3 ms·

Quoting you: “Because without Apple you only have Android.” https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25350315 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25350315

by zepto 6y ago

fsflover 6y ago
Yes, unless you know about alternatives. This is why I commented in the first place.
- zepto 6y ago
  Right, but both of us believe that the OP didn’t know about the alternatives, so they clearly were saying they did want Apple. If you want to claim that they would change their mind about wanting Apple if they knew about the alternatives, that is unlikely but not impossible. However when they made the comment, they clearly did want Apple because otherwise they wouldn’t have cared about whether anyone ‘stopped Apple’.
  - fsflover 6y ago
    They might also choose Apple, since otherwise it would be Android (i.e., even worse). Apple has a lot of drawbacks too after all. This is not what I would consider "wanting", it's a forced choice (just like choosing Android when Apple is "stopped" would be).
    - zepto 6y ago
      That’s not a real distinction. There are always a finite number of platforms to choose from and they all always have drawbacks so any choice of platform can be arbitrarily deemed ‘forced’ by this logic. The distinction therefore has no meaning, and doesn’t change the implication that the OP wanted Apple.
      - fsflover 6y ago
        Duopoly is not the same as "a finite number of platforms to choose". Duopoly means both companies can restrict the rights of users and stay in business, despite the users may not like them.
        zepto 6y ago
        That doesn’t change anything that supports the claim that this was a forced choice and therefore the OP didn’t ‘want’ Apple. No finite number of businesses is guaranteed to produce a product to a given person’s liking, duopoly or not. In any case, according to you, GNU/Linux phones are an option, so it’s not a duopoly. Also, let’s note that you’ve conceded they they do want Apple, but are now trying to make the case that this isn’t a ‘real’ kind of want.
        fsflover 6y ago
        Yes, it does change something. I know many people who hate both companies, but choose Apple as a lesser evil. And yes, this is exactly not a 'real' kind of want. Given that, and that the OP didn't say they like Apple, you cannot neglect a poosibility of them not wanting Apple.
        zepto 6y ago
        This is a straight up fallacy. You are attempting to redefine want as like. Want doesn’t imply like and you can want things that are available even if you’d prefer (or want even more) an option that isn’t. In fact this is always true of things we want. It doesn’t invalidate the meaning of the word want. Examples: “The prisoner wants to be released from solitary confinement back into general population.”, “Voters wanted a candidate who would reduce taxes.”, “Jack wants his father to beat up the bullies at school”.
        fsflover 6y ago
        https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/want https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/want What you mean here is "have to", not "want".

Quoting you: “Because without Apple you only have Android.” https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25350315 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25350315

by zepto 6y ago

Quoting you: “Because without Apple you only have Android.” https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25350315 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25350315

fsflover 6y ago

Yes, unless you know about alternatives. This is why I commented in the first place.

zepto 6y ago
Right, but both of us believe that the OP didn’t know about the alternatives, so they clearly were saying they did want Apple. If you want to claim that they would change their mind about wanting Apple if they knew about the alternatives, that is unlikely but not impossible. However when they made the comment, they clearly did want Apple because otherwise they wouldn’t have cared about whether anyone ‘stopped Apple’.
- fsflover 6y ago
  They might also choose Apple, since otherwise it would be Android (i.e., even worse). Apple has a lot of drawbacks too after all. This is not what I would consider "wanting", it's a forced choice (just like choosing Android when Apple is "stopped" would be).
  - zepto 6y ago
    That’s not a real distinction. There are always a finite number of platforms to choose from and they all always have drawbacks so any choice of platform can be arbitrarily deemed ‘forced’ by this logic. The distinction therefore has no meaning, and doesn’t change the implication that the OP wanted Apple.
    - fsflover 6y ago
      Duopoly is not the same as "a finite number of platforms to choose". Duopoly means both companies can restrict the rights of users and stay in business, despite the users may not like them.
      - zepto 6y ago
        That doesn’t change anything that supports the claim that this was a forced choice and therefore the OP didn’t ‘want’ Apple. No finite number of businesses is guaranteed to produce a product to a given person’s liking, duopoly or not. In any case, according to you, GNU/Linux phones are an option, so it’s not a duopoly. Also, let’s note that you’ve conceded they they do want Apple, but are now trying to make the case that this isn’t a ‘real’ kind of want.
        fsflover 6y ago
        Yes, it does change something. I know many people who hate both companies, but choose Apple as a lesser evil. And yes, this is exactly not a 'real' kind of want. Given that, and that the OP didn't say they like Apple, you cannot neglect a poosibility of them not wanting Apple.
        zepto 6y ago
        This is a straight up fallacy. You are attempting to redefine want as like. Want doesn’t imply like and you can want things that are available even if you’d prefer (or want even more) an option that isn’t. In fact this is always true of things we want. It doesn’t invalidate the meaning of the word want. Examples: “The prisoner wants to be released from solitary confinement back into general population.”, “Voters wanted a candidate who would reduce taxes.”, “Jack wants his father to beat up the bullies at school”.
        fsflover 6y ago
        https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/want https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/want What you mean here is "have to", not "want".