Following a twitter link involves copying the url, pasting it to the address bar, backspacing the "#!/" and adding "m." before twitter.com, because twitter's dumb hashbang scheme can't deal with noscript. Reading the tl;dr is much faster!
Some generic company apologist, unrelated to the events in question, (kind of) apologized. Until the manager in question who is actually responsible apologies, I don't see why that should count for anything. This is becoming a depressingly common pattern, big company screws up then someone completely unrelated offers a generic apology while the people actually responsible never say anything. If the apology isn't from the someone involved in the screw-up then it doesn't count.
And while we're busy apologizing, perhaps the person responsible for this stupid PR event should apologies to Microsoft for further damaging an already tarnished brand.
Ben Rudolph isn't "[s]ome generic company apologist, unrelated to the events in question" - he's one of the guys behind the Smoked By Windows Phone promotion.[1]
That tweet is drawing a very specious connection. Android did not, as far as I can tell, copy any of Apple's algorithms or piggyback on top of them. It is a novel implementation of some of the same ideas in the iPhone.
Similarly, it's plagiarism if you take a Harry Potter book and publish your own version with the names changed, but James Patterson's "Witch & Wizard" has a copyright of its own despite being rather similar in concept.
(Edited to remove question about phrasing thanks to atularora's clarification.)
While Android it obviously inspired by iOS, it's not a direct copy. A better example of Google's hypocrisy is their outright copying news articles into Google News despite the source companies asking them not to.
I don't see how that's relevant at all. Google gave them the option of not being indexed. They decided they would rather be indexed by Google than not. The complaint that TripAdvisor doesn't get precise, fine-grained control over what Google does with its index seems like a fairly different issue.
That could be, but it would make even less sense to me. If they're talking about copying Apple, at least they did copy something from Apple, if only an idea. The copyright infringement claims have never been substantiated at all — it's just an accusation.
via http://www.pcworld.com/article/2066780/did-satoshi-nakamoto-...