Simple: if it is successful enough they'll demand that anyone else who wants access implement an equally controlled and closed system. No better way to ensure your audience than to deny them alternatives (where alternatives are anything outside the mass-media.)

And if it is as "revolutionary" as some suggest it to be and it shifts personal computing demographics away from the standard, non-locked-down PC, it could hinder those who refuse to adopt. I do suspect that it will not be that successful, however to -rely- on that and ignore the issue would be foolhardy.

I wouldn't have a problem with this, since they're more than eager to lobby for laws that are entirely in their favor.

Personally, I'd prefer if most of the major media outlets weren't controlled by a whole six companies, but that's a matter of (brace yourselves) regulation, and an entire topic unto itself.

Because they have no interest in finding a more "open" solution. They'd rather lobby and whine about how their existing business model is being rendered non-functional. Apple gives them a form of control over the "new" model and, if successful, will likely be demanded from anyone else who wants access.

Are you seriously suggesting that people don''t have the right to do what they wish with their property? You are, and you're also suggesting that DRM, lockdown, and remote killswitches are justifiable. Maybe we should weld the hood on your car shut, and send you to prison for telling others how to open it?

Convoluted, yes, and needlessly so. Preferably there would be no binary blobs, which are the biggest hindrance to doing some ports for the N900 at the moment.

I'm trying to get why you (and others) are so confused that people might not want to have their experiences and property controlled so tightly by corporations, with obvious profit motives that run counter to their own best interests.