The Register normally dwells in the deep end, so we can't say they've gone off it -- so in this instance, let's just say that they've gone completely under water.
The writer unwisely starts off the piece trying to engage us emotionally with terminology like the "Church of Jobs" and the "evil M$ empire," and then asserts with no justification whatsoever that "many believe" that Apple is a "warm, cuddly and open company." Even if we knew what the hell that meant -- who, exactly believes this? It's a straw-man job, plain and simple. What a terrible way to start a piece which purports to be an "objective assessment."
Then we get to the crux of the matter -- whether Apple is "closed" or "open." Do we even know what these terms mean in this context? Not really. That's left to your own imagination, and the imaginations of their "survey" respondents, who were asked to comment on openness based on their own personal and completely subjective definitions of the terms. At best, a waste of time.
It only gets worse from there. Who is this "regulator" of which he speaks, which prevents Microsoft from these horrible transgressions of which Apple is accused? On what basis can he say that "the regulator" has not "targeted it yet?" If this is somehow inevitable, then why is that so, pray tell?
I could go on, but why bother? The article is just undiluted hogwash.
