3 ms·

I'm not here to argue on the fine points of China policy or human rights. I just don't think it's fair to conflate the decisions one company makes towards what

I'm not here to argue on the fine points of China policy or human rights. I just don't think it's fair to conflate the decisions one company makes towards what it thinks are good for engineering or business with every possible outcome of those decisions or how others can exploit them. Similarly, I don't accept arguments against socialism because of the trainwrecks from the past that have claimed to be socialist. And yes, when presented with a wall of text consisting of mostly emotional arguments talking past my points, I started skimming. Finally, you really shouldn't stoop to ad-hominem like you did at the end of your post. You have no idea who I am or my life experience, and even if you did, it's still not a valid argument regardless of my circumstances. Try to be less sanctimonious.

tolmasky 5y ago
> I just don't think it's fair to conflate the decisions one company makes towards what it thinks are good for engineering or business with every possible outcome of those decisions or how others can exploit them. If the consequences of the decisions a company makes aren't a good metric for whether they are good decisions or not, then what is? We're talking about the largest company on Earth that often has a larger effect on the world than many countries do, and you want to take "outcomes" off the table for argument? > I'm not here to argue on the fine points of China policy or human rights. Oh, I'm aware, as you seem more than willing to throw out anachronistic arguments (like using the Chinese Firewall as an excuse before it was in place), and then immediately try to change the subject when it's clear you're out of your depth. > And yes, when presented with a wall of text consisting of mostly emotional arguments talking past my points, I started skimming. I'm not sure how you can know it's emotional when you've admitted to not having read it. I'm also perplexed as to why you bother responding if you aren't willing to read what you're responding to. It's like writing a review for a movie you haven't seen, it's not going to be a good review. *> Finally, you really shouldn't stoop to ad-hominem [...] Try to be less sanctimonious." Some would argue that blanket describing an entire post that someone invested time in writing as "emotional" to the point of not needing to be read is a fairly bold and "sanctimonious" value-judgement. I at least take the time to read your responses before drawing any conclusions.
- sixstringtheory 5y ago
  > Oh, I'm aware, as you seem more than willing to throw out anachronistic arguments (like using the Chinese Firewall as an excuse before it was in place), and then immediately try to change the subject when it's clear you're out of your depth. You were correct, and you seem to know much more about history than I do. All I can do is learn, but again, we aren't here to talk about the timeline of the HK protests. You may have a valid point bringing it up with Apple's pull on the world, but that's not the whole picture. That's all I was trying to say. > I'm not sure how you can know it's emotional when you've admitted to not having read it I read a lot of it but after the third time seeing you mention a detail I'd already told you wasn't relevant, yeah, I stopped trying so hard. Hopefully you trust me when I say I've read everything else you've written, not sure how you think I could keep replying to your quotes otherwise. > Some would argue that blanket describing an entire post that someone invested time in writing as "emotional" to the point of not needing to be read is a fairly bold and "sanctimonious" value-judgement Not the same thing as what you were trying to do at all. You tried to pigeonhole me into some class of person in order to undercut my arguments. I merely pointed out that you were letting your emotions run away with your arguments... indeed, you did talk by my point, multiple times.
  - tolmasky 5y ago
    > You may have a valid point bringing it up with Apple's pull on the world, but that's not the whole picture. That's all I was trying to say. > You tried to pigeonhole me into some class of person in order to undercut my arguments. I guess I didn't think it was much of a stretch to assume that someone who conveys the position of "sure, people fighting for their freedoms and journalists evading censorship are valid points -- BUT, that's not the whole picture, remember how bad Windows was?" is unlikely to have had to face these issues. For the record, that wouldn't make you bad, I haven't had to face these issues either. And you're right, for all I know it may very well be the case that you're typing this from a laptop in the desert fighting for water rights or something, but still open minded enough to be just as concerned about the practical business desires of Apple's AppStore. I simply think your post repeatedly skipping the points about Tor gave off a sense of irreverence with regard to them, arguably just as insulting as assuming you haven't had to deal with them. I'm sure you can understand any frustration that might generate, considering you've now admitted you may have not read them. That being said, I don't think an outsider reading my post would think it is really all that "emotional". Passionate perhaps. Either way, I think you mentioned that that wasn't what we were arguing about. I guess I don't know where the demarcation lines of what we're arguing about are. I'm simply arguing about the effects of the AppStore, and what I believe would be the benefits of other alternatives, to Apple, customers, and yes, the world. As you yourself said, "the whole picture." I began this thread by stating that pricing was not the real problem, so I think I certainly hinted as much. My only hope is that our conversation has perhaps introduced you to concerns about the AppStore beyond the IMO tired discussion of whether 30% is or isn't too high, which is the unfortunate form that this argument usually takes, since it is usually presented as "Apple's interests" vs. "3rd party developers' interests," but that I think is ultimately just a small part of the conversation.

tolmasky 5y ago

> I just don't think it's fair to conflate the decisions one company makes towards what it thinks are good for engineering or business with every possible outcome of those decisions or how others can exploit them. If the consequences of the decisions a company makes aren't a good metric for whether they are good decisions or not, then what is? We're talking about the largest company on Earth that often has a larger effect on the world than many countries do, and you want to take "outcomes" off the table for argument? > I'm not here to argue on the fine points of China policy or human rights. Oh, I'm aware, as you seem more than willing to throw out anachronistic arguments (like using the Chinese Firewall as an excuse before it was in place), and then immediately try to change the subject when it's clear you're out of your depth. > And yes, when presented with a wall of text consisting of mostly emotional arguments talking past my points, I started skimming. I'm not sure how you can know it's emotional when you've admitted to not having read it. I'm also perplexed as to why you bother responding if you aren't willing to read what you're responding to. It's like writing a review for a movie you haven't seen, it's not going to be a good review. *> Finally, you really shouldn't stoop to ad-hominem [...] Try to be less sanctimonious." Some would argue that blanket describing an entire post that someone invested time in writing as "emotional" to the point of not needing to be read is a fairly bold and "sanctimonious" value-judgement. I at least take the time to read your responses before drawing any conclusions.

sixstringtheory 5y ago
> Oh, I'm aware, as you seem more than willing to throw out anachronistic arguments (like using the Chinese Firewall as an excuse before it was in place), and then immediately try to change the subject when it's clear you're out of your depth. You were correct, and you seem to know much more about history than I do. All I can do is learn, but again, we aren't here to talk about the timeline of the HK protests. You may have a valid point bringing it up with Apple's pull on the world, but that's not the whole picture. That's all I was trying to say. > I'm not sure how you can know it's emotional when you've admitted to not having read it I read a lot of it but after the third time seeing you mention a detail I'd already told you wasn't relevant, yeah, I stopped trying so hard. Hopefully you trust me when I say I've read everything else you've written, not sure how you think I could keep replying to your quotes otherwise. > Some would argue that blanket describing an entire post that someone invested time in writing as "emotional" to the point of not needing to be read is a fairly bold and "sanctimonious" value-judgement Not the same thing as what you were trying to do at all. You tried to pigeonhole me into some class of person in order to undercut my arguments. I merely pointed out that you were letting your emotions run away with your arguments... indeed, you did talk by my point, multiple times.
- tolmasky 5y ago
  > You may have a valid point bringing it up with Apple's pull on the world, but that's not the whole picture. That's all I was trying to say. > You tried to pigeonhole me into some class of person in order to undercut my arguments. I guess I didn't think it was much of a stretch to assume that someone who conveys the position of "sure, people fighting for their freedoms and journalists evading censorship are valid points -- BUT, that's not the whole picture, remember how bad Windows was?" is unlikely to have had to face these issues. For the record, that wouldn't make you bad, I haven't had to face these issues either. And you're right, for all I know it may very well be the case that you're typing this from a laptop in the desert fighting for water rights or something, but still open minded enough to be just as concerned about the practical business desires of Apple's AppStore. I simply think your post repeatedly skipping the points about Tor gave off a sense of irreverence with regard to them, arguably just as insulting as assuming you haven't had to deal with them. I'm sure you can understand any frustration that might generate, considering you've now admitted you may have not read them. That being said, I don't think an outsider reading my post would think it is really all that "emotional". Passionate perhaps. Either way, I think you mentioned that that wasn't what we were arguing about. I guess I don't know where the demarcation lines of what we're arguing about are. I'm simply arguing about the effects of the AppStore, and what I believe would be the benefits of other alternatives, to Apple, customers, and yes, the world. As you yourself said, "the whole picture." I began this thread by stating that pricing was not the real problem, so I think I certainly hinted as much. My only hope is that our conversation has perhaps introduced you to concerns about the AppStore beyond the IMO tired discussion of whether 30% is or isn't too high, which is the unfortunate form that this argument usually takes, since it is usually presented as "Apple's interests" vs. "3rd party developers' interests," but that I think is ultimately just a small part of the conversation.