2 ms·

Can we at least agree that this is 50% less bad. Or perhaps 25% less bad? 10%? Ultimately the impression I get from posts like yours is some people just think

Can we at least agree that this is 50% less bad. Or perhaps 25% less bad? 10%? Ultimately the impression I get from posts like yours is some people just think whatever Apple does is bad regardless of how it affects others.

bogwog 6y ago
> Can we at least agree that this is 50% less bad. Or perhaps 25% less bad? 10%? No, because as has been said many times already, it's a deflection tactic. Focusing on whether 15% is less bad than 30% is a bad thing to do because it accomplishes exactly what Apple's underhanded deflection tactic seeks to accomplish. But if you really need that addressed, here's a response to your very important question: no, 15% is not less bad than 30% because it means Apple makes less money, and if Apple makes less money they might have to abandon their fancy new M1 chips, and the pace of technological progress will once again fall into stagnation. Sure, small devs will make some more money, but those small devs aren't giving the world shiny toys with rounded corners. > Ultimately the impression I get from posts like yours is some people just think whatever Apple does is bad regardless of how it affects others. So if Apple releases a cure for cancer, you get the impression that I'll think that's bad? What is even the point of you writing this, is it an argument? Are you trying to passive-aggressively call me something negative? How does this even relate to the discussion?
- ogre_codes 6y ago
  > What is even the point of you writing this, is it an argument? When someone tells me that something which is good is bad. I point it out. When they insist on defending that with a bunch of irrational hand-waving, I'm going to call them on it. Everything you've said that makes this "Bad" is supposition and conjecture. Everything which is good about it is actual benefits people will see. Even if it is indeed "deflection", the effect is a massive benefit for a huge number of small developers. That you refuse to recognize that is just sad.

bogwog 6y ago

> Can we at least agree that this is 50% less bad. Or perhaps 25% less bad? 10%? No, because as has been said many times already, it's a deflection tactic. Focusing on whether 15% is less bad than 30% is a bad thing to do because it accomplishes exactly what Apple's underhanded deflection tactic seeks to accomplish. But if you really need that addressed, here's a response to your very important question: no, 15% is not less bad than 30% because it means Apple makes less money, and if Apple makes less money they might have to abandon their fancy new M1 chips, and the pace of technological progress will once again fall into stagnation. Sure, small devs will make some more money, but those small devs aren't giving the world shiny toys with rounded corners. > Ultimately the impression I get from posts like yours is some people just think whatever Apple does is bad regardless of how it affects others. So if Apple releases a cure for cancer, you get the impression that I'll think that's bad? What is even the point of you writing this, is it an argument? Are you trying to passive-aggressively call me something negative? How does this even relate to the discussion?

ogre_codes 6y ago
> What is even the point of you writing this, is it an argument? When someone tells me that something which is good is bad. I point it out. When they insist on defending that with a bunch of irrational hand-waving, I'm going to call them on it. Everything you've said that makes this "Bad" is supposition and conjecture. Everything which is good about it is actual benefits people will see. Even if it is indeed "deflection", the effect is a massive benefit for a huge number of small developers. That you refuse to recognize that is just sad.