I don't want to start any flamewars, but the assumption that the market leader can engage in a kind of mutualism and 'not support' a given device or OS while still leaving them open to interoperability displays the sort of cavalier attitude towards user experience that hobbles Apple's competitors.
How many hacks that muck around in Apple's UX space do you think it would take for Apple to just sort of turn a blind eye to, before users starting accidentally wiping their iTunes libraries or bricking their iPhones? And how many proponents of said hacks do you think would argue that's an acceptable state of affairs?
Do you want your TV manufacturer to build a steel cage around your TV because they're afraid that users will complain if they mess up their own TV. That would be ridiculous.
Do you want your TV manufacturer to build a steel cage around your TV because they're afraid that users will complain if they mess up their own TV.
Bad metaphor. Suppose I lived in a world where, if my TV malfunctioned, it could break my phone and my web browser, send random emails to my relatives, riffle through my address book, and delete all the music I've bought over the last five years.
Oh, and there are international criminal gangs who employ networks of botnets to attack my TV every fifteen seconds.
In that world, I'd see a real use case for the steel-cage-equipped TV.
How many hacks that muck around in Apple's UX space do you think it would take for Apple to just sort of turn a blind eye to, before users starting accidentally wiping their iTunes libraries or bricking their iPhones? And how many proponents of said hacks do you think would argue that's an acceptable state of affairs?