Your primary contribution to this conversation is to bitch about how no one engages with you? I see users responding to you but then all you are responding back with is editing your comment to say "thanks for answering"? Idk man... maybe it's your approach to dialogue. Being super dismissive and retaliatory tends to bring downvotes.
Good nonbot
I've only heard this particular stance from iPhone users.
Apple has done a stellar job propagandizing their brand as the "Good guys... just looking out for their customer's best interests, is all".
No evidence for this take whatsoever; it's just naked, gullible brand loyalty.
Kind of an amazing phenomenon, if it weren't so sad.
The Yamato!
Oh I see. Didn't realize you'd already deleted it. Anyway, best of luck; I think you bring up valid complaints but idk why the vitriol. This crowd is much less annoying than what's found in some similar forums. Don't let the downvotes bother you too much.
LORN
DRRRRRRROP. https://youtu.be/wqVsfGQ_1SU?si=WKUrPT9Ry7Lu1ecq
Top shelf game
Gasper Noe's IRREVERSIBLE. It's brilliant and amazing and so very traumatic. But in more ways than I expected.
Very much with you on that stance. However, this "bubble battle" is very much an echo chamber scenario, regardless where it's discussed.
Heck, let me just ask you directly: why does Apple maintain such a divisive stance on the subject?
I haven't gotten much (on several forums) regarding that question, more than "they choose too".
Wouldn't be his first rodeo
Yes but imagine in an established system, let's use the US mail as an example, I create a stamp that meets the criteria of postage stamps but also (somehow; after all it is proprietary) requires the opening of the mailed parcel to be contingent upon something like watching an ad, or "signing in" unless you have a subscription at my fancy new parcel stamp company...
I would imagine that most of us would not want to simply "accept this new ecosystem" and would struggle with legitimizing it.
The sunken cost fallacy comes to mind; as those who have "subscribed" to such a business model don't perceive themselves as inconvenienced... And only when comparing themselves to those who aren't subscribed could they even know the shady business model even exists!
In the end, it feels like Apple is intentionally creating systemic division so that it's customer base feels like they are a part of something exclusive (even if said exclusive content/system doesn't appear to serve them in any way other than "feeling exclusive").
Apple could very easily mitigate the echo chamber they have created. But they created it to serve the Apple shareholders, alone.
No?
You look uncomfortable but good. Look up a tutorial on the Reef Tuck (aka the military tuck). Makes a tucked-in shirt look a little less frumpy.
The Long Dark...
Good points. But, and using your LAN comparison: if my wifi's guest network used some custom method (let's also consider it a proprietary method for the sake of comparison) to, A) impose an arbitrary limit of uploading files no larger than 100KB (and/or have the files heavily compressed to meet said limit) while B) offering no clear method of communication to the non-guest users why this limitation is occuring (or even exists)... I can imagine both guests and non-guests would quickly become irritated and start bickering among themselves as to whose fault this arbitrarily-imposed "local network file sharing problem" should be blamed on.
I don't think it's the guests fault for being arbitrarily limited. And I wish the non-guests could be told why the limitations are imposed.
Because no one behind a trillion dollar company should (in good faith, at least) concern themselves with restricting non-Apple, shareable files to be seen as "just slightly, technically accessible to Apple devices".
These constraints are clearly imposed on Apple users (by no one but Apple) to alienate "non-privileged, non-Apple customers" (them) from the "privileged Apple customers" (us).
And Apple's goal on "finding common ground" seems to be: do not negotiate with any proposed solutions as the division we are creating is intentional.
Just hopping on to concur:
"Apple could release their own iMessage client for Android if this were really about trusting beeper, but it's not. It's about using peer pressure with blue bubbles to sell more iPhones."
It's just that simple (and offensive).
First off, just want to thank you for the civil discourse. It's why we are here, right?
But in your rebuttal... keep in mind that the iPhone users are effected in as much as the only solution an iPhone user can currently offer (when their iPhone image is compressed to a nearly illegible degree after being sent to any non-iPhone user) is "maybe you should buy an iPhone like I did" or they have to use an entirely different system to resend the image (this latter solution being more inconvenient to the iPhone user).
As someone said below:
"Apple could release their own iMessage client for Android if this were really about trusting beeper, but it's not. It's about using peer pressure with blue bubbles to sell more iPhones."
I feel its either sunken-cost-fallacy-as-brand-ambassadorship or simply (yet another example of) bad faith arguments to support such underhanded "but... is it illegal?" behavior that borders on needing current anti-trust requirements to be reevaluated.
OP is chatbot
Just recently started rewatching the G Pyle USMC show... gotta admit that the man's leagues ahead of his time, even if he's the butt of any "but from Mayberry" jokes.
This is the way
Post history indicates they are
Oooooh I'd love to play Turbo Golf Racing if it's not taken!
Restroom collateral subject material
Can confirm! Just rewatched Idiocracy.