> shill: A person paid to endorse a product favourably, while pretending to be impartial.
> insinuation: That which is insinuated; a hint; a suggestion, innuendo or intimation by distant allusion
"Brand affiliation tribalism" is not an 'insinuation of shilling' as I understand those terms. It's a plainly stated description of 'fanboyism.'
Per the golden rule and principle of charitable assumptions, should I assume it wasn't your intent to mischaracterize my above comment? Should I expect an apology for this presumed misunderstanding? Try as I might, I can't bring myself to believe I'll get one.
My apologies. It was definitely not my intention of mischaracterizing your above comment.
I didn't think a shill necessarily had to be paid. My working definition was more along the lines of;
"an accomplice of a hawker, gambler, or swindler [e.g. Apple] who acts as an enthusiastic customer to entice or encourage others."
Brand affiliation tribalism seems to me closely aligned with that definition. An accomplice acting as an enthusiastic customer. Therefore I read your comment as demeaning the honest support of Apple's policy here as insincere, i.e. shilling. It sounds like you believe that those supportive of Apple's policy are merely disillusioned [fanboys], but not insincere.
But let's not make it about us personally, and again I apologize for taking the first misstep in that direction.
I don't think it's fair to characterize support of Apple's policy here as shilling, or brand affiliation tribalism, or fanboyism.
I think there are valid technical and usability reasons for demanding that all products within a store all conform to the same billing policies. For Apple, providing a consistent user experience is absolutely paramount. They want all apps to act the same and bill the same. If the baseline/standard experience is sub-optimal, then they would say let us fix or improve the baseline experience for everyone, not deal with it piecemeal and leave the user guessing how an app will end up billing them.
However I still believe that if any other corporation were forcing developers wanting to offer free trials to use the "billing details up front, autobilling" scheme, far fewer people here would defend it. I see those sort of schemes as incredibly scummy, similar to the sort of tactics gyms or used car salesmen might use. It's a form of 'dark pattern.'
If this is truly about a consistent user experience, Apple has gone about it in the worst possible way. They should instead forbid collection of payment details when signing up for free trials and require auto-renewals to be opt-in. That would make for a consistently positive user experience, rather than a consistently hostile one.
> insinuation: That which is insinuated; a hint; a suggestion, innuendo or intimation by distant allusion
"Brand affiliation tribalism" is not an 'insinuation of shilling' as I understand those terms. It's a plainly stated description of 'fanboyism.'
Per the golden rule and principle of charitable assumptions, should I assume it wasn't your intent to mischaracterize my above comment? Should I expect an apology for this presumed misunderstanding? Try as I might, I can't bring myself to believe I'll get one.