3 ms·

If anything is badly written and full of "straw men", "ad hominem", and dishonesty it's your comment. 1. The article doesn't say if you don't support Epic you

If anything is badly written and full of "straw men", "ad hominem", and dishonesty it's your comment. 1. The article doesn't say if you don't support Epic you don't ship apps. It says if you didn't ship ads, your opinion on the 30% cut will not impress them: > You are entitled to your opinions, but if you have no experience lecturing people that have worked in the industry for over ten years and managed to be one of the few among Millions to be profitable in this tough environment, your opinions is about as as important as your butterfly technique to Michael Phelps. 2. As you say, the Android claim is valid, even more because the authors have actual experience there, as well. This is rare and valuable information. Sure, you can always ask why, and why again, as a 5 year old child will prove, but contrary to your claim the article's weakness definitely is not a lack of thought or depth, or writing skill, and contrary to your disingenuous and one sided comment, it doesn't lack humour in presenting its argument: > Running both an iOS and an Android app, we know that the stats are right. Android users do not want to spend money. If you offer your app for 5 Dollars per year you get called a megalomanic. This is why Google hands out more than 7 Billion Dollars per year just to be the default search on iPhone. Android users don’t spend money on apps. Not spending money is the Android brand. Android is not an alternative, it’s an alternate reality. 3. The main line argument is "Lower the share, Apple!", not "Epic is right". When it comes to Epic the article it destroys Epic: > "Of course, Epic is not an immaculate saint. Fortnite is not the hero, it’s the heroin of games. It frightens parents, especially those who are addicted to Fortnite themselves, to death. Fortnite has an appetite for time that would devour years of childhoods if not stopped. Epic doesn’t want a reduction to 5%, it wants to pay nothing and run its own store on iOS. Which, let’s be real, has to be a negotiation tactic. On its own store, Epic charges 12% to developers. As some will point out, Sony demands a similar share and it’s not entirely clear if one can get around it. And, to make your head spin a bit more with corporate ping-pong: Let’s not leave out that Sony has a stake in Epic Games." Every second comment on HackerNews tries to go meta and claim uses "Straw Men" and "Ad Hominem" and "Hypocrisy!" That rhetoric is getting old. Where is ad hominem? Which hominem is unfairly attacked to disqualify their valid argument? That people without experience can have an opinion without experience, but it is not relevant. That's just logical. Straw men? Where is the straw man. What argument is made to disqualify another that is valid? And how is it disingenuous? I give you one thing: It is one sided though. It's fully the perspective of a developer dealing with Apple for over 10 years. And it doesn't pretend to be above it all. It can't be and doesn't want to be. It's also rare to see developers speaking out against Apple. I know that this doesn't matter. But it had to be said. Have a nice Sunday.

zepto 6y ago
You are being way too favorable to the author. The ad hominem is that they dismiss a bunch of positions as ‘bullshit’ based on their own (true) claim to experience, and the assertion that the people making these claims don’t have the experience. I.e. ‘if you don’t see things as clearly as the author, you are just a commenter with no experience’. Any favorable reading of the author’s position is based on believing they are sincere and correct about Epic lying about what they want. There is no favorable reading where one of these conditions is not met. If the author is not being sincere, the piece is disingenuous. If Epic is not lying, the piece is delusional and self-contradictory. But this central conceit is not justified at all by any reasoning. The consequences of it being true are not explored. The fact is that Epic’s positioning doesn’t allow for Apple to settle in this way. There is no way for them to do so without entering into an illegal cartel with Epic. The fact that they are honest about Epic’s flaws is very positive but it doesn’t change the overall positioning of the article. Epic is not ‘destroyed’ at all. That is a misrepresentation. They simply aren’t held out to be a saint. I can make a statement like “Apple has engaged in egregious corporate behavior and was guilty fo conspiring to hold down developer wages, so why should we think they aren’t doing this on a grand scale with the App Store?” This is a true statement followed by a valid question. It’s also innuendo. But more importantly, the fact I’m willing to make it does nothing to change the rest of the arguments I’m making here. Do you suddenly think I’m being fair? I wouldn’t imagine so. The positioning of the author is that much reasoning about this is ‘bullshit’, or the work of people who don’t have enough experience. If the piece were a HN comment in response to another commenter, it would be against the guidelines. It’s a bad piece. It doesn’t make any real arguments, rather it seeks to defeat arguments with innuendo. I agree with you about the value of the opinions in the piece, and that it’s good to have them shared, but that doesn’t take away from the overall criticism. A bad or disingenuous argument can include many important and valuable points, and still be bad.
- totooto 6y ago
  You are describing yourself without realising it.

zepto 6y ago

You are being way too favorable to the author. The ad hominem is that they dismiss a bunch of positions as ‘bullshit’ based on their own (true) claim to experience, and the assertion that the people making these claims don’t have the experience. I.e. ‘if you don’t see things as clearly as the author, you are just a commenter with no experience’. Any favorable reading of the author’s position is based on believing they are sincere and correct about Epic lying about what they want. There is no favorable reading where one of these conditions is not met. If the author is not being sincere, the piece is disingenuous. If Epic is not lying, the piece is delusional and self-contradictory. But this central conceit is not justified at all by any reasoning. The consequences of it being true are not explored. The fact is that Epic’s positioning doesn’t allow for Apple to settle in this way. There is no way for them to do so without entering into an illegal cartel with Epic. The fact that they are honest about Epic’s flaws is very positive but it doesn’t change the overall positioning of the article. Epic is not ‘destroyed’ at all. That is a misrepresentation. They simply aren’t held out to be a saint. I can make a statement like “Apple has engaged in egregious corporate behavior and was guilty fo conspiring to hold down developer wages, so why should we think they aren’t doing this on a grand scale with the App Store?” This is a true statement followed by a valid question. It’s also innuendo. But more importantly, the fact I’m willing to make it does nothing to change the rest of the arguments I’m making here. Do you suddenly think I’m being fair? I wouldn’t imagine so. The positioning of the author is that much reasoning about this is ‘bullshit’, or the work of people who don’t have enough experience. If the piece were a HN comment in response to another commenter, it would be against the guidelines. It’s a bad piece. It doesn’t make any real arguments, rather it seeks to defeat arguments with innuendo. I agree with you about the value of the opinions in the piece, and that it’s good to have them shared, but that doesn’t take away from the overall criticism. A bad or disingenuous argument can include many important and valuable points, and still be bad.

totooto 6y ago
You are describing yourself without realising it.