I can't really agree with you. I understand the premise, and I certainly agree that some users genuinely don't like choice. But I think a much more reasonable explanation of that attitude fits the following two points.
1. "Why not use [X]" is a perfectly valid question for gaining insight into the merits of new tech. If I have problems that I've solved with [X] and you're now implying that I should use [Y], I want to know what makes [Y] different or better than [X] in your opinion. I want to know what problems you're solving, so I can compare them to mine. I want to know what benefits you're getting that I may not have considered. That's a totally valid approach to understanding a new product.
2. Assuming you aren't solving new problems with [Y] and you're really just directly competing with [X] and I already use [X]... I may be inclined to think it's a waste of effort because I won't get any benefit from your work (I'm already using [X]!). Worse, you could have been making [X] better instead of just competing with [Y]!
Of the two, I think both play a role in the mindset of people making that argument. I'm not very sympathetic to the second, but the first is fine.
"... and you're now impying that I should use [Y]..."
You perceive someone is "implying that [you] should use" [Y].
It is as if you believe the mere publication of software is somehow didactic.
As if the author by the mere act of writing and sharing a program is telling you what to do.
If the question in 1. were phrased as something like "How does Y compare with X" then that is not what I am addressing.
I am addressing this idea that someone (who?) is "implying" that you should use Y. What if that was not actually the case and it was just your interpretation?
What if the authors are not telling you what software to use.
What if it was simply a case of a person or group writing some software, e.g., maybe to scratch their own itch, and then publishing it in case others may want to use it.
Keep in mind I am now referring to the general case, e.g., each program source published on Github, not Vita.
It would be interesting if users, without any financial contribution, could tell software authors what programs to write or refrain from writing, but that is not what I see when I look at the large amount of software published on the internet.
If the authors of Vita were getting paid to write it, then I doubt they would view it as "wasted effort".
Dude, you are so incredibly far off in strawman land right now I can't even...
you got stuck on the work imply and just couldn't come back.
Even assuming they're just sharing their work with the world entirely for generosity (and they're not, it's sitting in a company owned repo and the tag line is literally "Software Bureau. Hire us to work on code.")
Then yes, I'd still say espousing the merits of your product publicly is a pretty strong implication that I should use it. That's also why I expect you to have shared it.
1. "Why not use [X]" is a perfectly valid question for gaining insight into the merits of new tech. If I have problems that I've solved with [X] and you're now implying that I should use [Y], I want to know what makes [Y] different or better than [X] in your opinion. I want to know what problems you're solving, so I can compare them to mine. I want to know what benefits you're getting that I may not have considered. That's a totally valid approach to understanding a new product.
2. Assuming you aren't solving new problems with [Y] and you're really just directly competing with [X] and I already use [X]... I may be inclined to think it's a waste of effort because I won't get any benefit from your work (I'm already using [X]!). Worse, you could have been making [X] better instead of just competing with [Y]!
Of the two, I think both play a role in the mindset of people making that argument. I'm not very sympathetic to the second, but the first is fine.