In , Scott Schuckert suggested:

The typical Apple user doesn't care about any of that stuff.

This is true that iOS as functional as Android is if all the user does is
web browse, listen to music, etc.; but the minute they try to do organize
their desktop, they find out that the operating system is crippled.

They can't change their launcher ... so ...
They can't put an icon where they want to put it.
They can't duplicate an icon to put it in multiple logical folders.
They can't create empty placeholder folders for future use (or which were
simply emptied but they still want for future use).
They can't rename an icon to make more sense.
They can't hide any icon they want or eliminate the dock if they want.
They can't even get rid of desktop screens which came in iOS 9 for heaven's
sake, so they *all* have multiple desktop screens even if they only want
one.
They can't change the grid where the icons go, or the size of the icons.
etc.

These are facts.

Basically, the primitive iOS user interface is completely crippled,
compared to what a modern interface, such as that on Android can do.

Bit Torrent? REALLY?

Yes. Really. Bit torrent is just one useful functionality that iOS lacks.

I think the perceived comparison exists only in your mind.

I stated a fact. Not a figment of imagination.
Bit torrent apps are not allowed by Apple.

Are you saying that's not a fact?
I only speak facts.

The entire Apple ecosystem is crippled in functionality not by the
hardware, but by the shackles put on what it allows the apps to do by
Apple.

Do you dispute this fact?

Trust me, I worked for Apple for many years - the Apple user
cares about getting high quality funtionality simply, easily, and
elegantly.

I can prove that instantly to be a fallacy.
What you're actually saying is what the Apple Marketing Machine told you to
say. They're one of the best Marketing Machine on the planet.

The typical Apple user *wants* his apps to be crippled, because it makes
him *feel* safe.

That is the *main* driver of the typical Apple user.
The feeling (not actual fact) of safety.

The second main driver is cachet.
For feeling safe (and for cachet), the user accepts a crippled user
interface.

The details of the specs really don't matter. Matter of
fact, Apple products have never been about being "best" in any
technical way.

At least you said one true fact.
Look at Apple Maps for example.

Depending on how old you are, you may remember Bang & Olufsen hi-fi
gear (they're still in business, sorta).

I'm pretty old, but never was an audiophile.

Think selenium rectifiers and at best, if super high tech, then think
gallium arsenide top hats insulated with transparent sheets of mylar
slathered with white titanium oxide paste when we had to replace them
ourselves.

Immaculately, elegantly
constructed, and sounded better than, oh, 80% of the rest of the
market. They weren't even slightly interested in the other 20%. You
pressed the button and quality music came out. Want to know the RMS
power output? Call the factory; otherwise it's "enough."

While I wasn't an audiophile, we knew, even then, that the 3db point on
most speakers were outlandishly optimistic.

Steve Jobs famously used B&O; My setup from the late 70's is still
gracing my living room.

Wow. Mine was so big, as I recall, it could be used as a boat anchor. It's
somewhere in the attic all boxed up. Good for you that it still works as
finding replacement tubes started getting difficult just as mine died.