If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Smartphone disease spreading
On Mon, 7 Aug 2017 18:34:39 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote: Wouldn't it be more fair to compare them to computers? Probably most iPhones are bought by people who use Macs, but just as with computers, iPhones are perceived as being the Cadillac. Much more money, but also ease of use, stability and at least a perceived safety. As well as a swank factor. The problem is not that equally spec'd Apple products are pricier, it's that they don't make cheap version of their products. Someone who wants to spend $200 on a desktop, or $300 on a laptop, or who just wants a smartphone for some reason, is not going to find anything by Apple. That's how they get the reputation of being overpriced, or for elitists only. Even with phones, all of the flagship phones these days are at least $700, and if you want to spend that much, there's an iphone for you out there. The thing is, most people don't need the best of any of these things, but some other people have money to burn, and a $700 phone is pocket change, along with desktops that cost thousands, but if you're shopping in those price ranges, Apple is just one of many options. BTW, Cadillacs over the years have ranged from pretty good to total crap, so being the Cadillac of anything isn't saying much... |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Smartphone disease spreading
On 8/7/17 PDT 9:39 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , Whisky-dave wrote: I saw a gold colour bentley with private plates outside a tesco express a few weeks ago who buys a gold bentley and shops at tesco express ? he spent all his money on the bentley. No, the owner has plenty of dough, still. That was my chauffeur. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Smartphone disease spreading
In article , Bill W
wrote: The problem is not that equally spec'd Apple products are pricier, it's that they don't make cheap version of their products. yep. Someone who wants to spend $200 on a desktop, or $300 on a laptop, or who just wants a smartphone for some reason, is not going to find anything by Apple. That's how they get the reputation of being overpriced, or for elitists only. Even with phones, all of the flagship phones these days are at least $700, and if you want to spend that much, there's an iphone for you out there. yep. the samsung galaxy s8, galaxy note 7 (before its demise), and many other android phones are priced in the same ballpark, if not *more* than an iphone, which start at $400 (not $700). the moto z is $720, without any of its add on mods, some of which are not cheap. the red hydrogen phone is priced at $1200-1600. someone could get as many as *four* iphones for $1600. https://www.theverge.com/circuitbrea.../red-hydrogen- one-holographic-phone-specs-photos The thing is, most people don't need the best of any of these things, but some other people have money to burn, and a $700 phone is pocket change, along with desktops that cost thousands, but if you're shopping in those price ranges, Apple is just one of many options. yep. people spend more on the cellular *service* than the phone, typically $50 per month. for most people, their phone is their most used device, so they want something decent that will last a couple of years, not deal with a piece of junk. BTW, Cadillacs over the years have ranged from pretty good to total crap, so being the Cadillac of anything isn't saying much... yep. and for those with money to burn, there's the vertu android phone for $19,800, with sky blue calf leather. http://www.vertu.com/us/en/collectio...op-collection/ sky-blue/602388-001-01.html |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Smartphone disease spreading
"Bill W" wrote
The thing is, most | people don't need the best of any of these things, but some other | people have money to burn, and a $700 phone is pocket change, along | with desktops that cost thousands, but if you're shopping in those | price ranges, Apple is just one of many options. | Best is not synonymous with most expensive. Though many people believe that and Apple depends on just that misconception. A big part of their marketing is to maintain a "top shelf" image. Apple has a high profit margin. Because they control the whole production process, they can charge whatever people will pay. Android phones and Windows computers can be made by different companies, so there's a lot of competition. You get a lot more for your money if you don't buy Apple, but Apple does make a very solid product in most cases. In other words, Apple is grossly overcharging as part of their overall strategy. It has nothing to do with quality. iPhone profit is said to be about 50%. Non-Apple products can't come close to that. The Windows PC market, for instance, is a utility market with very low profit margins. I built my last computer with something like $400 worth of parts. With an 8-core 3.8 GHz AMD CPU. One can buy a Windows computer for about $400. And it won't be junk. It will be far more powerful than anyone here needs. But companies like Lenovo, Dell, HP can't afford to go too high. They have stiff competition. Dell survives because they get suckers to overpay for far more hardware than they need, and their customers don't understand that, and Dell provides pretty good support. I remember when iMacs first came out. A friend of mine spent $2,700 to set up his system. If I remember correctly the iMac itself was $1,600. At a time when Windows PCs were $500-$800. The iMac wasn't better. It was a one-piece toy that only allowed updating RAM. It didn't even have a floppy drive because Steve Jobs wanted it to be futuristic. Apple fans don't seem to understand that one-piece computers are not sleek, high quality. They're bottom-tier, non-upgradable versions of computers. iPhones are made by virtual slave labor in China, using other peoples' parts. (Apple, after all, doesn't make hardware. They just assemble it and design the container, just like HP.) And they still get 50% profit margin for one reason only: They completely control the production and people are willing to pay the premium. There was a time when Macs were cheap. Back when Jobs was not at the company they allowed "white box" Macs. Those were as cheap as PCs because they were the same kind of product, made with generic parts. Then Jobs came back, locked it all down, and pushed the myth that Apple was far superior. Remember the ads with the snail that was supposed to be Windows? When those ads were running, 300 MHz was the top CPU speed for Macs while PCs were getting 1 GHz CPUs. Yet I had Mac friends who would actually tell me that the Mac 300 could run circles around the Intel 1,000. They parroted anything Lord Jobs told them. Long story short, you'll get a solid, well designed product with Apple most of the time. and just as surely, you *will* pay more than it's worth. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Smartphone disease spreading
In article , Mayayana
wrote: | The thing is, most | people don't need the best of any of these things, but some other | people have money to burn, and a $700 phone is pocket change, along | with desktops that cost thousands, but if you're shopping in those | price ranges, Apple is just one of many options. | Best is not synonymous with most expensive. often it is Though many people believe that and Apple depends on just that misconception. nope A big part of their marketing is to maintain a "top shelf" image. not really, but so what? Apple has a high profit margin. Because they control the whole production process, they can charge whatever people will pay. all companies charge whatever people will pay. to not do so is stupid. Android phones and Windows computers can be made by different companies, so there's a lot of competition. there's plenty of competition for apple, namely android and windows. in other words, apple products are competitively priced. You get a lot more for your money if you don't buy Apple, nope. in many cases, you get more if you *do* buy apple, the retina imac being a prime example. but Apple does make a very solid product in most cases. that part is true. In other words, Apple is grossly overcharging as part of their overall strategy. It has nothing to do with quality. nope. iPhone profit is said to be about 50%. nope. apple's gross margin was 38.5% last quarter. Non-Apple products can't come close to that. The Windows PC market, for instance, is a utility market with very low profit margins. and mostly junk. I built my last computer with something like $400 worth of parts. With an 8-core 3.8 GHz AMD CPU. One can buy a Windows computer for about $400. And it won't be junk. yes it will be junk. among numerous things, it will lack wide gamut retina display and thunderbolt 3 ports. as i recall, you are still stumbling along with usb *2*. It will be far more powerful than anyone here needs. you don't know what other people want or need. But companies like Lenovo, Dell, HP can't afford to go too high. They have stiff competition. Dell survives because they get suckers to overpay for far more hardware than they need, and their customers don't understand that, and Dell provides pretty good support. not as good as apple support. the dell 5k display costs about what a retina imac does, which is the same size display *and* a computer. in other words, a mac costs less than a dell system. I remember when iMacs first came out. A friend of mine spent $2,700 to set up his system. If I remember correctly the iMac itself was $1,600. you remember wrong. At a time when Windows PCs were $500-$800. The iMac wasn't better. yes it was. a $500 pc at that time did not have similar specs as an imac. It was a one-piece toy that only allowed updating RAM. it wasn't a toy at all. It didn't even have a floppy drive because Steve Jobs wanted it to be futuristic. it didn't need a floppy drive. Apple fans don't seem to understand that one-piece computers are not sleek, high quality. They're bottom-tier, non-upgradable versions of computers. nonsense. a retina 5k imac is certainly not bottom tier and the forthcoming imac pro is going to be *very* capable, with as many as 18 cores and built-in 10 gig ethernet. iPhones are made by virtual slave labor in China, just about all electronics is made in china, and apple is doing the most to help that situation. you don't get to single out apple when lenovo, dell, etc, are also made there. using other peoples' parts. just like dell and lenovo and the rest, you mean? (Apple, after all, doesn't make hardware. yes they do. They just assemble it and design the container, just like HP.) nonsense. quite a bit of apple products are custom in-house designed parts, including the processors on ios devices, which are comparable in performance to intel processors. And they still get 50% profit nope. margin for one reason only: They completely control the production and people are willing to pay the premium. and? There was a time when Macs were cheap. Back when Jobs was not at the company they allowed "white box" Macs. Those were as cheap as PCs because they were the same kind of product, made with generic parts. they weren't made with generic parts and weren't all that good either. Then Jobs came back, locked it all down, and pushed the myth that Apple was far superior. Remember the ads with the snail that was supposed to be Windows? When those ads were running, 300 MHz was the top CPU speed for Macs while PCs were getting 1 GHz CPUs. Yet I had Mac friends who would actually tell me that the Mac 300 could run circles around the Intel 1,000. They parroted anything Lord Jobs told them. clock speed across different cpu architectures is meaningless. powerpc was a much better architecture. unfortunately, ibm and motorola/freescale didn't give a ****. Long story short, you'll get a solid, well designed product with Apple most of the time. and just as surely, you *will* pay more than it's worth. nope. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Smartphone disease spreading
On Mon, 7 Aug 2017 21:34:41 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote: "Bill W" wrote The thing is, most | people don't need the best of any of these things, but some other | people have money to burn, and a $700 phone is pocket change, along | with desktops that cost thousands, but if you're shopping in those | price ranges, Apple is just one of many options. | Best is not synonymous with most expensive. Agreed, among products with identical specs and features. Though many people believe that and Apple depends on just that misconception. A big part of their marketing is to maintain a "top shelf" image. With computers, it's not always easy to find identical specs and features. Apple has a high profit margin. Because they control the whole production process, they can charge whatever people will pay. Android phones and Windows computers can be made by different companies, so there's a lot of competition. You get a lot more for your money if you don't buy Apple, but Apple does make a very solid product in most cases. In other words, Apple is grossly overcharging as part of their overall strategy. It has nothing to do with quality. PC's are now commodities. Pick your specs, and everyone you check will have very close pricing. But I believe it can be difficult to compare Apple products with PC's because of the different OS's and (included) displays. I personally think Apple has one big edge - their computers can be set up to run Windows, too. Two for the price of one + an OS. That's not too bad. iPhone profit is said to be about 50%. Non-Apple products can't come close to that. The Windows PC market, for instance, is a utility market with very low profit margins. I built my last computer with something like $400 worth of parts. With an 8-core 3.8 GHz AMD CPU. One can buy a Windows computer for about $400. And it won't be junk. It will be far more powerful than anyone here needs. I don't think I'd agree with that at all. "Powerful" usually refers to the CPU & amount of memory, and the drives to a lesser extent. You cannot get the latest i7 with 32 GB of memory and SSD for $400, or anything close to it, as far as I know. And that's just a pretty nice PC for choke-free music, photo, & video editing. It cost me about $1000 just to *upgrade* an existing PC to those specs. And you are using AMD. I have had issues in the past with certain software, and some software I used listed Intel as a requirement. It would not work at all with AMD. Yes, that was stupidly written software, but I also had to use it. And my DAW used to recommend Intel, although things might have changed. I remember when iMacs first came out. A friend of mine spent $2,700 to set up his system. If I remember correctly the iMac itself was $1,600. At a time when Windows PCs were $500-$800. My first PC in '94 was $1600, and nothing special. It would have been $200 more with a DX processor, I believe. The iMac wasn't better. It was a one-piece toy that only allowed updating RAM. It didn't even have a floppy drive because Steve Jobs wanted it to be futuristic. Apple fans don't seem to understand that one-piece computers are not sleek, high quality. They're bottom-tier, non-upgradable versions of computers. iPhones are made by virtual slave labor in China, using other peoples' parts. (Apple, after all, doesn't make hardware. They just assemble it and design the container, just like HP.) And they still get 50% profit margin for one reason only: They completely control the production and people are willing to pay the premium. There was a time when Macs were cheap. Back when Jobs was not at the company they allowed "white box" Macs. Those were as cheap as PCs because they were the same kind of product, made with generic parts. Then Jobs came back, locked it all down, and pushed the myth that Apple was far superior. Remember the ads with the snail that was supposed to be Windows? When those ads were running, 300 MHz was the top CPU speed for Macs while PCs were getting 1 GHz CPUs. Yet I had Mac friends who would actually tell me that the Mac 300 could run circles around the Intel 1,000. They parroted anything Lord Jobs told them. Long story short, you'll get a solid, well designed product with Apple most of the time. and just as surely, you *will* pay more than it's worth. I'm not very familiar with most of the rest of this, but I had always heard that Motorola processors were somewhat limited, and that Apple stuff was better for graphics work, while PC's were better for playing with numbers. But I don't really know how accurate any of that was, and more importantly, that is all very yesterday. If I were looking for a computer today, all I'd care about is August 7, 2017. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Smartphone disease spreading
In article , Bill W
wrote: ... but I had always heard that Motorola processors were somewhat limited, they weren't. and that Apple stuff was better for graphics work, definitely, and still are. while PC's were better for playing with numbers. what does that mean? But I don't really know how accurate any of that was, not very and more importantly, that is all very yesterday. true If I were looking for a computer today, all I'd care about is August 7, 2017. that's about to be very yesterday. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Smartphone disease spreading
On Mon, 07 Aug 2017 23:22:55 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Bill W wrote: while PC's were better for playing with numbers. what does that mean? Math, I guess. If I were looking for a computer today, all I'd care about is August 7, 2017. that's about to be very yesterday. Not here - PST. I have hours left. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Smartphone disease spreading
In article , Bill W
wrote: while PC's were better for playing with numbers. what does that mean? Math, I guess. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_FDIV_bug The Pentium FDIV bug was a computer bug that affected the floating point unit (FPU) of the early Intel Pentium processors. Because of the bug, the processor could return incorrect binary floating point results when dividing a number. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Smartphone disease spreading
On Mon, 07 Aug 2017 23:52:13 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Bill W wrote: while PC's were better for playing with numbers. what does that mean? Math, I guess. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_FDIV_bug The Pentium FDIV bug was a computer bug that affected the floating point unit (FPU) of the early Intel Pentium processors. Because of the bug, the processor could return incorrect binary floating point results when dividing a number. I remember that. That's gotta be one of the funniest things ever in computerland. "Well, it won't affect most people..." |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Kodak Ektra smartphone inspired by 1940s | Savageduck[_3_] | Digital Photography | 8 | October 21st 16 06:18 AM |
Smartphone AF | Alfred Molon[_4_] | Digital Photography | 2 | October 18th 12 07:51 AM |
Smartphone heavy moiré | Alfred Molon[_4_] | Digital Photography | 30 | October 25th 11 11:43 PM |
Smartphone image quality | Alfred Molon[_4_] | Digital Photography | 20 | October 18th 11 06:38 PM |
iPhone SLR Mount turns a smartphone into a serious camera | charles | Digital Photography | 13 | September 3rd 11 11:13 AM |