> The "we" is the commenters here talking about features they want, representing themselves and others...

That's not the case here, and never has been. "Others"? Please. Were that actually the case, I have less of a problem, but it isn't.

> "Do we need to poll a billion users to discuss any functionality?"

Not at all. Never suggested we did. The issue at hand is speaking on behalf of "everyone".

> Isn't Apple itself also just a few people deciding on changes that affect billions, while adding features that might only support a small minority?

They're the ones making the device in a free market. They get to choose what goes into the product. They offer it for sale in an open market, selling at the price point they have set. If people didn't want the devices as they are, they wouldn't be a "Trillion dollar mega corporation". So there is clearly a market for this small group of people to sell product into. Given the price point of iPhone's, I'd strongly argue they are a deliberate choice, much like any "flagship" device. It has been ever thus from Apple, and they have done rather well off the back of it. For those that want other features, as we've established, other options exist, one is significantly more successful. After all, the more open Android handsets outsell Apple 4:1 or 5:1, depending on the quarter.

Here is where I take umbrage with your assertion. Clearly, there is a choice. In fact the individual that you replied to made this point eloquently, but here you are essentially demanding that this trillion dollar megacorp be forced to bow to these requests by people that clearly don't use the devices, and that already have a choice not to use the devices. The issue as fas as I see it, is that you seem to want to punish a company that is successful because you don't like what they offer, and that they should offer whatever you (disguised as "users") want, despite being catered to by a segment of the overall market that is 4-5 times larger, that offers significantly more choice. When there is push back, the retort is always along the lines of thinking of the children.

> If someone says they want bigger buttons or slower animations, is that invalid because they're saying "what is best for everyone else" or are they just talking about what they want and why?

Absolutely not, but that is very different from "Trillion dollar mega corporations should give their users all the choice and flexibility they want..." and is not what is being discussed. No business, trillion dollar valuation or otherwise, can cater to, or indeed please all the people all the time. It's a pointless endeavour to pursue. Neither should any business be forced to produce products to cater to everyone.

The argument made here, as illustrated by the start of this particular thread, is that the "walled garden" is bad for those whom are choosing it and it's a false choice anyway, because "walled garden", lock in, etc. This comes across to me as arrogant. The tone is very much "I know best", and the reasons of dubious benefit. It almost alway boils down to "because that's what I want", which inevitably circles back to the choice discussion.

> "This is juvenile."

You are, of course, absolutely right. Genuinely, I can only apologise.