That confirms it.
Confirms that you were generalizing and then dismissed the person who realized it? Yes. Yes it does.
That confirms it.
many people believe that aluminum is a superior case material choice but that's absolutely incorrect. Just think about it. By using aluminum, Apple loses the ability to have a lot of features in the phone, namely NFC, wireless charging, replaceable battery and memory cards (not that iOS can handle memory cards but more advances mobile OSes can). The shiny aluminum case does attracts the buyers but then what's the first thing they do? They put iPhone in the plastic case. Apparently most people do prefer plastic to aluminum after all.
Just like we do with aluminum tin cans.....Hang about....
I probably shouldn't weigh in on an argument that isn't mine, but since I've had to read past your posts I kinda feel entitled...Wrong. What you said was many here said retina was unnecessary and that the mini screen was good enough. You're saying that's the same thing as saying "it's not as good, but good enough"?
The whole point of my post to you was the fact that many people did not say it was unnecessary.
Apple should make a cheaper phone for other markets
In the USA a cheaper phone won't really matter due to subsidies
No ****.
You'd have a severe mental illness if you think Apple will go from metal to plastic.
I'd be disgusted.
I don't see how this benefits anyone. Big deal, $200 vs $100. A typical cellular plan for one line is $100 a MONTH. They're filling the "poor" niched market. $2400 in two years > $100 in two years. Hello?
They did before from original iPhone to the 3G. The toilet's that way if you need to throw up.
And I didn't own an iPhone until 4, when it actually became an iPhone.
It was always an iPhone!
Tons of people with regular income can't add, multiply, subtract or budget well enough to avoid paying obscene interest on their maxed out credit cards. They don't have an extra $100 up front because they already spent nearly their entire last paycheck. But they still pay their phone bill lest they die of farcebook withdrawal.
Just like they didn't make a cheaper, smaller tablet because someone wished it were cheaper and smaller?
Apple is... and has always been... a hardware company.
iTunes? Helps sell iPods. App Store? Helps sell iPhones and iPads.
Like KnightWRX said... Apple sells content to add value to the devices. The content was never supposed to be Apple's primary source of income.
By the way... Apple entered the smartphone market without the App Store... and the iPod didn't have the iTunes Store until 2 years later as well.
You can theoretically use an iPhone or iPod without ever spending a dime on music or apps. And that's fine... because Apple already got your money from buying the hardware.
Guess what... that's how most consumer electronics companies function. Apple is unusual in that they also have their own content store.
How can you say with a straight face that Apple failed to translate iOS sales into iTunes revenue?
Did you know iTunes is the largest online music store in the world? Or that the App Store has 40 billion downloads with $7 billion paid to developers?
Guess who's buying all that stuff? iOS users... and Apple keeps a little bit of that money too.
It's absurd to think the iTunes store doesn't generate revenue when it's the most profitable store of its kind.
So you're talking cumulated sales into success - and obviously have not looked at the graphs provided by Knight. Consider 40 billion downloads vs. 10 billion $ over time. Just read what you've posted.
not with 3 year old tech for premium priceQuality doesn't meet the most recent tech. Quality means its supposed to look good, feel good, and last long.
Yes, the iPod represented more than 1/2 of Apples revenues, right up until the iPhone came out.I don't think the iPod ever represented such a big portion of Apple's revenues. The iPhone being 50% of their revenues is something that hasn't ever happened to Apple as far as I know ( outside of the Mac line-up)