Apple changes words in order to change the debate

The only difference between HFCS 55 and 'sugar' (meaning cane sugar refined to purely fructose/glucose) is the glycosidic bond between the fructose and glucose. In your gut sucrase will snap this bond and sugar becomes identical to HFCS 55 in your gut.

In this sense HFCS has gotten an unfairly bad rap because HFCS 55 is equally as unhealthy as sugar. If anyone thinks sugar is more healthy than HFCS 55 they are sorrily mistaken. If you're eating HFCS 90 then perhaps it is more toxic, but for the most part they are on equal footing.

It's easy to look at this cynically but it's not unreasonable to change the conversation. Google's exploitation of "open" has been disingenuous at best. When you try to square their high ideals against reality, you end up in an uncomfortable spot.

The fact is, Android's openness does not make it to the end user. Its openness is exploited for the benefit of the carriers to load branded crapware onto the device, disable specific features and other nonsense. Don't like this? Too bad. Android's openness isn't for you, now that carriers and manufacturers are getting wise to your hackery tricks. They're going to make it as hard as possible to root your Android phone. So you'd better get used to that awesome Blockbuster app.

In the end, iOS and Android devices are on even footing in terms of big companies trying to control the final experience.

Which leaves us with one thing: motivations.

Carrier motivations are to fuck you out of as much money as humanly possible in the short term. In the past that meant disabling device features to force you into their ecosystem – I'm sure this will continue one way or another. They'll load branded garbage onto your device. They'll put specific marketplaces on your device, and maybe even remove Google's if they want to. Their manufacturing partners will happily conspire with them on this, including the firmware fuse that prevents rooting your device so you can make it somewhat clean again.

Apple is no less ruthless with its control, but it exercises it for a different purpose: To deliver the most integrated, user-friendly, clean experience possible. (edit: and so, Apple's play is the converse: to maximize your cheerful purchases of Apple gear in the long term – thanks, matwood)

If you're a carrier, Android's openness makes it much more valuable than iOS in the short term. In that, Google's piety will ring true. If you're an end user, the net gain of that openness is zero, and at times it's even a loss.

I trust Apple infinitely more than I trust the carriers to make something I'll enjoy using. And that's the key to understand. With Apple, what I buy will always be clean. I'll always instantly understand the tradeoffs. With Android, it's going to be a gamble. How hard has my carrier boned this device? I'll have to research if I'm a nerd or be surprised if I'm everyone else. And there goes the power of Android as a brand.

Android is no longer Google. Android is the carriers.

When was the last time you heard someone write those guys a love letter?

I think he means that it is up to the users to decide how to sync their android device with whatever future devices they'll own. With the iPhone, you'll just buy the next generation device and your settings will easily migrate over. With android, you might switch from droid to htc desire and it will be up to you to migrate your data & settings. With fragmentation it makes this harder simply because carriers can prevent OTA updates and force stuff like the sense ui on their customers.

"The fact is, Android's openness does not make it to the end user."

Android's openness has made it to those who want the openness. The fact that my phone OS is open is the thing I care about.

(I'm running SkyRaider 3.3 on my HTC Incredible on Verizon.)

For those who would like to listen to exactly what Steve Jobs said, the audio is posted at http://www.apple.com/investor/ and will probably be there for about 10 - 15 days.