Confirms that you were generalizing and then dismissed the person who realized it? Yes. Yes it does.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Phil Schiller Says Apple Wouldn't Sacrifice Quality for Market Share in a Cheaper iPhone
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Confirms that you were generalizing and then dismissed the person who realized it? Yes. Yes it does.
Wrong. I keep my iphone 5 naked. It's just beautiful. I don't care whether it does that stuff. But I think that the look and feel of the aluminium makes the iphone 5 feel more premium. That, is something apple has always done.
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...
You're arguing like a bot without natural language context. Try adding these logic rules to your knowledgebase:
Necessary(A) -> !GoodEnough(!A)
GoodEnough(A) -> !Necessary(!A)
If it is "necessary", alternatives are "not good enough". If it is "good enough", alternatives are "unnecessary".
This might help parse the information content of a post beyond what you can get with regexps.
In USA, the first class iPhone wouldn't sell without subsidies. This is the main difference between USA, some european countries and most of "the rest of the world": subsidies aren't worth.
A less expensive iPhone, made in "the country where it's sold", would turn the iPhone a big seller in these countries. Actually, a slightly updated 3GS costing the price of a Galaxy Ace would sell a lot.
They did before from original iPhone to the 3G. The toilet's that way if you need to throw up.
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.
Fair point, so to clarify what I mean is something cheap, vs something which is less expensive. I meant cheap to refer to build quality, not just the price point. Case and point: Dell makes cheap computers - lower build quality, lower specs etc (not to say all of them, but the low-end Dells). Apple would never build one of these machines. Same for their portable lineup.
A less expensive version? Sure, like you said, iPad Mini. A cheap version, i.e. plasticky or crummy version of the full iPad at a lower price? Not on your life.
Apple: don't give in to external pressure to market cheap iPhone. If anything, you should split the line, a low end iPhone for the masses assembled in China, Brazil & Indonesia, and high end iPhone with quality parts (screen, audiophile DAC, faster, cooler processor) possibly assembled in USA.
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.
You said Apple is forcing a monopoly of content and media.
While they do that... content and media are not Apple's main source of income.
I understand growth... and all companies need to grow.
If Apple fails to grow... but they do have a media store... what about the companies who fail to grow but who don't have a media store?
I still don't think Apple got into the phone business to sell apps, though.
Apple makes their money on the hardware... anything else is supplemental.
They aren't Amazon who sells the hardware at cost and then MUST make money on content.
Yes, the iPod represented more than 1/2 of Apples revenues, right up until the iPhone came out.