Not if you're comparing a Prius and an f350. They both do the same task of 'people moving' but have very different appeal and featuresets. Most people could get away with either, regardless of their situation. But there are edge cases where their differences shine.
Prius and F350 are specific models. Android and/or iOS can be on small phones, big phones, tablets, Televisions, etc... So I think the analogy is broader - Ford and Toyota.
If build quality is my main factor, than Ford is not a substitute for Toyota. If having a Hybrid SUV as big as the Highlander, Ford is not a substitute.
There are lots of reasons people want a Toyota, and Ford doesn't have all those things.
It is either a substitute or a complement as they both are in the automotive industry. A complement is like peanut butter and jelly -- buying both makes life that much better. Clearly this isn't the case here. So let's drop the misapplied definition for "substitute" and move on. Your point is better made by identifying perhaps unjustified cost increases in purchasing (i.e. Toyota unionizes and causes a 0.002% increase in the car price, analogous to the increased difficulty in communication these insurrectionists now have in communicating with their proto-terrorist cells).
No, not really. That brings up a good point. Would people complain if all the car dealerships decided you could only buy American cars from now? Would they say "why are you complaining, you can just get a Ford instead of a BWM"?
People would complain at first, and then either ship their cars or build a new car company.
In fact, this is exactly what folks did to Tesla in the beginning. Of course the difference here was that Tesla owners were not seeking to overthrow democracy in the US.
> Of course the difference here was that Tesla owners were not seeking to overthrow democracy in the US.
I'm not sure how that is in any way relevant to the discussion of Android and Apple being substitutes or not. You keep bringing that up in your other comments too.
To be clear, I don't support people who want to rise up against the US, quite the contrary.
But they still bring to light an important point -- why does Apple get to say what apps I can install in my phone?
Because Apple is running the store. It's their store. And users have voluntarily and intentionally bought into an ecosystem that Apple moderates and curates, because that curation has substantial benefits.
I'm well aware that they curate. I can still complain about it try to fix it though, since I like all the other things Apple does. I don't want to switch, I just want my device to be better.
No, it doesn't bring up a good point, and your analogy is poorly drawn.
The situation with Parler and Apple is analogous to expecting a Ford dealership to sell, and promote, Tesla's products, or another car-maker's products.
