4 ms·

What is the point of this article? Android has sold more phones almost since the beginning. So what? The article announces victory on tablets based on predicti

by ebbv 14y ago

What is the point of this article? Android has sold more phones almost since the beginning. So what? The article announces victory on tablets based on predictions. So far the iPad continues to dominate in reality, though. Again, so what? The only point of this article seems to be "If you view technology like sports and Android is your team, let's gloat in our victory!" Which is dumb on so many levels. EDIT: Looks like OP is just a shill account for this really low quality site.

WayneDB 14y ago
Does the article have to have a point for us to talk about some cool technology that we all love? What's the point of your post? Besides that, I think the point was clearly made in the title. What's wrong with viewing tech competitors as sports teams? Do you have a problem with sports?
- ebbv 14y ago
  > Does the article have to have a point for us to talk about some cool technology that we all love? Yes there needs to be a point to have a discussion. That's kind of the definition. > What's the point of your post? That this post was pointless spam. And further that the OP should be banned for being a shill for a poor quality site. > What's wrong with viewing tech competitors as sports teams? It's childish and counter-productive. You should not have loyalty to a company based purely on its brand (like a sports team), you should choose products based on what suits your needs and tastes best. Maybe for a period of time there will be one company that keeps doing that perfectly, but you should continue to examine the competition and give them a fair shake. Unlike sports teams. That should be pretty obvious. I can't believe I had to explain it on here.
  - WayneDB 14y ago
    > Yes there needs to be a point to have a discussion. That's kind of the definition. That's one definition of discussion. Here's one for talking - "Verb. Speak in order to give information or express ideas or feelings." The article made many points. However, maybe next time they should notify you so you can judge them first. > > That this post was pointless spam. And further that the OP should be banned for being a shill for a poor quality site. Well your honor, it seems like the other root commenters on this post were able to find something to talk about from the article. I wouldn't call it spam. As a matter of fact, I learned something new while reading it. I won't bother telling you what it is because you'd probably attack me with more of your vitriol. > > It's childish and counter-productive. You should not have loyalty to a company based purely on its brand (like a sports team), you should choose products based on what suits your needs and tastes best. Should? According to you. I hold the view that people should do what they want within reason. You however seem to want to censor anything that you don't agree with. > > That should be pretty obvious. I can't believe I had to explain it on here. You sound like a know it all asshole bully who got offended because someone stepped on his toe. I can't believe I had to call you out here.

by ebbv 14y ago

WayneDB 14y ago

Does the article have to have a point for us to talk about some cool technology that we all love? What's the point of your post? Besides that, I think the point was clearly made in the title. What's wrong with viewing tech competitors as sports teams? Do you have a problem with sports?

ebbv 14y ago
> Does the article have to have a point for us to talk about some cool technology that we all love? Yes there needs to be a point to have a discussion. That's kind of the definition. > What's the point of your post? That this post was pointless spam. And further that the OP should be banned for being a shill for a poor quality site. > What's wrong with viewing tech competitors as sports teams? It's childish and counter-productive. You should not have loyalty to a company based purely on its brand (like a sports team), you should choose products based on what suits your needs and tastes best. Maybe for a period of time there will be one company that keeps doing that perfectly, but you should continue to examine the competition and give them a fair shake. Unlike sports teams. That should be pretty obvious. I can't believe I had to explain it on here.
- WayneDB 14y ago
  > Yes there needs to be a point to have a discussion. That's kind of the definition. That's one definition of discussion. Here's one for talking - "Verb. Speak in order to give information or express ideas or feelings." The article made many points. However, maybe next time they should notify you so you can judge them first. > > That this post was pointless spam. And further that the OP should be banned for being a shill for a poor quality site. Well your honor, it seems like the other root commenters on this post were able to find something to talk about from the article. I wouldn't call it spam. As a matter of fact, I learned something new while reading it. I won't bother telling you what it is because you'd probably attack me with more of your vitriol. > > It's childish and counter-productive. You should not have loyalty to a company based purely on its brand (like a sports team), you should choose products based on what suits your needs and tastes best. Should? According to you. I hold the view that people should do what they want within reason. You however seem to want to censor anything that you don't agree with. > > That should be pretty obvious. I can't believe I had to explain it on here. You sound like a know it all asshole bully who got offended because someone stepped on his toe. I can't believe I had to call you out here.