[anthonycerra]

"Claiming something to be revolutionary while it's not" - This is simple marketing. A business needs to say something to differentiate itself from its competitors.

"modifying standard connectors to remove your choices" - I'd argue they did it for performance issues, not some conspiracy to get you to buy their adapters. Modifying things to suit a different purpose is engineering.

"charging you more for that is evil." - You charge what your customers will pay, not what it costs you to produce. It's a business, not a charity.

Take emotion out of it and just look at the facts.

[viraptor]

The article mentioned that the pin layout is the same, only the shape is different, so I don't buy the performance explanation. It's a change so that they're different and not the first one.

Claiming something vaguely true may be marketing. Claiming something incorrect and calling it marketing is at least dodgy.

[anthonycerra]

Shape may not be directly related to performance, but I'd guess it's similar to the argument for the iPhone not having a removable battery (i.e. the housings and connectors required would restrict the size of the battery itself thus resulting in shorter battery life.) I'm not saying it's the same case here, but knowing Apple's preference towards a compact and efficient use of space, I wouldn't rule it out.

Definitely agree with you on your marketing point. If it can be proven incorrect then it's not ok (nor is it legal). I think they use the word "revolutionary" in place of the old go-to "best". Everyone can say they're the best because it can't be proven wrong. It's subjective. Take, for example, a smartphone screen. Objective observations can be made about the screen size, but personal preference makes "best" subjective.

[neya]

>I'd argue they did it for performance issues

The article clearly says it's the same connector that's just modified. How can modifying just a connector affect performance? You are free to support Apple, as long as you have the facts straight.