This is unnecessarily pedantic. Personifying the behavior of a company is not some new concept. It’s actually rather common.
Because a company itself cannot express emotions, the externally facing visible decisions are used as a proxy.
For example, a company raising prices to an unexpected level may be described as “greedy”. A company executing a series of decisions that appears misguided or incalculable may be described as “panicking”.
> Personifying the behavior of a company is not some new concept. It’s actually rather common.
I know, it's common and it's wrong and unhelpful. That's my point. It doesn't help us understand the situation better, but actively misleads us if we're interested in actually analyzing problems and coming up with solutions.
And I just looked it up and it appears that Apple isn't supporting it because their reading of the EU law is that they'd have to support iPhone mirroring to third parties like Windows and Linux, where it would be harder or impossible to control the security and privacy.
That's something that can be talked about intelligently, whichever side you're on. Saying they're "throwing a fit" is not. It's false, and makes the conversation worse for all of us.
Because a company itself cannot express emotions, the externally facing visible decisions are used as a proxy.
For example, a company raising prices to an unexpected level may be described as “greedy”. A company executing a series of decisions that appears misguided or incalculable may be described as “panicking”.