A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Smartphone disease spreading



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old August 8th 17, 12:55 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Bill W
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,692
Default 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  
Old August 8th 17, 01:11 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
John McWilliams
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,945
Default 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  
Old August 8th 17, 01:27 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default 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  
Old August 8th 17, 02:34 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Mayayana
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,514
Default 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  
Old August 8th 17, 03:03 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default 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  
Old August 8th 17, 04:16 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Bill W
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,692
Default 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  
Old August 8th 17, 04:22 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default 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  
Old August 8th 17, 04:40 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Bill W
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,692
Default 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  
Old August 8th 17, 04:52 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default 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  
Old August 8th 17, 05:01 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Bill W
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,692
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:50 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.