I don't complain when I try to charge my Pixel with an iPhone cable (without a dongle) and it doesn't work. Do you not give a damn about their cable because it doesn't charge a normal, modern phone?
It's almost like companies have a right to push their own products by building things into that ecosystem. Does it also bother you that Apple doesn't develop iMessage for Android?
The web isn't a magical universal standard anymore. Every browser is different and supports different things. If you want to use something that's not supported by your browser but you're not willing to switch, that's not the developer's problem.
>Google again shoving that unwanted browser in my face.
It's almost like companies are allowed to advertise their products. I don't complain about Coca-Cola again shoving that unwanted drink in my face because their vending machines only sell Coke, and because their ads are everywhere.
At some point you're just arguing against Google, and not against the specific product in the post.
The charging cable comparison seems silly. If I click on a link on this site I expect it to work in my (standard, modern, no snowflake configuration) browser.
If it doesn't, it's not part of the web for me. You can discuss Apple and Android, cables and connectors all you want.
The comparison with a vending machine was equally flawed, but at least it wasn't a car analogy..
I cannot argue against the product in the post, because the link is inaccessible. The "web components" explanation makes some sense (that explains the why, although I still think that a fallback message should explain that. Say "your browser doesn't support web components" instead of "you need our browser". I still flag it, but would kinda get it).
Companies are allowed to advertise their products. I'm allowed to label their practices as shitty.
If you go to a restaurant and order a salad, you're not obligated to eat the olives, and you have the right to take them off your plate.
Likewise, you have the right to bring an intermediary who looks at your salad and hides all the olives for you.
If your intermediary happens to work for Green Olive Co. and he hides the black olives but not the green ones, you have the right to switch to another intermediary. Or get another intermediary who checks the plate and hides the rest of the olives. Or do whatever you want, because you're not obligated to consume any part of the salad that you don't want to.
Sure, but in your example, you've paid for the salad. The whole reason (presumably) that advertising has gotten in the state it's in is that nobody wants to pay for things, but it costs money to keep the lights on.
Full disclaimer: I use things for free day in and day out. I try to pay for things that I find value in as my budget allows. I find many ads annoying.
I still don't think there is a moral right or wrong with AdBlockers. Web sites are text--how you choose to render them is (or should be) up to you, in my opinion.
In your metaphor the salad is filled on your plate by you running back and forth to a salad bar to grab the ingredients one by one. Those of us with ad blockers don't bother fetching the olives at all.
It's almost like companies have a right to push their own products by building things into that ecosystem. Does it also bother you that Apple doesn't develop iMessage for Android?
The web isn't a magical universal standard anymore. Every browser is different and supports different things. If you want to use something that's not supported by your browser but you're not willing to switch, that's not the developer's problem.
>Google again shoving that unwanted browser in my face.
It's almost like companies are allowed to advertise their products. I don't complain about Coca-Cola again shoving that unwanted drink in my face because their vending machines only sell Coke, and because their ads are everywhere.
At some point you're just arguing against Google, and not against the specific product in the post.