Some day I'll learn to just leave well enough alone, but this day I'll feed the trolls.

What I said was not BS, and calling it such doesn't make it so. Microsoft engaged in anti-competitive pricing to destroy competition in the market. They made purposely complicated document formats to make switching platforms more difficult (to great affect in corporate environments). They destroyed competition in the browser space so that their operating system was required for the best web experience. They also stole features from Mac OS (if you think they were not "stolen", you certainly can't argue that they were invented by MS), and undercut Apple a little on total package cost, but those are more run of the mill business strategies. They have strategically used bug fixes as a means to force paid software upgrades.

In short, Gates decided that if you wanted a Personal Computer, it had to run Microsoft software, and executed relentlessly against that to the detriment of the consumer.

Apple has (quite simply) done none of these. They have never competed on price (obviating the possibility of undercutting). They released their browser experience for use on all operating systems (I don't care if the KHTML core required this - if that were actually an issue they would simply rewrite it). They have maintained document compatibility with Office for most documents, have good PDF support, and generally haven't used document lock-in as a business strategy. Every release of Mac OSX has added features and often increased performance, sometimes for very little cost to the consumer. The lack of OS copy protection has lead to most upgrades being "optionally paid".

In short, Jobs has decided that he will make premium computers for a small, more well off customer base. At each step, Apple has increased the value of the product, and lowered the cost (when prices have simply not increased, they are effectively decreasing due to inflation). Mac OS X is arguably the best desktop OS that currently exists. Often times, he has increased the value of computing for non-customers by supporting standards or releasing code. Apple's contribution to WebKit and push for web standards has strengthened the overall web, if only though competition with Mozilla and Google.

So, tomlin, my point is that I get a little irritated when people call Apple the new Microsoft. I am also annoyed when people say that some system which looks exactly like something Apple just made, is actually better than Apple's version because of X. Or, that the maker of this product is justified in releasing something exactly like the Apple product "because someone else already did it".

Windows did not look like PARC's Alto. Every finger (not stylus or keyboard) driven full-device-touch-screen phone with multi-touch and sliding gestures does not look like previous smartphones. Zune music store, and whatever Google is pushing do not look like the PlaysForSure MSN Music Store, and eMusic, and Rhapsody with their associated hardware devices. All of these, while not exclusively, are derivative of Apple's take on these products. I know this because they all sucked before Apple fixed them.

I once heard it said that a leader is not someone who pushes their own ideas, but one who reflects the ideas of others. I am not an Apple fanboy because I like Steve Jobs... I'm an Apple fanboy because I like myself. And if something better than Apple comes around, I'd be all over it. But so far, Apple has been an oasis in a desert of crap.

So if you don't care for Apple that's okay with me. But instead of whining about how this oasis isn't what you wanted, how about you get out there and start digging a new one.

When yours looks better than his, I'll join you.