Re: *shakes head*
"Imagine if you had the same argument for entrances to shops. Marks and Spencers don't need a ramp because disabled people should be shopping in Primark?
Totally different point there. Your argument is a legal requirement, the other is the whim of a manufacturer in a competitive market."
And the reason why it's a legal requirement? Because leaving it up to "the whim of a retailer in a competitive market" (to paraphrase) could lead to people like the author being excluded from shops that didn't want to spend the time/money/effort to make their premises accessible to people with restricted mobility. Obviously you can't feasibly make all products and services accessible to all but IMHO all reasonable efforts should be made, and while in the majority of cases the extra custom from mobility impaired customers won't come anywhere near paying for the cost of the adaptions that doesn't make it acceptable and that's where the laws come in.
I'm not necessarily saying there should be a law in this case but leaving this, relatively simple feature out is pretty poor form for Apple and it's absolutely right for people like the author to highlight that. Saying she should "just use Android" instead is pretty weak really.