warning once in almost three years of iPhone use, after the phone had been in a hot car. I don't think we can assume that the iPad is faulty simply from the existence of this message.

Because Apple is too controlling, right?

Mainly because I'm sick of people expecting me to fix their new computer problems. "I dont know how to do X anymore, my old laptop had a program that did it." Have fun!

I don't think that a rating system is antithetical to a free society. It is reasonable for consumers to want to know if there is material they would consider objectionable in a product, and it is reasonable for businesses to provide this information. A problem that Apple does have is that they appear to be applying standards for what might be considered objectionable in inconsistent ways.

While I agree that it is reasonable to be skeptical of an article defending Apple from Apple Insider, a good comment would include criticism of the article itself rather than your strictly ad hom attack.

Well that's just it, I don't know anymore than that. I don't know who to believe on this story.

The japanese journalist misquoted in the wired article twitters quite a bit in both japanese and english, and even has an english blog.

He was pretty upset when the article hit, and posted an email to Chen on his blog: http://blog.nobi.cc/2009/02/my-view-of-how-iphone-is-doing-i...

He also twittered about the situation quite a bit, including some back and forth with Chen: http://twitter.com/nobi?page=5

Seems like you didn't read the article. It's full of very specific facts and quotations. Sure it could all be fabricated, but that seems very unlikely given the lengths it goes to pick apart the original article.

I can only quote from my own limited experience... But I was in Tokyo recently and I noticed the iPhone was quite popular. Anecdotal naturally. But I was surprised when I read the wired article.