Fashionistas whine about being ripped off for being fashionistas

[Torquemada 1420]

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/apple ... 00987.html

[inactionman]

Slightly harsh interpretation - many people use Apples as they're the absolute masters of user interface/experience and people can intuitively use the devices.

I'm puzzled why this took so long - it's such a closed shop and abuse of market position, MS got hammered for bundling their browser with their OS so how Apple are allowed to ringfence an entire hardware and software infrastructure is beyond me.

[Kawazaki]

Slightly harsh interpretation - many people use Apples as they're the absolute masters of user interface/experience and people can intuitively use the devices.

I'm puzzled why this took so long - it's such a closed shop and abuse of market position, MS got hammered for bundling their browser with their OS so how Apple are allowed to ringfence an entire hardware and software infrastructure is beyond me.

I've never owned an Apple product but do they still insist on building in their own proprietary connector ports so you can't even use so much as a Mini-USB or 3.5mm headphone jack with an iPhone?

[inactionman]

Slightly harsh interpretation - many people use Apples as they're the absolute masters of user interface/experience and people can intuitively use the devices.

I'm puzzled why this took so long - it's such a closed shop and abuse of market position, MS got hammered for bundling their browser with their OS so how Apple are allowed to ringfence an entire hardware and software infrastructure is beyond me.

I've never owned an Apple product but do they still insist on building in their own proprietary connector ports so you can't even use so much as a Mini-USB or 3.5mm headphone jack with an iPhone?

Yep, still proprietary, and no headphone port - although on that point many manufacturers are dropping 3.5mm jacks for bluetooth.

The charger has always been a snidey thing though - helps to tie people in to systems.

[Sandstorm]

You don't have to pay for Apps if you can't afford it, people.

[Torquemada 1420]

Slightly harsh interpretation - many people use Apples as they're the absolute masters of user interface/experience and people can intuitively use the devices.

You see, I don't even buy that on several grounds
1) Most of your UX is in the programs you use and that aspect has nothing to do with the OS you are on.

2) One button mouse? Seriously? Because Apple claims in its Human Interface Guidelines that all software providers should provide all functions available with a single click. Even if single click was a great idea (delete my entire hard drive: YES/NO), other buttons are just one click... just on another button. Why don't Mac-w*nk*ers insist on a one button keyboard then?

3) OK, I'm a geek and Apple like to prevent users having any control over their devices but the lack of proper file manager, system settings etc is a sh*thouse experience. Probably great for my grandma and the quality of university graduates these days.

[inactionman]

Slightly harsh interpretation - many people use Apples as they're the absolute masters of user interface/experience and people can intuitively use the devices.

You see, I don't even buy that on several grounds
1) Most of your UX is in the programs you use and that aspect has nothing to do with the OS you are on.

2) One button mouse? Seriously? Because Apple claims in its Human Interface Guidelines that all software providers should provide all functions available with a single click. Even if single click was a great idea (delete my entire hard drive: YES/NO), other buttons are just one click... just on another button. Why don't Mac-w*nk*ers insist on a one button keyboard then?

3) OK, I'm a geek and Apple like to prevent users having any control over their devices but the lack of proper file manager, system settings etc is a sh*thouse experience. Probably great for my grandma and the quality of university graduates these days.

I'd disagree on (1). Firstly, things like getting accessories or second devices to play nicely or when e.g. carrying data across when updating updating phones - with Apple it's generally seamless. With android it was - and still can be - a bit hit or miss. Secondly, getting apps to work on early android could be quite an endeavour, I've even had some apps not pick up phone GPS services properly, it was always straight out of box with apple (arguably as they've had a more rigorous QA in early days). Thirdly, the closed system meant interactions between apps were always better in IOS - even something as simple as taking a photo, doing some basic changes and sharing it.

There's now no really meaningful difference between most operating systems, but in the early years it could be quite stark, and that's where many people started and stayed with apple. Also bear in mind android is skinned, and this brings inconsistency and variable quality between devices which can be frustrating - the Huawei 'make keyboard and app disappear mid-message if inadvertently swiping under space bar' is an utter infuriation that wouldn't happen with apple.

I'm no fan of Apple's 'do it my way or it's the highway', particularly around things like mouse and gesture, and not being able to change it if you'd prefer another way of working - there was a period where scrolling worked one way on macOS, another on IOS, and sod you if you didn't like it - but some people just want a consistent no-brainer tool for everyday tasks, and apple nailed it. My dad can use an iphone with no real guidance, god help us if his printer warning message comes up and he can't figure how to clean the print heads.

Agree that apple are quite restrictive for anyone who wants any degree of customisation. And with you on 'finder' - or whatever their file management system is - it's a pain in arse and seems to make doing even the most basic file management a herculean task.

[Torquemada 1420]

I'd disagree on (1). Firstly, things like getting accessories or second devices to play nicely or when e.g. carrying data across when updating updating phones - with Apple it's generally seamless. With android it was - and still can be - a bit hit or miss. Secondly, getting apps to work on early android could be quite an endeavour, I've even had some apps not pick up phone GPS services properly, it was always straight out of box with apple (arguably as they've had a more rigorous QA in early days). Thirdly, the closed system meant interactions between apps were always better in IOS - even something as simple as taking a photo, doing some basic changes and sharing it.

There's now no really meaningful difference between most operating systems, but in the early years it could be quite stark, and that's where many people started and stayed with apple. Also bear in mind android is skinned, and this brings inconsistency and variable quality between devices which can be frustrating - the Huawei 'make keyboard and app disappear mid-message if inadvertently swiping under space bar' is an utter infuriation that wouldn't happen with apple.

I'm no fan of Apple's 'do it my way or it's the highway', particularly around things like mouse and gesture, and not being able to change it if you'd prefer another way of working - there was a period where scrolling worked one way on macOS, another on IOS, and sod you if you didn't like it - but some people just want a consistent no-brainer tool for everyday tasks, and apple nailed it. My dad can use an iphone with no real guidance, god help us if his printer warning message comes up and he can't figure how to clean the print heads.

Agree that apple are quite restrictive for anyone who wants any degree of customisation. And with you on 'finder' - or whatever their file management system is - it's a pain in arse and seems to make doing even the most basic file management a herculean task.

Not going to argue with that ^^ because I'm not an expert on MAC v Android. I was looking at it from MAC v PC (Windows or even Linux) perspective.

[mat the expat]

With android it was - and still can be - a bit hit or miss

Rubbish

[inactionman]

With android it was - and still can be - a bit hit or miss

Rubbish

Graceful response.

I had an android land rover-branded phone - which I bought as it had a fair few useful outdoor features - which signally failed to reliably pair with my car, to ever allow music to stream through Bluetooth, or to import contacts so I could dial people through the handsfree.

That is all quite a miss. My wife had no such trouble with her apple phone. I also now have no such trouble with my Android Huawei, hence the hit and miss.

Just to make it more infuriating, my car is a Land Rover. In slight mitigation, the land rover explorer phone is actually made by Bullitt, and I think my car might use components sourced from Volvo.

Not necessarily an issue caused by google, more related to how it's applied and skinned by device manufacturers, but the net result is the same - some integrations with accessories don't work very well. This is much less of a problem with apple, simply as they firmly control so much hard and software.

[Torquemada 1420]

Graceful response.

I had an android land rover-branded phone - which I bought as it had a fair few useful outdoor features - which signally failed to reliably pair with my car, to ever allow music to stream through Bluetooth, or to import contacts so I could dial people through the handsfree.

That is all quite a miss. My wife had no such trouble with her apple phone. I also now have no such trouble with my Android Huawei, hence the hit and miss.

Just to make it more infuriating, my car is a Land Rover. In slight mitigation, the land rover explorer phone is actually made by Bullitt, and I think my car might use components sourced from Volvo.

Not necessarily an issue caused by google, more related to how it's applied and skinned by device manufacturers, but the net result is the same - some integrations with accessories don't work very well. This is much less of a problem with apple, simply as they firmly control so much hard and software.

To be fair, this might be down to another fine, Jaguar Land Rover product. The missus's F-Type's MI is a f**king abortion that struggles to pair with the ignition system let alone 3rd party devices.

[inactionman]

Graceful response.

I had an android land rover-branded phone - which I bought as it had a fair few useful outdoor features - which signally failed to reliably pair with my car, to ever allow music to stream through Bluetooth, or to import contacts so I could dial people through the handsfree.

That is all quite a miss. My wife had no such trouble with her apple phone. I also now have no such trouble with my Android Huawei, hence the hit and miss.

Just to make it more infuriating, my car is a Land Rover. In slight mitigation, the land rover explorer phone is actually made by Bullitt, and I think my car might use components sourced from Volvo.

Not necessarily an issue caused by google, more related to how it's applied and skinned by device manufacturers, but the net result is the same - some integrations with accessories don't work very well. This is much less of a problem with apple, simply as they firmly control so much hard and software.

To be fair, this might be down to another fine, Jaguar Land Rover product. The missus's F-Type's MI is a f**king abortion that struggles to pair with the ignition system let alone 3rd party devices.

I've actually been quite lucky with JLR cars, I've had Freelander 2 and now a disco sport and no real problems with either. Which I've probably now jinxed by saying that.

The point I'm making re android is that, no matter how good a product google make it, there's always the manufacturer in the way and seemingly well capable of mucking it all up.

[Torquemada 1420]

I've actually been quite lucky with JLR cars, I've had Freelander 2 and now a disco sport and no real problems with either. Which I've probably now jinxed by saying that.

The point I'm making re android is that, no matter how good a product google make it, there's always the manufacturer in the way and seemingly well capable of mucking it all up.

TBH, Google is more likely to f**k it up since their whole business model is as proprietary as Apple's is i.e. anti open source.

My first port of call on any Android device would be to root it and remove any of Google's sh*t.

[Blake]

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/apple ... 00987.html

I don't understand the article.

Is Apple being accused of overcharging customers? Or developers?

Developers I kind of understand the case, because the 30% might seem exorbitant by today's standard, but it was the standard markup that brick & mortar retailers charged developers to stock, merchandise and sell software in stores in 2008. That margin was baked into the selling price.

A case can certainly be made that with modern, digital marketplaces for software this should come down but it's what most platforms are also charging, Google Play Store, PlayStation and Microsoft all jumped the bandwagon quickly and liked that price point. Some of them have dropped it since, but they all have different models. Google wants your data, PlayStation want monthly subscriptions, and Microsoft have a financial stake in Epic. Apple stuck to their 30% because they don't have an interest in monetizing user data and want to maintain strict quality, security and privacy standards. It comes at a premium, and if people don't like that, they can either buy an Android, or Jailbreak their iPhone and void the warranty.

The problem came in when Epic wanted to launch a cross-platform software marketplace for their games, but didn't want to get gouged 30% by each of the other platforms for doing so; there just wouldn't be enough margin for them to take a cut from indie developers. So they pretended to be victims themselves and also drum up sympathy for the indie developers.
Apple conceded and said that they would reduce their fee for app developers that make less that $1M in revenue. That gave 99% of the developers partners the benefit, and since those developers only contributed 10% of their AppStore revenue protected their bottom line. Seemed like a win-win for the consumer.

What also often gets lost in these "debates" is that many developers prefer developing for Apple and launch on iOS first. The bureaucracy is a pain, but:
- The iOS is stable and well supported
- The ecosystem isn't as fragmented so there are fewer test and edge cases to worry about
- The userbase is sticky
- The userbase pays for the software and are more likely to invest in in-app purchases

All this comes at a premium, but even with the 30% haircut that Apple takes, some devs make more from the Apple users than Android users.

I've been an iPhone user for 9 years now, and I quite like it in the walled garden. I've peeked outside a couple of times with an Android tablet and a test device for an Android app...I didn't like what I saw out there.

The best Epic can hope for is for Apple to enable "side loading" of apps, like Google does on Android. But doing so is going to come with a litany of warnings and disclaimers which I think is fair enough.

I'm not an Apple zealot by any stretch though; and I really think they can do better in many aspects, I just don't think the Apple Store is where the focus should be. I'd much rather they improve the repairability of their devices by making original parts and components more readily available to 3rd party repair outfits. If they were honest out their supposed intention to be more environmentally friendly (the guise used to justify the removal of charging bricks from the iPhone 12 boxes), then there really should also be an effort from their side to promote repairs when possible...but that would obviously cut into new phone sales.

[inactionman]

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/apple ... 00987.html

I don't understand the article.

Is Apple being accused of overcharging customers? Or developers?

Developers I kind of understand the case, because the 30% might seem exorbitant by today's standard, but it was the standard markup that brick & mortar retailers charged developers to stock, merchandise and sell software in stores in 2008. That margin was baked into the selling price.

A case can certainly be made that with modern, digital marketplaces for software this should come down but it's what most platforms are also charging, Google Play Store, PlayStation and Microsoft all jumped the bandwagon quickly and liked that price point. Some of them have dropped it since, but they all have different models. Google wants your data, PlayStation want monthly subscriptions, and Microsoft have a financial stake in Epic. Apple stuck to their 30% because they don't have an interest in monetizing user data and want to maintain strict quality, security and privacy standards. It comes at a premium, and if people don't like that, they can either buy an Android, or Jailbreak their iPhone and void the warranty.

The problem came in when Epic wanted to launch a cross-platform software marketplace for their games, but didn't want to get gouged 30% by each of the other platforms for doing so; there just wouldn't be enough margin for them to take a cut from indie developers. So they pretended to be victims themselves and also drum up sympathy for the indie developers.
Apple conceded and said that they would reduce their fee for app developers that make less that $1M in revenue. That gave 99% of the developers partners the benefit, and since those developers only contributed 10% of their AppStore revenue protected their bottom line. Seemed like a win-win for the consumer.

What also often gets lost in these "debates" is that many developers prefer developing for Apple and launch on iOS first. The bureaucracy is a pain, but:
- The iOS is stable and well supported
- The ecosystem isn't as fragmented so there are fewer test and edge cases to worry about
- The userbase is sticky
- The userbase pays for the software and are more likely to invest in in-app purchases

All this comes at a premium, but even with the 30% haircut that Apple takes, some devs make more from the Apple users than Android users.

I've been an iPhone user for 9 years now, and I quite like it in the walled garden. I've peeked outside a couple of times with an Android tablet and a test device for an Android app...I didn't like what I saw out there.

The best Epic can hope for is for Apple to enable "side loading" of apps, like Google does on Android. But doing so is going to come with a litany of warnings and disclaimers which I think is fair enough.

I'm not an Apple zealot by any stretch though; and I really think they can do better in many aspects, I just don't think the Apple Store is where the focus should be. I'd much rather they improve the repairability of their devices by making original parts and components more readily available to 3rd party repair outfits. If they were honest out their supposed intention to be more environmentally friendly (the guise used to justify the removal of charging bricks from the iPhone 12 boxes), then there really should also be an effort from their side to promote repairs when possible...but that would obviously cut into new phone sales.

I'd agree going after them on cost seems odd, it was more the closed nature of the platform that concerned me (well, struck me as odd in terms of monopoly rules) - Apple has captured a massive set of end users, and developers have no real choice but to go through apple to reach these consumers. Some developers may have come to terms with this, but there is still an effective lack of choice.

Bricks and mortar stores as an analogy would only really work if you forced manufacturers to only use certain retailers. The analogy falls over a bit as, in the case of bricks, and mortar, consumers have a choice of outlet, whereas with phones/tablets these consumers have made a choice and the manufacturer cannot to any great extent influence this.

The restrictions on third party repairs is indeed another dimension of this whole closed shop. We forced car manufacturers to change rules on servicing within warranty, to allow third parties to perform servicing and not impact warranty, and they're a significant amount more complex than an iphone.

[Mahoney]

When I was looking into this (nearly a decade ago) the big problem was Apple's requirement that you cannot charge more on the Apple device than you charge anywhere else, despite Apple getting 30%.

I believe this is why you can't buy books on the iOS Kindle - Amazon would have to put their prices up by 30% on their own store, making them uncompetitive, or take a 30% loss on purchases in the iOS app. For content sellers where the content can be used elsewhere (like Epic) it's a bit of a nightmare.

It's a real cleft stick, and one of the reasons why back in the day the FT chose not to have an app but to use a website (is this still the case?).

[Torquemada 1420]

When I was looking into this (nearly a decade ago) the big problem was Apple's requirement that you cannot charge more on the Apple device than you charge anywhere else, despite Apple getting 30%.

I believe this is why you can't buy books on the iOS Kindle - Amazon would have to put their prices up by 30% on their own store, making them uncompetitive, or take a 30% loss on purchases in the iOS app. For content sellers where the content can be used elsewhere (like Epic) it's a bit of a nightmare.

It's a real cleft stick, and one of the reasons why back in the day the FT chose not to have an app but to use a website (is this still the case?).

FT does have an app (my login tells me apps plural but assume it's the same app on 2 platforms) but don't know what its scope is.

[Blake]

When I was looking into this (nearly a decade ago) the big problem was Apple's requirement that you cannot charge more on the Apple device than you charge anywhere else, despite Apple getting 30%.

I believe this is why you can't buy books on the iOS Kindle - Amazon would have to put their prices up by 30% on their own store, making them uncompetitive, or take a 30% loss on purchases in the iOS app. For content sellers where the content can be used elsewhere (like Epic) it's a bit of a nightmare.

It's a real cleft stick, and one of the reasons why back in the day the FT chose not to have an app but to use a website (is this still the case?).

Netflix does the same. You can use the iOS app to view content, but you create your profile and set up your credit card on their website and can't do so via the app.
So there is a way to bypass Apple if you offer a service based on a subscription model...but it's a very fine line. Part of Apple's quality control to get your app approved, scrutinizes that wording of that user prompt very carefully.

Apple's 30% cut is only limited to "digital goods" as far as I am aware - so ebooks, music, games and pay-per-view video content. If you provide services or physical products (Uber, eBay, Amazon) I don't think Apple even takes anything, or if they do it is a significantly smaller cut. Those digital goods could theoretically be consumed on many other devices and/or platforms, so the monopoly argument is a bit strained IMO.

Where Apple does start to cross the line, IMO, is when they kill other apps/companies by developing a competing service and bundling it into their devices by default, or leveraging their ecosystem to push the competitor out of the market. For example the recent launch of AirTags which will kill off Tile within 5 years, if not sooner.

[Hellraiser]

Slightly harsh interpretation - many people use Apples as they're the absolute masters of user interface/experience and people can intuitively use the devices.

You see, I don't even buy that on several grounds
1) Most of your UX is in the programs you use and that aspect has nothing to do with the OS you are on.

2) One button mouse? Seriously? Because Apple claims in its Human Interface Guidelines that all software providers should provide all functions available with a single click. Even if single click was a great idea (delete my entire hard drive: YES/NO), other buttons are just one click... just on another button. Why don't Mac-w*nk*ers insist on a one button keyboard then?

3) OK, I'm a geek and Apple like to prevent users having any control over their devices but the lack of proper file manager, system settings etc is a sh*thouse experience. Probably great for my grandma and the quality of university graduates these days.

The Onion beat you to the punch 12 years ago.

[mat the expat]

With android it was - and still can be - a bit hit or miss

Rubbish

Graceful response.

I had an android land rover-branded phone - which I bought as it had a fair few useful outdoor features - which signally failed to reliably pair with my car, to ever allow music to stream through Bluetooth, or to import contacts so I could dial people through the handsfree.

That is all quite a miss. My wife had no such trouble with her apple phone. I also now have no such trouble with my Android Huawei, hence the hit and miss.

Just to make it more infuriating, my car is a Land Rover. In slight mitigation, the land rover explorer phone is actually made by Bullitt, and I think my car might use components sourced from Volvo.

Not necessarily an issue caused by google, more related to how it's applied and skinned by device manufacturers, but the net result is the same - some integrations with accessories don't work very well. This is much less of a problem with apple, simply as they firmly control so much hard and software.

That's because the issue is never Android, it's the vendor. If you want to bash them, in your case, it's Land Rover.

Apple simplify it by not allying with brands.

User error is also a large component - which makes it a good that Apple are simpler

[inactionman]

Rubbish

Graceful response.

I had an android land rover-branded phone - which I bought as it had a fair few useful outdoor features - which signally failed to reliably pair with my car, to ever allow music to stream through Bluetooth, or to import contacts so I could dial people through the handsfree.

That is all quite a miss. My wife had no such trouble with her apple phone. I also now have no such trouble with my Android Huawei, hence the hit and miss.

Just to make it more infuriating, my car is a Land Rover. In slight mitigation, the land rover explorer phone is actually made by Bullitt, and I think my car might use components sourced from Volvo.

Not necessarily an issue caused by google, more related to how it's applied and skinned by device manufacturers, but the net result is the same - some integrations with accessories don't work very well. This is much less of a problem with apple, simply as they firmly control so much hard and software.

That's because the issue is never Android, it's the vendor. If you want to bash them, in your case, it's Land Rover.

Apple simplify it by not allying with brands.

User error is also a large component - which makes it a good that Apple are simpler

I'm not bashing them, I'm saying what the user experience is.

[Sandstorm]

I have both Apple (work) and Android (tinder) phones and they are both easy to use with no glitches EXCEPT when it comes to managing contacts and wanting to call/text someone on Android. It's still waaaay too complicated compared with how Apple manage your contacts.

[mat the expat]

Graceful response.

I had an android land rover-branded phone - which I bought as it had a fair few useful outdoor features - which signally failed to reliably pair with my car, to ever allow music to stream through Bluetooth, or to import contacts so I could dial people through the handsfree.

That is all quite a miss. My wife had no such trouble with her apple phone. I also now have no such trouble with my Android Huawei, hence the hit and miss.

Just to make it more infuriating, my car is a Land Rover. In slight mitigation, the land rover explorer phone is actually made by Bullitt, and I think my car might use components sourced from Volvo.

Not necessarily an issue caused by google, more related to how it's applied and skinned by device manufacturers, but the net result is the same - some integrations with accessories don't work very well. This is much less of a problem with apple, simply as they firmly control so much hard and software.

That's because the issue is never Android, it's the vendor. If you want to bash them, in your case, it's Land Rover.

Apple simplify it by not allying with brands.

User error is also a large component - which makes it a good that Apple are simpler

I'm not bashing them, I'm saying what the user experience is.

Clearly from the number of Android phones out there..

[inactionman]

That's because the issue is never Android, it's the vendor. If you want to bash them, in your case, it's Land Rover.

Apple simplify it by not allying with brands.

User error is also a large component - which makes it a good that Apple are simpler

I'm not bashing them, I'm saying what the user experience is.

Clearly from the number of Android phones out there..

??

Actually, don't bother - to recap, my argument is that Apple have (particularly historically in comparison to others) a simpler, cleaner user experience compared to other phone/tablet suppliers. This is due to them having complete control over the whole show, from hardware through to app release, and arguably a degree of market share that means they can impose their own standards (e.g. physical connectors, protocols) on accessory providers. Android/google, as one example, don't have that control and as such the user experience can suffer - poorly skinned phones, inconsistency between release versions giving differing front ends and functions between manufacturers/models, inconsistency with accessories. Some users, such as my father, prefer apple as it just works, and it's a familiar experience every time he upgrades. He couldn't give a shit why my late mum's android phone wouldn't pair with a number of devices, whether it was his fault (as in couldn't understand the settings), google's fault, Samsung's fault, or the accessory manufacturer's fault, just that it wouldn't reliably pair and that infuriated him. No such trouble with apple. This simplicity of course comes with a cost, literally (apple aren't cheap) and in terms of having certain things imposed. That's it. No mystery, no 'bashing', it is what it is. Pays money, takes choice. All of this is just to say there are good, non-fashionista reasons why some people go with - and stick with - apple, as for why some go with android.

I'm not sure why you couldn't actually just read what I'd already posted.

[Torquemada 1420]

Actually, don't bother - to recap, my argument is that Apple have (particularly historically in comparison to others) a simpler, cleaner user experience compared to other phone/tablet suppliers. This is due to them having complete control over the whole show, from hardware through to app release, and arguably a degree of market share that means they can impose their own standards (e.g. physical connectors, protocols) on accessory providers. Android/google, as one example, don't have that control and as such the user experience can suffer - poorly skinned phones, inconsistency between release versions giving differing front ends and functions between manufacturers/models, inconsistency with accessories. Some users, such as my father, prefer apple as it just works, and it's a familiar experience every time he upgrades. He couldn't give a shit why my late mum's android phone wouldn't pair with a number of devices, whether it was his fault (as in couldn't understand the settings), google's fault, Samsung's fault, or the accessory manufacturer's fault, just that it wouldn't reliably pair and that infuriated him. No such trouble with apple. This simplicity of course comes with a cost, literally (apple aren't cheap) and in terms of having certain things imposed. That's it. No mystery, no 'bashing', it is what it is. Pays money, takes choice. All of this is just to say there are good, non-fashionista reasons why some people go with - and stick with - apple, as for why some go with android.

I'm not sure why you couldn't actually just read what I'd already posted.

Open source permits innovation and with that comes change and, inevitably inconsistencies of interpretation and sometimes learning a new way to do the same thing (although where possible I prefer developers to leave legacy interface handling options). The reverse is true with Apple. Rehash the same old tired stuff. As you say, you pays your money.

[Fangle]

We are so fortunate to have such choices. So whichever you land up are probably easy to use, some easier than others. So just use it happily.

[Mr Bungle]

Wee Torque crying over Apple again

[mat the expat]

I'm not bashing them, I'm saying what the user experience is.

Clearly from the number of Android phones out there..

??

Actually, don't bother - to recap, my argument is that Apple have (particularly historically in comparison to others) a simpler, cleaner user experience compared to other phone/tablet suppliers. This is due to them having complete control over the whole show, from hardware through to app release, and arguably a degree of market share that means they can impose their own standards (e.g. physical connectors, protocols) on accessory providers. Android/google, as one example, don't have that control and as such the user experience can suffer - poorly skinned phones, inconsistency between release versions giving differing front ends and functions between manufacturers/models, inconsistency with accessories. Some users, such as my father, prefer apple as it just works, and it's a familiar experience every time he upgrades. He couldn't give a shit why my late mum's android phone wouldn't pair with a number of devices, whether it was his fault (as in couldn't understand the settings), google's fault, Samsung's fault, or the accessory manufacturer's fault, just that it wouldn't reliably pair and that infuriated him. No such trouble with apple. This simplicity of course comes with a cost, literally (apple aren't cheap) and in terms of having certain things imposed. That's it. No mystery, no 'bashing', it is what it is. Pays money, takes choice. All of this is just to say there are good, non-fashionista reasons why some people go with - and stick with - apple, as for why some go with android.

I'm not sure why you couldn't actually just read what I'd already posted.

Well, you clearly needed to get that out of your system

[inactionman]

Clearly from the number of Android phones out there..

??

Actually, don't bother - to recap, my argument is that Apple have (particularly historically in comparison to others) a simpler, cleaner user experience compared to other phone/tablet suppliers. This is due to them having complete control over the whole show, from hardware through to app release, and arguably a degree of market share that means they can impose their own standards (e.g. physical connectors, protocols) on accessory providers. Android/google, as one example, don't have that control and as such the user experience can suffer - poorly skinned phones, inconsistency between release versions giving differing front ends and functions between manufacturers/models, inconsistency with accessories. Some users, such as my father, prefer apple as it just works, and it's a familiar experience every time he upgrades. He couldn't give a shit why my late mum's android phone wouldn't pair with a number of devices, whether it was his fault (as in couldn't understand the settings), google's fault, Samsung's fault, or the accessory manufacturer's fault, just that it wouldn't reliably pair and that infuriated him. No such trouble with apple. This simplicity of course comes with a cost, literally (apple aren't cheap) and in terms of having certain things imposed. That's it. No mystery, no 'bashing', it is what it is. Pays money, takes choice. All of this is just to say there are good, non-fashionista reasons why some people go with - and stick with - apple, as for why some go with android.

I'm not sure why you couldn't actually just read what I'd already posted.

Well, you clearly needed to get that out of your system

Is that emoji thing actually called a bimbo?

[mat the expat]

Yes