I just read the article. In it, you assume the product could be better, as you just repeated here ("could be a lot better"). Please explain how that's not begging the question.
That was a premise of the article, that the Instant experience was a failure. Obvs, you can disagree, but that's a starting point, for an article that's mostly concerned with answering "Why"
Comments
I just read the article. In it, you assume the product could be better, as you just repeated here ("could be a lot better"). Please explain how that's not begging the question.
That was a premise of the article, that the Instant experience was a failure. Obvs, you can disagree, but that's a starting point, for an article that's mostly concerned with answering "Why"