It could be just me, but I think that last line really detracts from the comment. It moves from debating the merits of an argument to a personal attack.
Well I think that the fact they they still are by far the dominant OS would at least mean that somebody with any sense of balance wouldn't use them as an example of failure. I think you have to be pretty closed off from the real world to think that is a reasonable argument.
If you look at the history of personal and business computing it is clear that OS's that work with multiple hardware vendors have predominated. People who see several years of success by the iPhone and assume that everything about it must be the future of computing are in my view deluded.
Typically, products have a continuum of functionality from 100% dysfunctional to nearly 100% functional. The most successful products often compromise some functionality to achieve marketplace success. Those products that don't compromise often are less successful and appeal to a smaller audience.
That doesn't make the more successful and less functional products better or worse in some abstract sense of "goodness," but it does mean they don't work as well.
True but in the context of the full thread, I was talking about the original poster's prediction of Android becoming Windows which would be their 'demise'. Talking about the demise of a product is clearly more on the success/failure axis.
> The most successful products often compromise some functionality to achieve marketplace success.
I'd say every product compromises some functionality in order to provide other functionality. The more successful products reach a balance of functionality that suits a larger portion of the marketplace.
> That doesn't make the more successful and less functional products better or worse in some abstract sense of "goodness," but it does mean they don't work as well.
I'd say your 'work as well' and 'abstract sense of "goodness"' are pretty much the same thing. They are both subjective measures in this context.
You can often get groups of people who will agree strongly on subjective areas. For example people who think that Jazz music is 'better' than Rock music. Sometimes their subjective views can become extremely self re-enforcing and harden to the extent that they see them as axioms that can be used for proofs in arguments. That's what I believe I saw happening here with the original poster. When someone demonstrates this sort of extreme devotion to a viewpoint it isn't surprising that someone would use the term 'fanboy' to describe them.