4 ms·

Dude, they were not legally obligated to do this. In fact, they could have easily ignored the vocal minority and focused on the larger consumer base. But they w

Dude, they were not legally obligated to do this. In fact, they could have easily ignored the vocal minority and focused on the larger consumer base. But they went out of their way to change their decision based on the feedback from the vocal minority which both shows great self-awareness and guts (since we all know the vocal minority is not always right, especially in terms of the bottom line).

ethbro 10y ago
> great self-awareness and guts Let's go with "shows an ability to admit they're wrong when called on it" at most.
michaelmrose 10y ago
You realize that the fact that most people are silent doesn't imply they are entirely indifferent. Especially the developers.
vonklaus 10y ago
> Dude, they were not legally obligated to do this. I did realize that. The court of public opinion is not a real entity. It was a plot-device, analogy to point out why I believe they made the correct decision which was a selfish appraisal of their leverage. I encourage their selfishness, because they should be self-interested, but I will not champion them for it. I am not a gamer, but as a technophile I have heard many people on reddit, HN and various other places commenting about how they are doing a poor job. This isn't the worlds biggest social network where they can kill messenger and force users to download their apps. This is a nascent technology that has not decided on a platform or set of platforms. They need the community to embrace them both as developers and as consumers. They also need potential customers to embrace the technology. This was a smart capitulation, but a back-pedal after they got a market reality check.