3 ms·

Your choice is to be a slave to a monopoly. Mine is to force a monopoly to stop abusing (and brainwashing!) their customers. I repeat once again: you should no

Your choice is to be a slave to a monopoly. Mine is to force a monopoly to stop abusing (and brainwashing!) their customers. I repeat once again: you should not have the ability to impose your lack of the need for freedom on other people. "Buy another device" is not a valid choice. Users buy in because they are advertised 'great user experience', but then this turns into 'we'll block apps that you need on request from your local authocrats'. They aren't told in advance that Apple will abuse their monopoly position and unfair and abusive practice of not allowing third party installs.

quesera 5y ago
Your choice is to use dramatic language to willfully misunderstand the reality of the situation. You should not (and you do not) have the ability to impose your demands on any manufacturer of any product. You cannot compel the work of another human being. Product advertising always comes with presumed context. "Less filling, tastes great" might be a lie, but even if many people agree, many others do not. "Great user experience" is about as obviously-subjective as you can get. This is a red herring. Apple does not abuse a monopoly position. Apple does not have a monopoly on anything. It is not unfair or abusive to not compromise their device and ecosystem (security, privacy, marketing, etc) to allow a niche use. In fact it would be a terrible technical and business decision to reduce the value of your flagship product for the vast majority of the market, to serve a sliver of same. Again: we disagree. If you can't grow past the overdramatic language of righteousness to think about this issue rationally, we will not be able to communicate. I am not insisting that you will agree with me if you are rational -- but you're presenting the arguments of someone who is incapable of thinking beyond their own nose, or believes that the truth they've found for themselves is universal. In short, like a child or a zealot.

quesera 5y ago

Your choice is to use dramatic language to willfully misunderstand the reality of the situation. You should not (and you do not) have the ability to impose your demands on any manufacturer of any product. You cannot compel the work of another human being. Product advertising always comes with presumed context. "Less filling, tastes great" might be a lie, but even if many people agree, many others do not. "Great user experience" is about as obviously-subjective as you can get. This is a red herring. Apple does not abuse a monopoly position. Apple does not have a monopoly on anything. It is not unfair or abusive to not compromise their device and ecosystem (security, privacy, marketing, etc) to allow a niche use. In fact it would be a terrible technical and business decision to reduce the value of your flagship product for the vast majority of the market, to serve a sliver of same. Again: we disagree. If you can't grow past the overdramatic language of righteousness to think about this issue rationally, we will not be able to communicate. I am not insisting that you will agree with me if you are rational -- but you're presenting the arguments of someone who is incapable of thinking beyond their own nose, or believes that the truth they've found for themselves is universal. In short, like a child or a zealot.