[manigandham]

> "I have a problem with any kind of absolutes."

What absolutes?

> "I also have a problem with a self-appointed tech commenters deciding what is best for everyone else due to their own biases."

This sounds like you.

> "but let's not pretend there are no other choices."

Nobody is confused by the current choices. Saying that the iPhone can't do the thing today that we want it to do in the future is just repeating a fact that is literally the reason for the discussion in the first place.

And yes it's strange to take the side of a trillion-dollar megacorp instead of users, especially considering the size and power of such a company.

[sbuk]

> "What absolutes?"

"Trillion dollar corporations should give their users all the choice and flexibility they want, not the other way around." is an absolute.

> "This sounds like you."

My 5 year old would respond with a better comeback than "I know you are, but what am I?"

> "Saying that the iPhone can't do the thing today that we want it to do in the future is just repeating a fact that is literally the reason for the discussion in the first place."

Who the fuck are we?! Have you asked iPhone users? Or just your immediate circle? No. We is the arrogant, opinionated "power users" and tech-commenters that think that the know what is best for everyone else.

> "And yes it's strange to take the side of a trillion-dollar megacorp instead of users, especially considering the size and power of such a company."

I'm not. I'm siding with the status quo, which is a considerably safer environment for the vast majority of iPhone users (yes, including me, a actual user of the software and hardware made by the megacorp) than that of what your are espousing.

At least I know not to invest in your fund, especially given your aversion to businesses that make money.

[manigandham]

> "My 5 year old would respond with a better comeback" "No. We is the arrogant, opinionated "power users" and tech-commenters that think that the know what is best for everyone else."

What are you doing? Why is this discussion so triggering for you? You made the initial accusation and failed to see that it describes you.

The "we" is the commenters here talking about features they want, representing themselves and others, just like millions of other users who also have their own specific needs. The discussion is about why these features should exist, the benefits they bring, and the effects they might have.

Do we need to poll a billion users to discuss any functionality? Isn't Apple itself also just a few people deciding on changes that affect billions, while adding features that might only support a small minority? If someone says they want bigger buttons or slower animations, is that invalid because they're saying "what is best for everyone else" or are they just talking about what they want and why?

> "I'm siding with the status quo"

Cool, so just say that and make your argument. Many others have said similar things and there's been plenty of discussion about how this would affect the vast majority. But why get upset and call everyone arrogant because they have a different need or opinion? That's neither helpful nor productive.

> "At least I know not to invest in your fund, especially given your aversion to businesses that make money."

This is juvenile. Maybe take a break from the internet if you need to make personal attacks over this. We're also not open to outside money, perhaps if you weren't anonymous we can help you with investments more fit for you.