I have no problem with open source as a component. I have problems with open source when it is pushed as the only alternative, as is being done by those behind the GPL movement, as you know. They see no co-existence with proprietary software. You typically defend them, and are attempting to misconstrue my position at the moment in order to score points in for their sake.
I have no problems with Apple's process, their operating system is ultimately proprietary. Just like the DRM that is in their music delivery system. They are ultimately NOT an "open" company as you are trying to portray them, just so you can use that as leveragle to push your total open source utopia. Forget it.
You've repeatedly stated your objection to open source software on principle as anti-capitalist, communist and China-helping. Actually, that comprises a large portion of your posts.
I have problems with open source when it is pushed as the only alternative, as is being done by those behind the GPL movement, as you know. They see no co-existence with proprietary software. You typically defend them,
The "no co-existence" statement leads me to think you are here defining "GPL movement" as those following Stallman's ideology. I have never supported Stallman's utopian vision, nor can I remember any FReeper who has. In fact, most Linux advocates here look down upon Stallman's ideological approach to software as much as they look down upon yours.
They are ultimately NOT an "open" company as you are trying to portray them
Looking back, you'll see my point was that open source has helped Apple make money, not whether Apple was an "open" company. You really love strawmen, don't you?