I was hoping you'd actually read my post before you replied, but here we are.

I'll repeat it again, UPGRADES to Windows 7-8-10-11 were all free. Buying the whole OS isn't upgrading. Windows offers free OS upgrades, same as everyone else.

And Apple does deliberately require hardware upgrades and stops supporting video cards (NVIDIA), with OpenCore Legacy Patcher showing these aren't needed in order to upgrade.

And this was all based on the starting arguement of "By forcing your customers to upgrade by means of: Dark patterns, threats, coercion, arbitrary expiration dates, and on and on." There never was a point of "free OS upgrades" or not. That was something you added to distract from the original point.

Maybe you should look at the whole picture and not being a Apple apologist and claiming that even though Apple does the EXACT same thing, that they are somehow completely different.

PS, I use Linux, so no, I'm not a MS apologist.

When they are some of the longest supporters of hardware in the commerical space?

Yes.

Microsoft on average will support hardware for 10 years. macOS, iOS, and Android average 7 years. Only ChromeOS supports 10 years.

Apple kills all OS support on hardware after 7 years (4 major OS updates, and that final one will get 3 total years of security updates). Microsoft typically gives 10 years of support. This isn't a good thing.
Android and iOS typically have the same 7ish years on hardware, again, not quite the flex you were hoping for.
The only one that can match would be ChromeOS which typically has the same 10 years.

And Windows 8, 10, and 11 were all free upgrades so this again matches (assuming the hardware was supported, same as all the others).

Name a commercial OS that doesn't also do this?

>> only one source for iOS devices. Many sources for Android.

> Are there?

Who else makes iOS devices? You already acknowledged there many sources of Android devices.

Also, while 7 out of 10 sounds good, this represents less than 20% of the total market. And Apple only makes "premium" class phones so this would be their only market. A more accurate title to this would be "Apple sells less than 1 out of every 5 smartphones", and since you've already pointed out that for the most part there seems to be only 3 major Android companies and 1 iPhone maker, that makes it look worse as out of 4 major companies you'd want to be making at least 1 out of every 4.

I think it's the whole "blood in the water" effect. Google Play Store and Apple App Store are being sued and losing, so next target that could match is Steam.

The issues I see here is that Steam isn't anything like the other two. Steam isn't the default app store of any OS besides SteamOS, and even it gives more easy access to competing stores then Android. Not to mention, this lawsuit is based on sales from 2018, way before SteamOS was revived, so it wouldn't apply. Because of this, the lawsuit can't claim a lack of competition due to muscling out others from "their" devices.

While they can claim that Steam is the largest player and thus a monopoly, it wouldn't work because they aren't using their size negatively against their competition. They aren't blocking others on their devices, they aren't putting up road blocks to competitors, and unless I'm missing something they haven't been making deals to prevent competition. Google and Apple have had court loses due to these types of abuses of power, but again, unless I'm missing something, Valve hasn't done any of those.

Maybe Google is copying Apple here and using it to sell ads.

If you read the privacy policy of Apple Pay, it does mention that Apple does collect info about your Apple Pay usage for ads ("Helping you to discover features that are most relevant to you", "Sending you communications about Apple Pay and other Apple products, services, and offers that may be of interest to you" is how they refer to it.)

"Apple may use this information to improve other Apple products and services, for marketing, and for fraud and security purposes."

> will put privacy protections in place that matches it's corporate policy.

Which when you actually read Apples privacy policy isnt much different than Googles.

Texas Instruments

You do know that the Apple hardware devices still work, they aren't given a remote kill command, and could just be logged into with another user account?

Issue us, the hardware still works (its not bricked), and software is typically sold "as a service" and not a physical object so there is nothing to refund legally.

Dev thank Apple by making apps for their devices which in turn gives customers reason to buy Apple devices. The issue here is that Apple demands dev to prostrate themselves in front of Apple. These are not the same.

And yes, developers do pay for these things, no one is demanding it for free. Apple deems it's worth $99 a year for the tools, as well as the purchase of there devices. This is the fee they demand all people have to pay to make apps regardless if it has payments or not, it's on their website.

I'm not sure where to start with this train wreck of a reaponse...

Blantly copying others isn't revolutionary, no matter how hard you want it to be.

Windows 10 was on ARM in 2017, Ubuntu first supported it in 2009. MacOS started using ARM in 2020. I'm not talking about things like Raspberry Pi. I'm also not going into other Linux distros having already supported ARM. These would be some of the major alternatives to macOS which were already using ARM years before Apple.

"power comparable (not to mention better) than any PC mobile-class chip were absolutely new when they made the switch." Where the hell did this come from? I was talking about how others were using ARM years before Apple. This has nothing to do with anything. Your benchmarking comments is just as off topic, we arent talking about x86-64. Small jumps in specs aren't revolutionary when they are using the same common architecture as everyone else has already been using/supporting.

ARM is an acronym, an it stands for "Advance RISC Machines", though the A originally stood for Acorn. So yes, it would be capitalized.

I'm not even going to bother with the rest of your rambling, which most is just repeating what was already quickly disproven.

You entire post reply is lazy, bad, sad, and some of the worst trolling I've seen in years here on Slashdot. Try harder next time.

That would be like saying when Apple switched from PowerPC to Intel CPU is was revolutionary. Switching CPU architecture to a different common CPU architecture isn't what I'd call "revolutionary".

ARM chips weren't new when they made the switch, other desktop OSes were already running on ARM by that point. Now, if they had suddenly come out with MacOS on something new like a quantum CPU, then we'd be talking.

I can find any that will be supported for longer though. Macs on average are supported for 7-8 years.

You think people complaining about Windows 10 computers were "only" supported for 10+ years will end up being perfectly fine when they realize that Apple supports their devices for years less?