4 ms·

I really want to see income levels as well. There's no denying that the article didn't retort with actual data, a huge flaw. I even went to the end of the art

I really want to see income levels as well. There's no denying that the article didn't retort with actual data, a huge flaw. I even went to the end of the article expecting to see a data-driven response, and was disappointed that there wasn't one. If you are interested in my honest opinion, I don't feel like you've refuted anything. May I remind you, the article pointed out the skewed nature of the charts and claimed that was misleading. I think that in order to refute that, you would have to supply reasoning as to why it was not misleading or skewed. Don't you agree? I will concede that if you feel like this is a faulty stance and you don't think you need to refute it, that is fine. Why refute something you believe to be patently false? It feels like you're attempting to champion something here, and you expect me to do the same. That seems to be the central theme with a lot of the responses I'm seeing here. Why so defensive? What's wrong with someone pointing out bad data? Isn't that something worth looking into?

mikeryan 15y ago
Without actual numbers nothing was refuted in the article either. The original article is trying to say that the 7% of revenues numbers could be wrong by pointing out some flaws in the data collection. But since it doesn't have its own numbers to counter with then the whole thing is a bunch of handwaving. Its strange to call someone out for "not refuting" an article which doesn't actually refute anything itself. Its like asking someone to prove a negative.
onemoreact 15y ago
I think he could have pointed out the error in a tweet and I would have been fine if someone had linked such a tweet. Having read a little more I was expecting a little more. And sure he presented a new idea, but it's a well worn argument with plenty of evidence on both sides of the issue. When you break it down there are two arguments one of which was well supported and another that was left hanging. And leaving me hanging makes me feel that the first point was simply a straw man being torn down which left a bitter taste in my mouth. PS: I have little skin in this game, Edit: I suspect Android may reach parity with Apple, but this article did little but annoy me and convince me that we are far from that parity. aka years vs months.
- esmevane 15y ago
  I don't know if android and iOS will be matched any time soon. One day, cars could fly (more frequently than they do now). I'm with you on the essence of the article being worth a blurb or a micropost of some sort. It was an objection article, without any substantiative data. I think my root motivation here was the desire to see that substantiative data, which I think another poster in this comments has provided. The numbers ARE pretty low in comparison by that data point.

mikeryan 15y ago

Without actual numbers nothing was refuted in the article either. The original article is trying to say that the 7% of revenues numbers could be wrong by pointing out some flaws in the data collection. But since it doesn't have its own numbers to counter with then the whole thing is a bunch of handwaving. Its strange to call someone out for "not refuting" an article which doesn't actually refute anything itself. Its like asking someone to prove a negative.

onemoreact 15y ago

I think he could have pointed out the error in a tweet and I would have been fine if someone had linked such a tweet. Having read a little more I was expecting a little more. And sure he presented a new idea, but it's a well worn argument with plenty of evidence on both sides of the issue. When you break it down there are two arguments one of which was well supported and another that was left hanging. And leaving me hanging makes me feel that the first point was simply a straw man being torn down which left a bitter taste in my mouth. PS: I have little skin in this game, Edit: I suspect Android may reach parity with Apple, but this article did little but annoy me and convince me that we are far from that parity. aka years vs months.

esmevane 15y ago
I don't know if android and iOS will be matched any time soon. One day, cars could fly (more frequently than they do now). I'm with you on the essence of the article being worth a blurb or a micropost of some sort. It was an objection article, without any substantiative data. I think my root motivation here was the desire to see that substantiative data, which I think another poster in this comments has provided. The numbers ARE pretty low in comparison by that data point.