View Single Post
  #22  
Old June 1st 20, 07:50 PM posted to comp.mobile.android,rec.photo.digital,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
Arlen Holder[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 47
Default Why Are the Chinese Brand Phones (Huawei, Honor, Oppo, Xiaomi) Crushing the Competition in Camera Quality

On Mon, 01 Jun 2020 21:56:51 +1200, Eric Stevens wrote:

Is it that all Chinese phones are getting tested early or is that
iPhones are getting tested late? No matter what the answer is, why is
there that difference? It is unlikely to be bribery unless all Chinese
manufacturers bribe DxO Mark.


Hi Eric Stevens,

Yours is a good question, which we can let whomever you asked, answer.

Rest assured, the apologists' intent is not to be purposefully helpful.
o Their goal is to make excuses for Apple not being what Apple claims.

What I can advise you on is there are 3 types of Apple apologists (IMHO):
o Type I, canonical member === nospam
o Type II, canonical member === savageduck
o Type III, canonical member === alan baker

I've studied the Apple apologists for years, and, in fact, I became
interested in their strange behavior ever since they sent me on fruitless
wild-goose chases, where the apologists sadistically claimed Apple
functionality that simply didn't exist.

They all fabricate excuses for Apple's behavior in different ways:
o Type I apologists never go against Apple MARKETING mantra (never!)
o Type II apologists sometimes go against Apple MARKETING (rarely so)
o Type III apologists are astoundingly biased toward Apple MARKETING

What's interesting is an assessment of their excuses for Apple behavior:
o Type I apologists are rather clever in how they contort their claims
o Type II apologists are unduly swayed by MARKETING (more so than most)
o Type III apologists are literally immune to any facts they don't like

Rest assured, the apologists' intent is not to be purposefully helpful.
o Mainly they make excuses for Apple not being what Apple claims it is.

As for what these three types of apologists "believe", that's interesting:
o Type I apologists rarely believe what they themselves claim, in that you
can tell by the clever "exception" words they use, that they're just
covering for Apple Marketing (e.g., when Apple fails independent tests).
o Type II apologists truly believe what they claim, but they're not
malicious, in that you can tell they're simply ignorant of basic facts
o Type III apologists actually _believe_ what they claim (which is truly
petrifying, in that such people, apparently, actually exist in the flesh!)

But all apologists will fabricate similar excuses such as:
o Apple scores poorly in independent tests because Apple didn't bribe them
(note this extends to batteries, and to drop tests, not just cameras!)
o Apple scores poorly because the test procedures are unfavorable to Apple)
(this is, in general, the apologists' favorite excuse, by far)
o Apple scores poorly because the reviews tested Apple products too late)
(this is the favorite excuse of Alan Baker is the "hail mary" play)
etc.

NOTE: By definition, if the independent test doesn't show Apple to be as
good as the MARKETING claims, then, by definition, one or more of the
excuses above applies, which is the default position of apologists all.

In summary, what you see with the Type III apologists (e.g., Alan Baker,
Jolly Roger, Lewis, BK, Joerg Lorenz, roctb, Lloyd, Davoud, et al.) is an
exaggerated version of the excuses from the Type II apologists (e.g.,
Savageduck, Chris, Steve Scharf, Alan Browne, Andreas Rutishauser
Wade Garrett, et al.).

And what you see, always, from the Type I apologists (e.g., nospam), is
that he never defies Apple MARKETING and always makes excuses for the
behavior of Apple in all ways he can possibly conjure up.
--
Rest assured, the apologists' intent is not to be purposefully helpful.
o Mainly they make excuses for Apple not being what Apple claims it is.