4 ms·
You made the claim that companies require apps because it has lower friction for ordinary users. That claim is in error. The implication that there is nothing
by zrm 4mo ago
You made the claim that companies require apps because it has lower friction for ordinary users. That claim is in error.
The implication that there is nothing anyone can do to improve the existing state of affairs is also incorrect.
- ssl-3 4mo ago> You made the claim that companies require apps because it has lower friction for ordinary users. I did not. > That claim is in error. My motivation to further discuss a hallucination is insignificant.
- zrm 4mo ago> I did not. This is the exact quote: > And at least for connected devices at home, a dedicated app can have lower friction for initial setup for the "I'm not a computer person" crowd than other alternatives do. What good does it do you to dispute that you implied it as a justification for the status quo when your error is contained in the part you're not disputing?
- ssl-3 4mo agoI meant precisely what I wrote, and not a single word more nor less. > implied Any implied meanings are your own creations, not mine. I assure you that if I had meant something different than what I wrote, then I would have written something different instead. I'm not shy. Be well.