Perhaps "scale" wasn't the best word. I'm not talking about resolution or anything so petty. I'm talking about using the limitations of the iPhone to work out what the actual important content is for your site and then use that as the basis for the site no matter where it's being shown. As a designer, you should be asking yourself "if this isn't important enough to make it to the iPhone version, why have I got it on the "real" version of the site. It's the principle of throwing stuff away until it no longer works, then putting the last thing back in.

A good example is the new Engadget site. It's a little sparse on the iPhone, but it's actually way easier to use than the monstrosity that is now their home page in a desktop browser.

Just to nitpick, Vimeo works perfectly on iPhone and, in fact, has an iPhone optimised interface.

As an aside, more people should develop their site to work on an iPhone first, then scale it up. It forces you to decide what it *actually* important on the site. If it isn't needed on iPhone, why is it needed on the full version?

Because we're tidier?

I run a site that has around 130,000-140,000 pageviews/day that is funded off advertising. I would like to move it to a site that, although it probably will never be a "business", might at least be able to cover its costs without advertising. However, I am quite happy to recommend users to adblock if they don't like the ads and have no problem with them using it since I do so myself. The user sets up their browser to request the content they want, if they don't want to request content from ad networks fine, it's none of my business. They agree to nothing when they land on a page and I can have no expectation that they will view ads, though it's great if they do. If I can't come up with a way to monetise the site except through advertising, that's *my* problem.

Opera was also not free at the time.

Yes, Apple's campus is not Jerhico, buglers would have little effect.

And people ask what the point of having the monarchy around is.

And then threaten to close those kitchens when there's the possibility they might have to provide benefits to same sex partners in accordance with proposed law. In other words, using their "good works" as a stick to enforce their religious beliefs into the law. Moral, my arse.

But this story is in the Daily Mail. Since I don't believe anything they say maybe Russia *hasn't* denied it?

You don't sign a license agreement saying you won't put the engine in another car. Now, you can argue whether or not license agreements are fair or not and you can work your ass off to get the law changed so that you actually own the software you buy instead of just licensing it (good luck with that), but at the minute the law is on Apple's side.

Every other company also makes 5% margin compared to Apple's 30%*, Should Apple also cut their margins to be with the cool crowd?

*figures pulled from ass, but not far from reality.

Please explain to me why I am a fool for buying the system that best enables me to do my work? I have, at various times, primarily used Windows, Linux and OSX and, currently, OSX is the system that works best for me. Considering the price differences amount to a couple of hours pay yet the productivity gains amount to more than that every month, wouldn't I be a fool *not* to use it?

I think the UK is pretty well sorted since we have no "influencing" borders to persuade us to change. Any idea why an island would have decided it would be worth the effort to make the transition?