"Apple is not going to enter a market that is already in an aggressive price reduction war." Like the 2007 cell phone market?
Some people don't want a cheap piece of crap from Wamart. I don't mind paying a little more for something that works well and doesn't look like plastic garbage. That said, Apple is incredibly price competitive these days. The old "Apple is expensive" trope needs to be retired.
How do you think that Apple logo got so famous? Also, marketing is a lot more than advertising.
Or pet kittens or perhaps donate to charity. Android just makes you better!
So your position is "the 30 million iPad buyers are rich idiots because I can't imagine needs beyond my own."
I was being glib, of course, but it's difficult to believe that this needs explanation. Apple liked this app and wants it to become a core feature of their products, differentiating one from another. They couldn't very well allow it to live on as a free option if they're relying on it as a feature, you see? I understand that people feel upset that it's been taken away but Apple is betting that the outcome will be favorable to them. One could also argue that Siri will get better and improve over time now that it's been elevated to an A list feature of their flagship product, not just one of many free apps in the app store. Better long term outcome for everyone, though it's a loss for the early adopters.
It's almost as if they're just in this for the money. Apple paid for that company, who the hell are they to do what they want with it? They have some nerve!
You, on Bill Gates: "if he dies" LOL
Fun fact: if you don't defend any patents you are granted, you lose the rights to them. So patent holders in the current system effectively have no choice but to pursue defense. I know this isn't as much fun as the "Apple is a big meanie" argument but it's an inconvenient truth.
You're a shop owner and I've written a book about how crappy your shop is. Are you obliged to sell this book?
Not so fast -- last time he was much younger and taken out by surprise. This transition has been in the works for a long time, I suspect.
That was two.
I'm curious what your source for this is. Every first hand source I've ever read on him disagrees with you and says that he was an absolute perfectionist with regard to product details and direction. He was a great salesman too but to say that he had no impact on the product design is just demonstrably false.
Did you mean some other "closed" smartphone OS? I read your comment in the context of the comments above it, which were about iOS and Apple specifically. A straw man argument actually is an analogy which sets up a fundamentally flawed comparison. People seem to be enjoying iOS devices very much, based on the sales figures and every consumer survey that I've seen. Are those flawed also? Calling someone a "fanboy" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument. Do you disagree with that too or does it just apply to "haters?"
First of all, I doubt that the average smartphone purchaser is voting on this issue with their dollar anyway (though I realize this is sort of ducking the whole argument in a wussy way!). I think there will always be a market for more than one phone platform, just as in computing. I'm mainly disputing the gp's assertion that people are rejecting iOS devices because of the curated OS. For instance, iPad sales are killing all the other tablets -- is that despite the average person's supposed hatred of the closed environment? Are you willing to make that argument?