It is in human nature to see things in black&white with vilifying and glorification. And we overvalue intent, when there isn't is one. For example, I don't see

It is in human nature to see things in black&white with vilifying and glorification. And we overvalue intent, when there isn't is one. For example, I don't see them trying that hard in fighting against Jailbreaking. Instead Apple dealings with it are rather practical. They never released updates specifically to stop a JB. They never used legal actions against customers and Apple even hired JB-hackers or borrowed nifty ideas from that scene (notifications, home-screen camera access). I also never did get why some (web?)people are frightened by Apps, but a browser only Chromebook is regarded as a cool thing. I see that as more limiting for the future of computing. Speaking of Google, I do find them to be more "evil", or to use a more precise word "threatening" for the computer industry, because they are aiming for ruling the world. They want to achieve dominance. They want to diversify in different markets. This is only possible with defeating competitors. Even if they have to subsidize products heavily or bordering on unfairly leveraging their search monopoly. Apple is harmless, because they are not aiming for a 95% market share. No, they want to make niche products in the premium segment. In 2007 they had the chance to being the new Microsoft if only they had licensed iOS. They didn't do it. Because they wanted to be like the Ford Motor Company instead of being Standard Oil. The result is a company making three desktop models, two laptop models and basically just one iPhone (in two colors). It is possible to co-exist, even thrive, for competitors when Apple is leading. And they are not really that dangerous in peripheral markets. Far from that! Compare Facebook vs G+ and Ping vs Facebook.