I read you. Their analogy only "matters" if it closely aligns with the Coinbase situation. It makes no sense to say the comment "is true and matters" if it doesn't work by the same logic ("important differences"). You could say it's "true" that Apple wouldn't tolerate the proposed scheme, but it doesn't matter if no one actually does that. With the failure of the analogy one of "true" and "matters" will be wrong.
I guess I'm using the word "matters" differently. I'm using "matters" to mean, "we ought to consider this when we think about the justice or morality of the situation". Similar to "relevant" or "useful".
I guess we agree on substance, then, and I just think you used a confusingly mild and conciliatory phrasing for criticizing an obviously, shall we say, silly analogy.
