3 ms·
As usual on HN, Apple is always given the benefit of the doubt, where any article is interpreted in the strongest possible way in favour of Apple. Compare this
by admax88q 6y ago
As usual on HN, Apple is always given the benefit of the doubt, where any article is interpreted in the strongest possible way in favour of Apple. Compare this to any article about Google, where anything they do is interpreted in the worst possible way for Google.
AMP was my favourite example. You could interpret AMP as Google ensuring a better experience for users, or as Google highjacking the web into a closed ecosystem to squeeze out competitors. HN threads about AMP almost always concluded that it was a terrible overreach by Google, anti-competitive, and bad for everyone. But an article suggesting that Apple maybe put the FBI ahead of users in this instance? Dismissed because OP is "inclined to believe."
- random5634 6y agoAMP so obviously was better than ginormous ad filled sites that jank and jump like crazy it wasn't even funny. The idea that there was no user benefit was just a HN view - out in the real world plenty of people learned the lightening icon meant both faster and usually much cleaner and easier to browse. I think in part a fair number of HN folks maybe do web dev work, and having google restrict the junk they can dump on users was annoying to them. A fair bit of the anti-trust rhetoric is not coming from consumers or consumer advocates but other businesses - some of which have just horribly seedy business models (the recommendation engine searching sites with all the auto-generated fake reviews complaining of de-prioritizations etc).