"Fabricated hypotheticals"??? How did you like living through the 1990s and early 2000's when Windows was an unfettered vector for viruses. Your position is elitist at best. Only the anointed few who know how to make keep their systems safe from exploits shall have access to computing. Ask your friends in who are not in the software business how they like checking the cryptographic signatures of the binaries that are about to install from the command line. What they don't know how? Well no compute for them.
It's not "elitist", it's principled. The only question that matters is if a business practice is violating fair market principles and relevant laws or not. "What about my grandma" is not an argument and not relevant to the judges' judgement. The world doesn't revolve around OP's grandma.
Furthermore, the most potent attack vector was, is and will always be social engineering, which is much more likely on smartphones than on dumb phones. So if it's not concern trolling, then the obvious move is to buy a dumb phone for grandma instead of depriving everybody else of their freedoms and rights.
It is absolutely elitist. It is rich hearing from privileged folks with advanced degrees say how their "principles" are being violated. This is just another example of a small elite being comfortable with the non-privileged suffering just so they can enjoy their hobbies.
What a strange non-sequitur. I did not say that "my principles" are being violated, but the principles of U.S. economists, judges and relevant authorities in the United States and their views as to what constitutes a fair market. A brief study of the history of anti-trust cases should suffice to cultivate some understanding regarding those principles (see United States vs. Paramount Pictures, AT&T, Microsoft et cetera...)
>Yes, i imagined this happening, my grandma imagined her bank account being empty, and the police imagined filing a report.
People have vivid imaginations and still none of that is relevant to what constitutes an anti-competitive business practice that is in violation of fair market principles and relevant laws.
>I cannot buy her a dumbphone because we use whatsapp to keep in touch and google photos to share photos with her.
Good news! Yes you can! There are dumb phones with whatsapp and you can share images on whatsapp too! https://www.dumbphones.org/ - check the "Whatsapp Support" filter option.
WhatsApp does not handle phot albums. Google Photos does. And she is perfectly happy with her iPhone. If you aren’t, Google makes Android phones you can use where you can side load anything you wish.
If it doesn’t revolve around her, why should revolve it around you? Why do you think your view is somehow better? I admit we have a disagreement, but you have not presented a reason why your view is more correct.
Also “shill”? I don’t work for Apple. I am not Tim Cook. I have no reason to shill for anyone. That’s just an ad hominem.
Yeah. I worked (past tense) there so guess I’m forever not allowed to disagree with Apple? But I also worked at Google, so that too. Man… I’m screwed on so many topics then…
>Yeah. I worked (past tense) there so guess I’m forever not allowed to disagree with Apple?
What? You don't disagree with Apple anywhere in this thread; you are hellbent on defending their consumer hostile and anti-competitive business practices with the most absurd narratives and that's exactly the problem. It's a strong indicator that you're highly likely to still be an Apple shareholder since you've worked there, which perfectly explains your persistent bias in your Apple apologia.
> But I also worked at Google, so that too. Man… I’m screwed on so many topics then…
"Fabricated hypotheticals"??? How did you like living through the 1990s and early 2000's when Windows was an unfettered vector for viruses. Your position is elitist at best. Only the anointed few who know how to make keep their systems safe from exploits shall have access to computing. Ask your friends in who are not in the software business how they like checking the cryptographic signatures of the binaries that are about to install from the command line. What they don't know how? Well no compute for them.
It's not "elitist", it's principled. The only question that matters is if a business practice is violating fair market principles and relevant laws or not. "What about my grandma" is not an argument and not relevant to the judges' judgement. The world doesn't revolve around OP's grandma.
Furthermore, the most potent attack vector was, is and will always be social engineering, which is much more likely on smartphones than on dumb phones. So if it's not concern trolling, then the obvious move is to buy a dumb phone for grandma instead of depriving everybody else of their freedoms and rights.
It is absolutely elitist. It is rich hearing from privileged folks with advanced degrees say how their "principles" are being violated. This is just another example of a small elite being comfortable with the non-privileged suffering just so they can enjoy their hobbies.
What a strange non-sequitur. I did not say that "my principles" are being violated, but the principles of U.S. economists, judges and relevant authorities in the United States and their views as to what constitutes a fair market. A brief study of the history of anti-trust cases should suffice to cultivate some understanding regarding those principles (see United States vs. Paramount Pictures, AT&T, Microsoft et cetera...)
> fabricated hypotheticals
Yes, i imagined this happening, my grandma imagined her bank account being empty, and the police imagined filing a report.
I cannot buy her a dumbphone because we use whatsapp to keep in touch and google photos to share photos with her.
>Yes, i imagined this happening, my grandma imagined her bank account being empty, and the police imagined filing a report.
People have vivid imaginations and still none of that is relevant to what constitutes an anti-competitive business practice that is in violation of fair market principles and relevant laws.
>I cannot buy her a dumbphone because we use whatsapp to keep in touch and google photos to share photos with her.
Good news! Yes you can! There are dumb phones with whatsapp and you can share images on whatsapp too! https://www.dumbphones.org/ - check the "Whatsapp Support" filter option.
WhatsApp does not handle phot albums. Google Photos does. And she is perfectly happy with her iPhone. If you aren’t, Google makes Android phones you can use where you can side load anything you wish.
[flagged]
If it doesn’t revolve around her, why should revolve it around you? Why do you think your view is somehow better? I admit we have a disagreement, but you have not presented a reason why your view is more correct.
Also “shill”? I don’t work for Apple. I am not Tim Cook. I have no reason to shill for anyone. That’s just an ad hominem.
[flagged]
Yeah. I worked (past tense) there so guess I’m forever not allowed to disagree with Apple? But I also worked at Google, so that too. Man… I’m screwed on so many topics then…
>Yeah. I worked (past tense) there so guess I’m forever not allowed to disagree with Apple?
What? You don't disagree with Apple anywhere in this thread; you are hellbent on defending their consumer hostile and anti-competitive business practices with the most absurd narratives and that's exactly the problem. It's a strong indicator that you're highly likely to still be an Apple shareholder since you've worked there, which perfectly explains your persistent bias in your Apple apologia.
> But I also worked at Google, so that too. Man… I’m screwed on so many topics then…
Yes imagine, but the proper terminology is "conflict of interest". It seems new to you, have a read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest