[citation][nom]alikum[/nom]Like I said, had you read with a little more sense of humor, you'd realize the sarcasm in my statement. What doesn't start off with 0?[/citation]
A mobile operating system launch.
[citation][nom]alikum[/nom]The statement is perfectly logical with slight sarcasm.[/citation]
1=2 is logical with sarcasm
[citation][nom]alikum[/nom]And no, I was not trying to correct the original poster, or anyone (including you) for that matter.[/citation]
So we're agreed
[citation][nom]alikum[/nom]I pointed out facts which you took a little too seriously and turned it into your arguments.[/citation]
Should I not take 'facts' seriously? Were they sarcastic facts? I didn't turn them into an argument, I put them into context, with more facts.
[citation][nom]alikum[/nom]As for saying you're wrong, like I said, the next sentence following "You're wrong" sums it all up, but you failed to comprehend that. Let me sum it up again, not everyone goes into smartphones for the apps. By generalizing all people who use smartphones are in there for the apps, whatever the size of the market may be, is just wrong. Everyone has their reason to get a smartphone, some are sheeps, some geeks, some casual users ... etc. Friends around me got their smartphones because of peer pressure, not apps.Clearly, had you been more careful in reading, you'd realize that all along, [/citation]
I think it is you who has failed to grasp the bigger issue which pre-empts this whole rant. Please find anywhere in my comment to which 'you're wrong' was a reply, where I generalized 'all people'? And if you look, you'll realise I didn't, and your failure to notice that is why you're STILL not realising why saying 'not everybody wants apps' doesn't in any way contradict what I said. To reiterate, it doesn't even matter if 90% of people don't care about apps. If 10% of them do, the platform suffers as a proposition as a result of having fewer apps. It's very simple, and going on about people buying for different reasons means that the entire point escapes you. Which again, is why you were wrong to say I was wrong.
[citation][nom]alikum[/nom]1. I was in no way trying to correct what the original poster said. It was merely sarcasm. [/citation]
Fantastic, my point all along.
[citation][nom]alikum[/nom]2. By saying you're wrong, I meant the whole statement. I ain't free enough to dissect each sentence and attack one by one. So I said you're wrong which simply means, some where in your statement, I do not agree with, and that's about generalizing people who get smartphones for apps. [/citation]
I agree you meant the whole statement. And I'm being nice, you don't even have to attack each sentence one by one (you know, specificity). But what you do have to prove is that something was wrong within that statement. I did not 'generalize people' at all - as I've already explained to you (3 times now). The fact that lower apps can be to the detriment of a platform as a proposition does not require or imply any generalisations at all. In fact, the only thing it implies, logically, is that at least SOME people care about apps. YOU would have to be generalizing to contradict that.
[citation][nom]alikum[/nom]You asked for figures, I showed you figures. Simple as that[/citation]
Your figures were not disputed anywhere, so this sentence does not cover any of the criticisms set out in the previous point. The reason you actually provided figures was to prove your point that the app library is growing, which I have already shown to be irrelevant to people buying today.
[citation][nom]alikum[/nom]Simple as that.4. No, I'm not an American, neither am I a Canadian. I'm an Asian. As for being ignorant, well, if that's referring to not knowing what Sky Sports is, then I guess you really need to pardon me as it's the first time I hear it. Well, if I do not know what Sky Sports is, then I am willing to bet many in my region do not know. Hence saying Sky Sports is a killer app is simply ... overrated. For sports, ESPN News is good enough for me. My interest is still with CNN.[/citation]
Actually, I called you ignorant for describing it as an 'isolated case', because it was only in the UK, or because you or your 'friends' hadn't used it. THAT is ignorance. It's fine that you don't know about Sky Sports, but it's NOT fine to disregard it on that basis, or to make claims about where it applies if you, as you readily admit, know nothing about it. Do you see the difference?
So in summary, everything I've said has been correct, you've been reduced to agreeing with the original poster, and you've falsely accused me of generalizing when in fact generalization is the only method by which your post could ever have any relevance to the platform as a whole. Oh and of course, it was all sarcastic ;-)