Stupidity rules

While reading about the newest Apple hype, the iPad, I came to the following conclusion: Apple is consistently, since John Sculley up to Steve Jobs -how long will his liver last- trying to dominate the user experience. Apps are condoned or rejected, depending on company policy, thereby completely ignoring their clients wishes. If you want a specific App, you may be lucky and find it in the App store. If not you're banned to hell, you'll never get your dreamed App, cause it simply is not available. Company policy. Full stop.

Stupid.

If Apple would publish their condoned Apps and ALSO condoned the USE of NOT-condoned, but working alternative Apps, it would effectively be a democratic corporation that leaves their customers in command. As it stands, Apple dictatorially controls user demands, by permitting users to buy from the bundle of Apple-condoned Apps and that's it: No company-rejected-App can be downloaded and installed.

Cause they decided this.

What if Apps were categorized into YES and NO - acceptable series. Numerous suckers would try out (and delete after) the NON-acceptable kind, but would be glad to have been given the opportunity to do so.

So be free and allow others to do the same.

So what?

Consumer satisfaction prevails, with or without serious errors.

Neelie Kroes (EU-ICT-executive) would love this policy change.

In fact, she would abstain from ordering fines to be registered for

competion-hindering actions by certain producers (= Apple)..

Let us not forget a simple rule of business:

If a sucker wants to be suckered, he may do so.

Full stop.