[setopt]

There are plenty of non-hiDPI screens from other vendors on the market, especially “large” screens that are “medium” in price. In an office you’re not always free to order a screen from any vendor you want (due to their framework agreements), unless of course you’re paying for that hardware privately.

I care about how things look, and have spent more time than I want to admit configuring MacOS apps to look good on the screens available to me. I just don’t care enough to buy an expensive office screen with my own cash if my employer can’t provide one.

[jillesvangurp]

I was talking about Apple. Apple stopped selling non hiDpi screens some time last decade. T

[ffsm8]

So in a nutshell:

Apple specifically wants that you cannot use non-apple displays by artificially worsening the experience for the user while strengthening the illusion that Apple's hardware looks better - even though the only reason it does is because Apple themselves made sure to make other displays look unnecessarily bad.

It's hilarious there are people that actually think this is totally okay and not just plain anti-competitive with just enough plausible deniability to get away with it

[lproven]

Well, in a word, no.

In a few more words: not at all, not even slightly.

To explain briefly:

> Apple specifically wants that you cannot use non-apple displays

No. Apple does not make or sell or offer non-HD displays and has not done for over a decade. Apple mainly sells phones and laptops with built-in hiDPI screens. Desktop computers that use external screens are a small part of its range, and it sells its own very high-quality screens for those.

Because font antialiasing is pointless on a hiDPI screen, and it only offers hiDPI screens, it removed antialiasing from its OSes.

However, the kit does still support old screens and you are free to use them. The antialiasing feature is gone, but to my (not very strong) eyesight it doesn't matter and stuff looks fine.

> artificially worsening the experience for the user

No. This is paranoia.

> It's hilarious there are people that actually think this is totally okay

People think it's okay because your interpretation is paranoid.

> not just plain anti-competitive

How is REMOVING features anti-competitive? In what universe does taking something out of your products hurt your competition? That is absurd.

[ffsm8]

> How is REMOVING features anti-competitive? In what universe does taking something out of your products hurt your competition? That is absurd.

You're unironically arguing that EEE isn't anti competitive?

The whole strategy is about removing support/features at the right time when users cannot realistically leave, putting the nail in the competitors coffin.

Simply put:

1. initial product supports both equally

2. People start using your product

3. Competitors product work less well

4. People will use the better working product. Despite the fact that the downgrade in quality is artificial.

Or is it only anti-competitive if Microsoft does it, Apple being the last bastion of healthy competition on the market, with groundbreaking examples like the AppStore and the green/blue bubbles in their chat app?

[lproven]

> You're unironically arguing that EEE isn't anti competitive?

What does "EEE" mean? Answer that and I can attempt to address the rest.

I still think your argument -- I lose the word very loosely -- is foolish and backwards.