Samsung v. Apple

[Dave_S]

Originally Posted by holymadness

That their GDP per capita is $8,500?

Digress much?

[holymadness]

Originally Posted by Dave_S

Digress much?

LOL are you serious?

The cost of the iPhone 4S in China is RMB 4488, or ~$720 USD. That represents 8% of the ANNUAL income of the average Chinese citizen. The equivalent in the US would be $3,400. In Germany, 3 200 €.

And we're supposed to be surprised that the Chinese are overwhelmingly buying downmarket Android handsets instead?

Please try to make an effort before you post.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Dave_S

Just as you described, Google is price gouging too in that case. That is not an admirable thing to do when either Google or Apple does it. You also conveniently omitted mentioning that the Google device was more fairly priced in it's base price relative to Apple's more exorbitant pricing.

Oh absolutely, the base Nexus models are very attractively priced for what they offer, no argument there. The lack of SD card and level of 'gouging' for extra memory is the same though, which is what was being complained about.

Edit: Interestingly, and just to show that the amount charged bares no relation to the cost, but does to the competition, it costs £70 to add 16GB of memory to the Nexus 10, but only £40 to add it to the Nexus 7 (or 4). That (£40) is the same that Amazon charge for an extra 16GB on the Fire HD. (16GB of Apple memory doesn't get a discount for being put in a smaller device, the iPad Mini upgrade is the same cost at the iPad4 upgrade)

[pl001]

Originally Posted by holymadness

I try to have a nuanced view of design choices. That is difficult to express when you are talking to people whose view of the world is black-and-white.

Like any design choice, we can assign this one pros and cons.

PROS:
- cheap, swappable storage

CONS:
- compromises on size or shape of device
- AND/OR compromises on internals of device, i.e. battery life, heat dispersion, etc.
- increased complexity of device; need to introduce file system (currently absent in iOS)

So when someone claims the absence of SD storage comes down to greed, it's not only reductive but also unintelligent. Certainly, Apple makes its biggest margins on storage upgrades. That is one reason why the option is not available. It is not the only one, and it is particularly mendacious of a professed electronics designer to say so.

There is also the issue of the general anti-Apple bias that runs throughout these forums, where members excoriate Apple for practices which others engage in without comment. When that bias is pointed out, it's called a rant. So be it.

The point of calling something price gouging is to be pejorative. It doesn't describe an economic reality, nor does it provide any insight into consumer value.

The fallacy of your line of thinking here is that you assume competitors offer an equivalent product with extra features for less than Apple. The reality is that they offer a different product, with different design choices, many of which people consider inferior to Apple's value proposition.

And as pointed out above, in some cases (Nexus line), they do not offer a SD storage option at all. Where is the rage? Whither the accusations of greed?

I really don't care about Apple's corporate success, except to the extent that I want Apple to continue producing high-quality devices and useful services for them. I wrote that last paragraph because of the sheer ridiculousness of citing a lone survey to imply that Apple is doing badly or suffering because of its business practices. You have to be pretty deluded to think that the world's most valuable company is shooting itself in the foot with its business strategy. If I had $1 for every time I read on mobileread that Apple was going to fail because of greed, or because Steve Jobs died, or because they stopped innovating, I'd (almost) be able to afford an iMac. The meme is stupid.

You are responding to me but you are taking bits and pieces from several people as if we are one.

Here's the bottom line. It is my opinion that the main reason Apple has non-removable storage is greed. I base that on the large overall profit margins on their hardware, which far exceed any other mobile device manufacturer. I stated early on that I don't feel it is the only reason. And I and others also stated we don't support Google doing it either. Yet you chose to act as if that was never said. Why?

If you don't agree with my opinion, that's fine. It is after all an opinion and by no means an indisputable fact. So long as you read all of what I actually wrote instead of forcing pieces into the anti-Apple stereotype you like to argue about while ignoring the pieces that don't.

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by holymadness

I try to have a nuanced view of design choices. That is difficult to express when you are talking to people whose view of the world is black-and-white.

Like any design choice, we can assign this one pros and cons.

PROS:
- cheap, swappable storage

CONS:
- compromises on size or shape of device
- AND/OR compromises on internals of device, i.e. battery life, heat dispersion, etc.
- increased complexity of device; need to introduce file system (currently absent in iOS)

So when someone claims the absence of SD storage comes down to greed, it's not only reductive but also unintelligent. Certainly, Apple makes its biggest margins on storage upgrades. That is one reason why the option is not available. It is not the only one, and it is particularly mendacious of a professed electronics designer to say so.

There is also the issue of the general anti-Apple bias that runs throughout these forums, where members excoriate Apple for practices which others engage in without comment. When that bias is pointed out, it's called a rant. So be it.

The point of calling something price gouging is to be pejorative. It doesn't describe an economic reality, nor does it provide any insight into consumer value.

The fallacy of your line of thinking here is that you assume competitors offer an equivalent product with extra features for less than Apple. The reality is that they offer a different product, with different design choices, many of which people consider inferior to Apple's value proposition.

And as pointed out above, in some cases (Nexus line), they do not offer a SD storage option at all. Where is the rage? Whither the accusations of greed?

I really don't care about Apple's corporate success, except to the extent that I want Apple to continue producing high-quality devices and useful services for them. I wrote that last paragraph because of the sheer ridiculousness of citing a lone survey to imply that Apple is doing badly or suffering because of its business practices. You have to be pretty deluded to think that the world's most valuable company is shooting itself in the foot with its business strategy. If I had $1 for every time I read on mobileread that Apple was going to fail because of greed, or because Steve Jobs died, or because they stopped innovating, I'd (almost) be able to afford an iMac. The meme is stupid.

It doesn't have to add complexity to the interface. Android just gives you the option to move apps to SD after install, but otherwise totally invisible. it just starts storing your media on SD. iOS could do the same, automatically store to SD when needed.

And no one is saying they're going to fail because of greed, just that they are greedy. You can be greedy and successful.

As far as the others, people bitch about them too.

[PatNY]

Originally Posted by holymadness

I try to have a nuanced view of design choices. That is difficult to express when you are talking to people whose view of the world is black-and-white.

Why the need to personally insult forum members you disagree with? Your inability to stick to the issues and tendency to throw around personal insults show a thin skin and defensiveness that undermines the points you're trying to make.

CONS:
- compromises on size or shape of device
- AND/OR compromises on internals of device, i.e. battery life, heat dispersion, etc.
- increased complexity of device; need to introduce file system (currently absent in iOS)

Size, yes. But I don't know that the shape of a device would have to change much by adding a card slot (so long as it was included at the inception of the design). Nor do I see how a card slot would significantly impact battery life and heat dispersion. And there would be no need to introduce a file system. It's easy to restrict card content to media which would have virtually zero impact on the GUI.

There is also the issue of the general anti-Apple bias that runs throughout these forums, where members excoriate Apple for practices which others engage in without comment. When that bias is pointed out, it's called a rant. So be it.

Perhaps the bias against Apple is so strong because they've earned it. Their anti-competitive litigious behavior is regarded as excessive and I'm not aware of any of Apple's competitors being nearly as aggressive -- or frivolous -- in the courts.

And as pointed out above, in some cases (Nexus line), they do not offer a SD storage option at all. Where is the rage? Whither the accusations of greed?

The lower base price of their comparable products greatly mitigates the lack of an SD card or the huge jump in prices one pays to get extra built-in storage.

If I had $1 for every time I read on mobileread that Apple was going to fail because of greed, or because Steve Jobs died, or because they stopped innovating, I'd (almost) be able to afford an iMac. The meme is stupid.

Can you point to a few instances in this thread or any other thread on the first page of the News forum where someone predicted the demise of Apple for any of the reasons you cite? Where the person clearly was not joking around or being hyperbolic?

While many of us are very critical of Apple's practices, I can't remember seeing serious predictions of the company's demise.

--Pat

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by PatNY

While many of us are very critical of Apple's practices, I can't remember seeing serious predictions of the company's demise.

Can I be the first?

The average life expectancy of a multinational corporation-Fortune 500 or its equivalent-is between 40 and 50 years.

Apple is about 35 years old, so one may guess it will wind things up in the 2020's.

It might be objected that companies which become, for even a short time, the world's largest in market capitalization, last longer. The Pennsylvania Railroad lasted about 114 years. General Electric has lasted over a century. So I could be wrong.

Of course I really have no way of knowing if Apple will be long lived like GM and Ford, or short-lived like one-time Dow components Studebaker, Nash and Hudson, or in-between, like Saab, Chrysler, and, in another industry, Polaroid. But I seriously think the computer design and manufacturing industry is one where high flyers get shot down, so I'm gonna question their ability to make in to 2030. This isn't a stock you want to buy and hold.

If you want more of a reason, it looks like we are entering an era of economic weakness. When more recessions come, a discount outfit like Amazon will be better positioned than a luxury level pricing firm like Apple.

[PatNY]

Steve, if you are the first -- or simply one of just a few -- then that would confirm my belief that holymadness is prone to wild exaggeration.

At any rate, your prediction is based on the law of averages, economic weakness, and volatility of the computer industry, rather than corporate greed, the death of Jobs, or lack of innovation.

--Pat

[pilotbob]

Moderator Notice

The expectation here are MobileRead is that we will discuss issues with a reasonable a respectable tone of voice. Our posting guidelines clearly state that personally insulting your fellow members is not tolerated. Please tone it down. Continuing to violate our posting guidelines can lead to being removed from our community, and no one really wants that.

thanks...

[SeaKing]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Can I be the first?

The average life expectancy of a multinational corporation-Fortune 500 or its equivalent-is between 40 and 50 years.

Apple is about 35 years old, so one may guess it will wind things up in the 2020's.

It might be objected that companies which become, for even a short time, the world's largest in market capitalization, last longer. The Pennsylvania Railroad lasted about 114 years. General Electric has lasted over a century. So I could be wrong.

Of course I really have no way of knowing if Apple will be long lived like GM and Ford, or short-lived like one-time Dow components Studebaker, Nash and Hudson, or in-between, like Saab, Chrysler, and, in another industry, Polaroid. But I seriously think the computer design and manufacturing industry is one where high flyers get shot down, so I'm gonna question their ability to make in to 2030. This isn't a stock you want to buy and hold.

If you want more of a reason, it looks like we are entering an era of economic weakness. When more recessions come, a discount outfit like Amazon will be better positioned than a luxury level pricing firm like Apple.

They are giving back 2.5 Billion to stockholders though I notice that instead of saying they have 70, 80, even 100 Billion in the bank, they refer to only 50 Billion. I think in the short term, say for the next 5 years they will be ok, so that we can expect a iPhone 10 one day.

[Dave_S]

Originally Posted by holymadness;2305863
Please [i

try[/i] to make an effort before you post.

Actually, you made my point quite well all on your own. From teardown analysis of iPhones it is easy to see that they cost no more to produce than equivalent Android phones, yet they are priced extravagantly higher. Ergo, a possible reason for Apple's poor showing in China is their price gouging.

[SeaKing]

Originally Posted by Dave_S

Actually, you made my point quite well all on your own. From teardown analysis of iPhones it is easy to see that they cost no more to produce than equivalent Android phones, yet they are priced extravagantly higher. Ergo, a possible reason for Apple's poor showing in China is their price gouging.

"price gouging"

Very well put!

[petermillard]

Originally Posted by PatNY

Why the need to personally insult forum members you disagree with?

Coming from the individual that was happy to call total strangers "sheeple" based on nothing more than the tech they choose to buy, that's actually pretty funny.

[PatNY]

Originally Posted by petermillard

Coming from the individual that was happy to call total strangers "sheeple" based on nothing more than the tech they choose to buy, that's actually pretty funny.

Really? You mean you can't distinguish between making fun of a large nameless anonymous group of people and personally insulting specific individuals in this forum with whom you are engaged in a dialogue? Wow. Big difference.

--Pat

[jjallenupthehill]

Originally Posted by Dave_S

Any rational being would think that this whole line of thinking is trivial in the extreme, and that the courts have much better things to do than quibble about the size, shape and placement of icons on a screen.

Well, you have a point, but I think it's a small one.There is no question that it's a monstrously huge waste of time to debate what amounts to inconsequential details, but they actually mask a significant issue - what is protecting intellectual property in relation to design?

We either have laws to protect intelligent property, or we don't. Design is intellectual property. There is no difference in ripping off someone's design or ripping off someone's functionality. Both activities require a lot of time and effort. One is no less valuable than the other.

It's a point of principle, and wherever courts debate these things, you will always find some absurdity lurking somewhere.