And even if one can afford Apple hardware, I'd bet on there being significant overlap between the "has keen interest in security" and "likes to fix own hardware" crowds. I could easily afford to have an all-Apple household. I don't, because I don't like Apple's attitude towards individuals fixing something rather than buying new.
This feels pedantic and totally besides the point.
The author was describing "gets all users" as in, gets all users that Apple can get. What's next, would you point out how people in the 3rd world wouldn't be buying Apple/Google phones either?
The point was, when Apple has all of the market share they can expect to get, will they turn around and flip tracking on and etc.
Please don't deviate topics for solely pedantic reasons. I generally love pedantic distinctions, but this i think added little to no value.
I don't think it's pedantic at all. spockz's scenario was explicitly "they get all users and Google is gone" (my emphasis). That is, Apple would be able to re-enable tracking because at that point users would have nowhere else to go.
The counter-arguments were that this would never happen because Apple's unlikely to deviate from the luxury pricing model that's worked so well for them. If Apple "gets all users that Apple can get" then turns tracking back on, while Android is still around with the same tracking but at a small fraction of the price, there's no reason for privacy-conscious users to stick with Apple.
One which users were obviously willing to pay if they switched to Apple because of privacy concerns, and do would be willing to pay again if that need was met elsewhere.
