Maybe I've just worked in industry too long, but I don't get all upset every time a company releases some badly 'shopped press photo. You know how hard it is to take a good photograph from the inside of a helicopter? Of course they were sitting on the ground. It's not like they released it saying "This is what we're doing to clean up the spill" - it's a damn press photo.
I work for a company that develops an embedded Linux OS for telecom equipment. One of the head Linux engineers once said:
"Linux is only free if your time is worthless."
While it's disappointing to see MS leaving out useful information, from a total cost of ownership, most companies select MS over Linux after doing the analysis, not blindly. When you have an army of Linux engineers on staff (like Google) you can choose the "free" option, but not everyone has that.
Modern companies have an army of servers (virtual or physical), most of which are not just Web servers. I know we run all our internal infrastructure on Windows Server, and we're a Linux company. Mostly because accounting, manufacturing, and financial systems (which require in most cases multiple servers) all run on Windows Server platforms, not Linux. Was it disingenuous of MS to only count license sales? Sure. But I don't think the world really runs on Linux, even if a large chunk of the internet does.
This is a fairly common reaction from most people who consider themselves "artists" - they over-value their own contribution and undervalue the influence or contributions of others.
The end result is the kind of things we see here. When anyone undervalues THEIR work (for example, by not paying full retail price for it) - they're liars and thieves. But when it comes to someone else's works, well "It wouldn't have any value without my artistic contribution."
Right, but it has nothing to do with the OS they use. There are a handful of Mac viruses for the handful of Mac users. There aren't really linux viruses (beyond proof-of-concept) because the users are smart enough not to get them.
And that's really the heart of it, right? When Apple thought the iPhone was at the forefront of technology, they didn't bother with the "imitators". Now that they're watching their market evaporate as quickly as it built up, and at the same time unable to make the cap-ex investment to stay ahead without abandoning tens of millions of users, they're trying to stop other companies from getting ahead.
That's actually what they're doing. Reviewing all the lowest-ranked users, deciding if they should ban them from commenting. Sure, they can create a new user ID and come back and pick more fights, but since the more frequent users actually know one another on that site, it would take a while to build up the reputation as being a particular company's "fanboi (sic)" again.
Also, they were probably getting a lot of off-site traffic, since they had some of the more comprehensive coverage of the device. The comments may have been negatively affecting their ability to sell more premium advertising space, so they turned them off for the time being.
"the killer feature would be connectivity with and eco system of gadgets something that is almost like lego were one think inter-connects with another"
It's called bluetooth. Everyone else has it. Just not the iPhone.
Seriously though, all the artist mockups in the world won't save you from basic engineering costs (that's why the're artists, not engineers). Apple won't revolutionize, they'll evolve, a little. They don't have some secret sauce that a million engineers the world over are missing. They'll invest in cool components in some way (thin! light! it has sensors!), and take shortcuts in others (low-res screen, low powered processor, fixed battery) to drive down costs. Then they'll wrap it in a polished package. They're not going to have augmented reality, wifi-charged supergoggles connected to a swarm of personal servant bots. It will be easier to use than other products, but ultimately less capable.
MS will only license Starter on low end machines (under 10.2" screen, 1G ram), but that's an upper limit, NOT a lower-bound on normal versions of 7. It's a way for manufacturers to cut costs. MS will happily license Windows 7 Ultimate to install on your little Netbook, and it'll probably run just fine. They just don't want some penny-pinching manufacturer to put Windows 7 Starter on a desktop or real work machine, since it would piss off customers.
When you register with your party in a particular state. That's how they know to send you information and literature. It's an opt-in database, but not one you expect to be used to stalk you. There's also not an obvious way to remove your info from it, usually.