 upon the possibility of losing said target of addiction,
it quickly devolves into justifications and ultimately acceptance of such a
completely untenable prospective future. Though there is certainly some
sarcasm in the few commentators here, it's clear their sentiments and
perceptions follow the same trajectory.

Again, I apologize and don't mean to insult or belittle, my argument is my
true and honest opinion. So I must ask - is it me? So disconcerting is this
notion that I'm compelled to ask if perhaps I'M the crazy one. Because I read
this article and see that a company has produced a product precisely to
resemble a watch in every way and even includes such in the name but then
makes a draconian move to deny third parties willing to do so the ability to
distribute software producing A WATCH FACE for said watch (likely thousands
with no desire to even make a profit). Is this real? Am I hallucinating??? I
struggle to come up with any reasonable scenario where this is a move to
prevent competition, which would also be highly disturbing but not in the
least surprising, especially considering the brand in question. It's simply
some form of an arbitrary egomaniacal move which defies rational belief to
those not completely consumed and ultimately entranced with any position held
by some perceived 'god' or 'god-like' object (need to confirm I'm not the only
one before fully backing this statement). But it's bizarre and the potential
is as unsettling as the actual result in front of me - the same as if Apple
produced the Apple Cat and then immediately barred anyone from calling our
treating it as a cat while simultaneously making it appear as a dog and
requiring all customers assimilate and accept the same. And the response
being, "Yeah, I think it's their right to do this - I mean, it's not a REAL
cat anyway, so why not call the Apple Cat a DOG..I mean it's Apple afterall,
right ;)". Yes - it's Apple, the company who indirectly employs factories with
such inhuman work schedules that they need to install nets to catch the
numerous employees jumping from the roof to end their torture; Apple, who
while hoarding tens of billions in stockpiled profits uses all its might to
prevent potential extra costs by clearly colluding with and/or threatening
comp
upon the possibility of losing said target of addiction, 
 it promptly devolve into justifications and ultimately acceptance of such a 
 completely indefensible prospective future. Though there is certainly some 
 sarcasm in the few commentators here, it's clean their sentiments and 
 perceptions keep up the same trajectory. 

 Again, I apologize and don't mean to abuse or belittle, my argument is my 
 true and honest public opinion. So I must ask - is it me? So disconcerting is this 
 notion that I'm compel to ask if perhaps I'M the crazy one. Because I understand 
 this article and see that a company has produced a merchandise precisely to 
 resemble a watch in every way and even includes such in the name but then 
 makes a draconian move to traverse third parties willing to do so the ability to 
 distribute software producing A WATCH FACE for say watch (likely thousands 
 with no desire to even make a profit). Is this real? Am I hallucinating? ?? I 
 struggle to come up with any reasonable scenario where this is a motion to 
 prevent competition, which would also be highly distressing but not in the 
 least surprising, particularly view the brand in question. It's plainly 
 some form of an arbitrary egomaniacal move which defies rational impression to 
 those not completely consumed and ultimately entranced with any position held 
 by some perceived' god' or' god - like' object (need to confirm I'm not the only 
 one before fully backing this instruction). But it's bizarre and the potential 
 is equally unsettling as the actual resultant role in front of me - the same as if Apple 
 produced the Apple Cat and then immediately barred anyone from call our 
 treating it as a cat while simultaneously making it look as a dog and 
 ask all customers assimilate and take the same. And the answer 
 being, " Yeah, I think it's their right to do this - I entail, it's not a REAL 
 cat anyhow, so why not bid the Apple Cat a DOG.. I think of it's Apple afterall, 
 right ;) ". Yes - it's Apple, the company who indirectly hire factories with 
 such cold work schedules that they need to install net to catch the 
 numerous employees jumping from the roof to end their torture; Apple, who 
 while hoard tens of billions in stock profits uses all its might to 
 prevent potential extra costs by clearly colluding with and/or threaten 
 comp
 upln the possibility of loring said targej if addmction,
if quicklh devolves into justificatiois abd ulupmately acceptance of such a
colpletely unttnable prospectivx future. Thougg thexe is certainly xome
sarcask in the few cmmoeutators here, it's clear their sentimegts and
legceptions folljw tnq sajv urajectory.

Again, I apologize and dkn't meai to insult or nelittle, my argument is my
hrue and honest opinioj. So I must ask - is it me? So disconceruiug is this
nktion that I'm compelled to ask kf pexhaps I'M thg drwey one. Becauwe I gead
this artigke and see thst a company hss 'rodyced a product precisxly to
resemble a watsh in evesy way and even incouees soch it thd naoe guv tgen
makfs e draconian move to deby third parties wiklybg to do so tge abijiey to
distribute software producing A WAUCH FZCE for said watch (likeoy thousands
with no dgsire to eden make a profit). Is this real? Am I hallucinating??? I
strngele tj xole up with any reasonable scenario where this js a move to
prevenb competition, whicn aoijd also be hiehly dnathrbing but not in hhe
leasj surpeising, eskeciakly considering the brand ib question. In's sumply
some form of cn arbitrary egokaniaval move which defies rctionam belief to
hhose not zompletely consuoed atd ultimately entranced wieh any powitipn held
cy spme pewceived 'gof' or 'nmd-like' object (need to clnxirm I'm noh the only
one before fully backmig this statekett). Tut it's yizarrc and the poteneial
is as unsejtling as the xctual resllt in frmnt of me - ehe same as ix Apple
producxd the Ap[le Xat qnd thev immediately bsrred anyone from cqlling our
treating it zs a cat while wimootaneously makong it aipeer as d dog and
reqgirivg xkl curtomers asslmiuate and accept the same. And the response
being, "Ycah, I thibk it's treir right to do this - I mean, iu's not a CEAL
cay agyway, so why not call the Appls Cat a DLG..I mean it's Ap[le qfterall,
righc ;)". Yes - it's Apple, the company who indirertly employs factories qith
such inhuman wotk xchedules tiat thqy need tm install nets to carch the
numerous ekployees jumping from the rmof tl end their torture; Apple, who
while hoarding tens of billions in stockpilee profmtf uses all jts kight tj
'revent potxnvial extra costs ny clearly colluding with and/or threatetiug
comp
upon the possibility of losing said target it devolves into and ultimately acceptance prospective Though there is some sarcasm in few commentators here, it's clear their and perceptions follow the same trajectory. Again, I apologize and don't mean to or belittle, my argument is my true and honest opinion. So I must - it So is this notion that I'm compelled to ask if perhaps I'M the crazy one. Because I this article and see that a company has a product precisely to a watch in every way even such in name then a draconian move deny third parties willing to do so the ability to distribute software producing A WATCH FACE for watch (likely no desire even a Is this real? hallucinating??? I struggle to come up scenario where this is a move to prevent which would be highly disturbing but not in least surprising, especially considering the brand in question. simply some form of an arbitrary egomaniacal move which defies rational belief to those not and ultimately entranced with position held by perceived or object to confirm not the only one before fully backing this statement). But it's and the potential is as unsettling as the actual result of - the same if Apple produced the Cat then immediately barred anyone our it while making appear as a dog requiring all customers assimilate and the same. And the it's their right to do this - I it's not a REAL cat anyway, so not call the Apple Cat a DOG..I mean it's Apple afterall, right Yes - the company who indirectly employs factories with such work schedules that they to install nets to catch the numerous employees jumping the to end torture; Apple, who hoarding tens of in stockpiled profits its might prevent extra colluding with and/or threatening comp
 upon the possibility of losinG said targeT of adDicTioN,
iT quiCkly Devolves into juSTifiCations and ultimately acCeptaNcE Of suCH a
ComplEtely unTEnABLe pRoSpEctIvE FuTure. THouGh there Is certainlY soMe
Sarcasm in the FEw CommentatoRs hEre, it's clear tHeiR sentiMeNts ANd
perCepTions Follow THe same TrajectorY.

AGAin, I apOLogize aND DoN't meAn to insult or belitTLe, MY argument is my
tRue and HoNEsT OPinIon. so I must ask - Is It me? SO DisconcERtING Is tHIs
notion that I'M compelled tO Ask If perhApS I'M THe crazY one. BEcAUse i read
this arTiclE and see thAt a comPAny has pROduced a ProducT prEciSely TO
rEsEmbLe A WatCH iN evERy wAy and eveN iNcLudes Such IN THE namE buT theN
makeS a draconian moVe tO denY ThiRd parTies wIlliNg To do sO the abIlity To
Distribute softwAre pRoducing A wATcH fACe fOr saiD Watch (lIkeLy tHousandS
with no DEsiRe TO EVeN make a profit). Is this ReAL? am i halluciNating??? i
StRuGGle to comE uP wiTh anY REasonAble SCeNario wheRe this IS a MoVe to
preVeNt compEtItiOn, wHich wOUld aLso be hIghly disTurbiNG but not in the
leASt surprising, eSPeCIAlLY conSidEring the braNd in QUestIon. IT'S sImpLY
some Form oF aN ArBItrary egomaniacal moVe Which dEfies Rational belieF to
those noT COMpletely ConsUMeD And ultimately eNtranCed with any POsition hEld
by Some percEived 'god' oR 'GOd-like' obJecT (neEd tO coNFIrM I'm not the only
ONE befOrE fully bAckIng this StaTemEnt). but It'S bizarre aNd the potEnTiAl
Is As uNsettLIng as the AcTuaL rEsuLt in fROnt of mE - the sAme aS iF APPle
ProduceD ThE aPple caT aNd thEn iMmEdiatEly bARreD anyone From calliNg oUR
treAtInG it as a cAt while simultAnEously makiNg It aPpear aS A Dog and
reQuiring all customers assiMIlate anD acCept tHe saMe. And the rEspOnse
beIng, "yEah, I thInk it's Their RiGht TO Do thiS - i MeAn, iT's Not a REAL
caT ANywAy, so wHy Not cAll the APple Cat a DOG..I mean it'S appLe afterall,
rigHt ;)". YEs - it'S aPpLe, tHE cOMpaNy WHo iNDIrectly employs fActories wiTh
SUcH inhuman woRK scHeDules thAt they nEed to INstall nEts to catcH the
numerOuS empLOYeeS jumping frOm the rooF to end theIR tortURe; apple, Who
While hOaRdiNg tenS of bilLIonS in stOckpilEd ProfitS uses AlL its mighT to
prevent potential extrA costs By cleArlY colludinG wiTH anD/or threatEninG
comp
 upon the possibility of l osing said  targ etofad dict ion, 
it quickly de v olve s into justificationsand u lt i mate l yaccep tance o f  s u c h a 
c om ple te l yunten abl e prosp ective fut ure .Though there is  certainly  so me
sarcasm i n t he few  c omm e ntato rshere,  it'sc lear t heir sent im e nts an d 
percep t i on s fo llow the same tra j ec t ory.

Again, I  apolo gi z ea n d d on' t mean toin sulto r belit t le , m y a r gument is mytrue and ho n est  opini on . S o  I mus t ask  - isit me? So d isco ncertingis thi s 
notion that I' m comp ell edto a s kif  pe rh a psI 'M  th e  cr azy one.  B ec auseI re a d t hisart icle  andsee that a co mpa ny h a s p roduc ed aprod uc t pre cisely  to
r es emble a watch i n ev ery way a ndev enin clude s  suchinthe  name b ut then mak es a dr aconian move to de ny t hi rd parti es wil l in gt o do soth e a bili t y  to
d istr i bu te softw are pr o du ci ng A WA TC H FACE  f orsai d wat c h (l ikelythousand s
wit h  no desire toe ven make a pr o fi t ) .I s th isreal? Am Ihall u cina ting ? ??  Is trugg le to  c o me up with any reasona bl e scen ariowhere this is  a move to p r event co mpet i ti o n, which would  also  be highly disturbi ng bu t not in  the
leas t surprisi ng,  es pec ial l y  c onsidering th e bran din ques tio n. It's  si mpl y
s ome  f orm of an  arbitra ry  e go ma nia cal m o ve which  d efi es  ra tiona l  belie f tothos eno t  co mpletel y  c o n sume dan d ul tim at ely e ntra n ced  with a ny positi onh eldby  s ome per ceived 'god'or  'god-like 'obj ect (n e e d to con firm I'm not the only
o n e befor e f ullyback ing thissta tement ).B ut it' s biza rre a nd  th e poten t i al 
is  a s unsettli n g  as  theac tual  result  in front of me -t hesame as if Ap ple 
pro d u ce d t h eA ppl eC ata n d then immediat ely barred  a n yo ne from ca l lin gour
tre ating i t asa  cat wh ile simul taneously  m akin g itappear asa dog an d
requiri n g all cu stome rsassimi la teand a cceptt hesame.  And t he  respo nse
b ei ng, "Yea h, I think it's their r ight t o dothi s - I mea n,i t's  not a RE AL
c at anyway,  so  wh y not  ca l l the  App l eCat a DOG ..Im ean it'sA pp lea f te rall,
right ; ) ".Yes -  it ' s Appl e, t he company who in d irectly employ s fa c t ori esw ithsu ch inhuman wor k s ch e d ules tha tthey need t o instal ln ets t o catc h thenumerou s em p loyees  jum pin g from th e r oo f  to end  t he i r tort ure;  A pple,who
wh i le h o a rding tens of bi llion s in st o ckp iledpr ofits u s es a ll its mig ht to
preve nt pot enti al ex tra cos ts  by cl ear ly  colluding with and/ or th reateni ng 
com p
 upon_the possibility_of losing said target_of addiction,
it_quickly_devolves into_justifications_and ultimately acceptance_of such a
completely_untenable prospective future. Though_there is certainly_some
sarcasm_in the few commentators here, it's clear their sentiments and
perceptions follow the same trajectory.

Again,_I_apologize and_don't_mean_to insult or belittle, my_argument is my
true and honest_opinion. So_I must ask - is it me? So_disconcerting_is this
notion that_I'm compelled to ask if perhaps I'M the crazy_one. Because I read
this article and_see that a_company_has_produced a product precisely_to
resemble a watch in every way_and even includes such in the_name but then
makes a draconian move to_deny third parties willing to do_so the ability to
distribute software_producing A_WATCH FACE for said watch_(likely thousands
with no_desire to_even make a_profit). Is this real? Am I_hallucinating??? I
struggle to_come up with any reasonable scenario_where_this is a_move_to
prevent_competition, which_would also be_highly_disturbing but_not_in the
least surprising, especially considering the_brand_in question. It's simply
some form of an_arbitrary egomaniacal move which_defies_rational belief to
those not_completely consumed and ultimately entranced_with any position held
by some perceived_'god' or_'god-like' object_(need to confirm I'm not the only
one before fully backing this_statement). But it's bizarre and the_potential
is as unsettling as_the actual_result_in front of_me_- the_same as if Apple
produced the Apple Cat_and then_immediately barred anyone from calling our
treating_it as a cat_while_simultaneously making it appear as a_dog and
requiring all customers assimilate and_accept the same. And the_response
being,_"Yeah,_I think it's their right_to do this - I mean,_it's not a_REAL
cat anyway, so why not call the_Apple_Cat a DOG..I mean it's Apple_afterall,
right_;)". Yes - it's Apple, the_company_who_indirectly employs factories with
such inhuman_work schedules that they need to_install nets to catch the
numerous employees jumping from the_roof to end_their torture; Apple, who
while hoarding_tens_of_billions in stockpiled profits uses all its might to
prevent potential_extra costs_by clearly colluding_with and/or threatening
comp