Hacker News Reader

Comment by huangm | Hacker News Reader

I know the author's intent is to weaken Jobs' arguments, but to me he seems to strengthen them. The vast majority of people driving cars never need to drive on country roads. Anyone that needs to drive on country roads is by no means forced to drive an iCar - they are free to choose whatever car they want.

View on HN

Which is why I choose not to buy an iPhone or an iPad. When someone complains about an inadequacy of a product and you replay that they should buy something else, you are missing the point. The ability to buy a real car, does not make an iCar useful.

Many, many people live in areas where they could get away with using public transit only, most of them still own cars because sometimes they still need or want them. Only I can know whether I need to drive on gravel roads, and even I won't know whether I will need to in the future.

If I think Flash is a nuisance, (and I do) I am free to avoid it. But I don't want Steve Jobs or any company making such decisions for me. Jobs is free to sell his phones with whatever policy he wants, and I'm free to think that he sucks for it.

You're claiming inadequacy on your own perspective. I'm sure off-roaders think compact cars are inadequate for their needs. They may choose gas milage or design over off-roading capabilities. As such I think the don't like it? don't buy it argument is a good way to be a consumer.

"Vast majority" and "never" are extremely strong qualifiers. It must be nice living in a world where everything is constant and optimum. Granted, nobody is made to drive an iCar. But every so often, you are probably going to need a real car not designed for fantasyland.

Part of this is just a failing of the analogy; Apple has much tighter control over their platform than they ever could over roads networks.

certainly but the question is does the limitation arise from a legitimate technical limitation, or because apple has shorted the country real estate market?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com