I love the idea of FSF and of free software. I'm a scientist and in my circles in particular, I can see the virtues of free software, open source, open access,

I love the idea of FSF and of free software. I'm a scientist and in my circles in particular, I can see the virtues of free software, open source, open access, etc. I think though that for most people, they don't care about an issue like this unless it causes them a problem, for example it prevents them from doing something that they want to do. So for example if they couldn't play Katy Perry on their iPhones/iPods because somehow Apple was a closed system and Katy Perry wasn't licensed. If Katy Perry could be played legally, openly, freely, on a non-Apple equivalent (key word here is equivalent) music player, then of COURSE people would flock to the free, open device. The unfortunate fact is however that we have the opposite situation, where for many free/open software/hardware options, the perception (if not the reality) is that the free/open options are in fact not as "nice"/convenient/easy/glittery/appealing to use as the for pay, closed systems. The perception (if not the reality) is that the free/open options are lower in quality (quality of experience, if not quality of device/app itself) than the options being touted as evil. The only way to change this situation is to change the perception, and/or change the reality. The big companies like Apple have enormous amounts of money, talent, and will, to dedicate towards marketing (influencing perception). Same goes for the devices/apps themselves. If you can show people something that they can do easier, better, cheaper, using free/open options than with Apple options, then they will (naturally) move there. What are some examples?