4 ms·

> You counter that with a discussion-ending argument about how much money Apple makes. The implication is that Apple's design decision favors far more users th

> You counter that with a discussion-ending argument about how much money Apple makes. The implication is that Apple's design decision favors far more users than it doesn't. In other words, the same design decisions that cost Apple one HNer nets them general consumers - so Apple can definitely survive without the HNer's business.

merdadicapra 5y ago
> The implication is that Apple's design decision favors far more users than it doesn't. That's some serious spurious correlation. https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations Globally in the tablet segment Apple has a 31% market share (https://cdnen.soyacincau.com/2021/05/210503-tablets.jpg https://cdnen.soyacincau.com/2021/05/210503-tablets.jpg), so the number say that «Apple's design decision upsets far more users than it doesn't» Many companies could «definitely survive without the HNer's business», the question is wether the HNer's opinions hold more value technically speaking or not. I mean, Saudi Aramco makes much more money than Apple, could «definitely survive without the HNer's business», but I guess nobody would say that their «design decision favors far more users than it doesn't».
casmclas 5y ago
That's certainly the implication of their text. It is not a legitimate conclusion. Given the premises "Apple has made a decision X" and "Apple has made billions of dollars since making that decision", you cannot conclude "the decision has made Apple billions of dollars". We cannot accept "All wood burns, therefore all that burns is wood" but "All of Alma Cogan is dead, but only some of the class of dead people are Alma Cogan". Lots of people disapprove of Facebook's data practices, yet they still run several of the overwhelmingly most popular social networks. Apple could be in a similar position: producing an otherwise excellent product that has a limitation people tolerate. The fact that Apple makes billions of dollars is not evidence that every single decision of theirs is the best decision for their profitability. In order for their profit to be used against the argument and comfort of a certain Hacker News commentator, we need some evidence that the revenue is because of, not despite (or unaffected by), the decisions that made the random Hacker News commentator unhappy. At best we can conclude that the decision is not such a howler that it's cost them their market viability, but perhaps if they'd made a different decision they could have owned the entire smartphone market in a way that Windows used to own the desktop OS market. (Another logical fallacy implicit in the argument is that a decision made by a powerful person is more worthy of respect than another decision. I must admit these kinds of reactionary values are extremely far from me, and I am shocked and uncomfortable to find how common they are.)

merdadicapra 5y ago

> The implication is that Apple's design decision favors far more users than it doesn't. That's some serious spurious correlation. https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations Globally in the tablet segment Apple has a 31% market share (https://cdnen.soyacincau.com/2021/05/210503-tablets.jpg https://cdnen.soyacincau.com/2021/05/210503-tablets.jpg), so the number say that «Apple's design decision upsets far more users than it doesn't» Many companies could «definitely survive without the HNer's business», the question is wether the HNer's opinions hold more value technically speaking or not. I mean, Saudi Aramco makes much more money than Apple, could «definitely survive without the HNer's business», but I guess nobody would say that their «design decision favors far more users than it doesn't».

casmclas 5y ago

That's certainly the implication of their text. It is not a legitimate conclusion. Given the premises "Apple has made a decision X" and "Apple has made billions of dollars since making that decision", you cannot conclude "the decision has made Apple billions of dollars". We cannot accept "All wood burns, therefore all that burns is wood" but "All of Alma Cogan is dead, but only some of the class of dead people are Alma Cogan". Lots of people disapprove of Facebook's data practices, yet they still run several of the overwhelmingly most popular social networks. Apple could be in a similar position: producing an otherwise excellent product that has a limitation people tolerate. The fact that Apple makes billions of dollars is not evidence that every single decision of theirs is the best decision for their profitability. In order for their profit to be used against the argument and comfort of a certain Hacker News commentator, we need some evidence that the revenue is because of, not despite (or unaffected by), the decisions that made the random Hacker News commentator unhappy. At best we can conclude that the decision is not such a howler that it's cost them their market viability, but perhaps if they'd made a different decision they could have owned the entire smartphone market in a way that Windows used to own the desktop OS market. (Another logical fallacy implicit in the argument is that a decision made by a powerful person is more worthy of respect than another decision. I must admit these kinds of reactionary values are extremely far from me, and I am shocked and uncomfortable to find how common they are.)