You’d lose that bet handily. People like Apple because of the curation and the ecosystem. A mainstream complaint about Apple is not that they place restrictions, but rather that they let too much low-quality stuff in.
Citation needed. (Citation also would be good for GP's claim, but they did specify "think" and were clearly speculating, whereas you make your assertion with certainty).
There are billions of iphones out there. Unless you're working with data (which you should share) then your anecdotal experience from talking with other tech literate people is so ridiculously non-representative that it's hard to even visualize.
Interesting that you chose to ask for a citation to an anecdote but not to the person who cited a specific percentage. You might want to google “confirmation bias”.
Interesting that you completely overlooked this part of my comment: "(Citation also would be good for GP's claim, but they did specify "think" and were clearly speculating, whereas you make your assertion with certainty)"
Oh, I saw that fig leaf, I just realized that it’s meaningless. Whether or not someone includes the phrase in front of their assumptions makes absolutely no difference. It’s just a Rorschach test.
Edit: I suspect I’m wrong, adding it probably causes their assumptions to be given more weight for no reason, as happened here. Interesting observation, that’s in line with the research that disclosing conflicting interests actually causes people to weight the compromised advice more highly than they otherwise would.
