Netflix No Longer Offering In-App Subscription Options on iOS Devices

[sidewinder3000]

You need to buy a new TV. For example, Sony TVs have Android OS. Their interface (including that for Netflix) is pretty slick. Also, remote controls for Sony TVs and BluRay players now have large physical Netflix button. This probably brings more subscribers than Apple does. And one does not need to struggle with second remote control and/or device. One button click and you are watching Netflix, then press TV button and you are watching cable TV, that's way better than anything Apple can offer (short of offering their own TV set so far they failed at designing a TV set). Paying via Netflix website is not that difficult. Can't you just register your credit card?

Why would I want a new TV? I have a plasma studio reference monitor that is one of the best TVs ever made. And why would I want android in my TV? So that Google can collect data about me while I watch TV? I honestly have no idea why you would write that.

Also, what’s your point? Are you saying that people can actually SIGN UP for Netflix with their TV interface? And manage payments through their TV? If not, then all you’re saying is that people can sign up via the web. Which isn’t news. And which means you have no argument as to which platform drives the most sales for Netflix.
[doublepost=1546399803][/doublepost]

Why do you think they went with the things they did?

Not sure what you mean by this.
[doublepost=1546400086][/doublepost]

Why doesn’t Apple just have a policy of no free apps? Every app has to cost at least 99 cents. And let Apple take a cut of that.
[doublepost=1546263313][/doublepost]
Heh, at least you’re honest. IMO Uber and Lyft owe their existence to iOS/mobile platforms more than Netflix does. I suppose the argument is you play Netflix content on Apple hardware so that’s why Apple deserves a cut of Netflix’s revenue stream. But there are lots of other ways to view Netflix content (I view it using my smart TV which has Roku integration). Without the phone in your pocket Uber and Lyft wouldn’t exist.

I agree about Uber & Lyft. Which makes it all the more weird how Uber brazenly deceived Apple in an effort to violate App Store rules. That story of Tim calling the Uber founder on the carpet and threatening to bounce them from iOS is pretty epic.
[doublepost=1546401473][/doublepost]

Because copyright was intended to give individuals sufficient time to profit (28 years) before it became shared ownership by the community. That would mean movies like The Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast should be available for anyone to use as they wish.

Instead Disney has lobbied to have that time extended, lobbying over and over to reduce their losses. Now we are looking at over 120 years before the public gets access.

Disney has every right to profit from their novel ideas (just like anyone) but that isn’t granted in perpetuality. The longer it takes for works to enter public domain the less cultural value it provides. Netflix, by curating the content and making the expirences easier to navigate could give people reason to pay for content that could otherwise be downloaded free.

Copyright is the only part of the Constitution that explicitly explains why Congress was granted the right to regulate it. The Constitution, as you likely know, granted Congress the power declare war, make money, and raise an Army and Navy. But it never explains why they have that right. In detailing copyright however it clearly stated that the intent was to promote science and arts through limited exclusive rights. Individuals profit during private ownership, but development of science and art requires the public have free access to use prior knowledge. The balance was made such that a person were originally granted maximum protection for 14 years, plus 14 more if requested.

And for what it’s worth, copyright provided protection against those who sought to use copyrighted works for financial gain. There was no punishment for those who used it for personal use - at least that’s how it was until 1997.

The world was different when those laws were created. People who created art died and there wasn’t much of a reason to extend the period of profit much longer.

Plus, length of protection for ideas and works of art should definitely be treated differently. An idea can be borrowed and tweaked by other companies and benefit the planet. It shouldn’t be allowed to be “off the market” too long. Art works and media cost $10-100 million or more to make, and now that streaming allows video arts to have a usable lifespan that’s much longer than 100 years ago, it makes perfect sense to allow companies to profit for a longer period of time.

If a company builds a skyscraper, or a factory, or a stadium, those assets don’t become public domain after 28 years. If media can now have a usable life that extends beyond a generation, and the creators of that media are an organization that can benefit from having produced more, better work than other companies and offerening them in a robust streaming library, why should they have to share those assets with other companies who haven’t created as much great content?
[doublepost=1546402180][/doublepost]

Who's talking fantasy here?! Hope you've got something to back that up as thats the crazziest assertion I think i've ever seen on here!

You suggesting that the Android Nation, a huge percentage of which is occupied by cheap, discounted, low-end or free devices, has a wealthier, more educated, more lucrative user base?

It’s not a moral judgement. No need to be defensive. It’s just a description of who Apple targets. Apple doesn’t make products for everyone. Android does. Apple doesn’t care about marketshare. Android does. Apple makes higher end products aimed at a smaller segment of the market.

Does Mercedes have a wealthier, more educated, more lucrative user base than Chevy? Case closed.

 

[Michael Goff]

Why would I want a new TV? I have a plasma studio reference monitor that is one of the best TVs ever made. And why would I want android in my TV? So that Google can collect data about me while I watch TV? I honestly have no idea why you would write that.

Also, what’s your point? Are you saying that people can actually SIGN UP for Netflix with their TV interface? And manage payments through their TV? If not, then all you’re saying is that people can sign up via the web. Which isn’t news. And which means you have no argument as to which platform drives the most sales for Netflix.
[doublepost=1546399803][/doublepost]
Not sure what you mean by this.
[doublepost=1546400086][/doublepost]
I agree about Uber & Lyft. Which makes it all the more weird how Uber brazenly deceived Apple in an effort to violate App Store rules. That story of Tim calling the Uber founder on the carpet and threatening to bounce them from iOS is pretty epic.
[doublepost=1546401473][/doublepost]
The world was different when those laws were created. People who created art died and there wasn’t much of a reason to extend the period of profit much longer.

Plus, length of protection for ideas and works of art should definitely be treated differently. An idea can be borrowed and tweaked by other companies and benefit the planet. It shouldn’t be allowed to be “off the market” too long. Art works and media cost $10-100 million or more to make, and now that streaming allows video arts to have a usable lifespan that’s much longer than 100 years ago, it makes perfect sense to allow companies to profit for a longer period of time.

If a company builds a skyscraper, or a factory, or a stadium, those assets don’t become public domain after 28 years. If media can now have a usable life that extends beyond a generation, and the creators of that media are an organization that can benefit from having produced more, better work than other companies and offerening them in a robust streaming library, why should they have to share those assets with other companies who haven’t created as much great content?
[doublepost=1546402180][/doublepost]
You suggesting that the Android Nation, a huge percentage of which is occupied by cheap, discounted, low-end or free devices, has a wealthier, more educated, more lucrative user base?

It’s not a moral judgement. No need to be defensive. It’s just a description of who Apple targets. Apple doesn’t make products for everyone. Android does. Apple doesn’t care about marketshare. Android does. Apple makes higher end products aimed at a smaller segment of the market.

Does Mercedes have a wealthier, more educated, more lucrative user base than Chevy? Case closed.

Why do you think Disney made a lot of the movies they made?

 

[4jasontv]

The world was different when those laws were created. People who created art died and there wasn’t much of a reason to extend the period of profit much longer.

There still isn’t reason for profit after the created dies.

Plus, length of protection for ideas and works of art should definitely be treated differently. An idea can be borrowed and tweaked by other companies and benefit the planet. It shouldn’t be allowed to be “off the market” too long.

I don’t understand what this is trying to explain.

Art works and media cost $10-100 million or more to make, and now that streaming allows video arts to have a usable lifespan that’s much longer than 100 years ago, it makes perfect sense to allow companies to profit for a longer period of time.

The lifespan of art irrelevant, as are the profits of a company in this discussion.

If a company builds a skyscraper, or a factory, or a stadium, those assets don’t become public domain after 28 years.

You are confusing assets and IP. How to build a skyscraper or stadium becomes public not the buildings themselves.

If media can now have a usable life that extends beyond a generation, and the creators of that media are an organization that can benefit from having produced more, better work than other companies and offerening them in a robust streaming library, why should they have to share those assets with other companies who haven’t created as much great content?

Because they no longer own exclusive rights to it. You act like they have a right to own it when the constitution states they have exclusive limited rights. If they can’t profit sufficiently in the time given they than to bad so sad.

 

[Shiro_Simba]

We are having a friendly discussion, right? Neither of us sets out to antagonize the other, however, we may get passionate about our subject matter and each have a different view.

We can pick this up anytime you want. I tend to follow some threads closely and respond as such

Spoken well. Passion Means you really care , don’t loose that.

 

[sidewinder3000]

Why do you think Disney made a lot of the movies they made?

As a tax shelter? What kinda question is that?Please just say what you wanna say.
[doublepost=1546419084][/doublepost]

There still isn’t reason for profit after the created dies.

Read what I wrote. Corporations don’t die. And there is absolutely a valid reason why they should be able to profit from something that they created years ago if it is still relevant and in demand by the public. Making a movie public domain after 28 years is too aggressively collectivist for my taste. They shouldn’t be able to control it forever, but 3 decades seems too short.

 

[Michael Goff]

As a tax shelter? What kinda question is that?Please just say what you wanna say.

A lot of Disney’s works come from the public domain. They took things that they got for free and used them to make billions of dollars. So they’ve benefitted from public domain and then used their money to try to destroy it so that nobody could public domain their work. It’s both sad and pathetic.

 

[Abazigal]

Who's talking fantasy here?! Hope you've got something to back that up as thats the crazziest assertion I think i've ever seen on here!

It sounds arrogant but it’s not far from the truth. Apple has aggregated the best customers. That’s why the iOS App Store brings in more revenue despite having smaller market share, because iOS users are generally more willing to spend on apps.

They are also willing to spend on products such as Apple Watches and splurge on multiple watch bands, while the average android user on reddit feels that a smartwatch shouldn’t cost more than $100.

Google reportedly earns more from the iOS platform than its own android platform.

When people argue that iOS has smaller market share, they often fail to acknowledge that not all customers are made equal. So looking at trends, you are better off with one Apple customer (on average) compared to 7 android users.

 

[Dave.UK]

It’s not a moral judgement. No need to be defensive. It’s just a description of who Apple targets. Apple doesn’t make products for everyone. Android does. Apple doesn’t care about marketshare. Android does. Apple makes higher end products aimed at a smaller segment of the market.

Does Mercedes have a wealthier, more educated, more lucrative user base than Chevy? Case closed.

I wasn't being defensive, I was saying it was the crazziest comment i've seen on here. I've seen both ends of the spectrum with iPhones in the UK. From people on benefits to high flyers.

Same goes for your Mercedes comment, it's called PCP. Judging someones education based on material goods is remarkably petty.

Case closed? How childish!

 

[4jasontv]

As a tax shelter? What kinda question is that?Please just say what you wanna say.
[doublepost=1546419084][/doublepost]
Read what I wrote. Corporations don’t die. And there is absolutely a valid reason why they should be able to profit from something that they created years ago if it is still relevant and in demand by the public. Making a movie public domain after 28 years is too aggressively collectivist for my taste. They shouldn’t be able to control it forever, but 3 decades seems too short.

You speak of companies as if they have rights. They don’t. Companies exist to provide protection to individuals so as to promote innovation. Those individuals already get a benefit by being part of a company, we shouldn’t be using that benifit to justify extending laws. The protection should help one single person for a fraction of that persons life. Three decades was already excessive.

 

[LordVic]

You speak of companies as if they have rights. They don’t. Companies exist to provide protection to individuals so as to promote innovation. Those individuals already get a benefit by being part of a company, we shouldn’t be using that benifit to justify extending laws. The protection should help one single person for a fraction of that persons life. Three decades was already excessive.

While I wholeheartedly agree with you on the fact that companies should not have rights, especially not anywhere close to those of individuals, in the US, there have been a few cases in court where the judges have ruled that corporations should be considered just like people, with all the rights and benefits of such.

 

[timber]

Because copyright was intended to give individuals sufficient time to profit (28 years) before it became shared ownership by the community. That would mean movies like The Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast should be available for anyone to use as they wish.

Instead Disney has lobbied to have that time extended, lobbying over and over to reduce their losses. Now we are looking at over 120 years before the public gets access.

Disney has every right to profit from their novel ideas (just like anyone) but that isn’t granted in perpetuality. The longer it takes for works to enter public domain the less cultural value it provides. Netflix, by curating the content and making the expirences easier to navigate could give people reason to pay for content that could otherwise be downloaded free.

Copyright is the only part of the Constitution that explicitly explains why Congress was granted the right to regulate it. The Constitution, as you likely know, granted Congress the power declare war, make money, and raise an Army and Navy. But it never explains why they have that right. In detailing copyright however it clearly stated that the intent was to promote science and arts through limited exclusive rights. Individuals profit during private ownership, but development of science and art requires the public have free access to use prior knowledge. The balance was made such that a person were originally granted maximum protection for 14 years, plus 14 more if requested.

And for what it’s worth, copyright provided protection against those who sought to use copyrighted works for financial gain. There was no punishment for those who used it for personal use - at least that’s how it was until 1997.

Disney's stance is at the same time funny and hypocrite considering that almost all their movies, ideas and characters are adaptations (or rip-offs depending on the point of view) of books and works that they can use exactly because they are old enough to do not be owned by anybody.

 

[DiamonDecoden]

As a business, I don't understand Netflix didn't do this sooner. 30% is a LOT! I think 5% is more reasonable. I understand there should be fees involved but 30% is way too much!!!!!!! Renegotiation time ASAP!!!!!!!

There is no way for Netflix to charge more the compensate for the fees either, the customers will leave by the droves... This move, I think they should've done a LONG time ago.

 

[Skeptical.me]

Because copyright was intended to give individuals sufficient time to profit (28 years) before it became shared ownership by the community. That would mean movies like The Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast should be available for anyone to use as they wish.

Instead Disney has lobbied to have that time extended, lobbying over and over to reduce their losses. Now we are looking at over 120 years before the public gets access.

Disney has every right to profit from their novel ideas (just like anyone) but that isn’t granted in perpetuality. The longer it takes for works to enter public domain the less cultural value it provides. Netflix, by curating the content and making the expirences easier to navigate could give people reason to pay for content that could otherwise be downloaded free.

Copyright is the only part of the Constitution that explicitly explains why Congress was granted the right to regulate it. The Constitution, as you likely know, granted Congress the power declare war, make money, and raise an Army and Navy. But it never explains why they have that right. In detailing copyright however it clearly stated that the intent was to promote science and arts through limited exclusive rights. Individuals profit during private ownership, but development of science and art requires the public have free access to use prior knowledge. The balance was made such that a person were originally granted maximum protection for 14 years, plus 14 more if requested.

And for what it’s worth, copyright provided protection against those who sought to use copyrighted works for financial gain. There was no punishment for those who used it for personal use - at least that’s how it was until 1997.

That was a very informative post. I was unaware of pretty much all of that.

 

[Kendo]

Can anyone explain why we are still able to resubscribe through our iTunes account even if we cancelled months ago?

 

[sidewinder3000]

A lot of Disney’s works come from the public domain. They took things that they got for free and used them to make billions of dollars. So they’ve benefitted from public domain and then used their money to try to destroy it so that nobody could public domain their work. It’s both sad and pathetic.

Did they reaquire their own works that went public domain, or others works?
[doublepost=1546476482][/doublepost]

I wasn't being defensive, I was saying it was the crazziest comment i've seen on here. I've seen both ends of the spectrum with iPhones in the UK. From people on benefits to high flyers.

Same goes for your Mercedes comment, it's called PCP. Judging someones education based on material goods is remarkably petty.

Case closed? How childish!

If that’s the craziest comment you’ve read on here then you must be new. Nothing I said should be surprising to anyone who understands branding or market segmentation. It’s a fairly conservative speculation.

And you’re wrong about education level. There absolutely is a correlation between ability to afford luxury goods and education level. It’s basic economics.

I believe that what I said originally is true—I’ve worked in branding and advertising for 20 years and my instincts are pretty good. And you’ve offered nothing of substance to refute it. You have no contrary evidence and so you decide to just get personal and hurl insults.

Peace.

 

[Michael Goff]

Did they reaquire their own works that went public domain, or others works?
[doublepost=1546476482][/doublepost]
If that’s the craziest comment you’ve read on here then you must be new. Nothing I said should be surprising to anyone who understands branding or market segmentation. It’s a fairly conservative speculation.

And you’re wrong about education level. There absolutely is a correlation between ability to afford luxury goods and education level. It’s basic economics.

I believe that what I said originally is true—I’ve worked in branding and advertising for 20 years and my instincts are pretty good. And you’ve offered nothing of substance to refute it. You have no contrary evidence and so you decide to just get personal and hurl insults.

Peace.

My brain is fried. What are you asking?

 

[sidewinder3000]

You speak of companies as if they have rights. They don’t. Companies exist to provide protection to individuals so as to promote innovation. Those individuals already get a benefit by being part of a company, we shouldn’t be using that benifit to justify extending laws. The protection should help one single person for a fraction of that persons life. Three decades was already excessive.

You’re either confused or misinformed. Corporations absolutely have rights. Citizens United made that abundantly clear.

Seizing a company’s product and making it available to competitors after 28 years is fundamentally unfair and contrary to basic tenants of a free market economy.

Name one good reason why Steven Spielberg and Universal Pictures should have been required to forfeit Jaws in 2014 and allow Disney and Columbia and Netflix and Amazon to add it to their libraries for free?
[doublepost=1546477265][/doublepost]

My brain is fried. What are you asking?

What are some examples of these public domain works they acquired? Were they movies that they’d created in the distant past, or works that others had created?

 

[Michael Goff]

You’re either confused or misinformed. Corporations absolutely have rights. Citizens United made that abundantly clear.

Seizing a company’s product and making it available to competitors after 28 years is fundamentally unfair and contrary to basic tenants of a free market economy.

Name one good reason why Steven Spielberg and Universal Pictures should have been required to forfeit Jaws in 2014 and allow Disney and Columbia and Netflix and Amazon to add it to their libraries for free?
[doublepost=1546477265][/doublepost]
What are some examples of these public domain works they acquired? Were they movies that they’d created in the distant past, or works that others had created?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/derekk...vies-based-on-the-public-domain/#209ca7e1329c

As early as the 1930’s and as recent as Frozen.

 

[4jasontv]

Name one good reason why Steven Spielberg and Universal Pictures should have been required to forfeit Jaws in 2014 and allow Disney and Columbia and Netflix and Amazon to add it to their libraries for free?

They had their chance to recover costs (which they did in spades).

Yes, it's true. Corporations have been awarded rights - we messed that up big time. However, we can, and should, fix it.

Seizing a company’s product and making it available to competitors after 28 years is fundamentally unfair and contrary to basic tenants of a free market economy.

This thinking needs to go. No one is taking their movies away. They can still watch them, the only difference would be that everyone else can watch them too. It's not a free market if you are giving exclusive rights to someone.
[doublepost=1546481865][/doublepost]

While I wholeheartedly agree with you on the fact that companies should not have rights, especially not anywhere close to those of individuals, in the US, there have been a few cases in court where the judges have ruled that corporations should be considered just like people, with all the rights and benefits of such.

Mistakes can be corrected. Protections should be given to business owners - but not the business.
[doublepost=1546482074][/doublepost]

Read what I wrote.

Ok.

Corporations don’t die.

They do, but for the sake of your point I will pretend they don't. The fact that they don't die is a good reason why they shouldn't be authorized to hold IP in the first place. Things that don't die can't respect time or culture at the scale of an individual generation.

And there is absolutely a valid reason why they should be able to profit from something that they created years ago if it is still relevant and in demand by the public.

Which is what? What is more important that the rights of the citizens? Other people, who didn't create the art or science are entitled to benefit from a creation within their lifetimes. So what posible reason can a business have? Profits are not an excuse. Demand would support the need for entering public domain.
[doublepost=1546482541][/doublepost]

The world was different when those laws were created. People who created art died and there wasn’t much of a reason to extend the period of profit much longer.

Still isn't.

Plus, length of protection for ideas and works of art should definitely be treated differently. An idea can be borrowed and tweaked by other companies and benefit the planet.

So can art.

It shouldn’t be allowed to be “off the market” too long.

I don't understand what this means.

Art works and media cost $10-100 million or more to make

Irrelevant.

, and now that streaming allows video arts to have a usable lifespan that’s much longer than 100 years ago

Also irrelevant.

, it makes perfect sense to allow companies to profit for a longer period of time.

Because a company can profit does not give them some right to do so. Remember, the Constitution give exclusive right as a way to encourage development - but it should be come property of the people ASAP.

If a company builds a skyscraper, or a factory, or a stadium, those assets don’t become public domain after 28 years.

The building no, but the plans yes.

If media can now have a usable life that extends beyond a generation, and the creators of that media are an organization that can benefit from having produced more, better work than other companies and offerening them in a robust streaming library, why should they have to share those assets with other companies who haven’t created as much great content?

They can still try and make better works - the only difference is they lose their exclusive rights to the prior work. If Harry Potter becomes public domain than J. K. Rowling can still write more Harry Potter books, just like any one else. If her new book is better than other peoples books she might even be able to sell her new work. But she should not be able to stop people from using her original idea, nor should she be able to stop people from reprinting her works as is or under an edit and selling them.

This post provides great examples about how public domain content can be used to generate new works and culture. Who knows what we might have if Disney content was available for others to work from.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/derekk...vies-based-on-the-public-domain/#209ca7e1329c

As early as the 1930’s and as recent as Frozen.

Here is a key point that I keep reading, but needs to be spray painted across everyone's display: if there is remaining value to be extracted from a property than it is even more important that it enter public domain - not more important that the owner of the property maintain longer control.

 

[Dave.UK]

Did they reaquire their own works that went public domain, or others works?
[doublepost=1546476482][/doublepost]
If that’s the craziest comment you’ve read on here then you must be new. Nothing I said should be surprising to anyone who understands branding or market segmentation. It’s a fairly conservative speculation.

And you’re wrong about education level. There absolutely is a correlation between ability to afford luxury goods and education level. It’s basic economics.

I believe that what I said originally is true—I’ve worked in branding and advertising for 20 years and my instincts are pretty good. And you’ve offered nothing of substance to refute it. You have no contrary evidence and so you decide to just get personal and hurl insults.

Peace.

Clearly not, you can see under my avatar when I joined.
So to clarify, there are no poor/uneducated people using iPhones and no wealthy/educated people using Android?

Ah, Just noticed the "I believe", so this is your opinion and not fact. Noted.

 

[MacCheetah3]

The content providers are separating more everyday, instead on working together. Soon, cable, a consolidated option, will be king again.

Yes, though so are the networks: FOX, ABC, CBS, etc. Each has or is moving to their own premium services.

In general, that sort of a la carte can be nice, but many of the providers aren't making the packages cost-effective because it's very hit and miss. You'll get some content for a small price but not others, or you pay a ton for lots, but much you don't want. Even Netflix and Amazon can be annoying in this way -- however, that's also usually because of the studios. For example, paying for Amazon Prime does grant on-demand access to lots of shows and movies, but there are still lots you're required to pay a rental fee (above and beyond the Prime sub cost). So, then the situation becomes a crap shoot again anyway.

 

[icanhazsabres]

Apple doesn't take 30%. Subscriptions take 15% after the first year, which is what most of Netflix billing would wind up being. Everyone citing 30%...did we read the same article??

Wow 30% that’s a lot of money.

 

[timber]

Even at 15% it is a enormous amount of money. For some reason Netflix is consistly on the grossing apps.
Whatever one may think what we have here is the top grossing app store app (or close depending on country) giving Apple the finger.
The problem isn't solely with Apple. Netflix already ditched Google and Fortnite ditched the whole Play Store.
The current store models are driving away any income from top apps.
Something will have to change.

 

[Gilligan's last elephant]

Even at 15% it is a enormous amount of money. For some reason Netflix is consistly on the grossing apps.
Whatever one may think what we have here is the top grossing app store app (or close depending on country) giving Apple the finger.
The problem isn't solely with Apple. Netflix already ditched Google and Fortnite ditched the whole Play Store.
The current store models are driving away any income from top apps.
Something will have to change.

This coming to attention made me check to see if the any of my Google Play monthly subscriptions could be paid direct to the recipient. I'd rather they got all my money if the option is there.

 

[sidewinder3000]

Clearly not, you can see under my avatar when I joined.
So to clarify, there are no poor/uneducated people using iPhones and no wealthy/educated people using Android?

Ah, Just noticed the "I believe", so this is your opinion and not fact. Noted.

Did you actually misread what wrote as “there are no poor/uneducated people using iPhones and no wealthy/educated people using Android?” That’s not what I wrote at all. And sort of nuts to jump to that conclusion. I was just talking about demographics. Anyone who’s been on the planet for a few dozen turns around the sun has a basic understanding that large groups aren’t homogenous and contain variation. That doesn’t mean there aren’t averages and bell curves with common traits bunched in the middle. But every group is made of individuals and exceptions always exist.

I still stand by my original statement. It’s fairly intuitive and I’d bet a Benjamin that it’s correct. But feel free to misinterpret it and become incensed as much as you like. I can’t stop you.