More people would buy the iPhone without the app store than without a cellular chip. Imo.
I agree. Yet such feature albeit necessary is not the sufficient defining factor sustaining the reason why we pay more than $30 for this kind of device. As as it stands per your evaluation, neither is the App Store. So what are the necessary and sufficient category defining factors?
It seams that your are moving around and around just to avoid what actually matters as a device of its kind … for some reason
A pocket sized computer ($500+) with full cellular capabilities ($30) describes such defining factors. The concept has evolved from cellular phones a decade ago … as you say “in a galaxy far far way”. Cellular phones were replaced by pocket computers with cellular capabilities. Apple contribution to this evolution to cellular connectivity, mobile communications, was IMHO key.
Even Apple plays with the popular notion of a computer, keyboard, mouse and all that with its marketing … “Whats a Computer?”
".... A computer is a digital electronic machine that can be programmed to carry out sequences of arithmetic or logical operations(computation) automatically. Modern computers can perform generic sets of operations known as programs (or Apps). These programs (Apps) enable computers to perform a wide range of tasks. A computer system is a "complete" computer that includes the hardware, operating system(main software), and peripheral equipment needed and used for "full" operation.....
Mobile computers
The first mobile computers were heavy and ran from mains power. The 50 lb (23 kg) IBM 5100 was an early example. Later portables such as the Osborne 1 and Compaq Portable were considerably lighter but still needed to be plugged in. The first laptops, such as the Grid Compass, removed this requirement by incorporating batteries – and with the continued miniaturization of computing resources and advancements in portable battery life, portable computers grew in popularity in the 2000s.[90]
The same developments allowed manufacturers to integrate computing resources into cellular mobile phones by the early 2000s. These smartphones and tablets run on a variety of operating systems and recently became the dominant computing device on the market.[91] These are powered by System on a Chip(SoCs), which are complete computers on a microchip the size of a coin.[89]" - Wiki
I don't have much more to say regarding your opinion of the iPhone being fundamentally characterised as a cell phone. It goes contrary to any evidence. From pricing, engineering, from the perspective of using such device compared with a standard cell phone of $30 or so. It is irrational. Like saying a car is a bicycle because it uses and wheels along with a propulsion mechanism.
The only way I understand your stance is that by reducing the smartphone to a cell phone it opens a vast competition spectrum that helps you to redefine the smartphone market to one that fits your rhetoric that Apple is not a dominant company in the sector. That is where this detour started. But you and I know that its BS, more so concerning digital services. No one pays $500+ for a device that could be fundamentally bought for $30. No one buys a bicycle when it needs a Car, to the point Cars and Bicycles do not compete ... Cars compete with Cars, Bicycles with Bicycles, Bikes with Bikes .... Its that simple!
I think nuances are very important. But it seams that for you nuances are only important when it fits your preferred stance. If not, quickly opt for least common denominator or should I say the broadest of the generalisations possible ... nuances if not that nuanced become immaterial.
