We can agree to disagree.
If there's one thing in this world I understand, however, it is economics. You are aggregating prior individual preferences (or potential evidence thereof) and using that to ascribe prospective group behavior without understanding why the prior behavior existed in the first place. While it may seem clear and correct to you, you can't do that b/c ==>
- Preferences shift;
- Preferences are individual;
- Humans are inherently simple creatures and make choices for a variety of reasons and integrating a variety of factors;
- You have no actual proof other than sales figures and estimates on what people choose to prefer, but not necessarily why people chose it (and preferences = why). Ascribing hacking v. non-hacking as a definitive factor (in either regard) undermines individuality and choice;
- You removing an actual preference (hacking) does nothing other than to skew the choice and the results thereof
By saying Apple caters to a market whose preferences align with a majority of users, and as such, is clearly a superior preference point than Android, defeats the purpose of preference entirely. Just because X quantity of Y product is moved does not mean that Y is necessarily better than Z; it merely means that more preferences lean in that direction, and that a smart company would maximize that preference.
Further, it has been implied (actually stated in your post) that because your preference is A (hacking) yet the other choice B (nonhacking) is dominant, choice A is meaningless and B choice products are largely qualitatively better. As such, we shouldn't choose A because the reasons for doing so don't matter (your bit about reasons becoming less clear), or should not matter, because they are not in the majority. This is just incorrect. It doesn't work that way; just b/c users like Chevrolet over Ford does not mean that there are no reasons to choose Ford over Chevrolet or that there's a market mandate to purchase Chevrolet. It follows that they choose Chevrolet because that's what their preference is; but, fortunately for humanity, that does not mean we "should" choose it.
And lastly, you can't cherry pick an individual's preferences just to prove a somewhat hollow point. You're doing so, and by saying that you shouldn't include those who hack, then you undermine basic, individual economics and how we as humans make (and have made) rational choices.
P.S. My apologies--was up late seeing Prometheus and have yet to have the requisite 4 cups of coffees.
For TL;DR ==> you can't claim an individual prefers X over Y when you start cherry-picking what they are "allowed" to prefer.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Android Central Forums