[yourenotsmart]

So your answer to all specific problems I stated is "I reject your world and substitute my own".

Not one reasonable and intellectually honest person expects that the average phone user out there even knows what a browser engine IS, let alone compare two of them, or know where it's used (when it's not even disclosed).

Keep in mind smartphones are even more widely used than "computers" in general. So I guess even 8 year olds now are expected to do a security analysis on the browser engine their game uses before playing.

Delusional.

[agust]

I honestly thought showing how consumers are able to make informed choices in other and as technical markets like computers, mobile devices and other softwares categories, plus the fact that it is the case for web browsers on any other OS, would be two strong enough arguments to dismiss yours...

Probably more than 95% of car owners do not understand how the engine of a car works. So, following your reasoning, it would justify having no competition in the car market?

Thankfully most of the world chose the free-market economy model, of which free competition is a pillar. There is no reason for the web browser market to be an exception and justify obstructed competition like Apple does on iOS.

[Terretta]

Consumers clamored for Flash engine, against their interests. Chrome aims to be the new Flash. iPhone rejected one, to the benefit of open web, and must be free to reject the other.

[Hammershaft]

Are you also arguing that Apple and Microsoft should restrict you to safari and edge on your desktop to protect clueless users?

[_Algernon_]

Just because the average consumer doesn't understand browser engines, doesn't mean that those who do should have that option removed. Hide it in developer settings behind three warning prompts for all I care but make the option available to those who want it.

And drop the ad hominem rhethoric please.

[yourenotsmart]

What you suggest actually can't work, it means applications have no control themselves what engine they run on. Browser engines can't just be a config setting, you're basically asking for chaos.

Also you should review what "ad hominem" means. Saying "no one intellectually honest would say 2 + 2 is 5" is not ad hominem.

[_Algernon_]

Calling someone delusional on a completely subjective issue, for voicing an opinion definitely qualifies as an ad hominem.

[yourenotsmart]

That's not ad hominem. You have it backwards.

Ad hominem doesn't mean "don't say bad words about me and my opinions". Ad hominem would be disregarding an opinion not by discussing the opinion, but by discarding the opinion based on WHO said it.

It's in fact very hard to commit ad hominem against an anonymous person online who has said nothing about themselves. If they said "I have a history of delusions" and I said "therefore your opinion has no merit", that's ad hominem.

The fact that despite that you constantly hear people complaining about "ad hominem" online is just that much funnier. Strawman is another one that most people love to say, while having no clue what it means.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/barrierbreaker/two-misundersto...

I don't know or care who said the above opinion. I care about their opinion and their opinion was delusional.

Thinking the world at large knows, cares, and can make "informed choices" about the browser engines used throughout their phone apps is delusional.

Also, there's nothing "subjective" about whether all smartphone users are web developers, and therefore happen to care about browser engines.

[fouc]

You called the argument delusional, and therefore it wasn't an ad hominem, so you're right about that.

But, "Delusional" is often associated with name-calling, so it sounds more like you're calling the person delusional, rather than what they said. Something like "This sounds delusional to me" would avoid that confusion.

[yourenotsmart]

I did call the argument delusional, yes.

But even if I decided to call the commenter names, that wouldn't be ad hominem (link above on details).

It's rude, it's uncivilized maybe, we can have qualifications like that. But it's not "ad hominem", because "ad hominem" isn't about "you insulted someone".