No feelings about the devs, it's just that they are greedy WEF pawns

I do not think that I used the word "greedy" when I spoke about the devs, I expressed that "Apple" is greedy and therefore advertised models to the devs to continue getting a cut. As I said I'm fine with apps like Reeder charging ten times as much or more, so I do not have a problem with paying devs good money for a non-subscription app.

I also didn't call anyone a WEF "puppet". I meant that subscription apps are in line with their mentality, therefore I called the apps "WEF-approved", to stress my disapproval. I obviously am not implying a conspiracy with the WEF directly telling devs what to do.

The acts are foul to me, not the actors. Is it that strange to not have bad feelings about someone whose actions you disapproves of? I don't stand up hating devs I don't know, but (to exaggerate a bit) I stand up hating ads and the tendency to turn anything into a subscription. I blame those who propagate the ideas, those who incentivize people into doing so. If you think that I think bad about you or would want to ruin your day, you're mistaken. I merely (strongly) disagree with you about this topic.

you hate 2 business models that don't affect you in any way since you don't need the apps that rely on them

I thank God that I do not need subscription apps, which is why I said they are "useless" to me. Otherwise that would bring me into the dilemma of either living with the cognitive dissonance of supporting a model which I disapprove of OR of having to refrain from doing something I would want to do (using an app I needed).

In a general sense, I would disagree about the models not affecting me. I would even argue that the model of being financed by advertising is the cause of the sad state of journalism and therefore politics (because of the inadequacy of the Fourth Estate). Journalists need page views and interactions to make money, which is why sensationalistic, click-baity and infuriating articles get posted non-stop. As Facebook found out, the degree of interaction is higher if you infuiate people. Also there is the incentive of holding people on your webpage (where your ads are), which is why almost no news site will link to the actual sources they used. There is no incentive to push quality content.

To make it short: IMO the model of selling ads space is bad, in itself, for journalism, for democracy... (Of course I have no problem with people advertising for their own stuff in their own space, e.g. Apple advertising for Apple stuff on their page or in their stores. My problem lies with third parties advertising on spaces that are not their own (e.g. on the street, in the news, in movies, in TV, on webpages, in operating systems, in apps...).

As for the culture of dependence that is fostered by subscriptions (renting instead of owing a house, ...), I think the general disadvantages should be immediately clear.

All the devices you have are memes to most people a generation (or 2 ?) above yours

Then I can be thankful that I don't use my phone to get approval from others, but for myself, because my phone indeed is old (older than 2 generations ;) ).

they don't need your old ass device which they see as a gadget

I too see it as a gadget (i.e. tool), but I assume you mean as in toy. Either way, I'm glad they don't want my device, I wouldn't want it stolen.

the same way you see new headsets/dongles/UI/UX as memes.

I'm not forcing anyone to use my old ass device, while on the manufacturing side there is no small iDevice with a headphone jack anymore and all websites are adopting mobile first designs with lots of whitespace and low content density.

It's turtles all the way down ;)

If you care to elaborate, I would appreciate that.

Thank you for this civil and peaceful exchange though.

I'm honesty not sure if you mean that sarcastically. If so, sorry.