I wonder that myself. It has something to do with a feeling that people aren't understanding Apple in tech circles, and that we have a lot to learn from them as a company. In this case, I think people are underestimating the damage to Apple from this leak. It's not a coincidence that Steve was CEO of Pixar: Apple doesn't just sell gadgets, but the entire narrative - about the company, about Steve, and about their devices. It's inherent in their secrecy, in their packaging, in their stores, in their presentation, and in the unveiling. Preserving this "Willy Wonka" narrative is why they go to such lengths to avoid leaks, not because of some manic control issues.
Also, I hate to find myself disagreeing with the "stream of thought" around here: for example, I think 3.3.1 is good for startups because it's unenforceable (hence, hackers and founders get to ignore it and get a competitive advantage against risk-averse competitors). Another example: I think one can easily paint Android as evil (Google is clearly developing it at a loss to commoditize complementary markets). It's the equivalent of Microsoft funding extensive open hardware design at a loss. As a heuristic, open is good, but reality isn't that simple: had Microsoft done that, IBM and Intel would never had a reason to invest the billions into chip development they did.
I love Google and think they do many great things for the world, but I easily see a different perspective in the case of Android. I can see how what Apple is doing could be about Steve's ego issues, but also about making the best devices possible.
Also, I hate to find myself disagreeing with the "stream of thought" around here: for example, I think 3.3.1 is good for startups because it's unenforceable (hence, hackers and founders get to ignore it and get a competitive advantage against risk-averse competitors). Another example: I think one can easily paint Android as evil (Google is clearly developing it at a loss to commoditize complementary markets). It's the equivalent of Microsoft funding extensive open hardware design at a loss. As a heuristic, open is good, but reality isn't that simple: had Microsoft done that, IBM and Intel would never had a reason to invest the billions into chip development they did.
I love Google and think they do many great things for the world, but I easily see a different perspective in the case of Android. I can see how what Apple is doing could be about Steve's ego issues, but also about making the best devices possible.