Even if it was stupid, that doesn't stop something from being courageous.

What stops it from being courageous isn't that it's stupid, but that "taking a lot of shit" isn't inherently dangerous. Apple's a behemoth with a captive audience, and their past history taught them that they could push I/O changes on their customers with little risk. Little risk = no courage needed.

They've been courageous in the past, and its generally worked out well for them (keyboards?), but no two cases are the same, and the past doesn't determine the future, so it still takes courage. It's still risky. There are plenty of companies that wouldn't have the courage to do something that is going to, in the short term at least, annoy so many people.

Well yes, it's technically courageous, in the sense that punching a random person on the street is courageous.

Whether you like something or not has nothing to do with whether it is courageous or not.

I don't disagree with you, I'd just question why that particular kind of courageousness is relevant to the discussion.

My point is that there isn't some different kind of courage that separates this from everyday notions of "courage".

Many people mock the idea that removing the headphone jack required any courage.

No, we're mocking the idea that Apple would use "courage" as an excuse for stupidity while also pointing out that they go hand in hand. Yeah, a guy running up to a bear and punching it in the face is "courageous", but it should be no surprise when the bear gets sick of the guy's antics and decides that it's maul o'clock.

In this simile, the consumers are the bear, and Apple is the moron punching it.

Say they're stupid all you like, but whether something is "courageous" and whether something is "stupid" are completely separate issues.