This is fairly common. What you are seeing is the result of limited features. Tossing an mp3 in as a ringtone isn't a default feature so obviously you're going to have a more difficult time pulling it off. however, if you were less technically inclined, just going to change from the pre-selected set would be a very simple process.
Basically, everything just works as long as you're only doing the basic stuff.
My personal opinion is that Mac OSX is no better than windows in terms of simplicity, but IOS has proven time and time again to be much easier for the less tech savvy.
And those "monopoly" charges against Microsoft were always bogus to begin with. In order to make them stick the DOJ not only had to narrow the relevant market to just "Intel-based PC desktop operating systems," which conveniently ignored millions of Apple Macintosh users at the time, but also dismiss available alternative OSs like Linux out of hand.
@Bert22306 says that everything "just works" when it comes to Apple. If so, then why did it take me two hours to figure out how to change my iPhone ringtone to an mp3 music clip? I ahd to download four apps until I found one that had instructions on what to do after creating the m4r file from the mp3. Then, I had to move the m4r to my hard drive and then back to the iPhone through iTunes to get the ringtone to work. Changing ring tones was much easier on a non-smart Samsung phone.
This is just a list of research organizations, they're all academics and therefore they're all left-wing ideologues. They all need grant money to pay for their research just so they can survive in the world of academe, and to get those grants it's much easier to pitch that they're doing research to avoid some kind of "world crisis", and they found common ground with these lefty politicos who were pitching a scheme to rob taxpayers by getting some ordinary substance that we all exhale like carbon dioxide to be declared a "pollutant" so we'd all have to pay to "get rid of" it. Of course these politicos are always looking for larger sources of revenue so this played right into their interests. I guess they got the idea through some venue they all read like Mother Jones. The only thng that's even remotely surprising is that the participants in this fraud had so little professional integrity to begin with so they have had no obvious shame in trying to pull it off. Please quit using ET to peddle your left-wing agenda, we're all sick of listening to it.
Lighten up Jack. We all understand that "global warming" IS the pseudo-science cult designed to get the "one world government" crowd even FURTHER into our pockets by mandating a carbon tax, along with UN-mandated Project 21 and all the other grand schemes of Big Socialism. There are no "Chicken Littles" in the real scientific community, please take your pseudo-science ideas somewhere where they're a little more gullible - like maybe "Coast to Coast AM"?
It is very frightening that climate-change denial is such a powerful idea that even someone who reads ET can be suckered into believing it. Be under no illusion: climate-change denial belongs very firmly in the same camp as creationism, alternative-medicine etc. Take a look at the website of any reputable scientific institution (The AAAS, NASA etc) and see which camp they're in.
There was a time when we used Microsoft for the OS, Smartware, Lotus, or WordPerfect for productivity software, Netscape for e-mail and web browsing, Norton for disk utilities, and so on. It bothered me to see our own company, and others, caving in to "all Microsoft" solutions, and even bragging about it. At the time I said, why are we bragging about this?
But see, here's the thing. When Microsoft managed to achieve this, everyone talks about breaking it up. (Not that I personally oppose that idea.) But when Apple creates a walled garden of hardware, apps, services like iTunes, this foerever-promised AppleTV, etc. everyone gushes about how great it is, and how everything "just works."
Hey, I thought that Apple was "the most valuable company." If that's the case, how come we aren't focusing on them? Or at least, *also* focusing on them?
Over the years the mantra is always changing between "diversify" and "focus on your core business". Obviously neighter is "right" just because somebody says it, both have their merrits. I would consider "focus on core business" when my resources were becomming so limited that I might loose ground or momentum there. But as long as the bank says yes I would rather keep my fingers in other waters as well in order to see upcoming business opportunities.
Now, there used to be a time when Microsoft was THE company when it came to software (IBM lurking mightyfull in the background). They had the money, got the talent, defined the rules. OK, unbelievably they failed to catch the search-engine train and they (probably) failed to get the smartphone train too. They helped Apple to recover (and I'm sure they make money out of Apples success) and Apple went PC hardware and BSD ...
BUT: The industrial and generally commercial PCs will continue to run Windows as long as MS doesn't go the Apple way and closes Windows down to non-AppStore software. They ARE moving in that direction, but is a car manufacturer going to put his assembly line control software through the AppStore for approval ? I don't think so. And I also don't think that Linux can replace Windows because Linux became such an incredible mess of 1000s of versions and philosophies - That's why Apple wins by offering just ONE package on a small number of hardwares. So in my opinion the major part of the professional market for PC operating systems will remain with MS. So they have money. They also own a lot of content and they cover a lot of ground concerning knowledge. So all they need is to grab the "next big thing" by the horns and nail it this time. I don't see why Google or Apple should always win.
So why split ? Only makes the parts weaker than the whole.
Microsoft is a big giant on itself and after recent acquisitions they have variety of business that require different experience and vision. They may require few CEOs to take the company forward. The top boss may be the one who has grown with the company. Would be a challenging situation though.