[Prestidigitweeze]

One question is this: Do you want to let journalists condition you to think in polarizing terms or would you prefer to remain semi-objective and independent?

I don't base my choice in gadgets on what wins the popular vote but on what's useful to me personally, so the numbers are only interesting in the abstract and in terms of support (popularity = third-party choices).

I also have zero faith that any major company is looking out for my interests. What Apple does to my platform independence Google does to my privacy. And nearly all the other companies are just as bad. It always comes down to which gadget/platform proves most useful, not who makes it.

The journalistic template is to take a triggering subject and make a Boolean pronouncement about it. This polarizes people to the point that responses become heated and the article gets a lot of hits, but the debate isn't usually constructive for the participants. In many cases, anything which is said is (i) taken to be an endorsement of one side or the other or (ii) ignored.

For the moment, Apple's not going to disappear and neither (obviously) is Google. Of the majors, the only one that truly looks shaky to me is Sony. I'm not happy about that either -- even though I hate what happened to content access after Sony acquired a record label and a television and film production company, I'd like nearly all of the major/minor companies to be successful because choice is good.