Isn’t it funny how “if you don’t like it, why don’t you leave?!” seems to be most employed when it’s hardest to leave? I feel that if there were a ton of phone options, criticism would probably be reasonably considered, not treated as a sign of disloyalty meriting banishment.
The same is of course true of countries. The most low effort response to any criticism of a country is to suggest you go fuck off to another country if you hate it so much. What? In what universe is “I want to invest *my* time to explain how this could be better” a bad thing?
And of course, if you do leave, then it proves you’re a traitor and thus no one should listen to your criticisms. He was never *really* “with us”. The same people who’ll tell you to leave the US often hate Eduardo Saverin for renouncing his citizenship and going to Singapore.
Bending over backwards to explain how much competition you have at the drop of a hat should be seen as a huge red flag that you’re a monopoly. Do normal companies immediately volunteer an explicit list of competitors and encourage you to leave? Of course not. It would be bizarre.
The more idiotic version of this is “Well you build your own phone then”. Imagine if a car company responded to complaints of a faulty battery with “well, once you start your own car company, you can decide to have a functioning battery, how about that Mr. Know-It-All?”
This is of course an implicit admission that you’re kind of monopolistic if you have to devolve down to “you always have the option to replicate my entire business if you don’t like it (which I would then sue the hell out of you for for violating my overly broad patents).”
Has anyone, ever, when asking to hold the pickles at McDonalds, had the guy behind them chime in with “HEY ASSHOLE, WHY DONT YOU GO TO BURGER KING IF YOU HATE MCDONALDS SO MUCH”. No. Because going to a dozen other fast food places is a real option, not a rhetorical technique.
