The only logical fallacy I see is in your brain dude. :roll eyes:
Alas, I can't force you to understand the concept of logical fallacies, or how they work. I can only point them out when you use them in the hopes that you'll notice rather than get angry you're being questioned on things.
Maybe you could look up the definition of opinion and read about 2000 times until it sinks in and then go take a class on manners because you have none.
I am well aware what an opinion is. The funny thing is, though you're pointing this out to me, you seem to be confused on it, as you're conflating two different usages of the word.
One kind of opinion is the sort of opinion we have about curry, or James Cameron movies, or Bob Dylan. These are the sorts of opinions that we refer to when we say, "it's just my opinion." i.e. "I am of the opinion that red jello is better than green jello." Save some health hazard surrounding either red or green dye, there's really no logical way to discern which one actually is "better." Thus, it's a 'matter of opinion,' not mutable, not questionable.
The other kind of opinion is a synonym for "belief." i.e. "It's my opinion that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a real thing," or "It's my opinion that Barack Obama is going to lose his next election." These opinions
are mutable, since they are matters of fact. This is the kind of opinion you've expressed, one where facts and logic are actually relevant to the case. Hence the discussion.
You charged me with "not providing evidence." The evidence, sir, is in your very own posts. Let's just review the sequence of events here:
1. You said something that wasn't true, and criticized Apple for it.
2. When it was pointed out to you that you were wrong, and rather than go immediately to verify, and then come back and say, "oh, I was wrong. Yeah, I probably shouldn't have attacked Apple for that, since it wasn't true," you came back and repeated the wrong thing you'd said before.
3. You apparently did go and check after you were corrected the second time, but even then, you didn't do anything resembling admitting being wrong or taking back any of your points. You just doubled down, and started criticizing Apple for hypothetical future scenarios it has neither done, nor said it was going to do, making a slippery slope argument that Gatekeeper would inevitably lead to Mac App Store-only distribution for OS X.
You're certainly welcome to critique my manners (though they are a red herring here), but I don't think you have a strong leg to stand on given your vitriol against Apple, and the condescending tone you took with other posters even prior to my arrival.
The pattern is obvious. They've been moving every aspect of OSX to be more like iOS
They most certainly haven't. They have changed some superficial things, for the sake of consistency. They've taken some useful design concepts (like pinch-to-zoom in Safari) and some arguably not-so-useful ones (like Launchpad). They've added more gestures. And they've added the MAS. That isn't "every aspect," by any stretch.
and iOS is locked down as tight as it gets with its monopolizing store-front and required 1/3 payment of all revenue,
You can still release apps for iOS without going through the App Store, via web apps. And many companies do. Some of them are even pretty great (Kindle Cloud Reader, Financial Times). And it's 30%, not 1/3rd.
which has turned out to be very profitable for them
Really. By what metric? Apple makes 95% of its profit from the sale of Macs, iPhones, iPods and iPads. That's 5% left for every single piece of software it produces, every single accessory/peripheral it produces, the iTunes Store, the iOS App Store, and the Mac App Store. I don't know what you call "very profitable," but I don't think it's that.
The much more likely explanation for Apple's continued exclusive use of the App Store on iOS is control: as long as they control every single piece of software that's installed on your device, they can more easily deal with your problems in customer service and repairs, and they can MUCH more easily guarantee that you aren't getting any malware.
which is why they would now like to do the same with OSX for even more profits.
Now you're just claiming you can read minds.
Lion looks and behaves more like iOS
Than Snow Leopard? Absolutely.
and has more bugs than a bait store due to no one putting the time and effort into it.
Now you're just venting general anger. This has absolutely nothing to do with the current discussion.
The App store looks a lot like OSX's App store, but I'm sure you think that's a freaking coincidence.
I never said any such thing. I suppose what you're getting at, here, though, is you think that the advent of the MAS means we should be expecting the locked-down nature of the App Store, as if that's the primary quality of the App Store or something.
The hilarious thing about this assertion is that when the App Store came to iOS, the iPhone actually became far, far
less locked down that it had been before.
Next they put in a control mechanism that would only take a slight tweak to make it impossible to install your own software.
A control mechanism the user gets full control over.
Unlike you, I've presented my evidence to back up my opinion while you haven't proved a single freaking thing.
You seem to think I set out to make the opposite point you were making: that Apple would definitely never lock down OS X like iOS is locked down. I never said that I thought that. I never said anything of the kind. I was just pointing out that you weren't really being fair, or reasonable in the situation; you were just saying untrue things, and then using fallacies to criticize Apple for things they haven't even done.
You could have just given your opinion on the matter,
I could have given my opinion on the matter, but that was never the purpose of my responses. Since you ask, my opinion is this: Apple might, in the future, completely lock down OS X. I think it's more likely that OS X will be gone by the time they'd decide to make that move.
I think it's unlikely they'd make such a big show of introducing Gatekeeper, only to, one or two years later, completely scrap it for an utterly locked-down, MAS-only system.
I think they know they already have a problem with developers, and I don't think they want to gratuitously anger their long time Mac devs in an increasingly competitive computing environment, where their best asset by far is the reserve of incredibly talented third party developers who have created (and are continuing to create) some of the best, most innovative software in the world.
Apple knows where they make their money, and it isn't (and has never been) in selling software, or content. It has always been in selling hardware. And I really don't think completely locking down the Mac, thereby alienating so many existing users and developers instantly, all at once, would serve their interest of selling more hardware, rather than less.
They could still do it; particularly if Apple fits your Snidely Whiplash-esque vision. But I doubt it.
but no, you want to play mind games and put out personal insults. How very droll.
If by "mind games," you mean, "pointing out errors and logical problems with the arguments of others," then sure, I "play mind games." And personal insults, once again, is a red herring. All I've done so far is point out problems with your arguments. If you consider criticism on logical grounds to be a "personal insult," and the way you've spoken about Apple and to other posters
not to be, I'd really take a hard look in a mirror.
----------
You have to wonder why any of us bother to use the internet. We all obviously hate each other. Every single person on every single forum is a douche to everyone else, feels compelled to correct them and point out useless and utterly worthless things, and then be offended when something stupid is obviously pointed out.
Yes, how dare I correct someone for saying something that's wrong when they're making an argument. How silly and frivolous of me. These discussions may be "stupid" and meaningless to you, but they aren't to everyone.
It's just so funny that we all use our computers (in some part) to be social, only to ultimately be rude and crappy to online people. We all do it. Weird.
I'm not trying to be crappy to anyone. I'm just trying to have a conversation, but that requires a level playing field, which means playing by the rules of logic.