Tim Cook just literally said his customer is unfathomably stupid!

[arlen holder]

*Tim Cook just literally said his customer is unfathomably stupid!*
<https://youtu.be/qvR3PEPqX9A?t=363>

Let's start at time point 315:
<https://youtu.be/qvR3PEPqX9A?t=315>

"There is some *weakness outside of China* as well. I would have liked to
have done better in some of our *developed markets*"

Duh.
o *There is some weakness _outside of China_*
o *Would have liked to have done better in some of our _developed markets_*

Need I repeat the facts, Tim Cook?
1. You screwed _every_ single iPhone owner of last years expensive iPhones.
2. You followed up with a line of super expensive (probably flawed) iPhones

Maybe, Tim Cook ... just maybe ... you shouldn't have screwed _everyone_???

Moving on with the interview...
"I would have liked to do better in some of our developed markets. So how
can we do that? Well the subsidies are fewer these days. That's true. But
we have started a trade-in program. (Bullshit alert...) We started it
primarily because it's great for the environment (Bullshit alert...) It
keeps a unit with someone that wants it (Bullshit alert...) And the person
that wants a new one gets a new one as well. (Bullshit alert...) And it's
great for developers and so forth as well. But we haven't really marketed
it as well."

Ahem... Wow. The bullshit from Tim Cook was flying.
Only a true Apple idiot would believe anything Tim Cook just said.
Really.

What does Tim Cook think of the intelligence of his average customer?
*Are Tim Cook's customers actually _that_ incredibly stupid?*

The next sentence gets a little closer to the truth ...
"And it's great for developers and so forth as well. But we haven't really
marketed it as well. The truth is to the consumer the trade-in looks like a
subsidy. *Because it _lowers_ the price*."

Let's repeat that last phrase:
o *Because it lowers the price*

Duh.
It's the price, stupid.
o You screwed an entire line of iPhone customers, and then,
o You raised the price on the next line (likely just as flawed).

Jesus Christ.

*You ran out of sheep, Tim Cook.*
Even I can see that. And I only have a minor in Economics.

Moving on...
"The truth is to the consumer the trade-in looks like a subsidy. Because
it lowers the price of the phone that you want."

Duh. Let's repeat that first half of that key line:
o *it lowers the price of the phone*

And then, let's look at the second half of that key line:
o *of the phone that you want*

Hehhehheh... (Hey Tim Cook. What if nobody actually _wants_ it?)
HINT: There's nothing of value in it to warrant the astronomical pricing!

Let's move on with this adult analysis of what Tim Cook is saying...
"Because it lowers the price of the phone that you want. And so let me
give you and example of that. The retail price of the iPhone XR in the
United States is $749. But if you happen to trade in a 7+, which many
people are in order to get that, the price goes all the way down to $449 a
lot [sic]."

Ummmm "a lot"? WTF does that mean?

Moving on... we have a (Bullshit alert...) coming up...
"...the price goes all the way down to $449 a lot [sic]." And so there is
a substantial benefit economic and environmental for trade in (Bullshit
alert...) We're also working on placing the ability to do monthly charges
in [sic] and so it begins to look like more of the traditional way of
paying for it through the carrier by you know by taking the rates out for
24 months or so...[sic]"

Hehhehheh... did I just hear what I just heard?
o *You're gonna *HIDE* the true costs from the consumer, Tim Cook?*
Is _that_ what you just said?

Do you _really_ think your loyal customer is _that_ stupid, Tim Cook?

Yup. That's what he said. Moving forward, the subterfuge continues...
"so it begins to look like more of the traditional way of paying for it
through the carrier by you know by taking the rates out for 24 months or
so...[sic]. And so you wind up getting an incredible new phone that is so
much better than what you had, for twenty thirty dollars a month, or so".

Holy Shit. I _did_ hear Tim Cook just say he feels his customer is STUPID!

It's not how much you pay by month - it's how much you pay.
Jesus Christ.
o *Tim Cook just literally said his customer is unfathomably stupid!*

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-01-09 3:24 p.m., arlen holder wrote:
> *Tim Cook just literally said his customer is unfathomably stupid!*
> <https://youtu.be/qvR3PEPqX9A?t=363>

No. He really didn't.

But if you can underline anything in what you quoted (poorly) below,
I'll consider retracting it.

[arlen holder]

On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 15:41:34 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> No. He really didn't.

Oh, it gets even better, Alan Baker.
Tim Cook later said, at time point 411 seconds, that the customer is,
literally, too stupid to do something themselves which is as simple as
transferring their data from their old phone to their new phone.

Remember Alan Baker - unlike you Apple Apologists...
o I'm not incredibly stupid (I'm of at least average intelligence), and,
o I only speak facts (well verified, easily validated, well cited facts).

To wit...
<https://youtu.be/qvR3PEPqX9A?t=411>

Tim Cook:
"We are also putting a lot of focus on the service side. Our stores are
unbelievable at service. People are very worried about transferring their
data. They're very worried that with this new phone there will be something
they lost in that process .So we're putting a lot of emphasis on doing that
and doing that well."

Note that this discussion is about the "revenue shortfall", so, keeping
that in context, it "appears" he is intimating he will CHARGE the customer
to move their data for them from the old phone to the new phone.

Maybe he isn't going to CHARGE them (but he was talking in terms of
services shortfall amelioration) ... but even so, look at his words:
o *People are _very worried_ about transferring their data*
o *They're _very worried_ ... there will be something they lost *

Holy Shit.
*Is Tim Cook really saying about his customer what he just said (twice!)*?

Jesus Christ.
How freaking hard it is to "transfer their data" anyway?

*He twce implied that the Apple customer is _unfathomably_ stupid*.

QUESTION:
Q: How incredibly _stupid_ does Tim Cook think his customer is?
They are "_very worried_" about something _that_ freaking simple?

It's ungodly how evident it is that Tim Cook thinks the customer is
almost unconceivably unfathomably incredibly STUPID!

What do _you_ make of that statement that Tim Cook just said when
discussing how Apple was going to solve services revenue shortfalls?

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-01-09 3:58 p.m., arlen holder wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 15:41:34 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> No. He really didn't.
>
> Oh, it gets even better, Alan Baker.
> Tim Cook later said, at time point 411 seconds, that the customer is,
> literally, too stupid to do something themselves which is as simple as
> transferring their data from their old phone to their new phone.

Quote it... ...accurately.

>
> Remember Alan Baker - unlike you Apple Apologists...
> o I'm not incredibly stupid (I'm of at least average intelligence), and,
> o I only speak facts (well verified, easily validated, well cited facts).
>
> To wit...
> <https://youtu.be/qvR3PEPqX9A?t=411>
>
> Tim Cook:
> "We are also putting a lot of focus on the service side. Our stores are
> unbelievable at service. People are very worried about transferring their
> data. They're very worried that with this new phone there will be something
> they lost in that process .So we're putting a lot of emphasis on doing that
> and doing that well."

People are worried about that; ordinary people worry about that all the
time.

>
> Note that this discussion is about the "revenue shortfall", so, keeping
> that in context, it "appears" he is intimating he will CHARGE the customer
> to move their data for them from the old phone to the new phone.

No. It does '"appear"' that way at all.

>
> Maybe he isn't going to CHARGE them (but he was talking in terms of
> services shortfall amelioration) ... but even so, look at his words:
> o *People are _very worried_ about transferring their data*
> o *They're _very worried_ ... there will be something they lost *

You're just making things up.

>
> Holy Shit.
> *Is Tim Cook really saying about his customer what he just said (twice!)*?
>
> Jesus Christ.
> How freaking hard it is to "transfer their data" anyway?

Too hard for lots of people...

...that's just a fact.

>
> *He twce implied that the Apple customer is _unfathomably_ stupid*.

Nope. You need to learn the difference between "imply" and "infer".

[nospam]

In article <q161r7$42t$1...@news.mixmin.net>, arlen holder

<ar...@arlen.com> wrote:

> How freaking hard it is to "transfer their data" anyway?

for android, it's very difficult to transfer *everything*, or even some
of it.

for ios, it's trivial. the new phone detects the old phone, and after
confirming, it does its thing...

<https://photos5.appleinsider.com/gallery/22938-28390-QuickStart-l.jpg>

<https://support.apple.com/library/content/dam/edam/applecare/images/en_
US/iOS/ios12-iphone-x-setup-restore-from-icloud-backup.jpg>

[arlen holder]

On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 16:01:08 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> Quote it... ...accurately.

You're an utter idiot, Alan Baker.
You didn't even _click_ on the link which I gave you.
That was a verbatim transcript of _exactly_ what Tim Cook said.

Want more?

In explaining the revenue shortfall, there has to be, by definition, a "surprise".
My well-educated opinion is that the surprise was the following one-two punch.

Punch 1:
o Apple released an _entire line_ (every single iPhone!) of expensive flawed phones
o Then Apple secretly (& overtly) screwed all those owners of that entire line of iPhones!

Punch 2:
o Next...Apple releases an entire new line of (perhaps & likely) flawed iPhones!
o Where the price of this new line of (likely flawed) phones, is utterly astronomical

Alan Baker - before you refute factgs, I expect you to listen to what Tim Cook actually said:
<https://youtu.be/qvR3PEPqX9A?t=98>
"The story on iPhone is in addition to the emerging market weakness which is
primarily in China, there's not as many subsidies as their used to be from a carrier
point of view *where that didn't all happen yesterday*, if you've been out of the
market for two or three years, it looks like that to you."

WTF?
Where's the freaking "surprise"?

Tim Cook continues...
"FX was a big challenge in the quarter. As interest rates hikes have started in
the United States, there's more foreign capital coming in. That makes the dollar
much stronger. *We knew that was going to be a factor.* It affected us by about
200 basis points."

WTF?
o *Where that didn't all happen yesterday*
o *We knew that was going to be a factor*

Where's the freaking surprise, Tim Cook?

Then, Tim Cook _begins_ to scrape the surface of the "surprise"...
"In addition to those two things, we started a program world wide where we
dramatically lowered the battery replacement price."

Duh!
*Why not mention that you fucked every single iPhone owner, Tim Cook?*
And, that you _secretly_ tried to fuck them too!
And that two of the three _new_ phones have the _same size_ batteries?

Which iPhone owner, Tim Cook?
HINT: Every single one who bought the _entire line_ of iPhones!

Yeah. _That_ iPhone owner. Your loyal customer.
The one who paid $1000 for an iPhone X where you now give him the choice of
o Unacceptable performance, or
o Unacceptable stability.
(Pick one!)

Hey Tim Cook?
*Those loyal customers paid $1000 for that flawed iPhone X!*
And now, they're spooked.

Fancy that.
Same with the iPhone 8 owners.

They _all_ get the unnatural choice of...
o Either atrocious performance, or,
o Atrocious stability.
(Pick one.)

No wonder the sheep are spooked, Tim Cook.
Rightly so, IMHO.

You blame the price of the $30 battery for Christs' sake!
(Yeah, so it was $80 before you lowered the price. So freaking what, Tim Cook.)

How about admitting in the interview what you've already admitted to Congress?
The _entire_ line of phones (yes, every single model) Apple already said is flawed!

Going forward, Tim Cook said...
"We had sort of a collection of items going on. Some that are macro economics,
and some that are Apple specific."

Yeah, Tim Cook.
How about _this_ for the explanation of the "surprise"?
o You screwed every single loyal buyer (yes, iPhone 8 & iPhone X included).
o Then, you raised the price astronomically, for your _next_ line of phones.

That's not gonna work, Tim Cook.
Even I can see that - and I only have a minor in Economics for Christs' sake.

IMHO, the simple reason for the Apple surprise, was simply this 1-2 punch:
o Apple screwed EVERY iPhone owner with an entire line of expensive flawed phones
o Apple followed up with an even more expensive line of (perhaps flawed) phones

Surprise. Surprise.
"The sheep slowed down their grazing at 1 Infinite Loop".

--
Disclaimer: That the entire old line is flawed is a fact admitted by Apple.
The new line being flawed is in the news based on battery size comparisons.

[sms]

On 1/9/2019 3:58 PM, arlen holder wrote:

> "We are also putting a lot of focus on the service side. Our stores
> are unbelievable at service. People are very worried about
> transferring their data. They're very worried that with this new
> phone there will be something they lost in that process .So we're
> putting a lot of emphasis on doing that and doing that well."

Remember, you and I live in Silicon Valley where there's usually someone
in every household that knows how to do all of this. That's not the case
everywhere. When I upgraded my wife's personal phone recently I had to
show her how to transfer all the photos from her old phone to her new
phone, and then encourage her to use Google Photos for backup, rather
than storing everything locally.

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-01-09 4:13 p.m., arlen holder wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 16:01:08 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> Quote it... ...accurately.
>
> You're an utter idiot, Alan Baker.
> You didn't even _click_ on the link which I gave you.
> That was a verbatim transcript of _exactly_ what Tim Cook said.
>

It's not my job to pick through an entire transcript looking for what
you claim is there.



> Want more?

No. I want what I asked for before I'll go further.

[arlen holder]

On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 16:20:15 -0800, sms wrote:

> Remember, you and I live in Silicon Valley where there's usually someone
> in every household that knows how to do all of this. That's not the case
> everywhere. When I upgraded my wife's personal phone recently I had to
> show her how to transfer all the photos from her old phone to her new
> phone, and then encourage her to use Google Photos for backup, rather
> than storing everything locally.

Hi sms,
I agree with you that we live in a location rife with intelligent people.

However, it's not just that you and I are intelligent and highly educated.
It's that you can I can *comprehend* what Tim Cook actually said.

As you're aware, I'm always trying to figure out why the average Apple user
thinks the way that they do (they're always more "religious" than factual).

So it is of interest that both Alan Baker & nospam deny obvious facts.
They don't even comprehend the slightest of what Tim Cook actually said.

How can people be _that_ unfathomably stupid?
I can't imagine such constant, overt, and obvious stupidity.

I just can't.
But what they say leaves only two options for why they say it:
o Either the Apologists really are that unfathomably fantastically stupid,
o Or, they're always playing silly stupid childish semantic games.
(Pick one.)

What has always shocked me is that the dozen or so Apple Apologists like
nospam, Lewis, BK, Chris, "joe", Alan Baker, Jolly Roger, etc.,
exhibit absolutely no comprehension of what people actually say.

For example, *none* of those Apple Apologists appears to realize what I've
already reported on, and which was essentially explain to Congress, which
is that _all_ the iPhones of the last crop (8 & X included) are flawed.

You see in this very thread that nospam essentially refutes, almost
directly, what Tim Cook literally said.

And, you see, in the worst case, utter morons like Alan Baker claim that my
transcript is wrong, when it's verbatim (i.e., EXACT), and, then, when
confronted, Alan Baker tells us he never clicked on the link before
refuting the facts outright.

What irks me, is that these Apple users actually _are_ that incredibly
stupid.

Sure, you and I deal with, day in and day out, some of the smartest people
on this planet, in the Silicon Valley. I spent DECADES working on high tech
(I never explain it fully as I'm actually extremely well known in the
industry so I try to maintain my privacy by withholding the high-tech
startups I worked for).

I went to some of the best schools in this country, and live on one of the
best towns in the country - where - the fact simply is - that I'm only of
average intelligence compared to those in Silicon Valley who make this
valley rock.

The oddest thing though, is that I'm an utter genius compared to the
average Apple poster to this newsgroup, whether that be Alan Baker, nospam,
Jolly Roger, Lewis, BK, Tim Streater, etc.

It just boggles my mind how fantastically _dumb_ those Apologists are.
The fact is that I can *comprehend* what Tim Cook said.

Tim Cook essentially said, in multiple places, that his customer is stupid.
Given Apple is one of the finest Marketing orgs on the planet, I'd agree.
The one thing Apple Marketing knows - is its customer.

So if Tim Cook literally said, multiple times, that the Apple customer is
"very worried" about something as trivial as transferring their data from
their old iPhone to their new iPhone, then I have to assume that he's being
given his cues from Apple Marketing, who I already am on record stating is
the best of the best of the best - in knowing their customer inside & out.

Hence, the average Apple iPhone user is "very worried" about losing their
data simply by transferring it from an old iPhone to a new iPhone.

That is a fact intelligent people should be able to agree upon.
Nonetheless, I do AGREE with you that we're the cream of the crop.
(Surprisingly so, actually, as we probably only have low triple-digit IQs.)

We had my kids tested, and they're higher than that, but I've never been
tested for IQ that I know of, other than I almost aced my SATs, GREs,
LSATs, etc, when I took them, long long long ago.

The fact is, and I agree, that a _lot_ of Apple users have problems
transferring data - or Tim Cook wouldn't have said what he said (which is
that they do).

Actually, he said they're "very worried", which doesn't necessarily mean
that they lost any data, but, the sheer fact that they are "very worried"
over something _that trivial_, is a shocker, to me.

Hell, you are well aware I factory wipe my Android phone roughly about
monthly, and I'm not in the least worried (although I _have_ lost data due
to mistakes, hehhehheh). But it's just freaking data for Christs' sake.
And, it's easy to NOT make those mistakes (I let ES File Explorer "clean
APKs" once, for example, using default settings, which is about as stupid
as letting the iTunes abomination "sync" your iPod library using default
settings).

Live and learn.
Still, the point is that in _multiple_ instances, Tim Cook basically said
what he thought of the Apple iPhone customer.

And it's basically that they're stupid.

In addition, Tim Cook "danced" around the elephant in the room, which, if
the iPhone user can't figure out how to transfer data, then they'll _never_
figure out what Tim Cook actually said about the "surprise" in his numbers.
Letter from Tim Cook to Apple investors
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/rtCD3DLnVww>

[arlen holder]

On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 16:32:38 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> It's not my job to pick through an entire transcript looking for what
> you claim is there.

I don't have to prove you Apologists are incredibly stupid, Alan Baker.
You prove it yourself every single time you post!

It's actually shocking how fantastically INCOMPETENT you are, Alan Baker.

You can't even click on a video when I give you the exact time point.
And, I give you the EXACT WORDS.

That's too much for you, Alan Baker.

And yet, that isn't all.
You STILL say that the transcript is wrong.

Without even *listening* to a single 60 sections of it.
o Why do the Apple Apologists deny facts
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/eRTC23FyVDY>

That shows two things very common with you Apple Apologists:
o Apple Apologists have this propensity to not comprehend facts.
o Worse, Apple Apologists _deny_ facts, out of hand, without even looking!

I don't have to prove you Apologists are incredibly stupid, Alan Baker.
You prove it yourself.

[arlen holder]

On Wed, 09 Jan 2019 19:12:59 -0500, nospam wrote:

> for ios, it's trivial. the new phone detects the old phone, and after
> confirming, it does its thing...

Classic Apple Apologist behavior of you, nospam.
Facts don't fit in your imaginary (i.e., religious) belief system.

*You refute, out of hand, what Apple themselves already admits.*
o What is wrong with the Apple Apologists that they deny even what Apple admitted?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/fyL1cQUVCp0%5B1-25%5D>

These are Tim Cook's exact words, nospam, in back-to-back sentences
(so it was no fluke): <https://youtu.be/qvR3PEPqX9A?t=411>

This is what he said, exactly:
o "*People are _very worried_ about transferring their data*."
o "They're _very worried_ that with this new phone there will be something they lost in that process ."

You can play your classic Apple Apologist games nospam, and refute
what Tim Cook clearly said.

But the fact you Apologists don't like facts doesn't change the facts.
Facts have no place to fit in your imaginary (i.e., religious) belief system.

[arlen holder]

On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 16:20:15 -0800, sms wrote:

> When I upgraded my wife's personal phone recently I had to
> show her how to transfer all the photos from her old phone to her new
> phone, and then encourage her to use Google Photos for backup, rather
> than storing everything locally.

BTW, to your direct point on showing your wife how to copy photos, my wife
has more degrees than I do, very technical ones in fact, and, to your
point, even so, I am the one who backs up her photos over WiFi simply by
having an FTP server running on her phone.

Any time I need to back up anyone's phone who is connected to my WiFi
network, I just use that already-running FTP server to back them up.

Some people, even those with plenty of graduate credentials, prefer not to
deal with phone technicalities ... I agree.

Delving a bit off topic into the technical aspect though, to copy all the
photos off of either iOS or Android is, as you're well aware, as simple as
either
o Connecting the device over USB to the PC and sliding them over, or,
o Connecting to the device over WiFi (via a server) & sliding them over.

Neither method is in the least complex.
All you do is (a) connect, and (b) slides the files over.

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-01-09 6:34 p.m., arlen holder wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 16:32:38 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> It's not my job to pick through an entire transcript looking for what
>> you claim is there.
>
> I don't have to prove you Apologists are incredibly stupid, Alan Baker.
> You prove it yourself every single time you post!

And yet you cannot produce the text that would support your claim...

...the one you've now snipped.

>
> It's actually shocking how fantastically INCOMPETENT you are, Alan Baker.
>
> You can't even click on a video when I give you the exact time point.
> And, I give you the EXACT WORDS.

Nope.

>
> That's too much for you, Alan Baker.
>
> And yet, that isn't all.
> You STILL say that the transcript is wrong.

I say that you have not presented a quote from the transcript that
supports your claim.

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-01-09 6:34 p.m., arlen holder wrote:

> On Wed, 09 Jan 2019 19:12:59 -0500, nospam wrote:
>
>> for ios, it's trivial. the new phone detects the old phone, and after
>> confirming, it does its thing...
>
> Classic Apple Apologist behavior of you, nospam.
> Facts don't fit in your imaginary (i.e., religious) belief system.
>
> *You refute, out of hand, what Apple themselves already admits.*
> o What is wrong with the Apple Apologists that they deny even what Apple admitted?
> <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/fyL1cQUVCp0%5B1-25%5D>
>
> These are Tim Cook's exact words, nospam, in back-to-back sentences
> (so it was no fluke): <https://youtu.be/qvR3PEPqX9A?t=411>
>
> This is what he said, exactly:
> o "*People are _very worried_ about transferring their data*."
> o "They're _very worried_ that with this new phone there will be something they lost in that process ."

Yes... ...and those are both true.

So?

[arlen holder]

On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 19:01:14 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> And yet you cannot produce the text that would support your claim...

Moving forward, Alan Baker, notice the bullshit that Tim Cook spewed
at time point 335 seconds, which only you religiously occluded Apologists
can possibly believe... <https://youtu.be/qvR3PEPqX9A?t=335>

Exact quote from Tim Cook:
"We have started a trade-in program. We started it primarily

because it's great for the environment"

Oh come on Tim Cook.
You did not do it "for the environment".
That's preposterous (see previous cites on the increasing iPhone carbon
footprint).

Tim Cook actually explains the _real_ reason, only a few sentences later:

Exact quote from Tim Cook:

"The truth is to the consumer the trade-in looks like a subsidy.

Because it _lowers_ the price"

What is it Tim Cook. Is it the environment (ahem), or "the price"?

Let's repeat that last phrase:
o *Because it lowers the price*

Let's repeat it again:

o *Because it lowers the price*

Duh.
It's the price, stupid.

Only a fool like you, Alan Baker (and the other canonical Apple
Apologists), habitually fail to comprehend the true meaning of such things.

[nospam]

In article <q16b0d$h4u$1...@news.mixmin.net>, arlen holder

<ar...@arlen.com> wrote:

> I agree with you that we live in a location rife with intelligent people.

and it's a wonder how you ended up there.

>
> How can people be _that_ unfathomably stupid?
> I can't imagine such constant, overt, and obvious stupidity.

with you as an example, anything is possible.

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-01-09 7:24 p.m., arlen holder wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 19:01:14 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> And yet you cannot produce the text that would support your claim...
>
> Moving forward, Alan Baker, notice the bullshit that Tim Cook spewed
> at time point 335 seconds, which only you religiously occluded Apologists
> can possibly believe... <https://youtu.be/qvR3PEPqX9A?t=335>

No. Let's not move forward. Let's stay right where we are until you
actually support your claim:

"Tim Cook later said, at time point 411 seconds, that the customer is,
literally, too stupid to do something themselves which is as simple as
transferring their data from their old phone to their new phone."

So here and now:

Quote what Tim Cook actually said in that video...

<https://youtu.be/qvR3PEPqX9A?t=315>

...where he said...

"literally"

...his customers are "too stupid".

[arlen holder]

On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 19:35:19 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> ...his customers are "too stupid".

Hi Alan Baker,
If you are one of "his loyal customers", doesn't that alone provide an answer?

[Alan Baker]

What your posts proves is that you're afraid to address what I asked:

Let's stay right where we are until you actually support your claim:

"Tim Cook later said, at time point 411 seconds, that the customer is,
literally, too stupid to do something themselves which is as simple as
transferring their data from their old phone to their new phone."

So here and now:

Quote what Tim Cook actually said in that video...

<https://youtu.be/qvR3PEPqX9A?t=315>

...where he said...

"literally"

...his customers are "too stupid".

Or, admit you lied...

...or you're just ignorant.

:-)

You'll admit that by snipping any of this post, BTW.

:-)

[arlen holder]

On Wed, 09 Jan 2019 22:33:51 -0500, nospam wrote:

> and it's a wonder how you ended up there.

Hi nospam,
I am sure you and your other fifth grade Apologists think that idiotic
statement your best clever repartee.

The fact is, that _is_ your best repartee. (Sadly.)

You can't refute the facts with facts.
All you can do, as always, is deny the facts.

But you and Alan Baker denying facts without even CLICKING on the links
that prove the facts, doesn't change that the facts, as stated, are facts.

On a good note, Tim Cook did say his "services revenue" was doing well.
<https://youtu.be/qvR3PEPqX9A?t=632>

Exact quotes from Tim Cook follow below from time point 632 seconds:
"Services has grown incredible amounts. We're going to report
over $10.8 billion when we report later this month for last quarter.
That's a new record. "

Tim Cook goes on to say:
"This is incredibly exciting for us because so many things hit records
in there. The App Store did. Apple Music hit a new record. Apple Pay
hit a new record. Our search app product from the app store hit a new
record. iCloud hit a new record. "

And then he explains that it's world wide:
"And so, it's very wide, and each geography hit a quarterly record.
Even in China, the App Store hit a quarterly record. Why is that?
It's because it's driven by our installed base."

Then he explained the installed base, admittedly monumental:
"And our installed base grew nicely year over year in China as well.
And as I say in the letter, we picked up a hundred more million active
devices over the last 12 months alone. This is an incredible number."

One question I would have is how much can they be earning from their
"search app product", whatever that is?

What is Tim Cook talking about?
Is it this? <https://searchads.apple.com/advanced/>
<https://searchads.apple.com/>

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-01-09 7:57 p.m., arlen holder wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Jan 2019 22:33:51 -0500, nospam wrote:
>
>> and it's a wonder how you ended up there.
>
> Hi nospam,
> I am sure you and your other fifth grade Apologists think that idiotic
> statement your best clever repartee.
>
> The fact is, that _is_ your best repartee. (Sadly.)
>
> You can't refute the facts with facts.
> All you can do, as always, is deny the facts.
>
> But you and Alan Baker denying facts without even CLICKING on the links
> that prove the facts, doesn't change that the facts, as stated, are facts.
>
> On a good note, Tim Cook did say his "services revenue" was doing well.
> <https://youtu.be/qvR3PEPqX9A?t=632>
>
> Exact quotes from Tim Cook follow below from time point 632 seconds:
> "Services has grown incredible amounts. We're going to report
> over $10.8 billion when we report later this month for last quarter.
> That's a new record. "

How does that support your claim that he "LITERALLY" said his customers
were stupid?

Or do you just not know what "literally" means?

>
> Tim Cook goes on to say:
> "This is incredibly exciting for us because so many things hit records
> in there. The App Store did. Apple Music hit a new record. Apple Pay
> hit a new record. Our search app product from the app store hit a new
> record. iCloud hit a new record. "
>

How does that support your claim that he "LITERALLY" said his customers
were stupid?

Or do you just not know what "literally" means?

> And then he explains that it's world wide:
> "And so, it's very wide, and each geography hit a quarterly record.
> Even in China, the App Store hit a quarterly record. Why is that?
> It's because it's driven by our installed base."
>

How does that support your claim that he "LITERALLY" said his customers
were stupid?

Or do you just not know what "literally" means?

> Then he explained the installed base, admittedly monumental:
> "And our installed base grew nicely year over year in China as well.
> And as I say in the letter, we picked up a hundred more million active
> devices over the last 12 months alone. This is an incredible number."
>

How does that support your claim that he "LITERALLY" said his customers
were stupid?

Or do you just not know what "literally" means?

> One question I would have is how much can they be earning from their
> "search app product", whatever that is?
>
> What is Tim Cook talking about?
> Is it this? <https://searchads.apple.com/advanced/>
> <https://searchads.apple.com/>
>

Why do you continue to deflect from your claim?

[arlen holder]

On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 19:47:54 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> Let's stay right where we are until you actually support your claim:

You remind me of Snit, Alan Baker.
Are you sure you're not Snit?

He posted, over 400 times, links to this idiotic video making the same type
of repeated idiotic claims that you're doing, now, Alan Baker.
<https://youtu.be/7QaABa6DFIo>

And yet... even after repeating himself (we counted) over 400 times...
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/PZuec56EWB0/qSXecrnZAQAJ>

Never once did Snit realize (nor even look) at what the Y-axis indicated.
You're the same as Snit, Alan Baker.

Exactly the same.
o It's a fact iOS devices can't even graph Wi-Fi signal strength over time
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/PZuec56EWB0/rX-L9xbYAQAJ>

[arlen holder]

On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 20:00:12 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> How does that support your claim that he "LITERALLY" said his customers
> were stupid?

You remind me of Snit, Alan Baker.
Are you sure you're not Snit?

Snit posted, over 400 times, links to this idiotic video making the same type

of repeated idiotic claims that you're doing, now, Alan Baker.
<https://youtu.be/7QaABa6DFIo>

And yet... even after repeating himself (we counted) over 400 times...
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/PZuec56EWB0/qSXecrnZAQAJ>

Never once did Snit realize (nor even look) at what the Y-axis indicated.
You're the same as Snit, Alan Baker.

You refute claims without ever even *comprehending* what you're looking at.

You're absolutely no different than Snit, Alan Baker.

[nospam]

In article <q16gb4$o6f$1...@news.mixmin.net>, arlen holder

<ar...@arlen.com> wrote:

> o It's a fact iOS devices can't even graph Wi-Fi signal strength over time

no, it's not a fact. they absolutely can, as has been explained to you
many, many times.

it's also not functionality that's in very high demand, especially with
modern wifi access points.

however, it can be done for those who choose to do so.

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-01-09 8:05 p.m., arlen holder wrote:

> On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 19:47:54 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> Let's stay right where we are until you actually support your claim:
>

> You remind me...

Let's stay right where we are until you actually support your claim:

"Tim Cook later said, at time point 411 seconds, that the customer is,
literally, too stupid to do something themselves which is as simple as
transferring their data from their old phone to their new phone."

So here and now:

Quote what Tim Cook actually said in that video...

<https://youtu.be/qvR3PEPqX9A?t=315>

...where he said...

"literally"

...his customers are "too stupid".

Or, admit you lied...

...or you're just ignorant.

That's what you snipped and failed to address.

So you've admitted your ignorance or mendacity.

Now run along and learn what "mendacity" means before I let you decide
which you're guilty of.

:-)

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-01-09 8:08 p.m., arlen holder wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 20:00:12 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> How does that support your claim that he "LITERALLY" said his customers
>> were stupid?

> You remind me of...

Answer the question.

[arlen holder]

On Wed, 09 Jan 2019 23:09:19 -0500, nospam wrote:

> no, it's not a fact. they absolutely can, as has been explained to you
> many, many times.

Hehhehheh... Hi nospam,

Yet again, facts have no place to fit in your (religious) belief system.
And, like any child, you have no unique response to facts you don't like.

*Your entire response repertoire is limited to the following 7 traits:*
o What are the well-verified psychological traits of the Apple Apologists?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/18ARDsEOPzM/veU8FwAjBQAJ>

To wit, see the number one trait below, from this post:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/18ARDsEOPzM/VObNMvHqDAAJ>
===========================================================================
Common traits of the Apple Apologists:
. *They brazenly & repeatedly fabricate wholly imaginary app functionality*
. *They then exclaim that it's been told to us many times how to do it*
...
. They almost never back up statements with actual referenced facts
. They incessantly play childish semantic games when faced with those facts
...
. They consistently fabricate quoted content that never happened
. They then wittily respond to that imaginary quoted content as if it did!
...
. They're never purposefully helpful by helping the OP answer the question
. They post worthless retorts, all of which lack any added technical value
...
. They consistently blame Android for most of Apple's app & hardware faults
. They consistently find the absolute worst price:performance comparisons
...
. They actually believe that a well-documented process is too complex!
. They literally believe elapsed time is proof of actual resolution time.
...
. They deny facts a priori - without even reading the referenced facts!
. And then they complain about quote snipping of their silly semantic games
===========================================================================

[arlen holder]

On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 20:11:03 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> Let's stay right where we are until you actually support your claim:

Hi Alan Baker,

Like all the dozen canonical Apple Apologists...
o Who are the Apple Apologists on this ng?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/mehGxIGcoa8/MoxCZ8XcAwAJ>

*Your entire response repertoire is limited to the following 7 traits:*
o What are the well-verified psychological traits of the Apple Apologists?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/18ARDsEOPzM/veU8FwAjBQAJ>

To wit, see the number seven trait below, from this post:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/18ARDsEOPzM/VObNMvHqDAAJ>
===========================================================================
7 Common Habits of the Apple Apologists:

. They brazenly & repeatedly fabricate wholly imaginary app functionality
. They then exclaim that it's been told to us many times how to do it

...
. They almost never back up statements with actual referenced facts
. They incessantly play childish semantic games when faced with those facts
...
. They consistently fabricate quoted content that never happened
. They then wittily respond to that imaginary quoted content as if it did!
...
. They're never purposefully helpful by helping the OP answer the question
. They post worthless retorts, all of which lack any added technical value
...
. They consistently blame Android for most of Apple's app & hardware faults
. They consistently find the absolute worst price:performance comparisons
...
. They actually believe that a well-documented process is too complex!
. They literally believe elapsed time is proof of actual resolution time.
...

. *They deny facts a priori - without even reading the referenced facts*
. *Then they complain about quote snipping of their silly semantic games*
===========================================================================

[arlen holder]

On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 20:12:01 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> Answer the question.

Hi Alan Baker,

*The answer you seek is already in the post you refuted
& in the links you didn't click, nor did you comprehend.*

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-01-09 8:24 p.m., arlen holder wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 20:11:03 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> Let's stay right where we are until you actually support your claim:
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
>

> Like all the dozen...

Yada, yada, yada.

Let's stay right where we are until you actually support your claim:

[Alan Baker]

You were asked to provide a specific quote that makes your claim:

[arlen holder]

On 10 Jan 2019 04:53:42 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

> That's all you're ever going to get out of him. He's a pathetic loser
> whose word means nothing.

Hi Jolly Roger,

*I _love_ when you post, Jolly Roger.*
I really do.

That's because you are the epitome of the average iOS user, Jolly Roger.

Remember when, for example you *congratulated* Snit, on finding, you
thought, the one app on the planet (you thought) that actually could graph
WiFi signal strength on iOS over time for all available access points?

Remember that, Jolly Roger?
You don't? Well I do.

You proved, yet again, "words mean absolutely nothing" to you.
HINT: *You didn't even know the difference between a decibel & a megabit!*

Yup.
You proved it yourself.

*Words mean absolutely nothing to you, Jolly Roger.*

In fact, to you, a decibel & a megabit are exactly the same thing.

Hence...
You give us all a perfect insight into the mind of the average iOS user.

To you, "words mean nothing", which is to say "facts mean nothing" to you.
HINT: You _still_ think a decibel is the same as a megabit.

You proved, time & again, you're _that_ unfathomably stupid, Jolly Roger.
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/PZuec56EWB0/rX-L9xbYAQAJ>

[sms]

On 1/9/2019 6:34 PM, arlen holder wrote:

<snip>

> So if Tim Cook literally said, multiple times, that the Apple customer is
> "very worried" about something as trivial as transferring their data from
> their old iPhone to their new iPhone, then I have to assume that he's being
> given his cues from Apple Marketing, who I already am on record stating is
> the best of the best of the best - in knowing their customer inside & out.
>
> Hence, the average Apple iPhone user is "very worried" about losing their
> data simply by transferring it from an old iPhone to a new iPhone.

Be that as it may, the infrastructure of Apple stores is a powerful
marketing tool because most people are not techies, even when they are
experts in other fields. My sister-in-law is a physical therapist with
an advanced degree. My wife is an RN with an advanced degree. I provide
the tech support to both.

When my sister-in-law recently switched from her old Samsung Galaxy S3
to an iPhone 7, she asked me for help. When I could not figure out how
to do what she wanted on the iPhone she went to the Genius Bar at a
local Apple store. Unfortunately, the Genius Bar employee explained to
her what I had also learned by Googling it, the feature she used every
work day on her Galaxy S3 was not available on the iPhone.

[sms]

On 1/9/2019 3:24 PM, arlen holder wrote:

<snip>

> But
> we have started a trade-in program. <snip> But we haven't really marketed
> it as well."

<snip>

What amused me about that interview was the emphasis on trade-ins and
financing. It’s sounding like buying a car. “What can I do to get you
into this phone today?” Any time a company starts emphasizing financing
options, I am wary, whether it’s for a bed, a car, jewelry, vacations,
clothing, etc..

If you have to finance a piece of consumer electronics then you probably
can’t afford it, though on the other hand it’s generally 0% interest for
phones so if you really can afford it then it’s no big deal. But buying
outright has advantages too, i.e. many, if not most, credit cards double
the manufacturer’s warranty for purchases, and I’ve used those extended
warranties on several occasions. For laptops, TVs, and major appliances
you end up with a four year warranty if you buy one at Costco with your
Costco Visa card
<https://www.costco.com/concierge-two-plus-two-warranty.html>. I just
bought a new laptop at Costco and of course right afterward it went on
sale for $200 less. I just filled out a form online and two days later
they credited my account for the difference.

[nospam]

In article <q17ecl$4vq$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> When my sister-in-law recently switched from her old Samsung Galaxy S3
> to an iPhone 7, she asked me for help. When I could not figure out how
> to do what she wanted on the iPhone she went to the Genius Bar at a
> local Apple store. Unfortunately, the Genius Bar employee explained to
> her what I had also learned by Googling it, the feature she used every
> work day on her Galaxy S3 was not available on the iPhone.

meanwhile, there were shitloads of things the iphone did that the
samsung did not, especially an old galaxy s3.

no device does everything.

[nospam]

In article <100120191618499680%timst...@greenbee.net>, Tim Streater
<timst...@greenbee.net> wrote:

> And it's unclear that smart phones do very much of anything that's of
> use anyway, whoever makes them. I took email off mine since it's not
> secure; I don't use the camera. Apart from phoning, about the only
> thing that's of any actual use to me might be the Google Calendar app.
> I use it for Twitter but trying to type on the tiny keyboard means I
> usually wait until later and do it on a proper keyboard.

maybe not for you, but for billions of others, they are *very* useful.

having a camera all the time is extremely useful and email is at least
as secure as the phone is.

[arlen holder]

On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 20:44:11 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> You were asked to provide a specific quote that makes your claim:
> Let's stay right where we are until you actually support your claim:

Hi Alan Baker (and all average iOS users),

Let's "try" to converse, as "adults" converse.
*For this post, I'll assume that you actually own the mind of an adult.*
I will point out eight statements, and respond with 8 adult observations.

Let's see what happens when I assume you comprehend what adults do.
(Although it's a waste of time to talk to you as if you were an adult.)

But let's try - where everything below *assumes* you own an adult mind.
NOTE: I limited each statement & observation to <70 characters for brevity.

*Statement A:*
o Tim Cook said the trade-in program was "primarily" for "the environment".
Observation A:
o If you actually _believe_ that, then, IMHO, you own the mind of a child.

*Statement B:*
o Tim Cook then said the "truth" is that it "looks like a subsidy".
Observation B:
o An adult mind will comprehend what "looks like" actually means.

*Statement C:*
o Tim Cook then further said the "truth" is that it "lowers the price".
Observation C:
o If you own the mind of an adult, you'll *comprehend* it's about price.

*Statement D:*
o Tim Cook discusses $749 going to $449 "a lot", which was cleverly chosen.
Observation D:
o Any comprehensive adult will see right through multiple games here.

*Statement E:*
o Tim Cook says it "begins to look" like the old way of doing business.
Observation E:
o Every intelligent adult can see right through that "payment" trick.

*Statement F:*
o Tim Cook implied the "very worried" will pay for data-xfer service.
Observation F:
o It was in response to services revenue; adults can infer the implied.

*Statement G:*
o Tim Cook explained the "surprise" by blaming what what Apple knew.
o He said: "Where that didn't all happen yesterday"
o He said: "We knew that was going to be a factor"
Observation G:
o Any adult realizes you can't blame a "surprise" on what you already knew.

*Statement H:*
o Tim Cook literally blamed the $30 battery for lack of $1500 iPhone sales.
Observation H:
o Nobody who owns an adult mind will believe a word he said about that.

What Tim Cook did NOT say, is just as important as what he said.
o Apple 1st fucked the customer & then raised the price astronomically
o Not only is the price astronomical, but there's no concomitant value
o Worse, two of the three new phones have the _same_ sized battery!

That's the surprise.
o *Heretofore extremely loyal sheep stopped grazing at 1 Infinite Loop*

After going through this appreciable effort to summarize for you, Alan
Baker, what was already stated numerous times, I realize that you, Alan
Baker, are not capable of comprehending what I just wrote.

Hence, the only value added is that, for actual adults (of which, I admit,
there are few on this newsgroup), this adult-to-adult itemized summary will
further cement the obvious, which is that Tim Cook literally said that he
truly believes his loyal customers, are unfathomably stupid - because - if
they believe what he said - they MUST be unfathomably stupid.

HINT: Tim Cook does NOT believe a single word that he himself said.
DOUBLEHINT: Apple Marketing gave him _all_ his talking points.

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-01-10 9:47 a.m., arlen holder wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 20:44:11 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> You were asked to provide a specific quote that makes your claim:
>> Let's stay right where we are until you actually support your claim:
> Hi Alan Baker (and all average iOS users),
>
> Let's "try" to converse, as "adults" converse.

By changing the subject? No.

You were asked to provide a specific quote that makes your claim:

Let's stay right where we are until you actually support your claim:

[arlen holder]

On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 04:38:45 -0800, sms wrote:

> Be that as it may, the infrastructure of Apple stores is a powerful
> marketing tool because most people are not techies, even when they are
> experts in other fields.

Hi sms,
As usual, you're a comprehensive adult, so I rarely take umbrage at what
you say. Facts and logic being what they are, you're generally correct.

We agree.
o IMHO, Apple has one of the finest MARKETING orgs on this planet.
o There is no doubt Apple MARKETING knows its customer inside and out.
o That means most iPhone consumers are not technical. I agree with you.

What you're saying, which I understand, is that "most people" (including
Android users) are not technical. I don't disagree.

Facts are funny that way in that they are easily agree on by adults.

> My sister-in-law is a physical therapist with
> an advanced degree. My wife is an RN with an advanced degree. I provide
> the tech support to both.

Yup. I won't say the degrees that my wife has, by way of agreement with
you, but it would make your head spin (I think), since she is a theoretical
person who can spout equations that make my head spin - and yet - she can't
figure out how to reboot the router after a power outage (which is
happening almost weekly lately, what with this winter weather).
(Admittedly my Cat5 cable-spaghetti is getting a bit complex lately.)

What you're saying, and I agree with, is that 'even smart people' aren't
always technical when it comes to mobile devices (and other things).

I do not disagree since I understand _everything_ anyone can say here.
What irks me is that most people on this newsgroup can't seem to comprehend
even these simple statements that you just made.

That's what I don't understand.
o How can people like nospam & Alan Baker be _that_ stupid?

For example, do you also agree, sms, that Tim Cook was given his "talking
points" in that interview? (Even the interviewer must have been given his
questions by Apple because some of them were pure unadulterated shills,
such as:
o Do you think Apple tried to release too much too soon?
(Which was a hilarious question that only adults can comprehend why,
given the "surprise" was NOT that "Apple makes too much of too good").

I really want to ask you this adult question, sms.
(Since you & David Empson & only a few others are the rare adults here.)
o Is it just me - or do you also read right through what Tim Cook said?

Is it truly only me that has an adult comprehension of what Tim Cook said?
Or do you too see right through the 8 statements I just highlighted here?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/oulJsYSmDDM/hfiuwv4sFAAJ>

> When my sister-in-law recently switched from her old Samsung Galaxy S3
> to an iPhone 7, she asked me for help. When I could not figure out how
> to do what she wanted on the iPhone she went to the Genius Bar at a
> local Apple store. Unfortunately, the Genius Bar employee explained to
> her what I had also learned by Googling it, the feature she used every
> work day on her Galaxy S3 was not available on the iPhone.

As you know, I've brought iPads to the Genius Bar, where I recorded the
entire conversation and posted it (years ago), proving the Genius Bar guy
didn't even know what a decibel was (much like Snit and Jolly Roger proved
in the WiFi thread).

Yet, you also know that I give iPhones as gifts, where I set up the
appointments for them (e.g., I posted verbatim the battery replacement
letters I received earlier this year), and where they were VERY HAPPY with
the Genius Bar service.

From those experiences, which mirror yours, the Genius Bar is sort of like
a very conscientious and diligent waiter. They don't know how to cook the
food, but they can deliver it with courtesy and care.

All the Genius Bar is, IMHO, are very courteous waiters & waitresses.
That's all they NEED to be, by the way, since their customer is clueless.

As I've said many (many) times, the customers wants to "FEEL" safe.
Actually "being" safe isn't really the customers' concern.

Having said that the Genius Bar caters well to the clueless, you may also
know that on the Win10 newsgroups, I've brought my desktop twice to
Microsoft (and twice over the phone with their customer support).

Microsoft wasn't much better, although, to their credit, they did download
and install over the air a decade-old version of Office 2007 for me, just
after they completely dropped support for it (and then my desktop was
bricked by a Microsoft update which I had forestalled for more than two
years, by judicious deletion of files in the system folder).

It turns out that very few support personnel can help us, simply because,
for the most part, we can help ourselves.

That's not what most of those support people are for.
They're mostly there for the clueless, which Tim Cook clearly said that his
customers were when he said they're "very worried" about transferring their
data.

Any adult would be able to "infer" what he "implied", since this was a
discussion about 'services revenue'.

What we, as adults, can infer, is that Tim Cook plans on rolling out a paid
"service" to help his customers transfer files from the old iPhone to the
new iPhone.

Even if it's not a pay service, what Tim Cook "implied", which any
comprehensive adult can infer he implied, is that the fact that his
customers are "very worried" is, in Tim Cook's implication, one of the
"surprises" that resulted in him mismating his revenue guidance by a lot.

I must ask you, again, sms, a question, mano a mano, which kind of irks me
about the average Apple user here (e.g., Tim Streater, Alan Baker, Jolly
Roger, etc.).

Am I _really_ a genius in that I can *easily* see right through what Tim
Cook said (see the 8 statements I highlighted for Alan Baker just now):
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/oulJsYSmDDM/hfiuwv4sFAAJ>

As you know, I've worked in the Silicon Valley for decades, where EVERYONE
is a freaking genius ... so it's really really really hard for me to deal
with the folks on this newsgroup who clearly are as dumb as a rock.

Mano a mano, do you comprehend the 8 observations I highlighted here?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/oulJsYSmDDM/hfiuwv4sFAAJ>

*I'm not asking if you to AGREE with my observations*
(agreement/disagreement can only come _after_ comprehension).
*I'm just asking if you COMPREHEND the logic*
(because people like nospam & Alan Baker disagree sans comprehension)

[arlen holder]

On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 10:09:42 -0500, nospam wrote:

> meanwhile, there were shitloads of things the iphone did that the
> samsung did not, especially an old galaxy s3.
>
> no device does everything.

Name just one, nospam.

(Other than the API I noted about a week ago from a Christmas party.)
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/8pwhejHrm-k/AQTnOevcEwAJ>

Name just one.

No silly semantic games, nospam.

You know the rules...
o App functionality (not branding or trademarks - but actual functionality)
o All by its itty bitty self (not iTunes abominations requiring a PC)
o Non jailbroken (you love to play that game, now don't you nospam)

*Name just one.*

[arlen holder]

On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 10:05:20 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> You were asked to provide a specific quote that makes your claim:

Hi Alan Baker,

We're done for this thread, you and me.
It's a mismatch from the start.

You're just too clever for me, Alan Baker.
Much too clever.

1. I provide direct exact quotes backed up by links.
2. You say the quotes are wrong (at the same time admitting you didn't even
click on the links).

3. I provide MORE direct quotes, backed up by links.
4. Again, you say the quotes are wrong (at the same time not clicking the
links).

5. I then laboriously *summarize* eight specific statements for you.
6. You flatly deny the summary and observations, en masse.

We're done here, Alan Baker (where I'm sure everyone will thank us).
You're just way too clever for me, Alan Baker.

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-01-10 10:23 a.m., arlen holder wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 10:05:20 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> You were asked to provide a specific quote that makes your claim:
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
>
> We're done for this thread, you and me.
> It's a mismatch from the start.
>
> You're just too clever for me, Alan Baker.
> Much too clever.
>
> 1. I provide direct exact quotes backed up by links.

No. You never provided the quote that showed Tim Cook "literally"
calling his customers stupid.

[arlen holder]

On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 06:39:42 -0800, sms wrote:

> What amused me about that interview was the emphasis on trade-ins and

> financing. Itÿs sounding like buying a car. ´What can I do to get you

> into this phone today?¡ Any time a company starts emphasizing financing

> options, I am wary, whether itÿs for a bed, a car, jewelry, vacations,
> clothing, etc..

Hi sms,
I agree.

It's obvious what Apple's plan is going to be to get consumers to pay the
high price they set for the new iPhones, without realizing themselves, what
the actual price is going to be.

To wit:
o The trade-in discount (which he positioned as a recycling effort)
o Tim Cook said "the truth is to the consumer it looks like a subsidy"
o Tim Cook said "it begins to look like" the glorious carrier subsidy days
o Tim Cook implied they were going to bring in monthly installments
o He said they get a great phone for "twenty thirty dollars a month"
etc.
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/oulJsYSmDDM/hfiuwv4sFAAJ>

> If you have to finance a piece of consumer electronics then you probably

> canÿt afford it, though on the other hand itÿs generally 0% interest for
> phones so if you really can afford it then itÿs no big deal.

Funny you mention the interest rate, since, I was listening intently to Tim
Cook's exact words to ascertain whether he was implying 0% interest or not.

As you may know, I've bought a few phones from T-Mobile (both Android &
iOS) under their financing plan, which "claims" 0% interest, but in the
main, the price was set roughly about 50 dollars more than on the market -
which means you're really paying 50 dollars over two years in "interest".

While it was extremely clear that Tim Cook plans on releasing some kind of
"financing plan" that looks like the good ole' days of carrier subsidies,
it wasn't clear whether Apple plans on charging interest on that financing
plan.

Since Tim Cook's whole point was to fool the customer (he said as much many
times, so there is no doubt that he intends to make it look like that which
it is not), I wouldn't put it past them to include the interest somehow.

I wouldn't blame them either - since - AFAIK - even with T-Mobile, which
blatantly 'says' they don't charge interest, in actuality, they do (in
effect, to the tune of $50/two years).

Bear in mind, particularly in California where we both live, that you pay
the approximately 10% sales tax on the FULL MSRPP of the phone!

So, for a $1,500 iPhone, you pay roughly about $150 instantly, well BEFORE
the 24-month payments even begin!

The reason this matters is that if you buy a "non subsidized" phone you pay
sales tax only on the ACTUAL price you paid for that phone - but - if you
buy a subsidized phone (or even if you get it from the carrier "for
free"!), you pay the sales tax on the full MSRPP (ask me how I know).

Maybe less so now, what with people habitually buying phones outright, but
in the olden days, the MSRPP was a "fake number", but it wasn't all that
fake to the California government, who took their full tax due on the MSRPP
even if, in the olden days, nobody in their right mind every paid that.

> But buying
> outright has advantages too, i.e. many, if not most, credit cards double

> the manufacturerÿs warranty for purchases, and Iÿve used those extended

> warranties on several occasions. For laptops, TVs, and major appliances
> you end up with a four year warranty if you buy one at Costco with your
> Costco Visa card
> <https://www.costco.com/concierge-two-plus-two-warranty.html>. I just
> bought a new laptop at Costco and of course right afterward it went on
> sale for $200 less. I just filled out a form online and two days later
> they credited my account for the difference.

Costco is great. I agree.

I got a handful of $130 LG Stylo 3 Plus stocking stuffers there.
And I got my latest 128GB $300 WiFi-only iPad there too.
Plus many of the laptops I habitually give to kids going to college.

The main thing I find odd is that each store has _different_ stuff.
(Online would be consistent though.)

[nospam]

In article <q182iq$qi3$1...@news.mixmin.net>, arlen holder

<ar...@arlen.com> wrote:

>
> > meanwhile, there were shitloads of things the iphone did that the
> > samsung did not, especially an old galaxy s3.
> >
> > no device does everything.
>
> Name just one, nospam.

been there, done that. you ignore anything that proves you wrong, such
as:

> (Other than the API I noted about a week ago from a Christmas party.)

that counts.

[arlen holder]

On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 14:05:40 -0500, nospam wrote:

> been there, done that. you ignore anything that proves you wrong, such
> as:
>
>> (Other than the API I noted about a week ago from a Christmas party.)
>
> that counts.

I love it nospam.
You've got nothing.
The only thing you've got is one minor API that I found out about.

What's amazing about you, nospam, is that I think you're actually not
stupid.

Everything (and I mean everything) you write indicates you're stupid.

But I think you're just ill educated.

For example, I know nothing about iOS, and yet, I _always_ seem to know far
more than you do.

Why is that almost always the case, nospam?
I think it's because you completely lack any formal education.

So, to you, it's quite "normal" to just spout your "nonsense" bullshit.
You have never been challenged to back up your statements.

If you were even slightly formally educated, you'd have been challenged.
Nobody can go through even an undergraduate education with your attitude.

You'd fail any class you took.
You wouldn't even make it to the second semester with the way you act.

So it's not really with malice that I put you in a different category from
the other blatant Apple Apologists like Alan Baker & Jolly Roger.

They prove to be truly stupid in everything they post.
You?

You are just not used to dealing with intelligent people.
People who challenge the bullshit you spew sans a shred of facts.

I shouldn't blame you for being ill educated.
I should simply advise you that your credibility is worthless, nospam.

Your credibility is worthless because you're almost always wrong.
The monkey has a far better track record on facts, than you do.

It's not because you're stupid nospam.
It's because facts, to you, are utterly meaningless.

I blame that not on your lack of intelligence, but on your ill education.
You've never been called to account to back up your statements.

Any well educated person would ALWAYS back up what they say.
Or they wouldn't say it.

You haven't learned that lesson yet.
And, likely, you never will.

[nospam]

In article <q189d4$4fv$1...@news.mixmin.net>, arlen holder

<ar...@arlen.com> wrote:

>
> > been there, done that. you ignore anything that proves you wrong, such
> > as:
> >
> >> (Other than the API I noted about a week ago from a Christmas party.)
> >
> > that counts.
>
> I love it nospam.
> You've got nothing.
> The only thing you've got is one minor API that I found out about.

you asked for one item, and even provided it yourself.

however, there are shitloads more, most of which have been explained to
you numerous times.

as i said, you ignore them when it proves you wrong and try to weasel
out of it when you proved yourself wrong.

[Alan Browne]

On 2019-01-10 11:18, Tim Streater wrote:
> In article <100120191009424362%nos...@nospam.invalid>, nospam

> And it's unclear that smart phones do very much of anything that's of
> use anyway, whoever makes them. I took email off mine since it's not
> secure; I don't use the camera. Apart from phoning, about the only
> thing that's of any actual use to me might be the Google Calendar app.

SSL much? ie: no less secure that a properly setup personal computer's
e-mail.

As to "much of anything that's of use"? Very long list beginning with
messages, web access, e-mail, navigation, contacts, and too much more to
list...

The camera is useful for countless things beyond snapshots.

> I use it for Twitter but trying to type on the tiny keyboard means I
> usually wait until later and do it on a proper keyboard.

Twitter, eh? Hmm, maybe that's the problem...

--
"2/3 of Donald Trump's wives were immigrants. Proof that we
need immigrants to do jobs that most Americans wouldn't do."
- unknown protester

[arlen holder]

On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 15:27:56 -0500, nospam wrote:

> there are shitloads more,
> most of which have been explained to you numerous times.

And yet, nospam, you can't even name a single app functionality
that you claim is on iOS, all by its itty bitty self, that isn't _already_
on Android.

Not a single one.
How you can make such brazen claims, with zero evidence, is odd.

It's clear you're not formally educated, as you wouldn't last a semester.
You're not dumb like Tim Streater is dumb.
You're just not educated.

Hence, you're not used to discussing facts.
You simply make brazen claims that have no basis in fact.

You're highly "religious", in fact, in your thought process.
Your brain is wired for 'religion' (for religious type thought).

We can easily show that your factual record is worse than the monkey.
So all you have going for you, are two things:
o I don't think you're actually as dumb as you appear to be, and,
o I think you're of a "religious-type" mindset - which requires no facts.

Even so, you _defend_ your religiously held convictions with the following
7 traits, where, unfortunately for you, that's all you've got:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/18ARDsEOPzM/VObNMvHqDAAJ>
===========================================================================
Common traits of Apple Apologists such as nospam clearly proves to be:

. They brazenly & repeatedly fabricate wholly imaginary app functionality

. They then exclaim that it's been told to us many times how to do it!

...
. They almost never back up statements with actual referenced facts
. They incessantly play childish semantic games when faced with those facts
...
. They consistently fabricate quoted content that never happened
. They then wittily respond to that imaginary quoted content as if it did!
...
. They're never purposefully helpful by helping the OP answer the question
. They post worthless retorts, all of which lack any added technical value
...
. They consistently blame Android for most of Apple's app & hardware faults
. They consistently find the absolute worst price:performance comparisons
...
. They actually believe that a well-documented process is too complex!
. They literally believe elapsed time is proof of actual resolution time.
...

. They deny facts a priori - without even reading the referenced facts!
. And then they complain about quote snipping of their silly semantic games
===========================================================================

[arlen holder]

On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 21:59:47 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

> So how about you fuck off and stay fucked off.

Hi Tim Streater,

Let me give you an opportunity, Tim Streater, to prove you're NOT a moron.
Q: What do _you_ think of what Tim Cook said in that recent interview?

I realize you've admitted you tried three times, and failed to pass the GED
exam, but you don't have to prove it time and again with every post.

Do you?

Let me give you an opportunity, Tim Streater, to prove you're NOT a moron.
Q: What do _you_ think of what Tim Cook said in that recent interview?

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-01-10 2:27 p.m., Tim Streater wrote:
> In article <2L-dnbJT1IJkIqrB...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne

> <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2019-01-10 11:18, Tim Streater wrote:
>>> In article <100120191009424362%nos...@nospam.invalid>, nospam
>>> <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <q17ecl$4vq$1...@dont-email.me>, sms
>>>> <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> When my sister-in-law recently switched from her old Samsung Galaxy
>>>>> S3 to an iPhone 7, she asked me for help. When I could not figure
>>>>> out how to do what she wanted on the iPhone she went to the Genius
>>>>> Bar at a local Apple store. Unfortunately, the Genius Bar employee
>>>>> explained to her what I had also learned by Googling it, the
>>>>> feature she used every work day on her Galaxy S3 was not available
>>>>> on the iPhone.
>>>>
>>>> meanwhile, there were shitloads of things the iphone did that the
>>>> samsung did not, especially an old galaxy s3.
>>>>
>>>> no device does everything.
>>>
>>> And it's unclear that smart phones do very much of anything that's of
>>> use anyway, whoever makes them. I took email off mine since it's not
>>> secure; I don't use the camera. Apart from phoning, about the only
>>> thing that's of any actual use to me might be the Google Calendar app.
>>
>> SSL much?  ie: no less secure that a properly setup personal
>> computer's e-mail.
>

> SSL is neither here nor there in this context, unless the mail client
> uses some smarts about not letting URLs and <img> downloads effectively
> phone home to the spammer.

You mean... ...like this:

<https://www.wikihow.com/Load-Images-in-Mail-Automatically-on-an-iPhone>

[dkol]

"Tim Streater" <timst...@greenbee.net> wrote in message
news:100120192227097645%timst...@greenbee.net...

> In article <2L-dnbJT1IJkIqrB...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
> <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:
>

>>On 2019-01-10 11:18, Tim Streater wrote:
>>> In article <100120191009424362%nos...@nospam.invalid>, nospam
>>> <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <q17ecl$4vq$1...@dont-email.me>, sms
>>>> <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> When my sister-in-law recently switched from her old Samsung Galaxy S3
>>>>> to an iPhone 7, she asked me for help. When I could not figure out how
>>>>> to do what she wanted on the iPhone she went to the Genius Bar at a
>>>>> local Apple store. Unfortunately, the Genius Bar employee explained to
>>>>> her what I had also learned by Googling it, the feature she used every
>>>>> work day on her Galaxy S3 was not available on the iPhone.
>>>>
>>>> meanwhile, there were shitloads of things the iphone did that the
>>>> samsung did not, especially an old galaxy s3.
>>>>
>>>> no device does everything.
>>>
>>> And it's unclear that smart phones do very much of anything that's of
>>> use anyway, whoever makes them. I took email off mine since it's not
>>> secure; I don't use the camera. Apart from phoning, about the only
>>> thing that's of any actual use to me might be the Google Calendar app.
>>
>>SSL much? ie: no less secure that a properly setup personal computer's
>>e-mail.
>

> SSL is neither here nor there in this context, unless the mail client
> uses some smarts about not letting URLs and <img> downloads effectively
> phone home to the spammer.
>
>>

>>As to "much of anything that's of use"? Very long list beginning with
>>messages, web access, e-mail, navigation, contacts, and too much more to
>>list...
>>
>>The camera is useful for countless things beyond snapshots.
>

> Ah, you mean for those bank robberies, plane crashes, tsunamis,
> earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions that occur on a daily basis where
> you are?

Nope, for taking a photo of the shelf price when shopping
around, taking a photo of the model plate when looking
for a part for it when it had died, taking a photo of something
like a sim which has printing on it too small and feint to read
so you can read the number from the photo, taking a photo
of the other car that has just run into you, and the driver etc.

> Life is quieter here.

But even you would do plenty that’s more convenient with a smartphone.

[Alan Browne]

On 2019-01-10 17:27, Tim Streater wrote:
> In article <2L-dnbJT1IJkIqrB...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
> <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:
>

>> On 2019-01-10 11:18, Tim Streater wrote:
>>> In article <100120191009424362%nos...@nospam.invalid>, nospam
>>> <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <q17ecl$4vq$1...@dont-email.me>, sms
>>>> <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> When my sister-in-law recently switched from her old Samsung Galaxy
>>>>> S3 to an iPhone 7, she asked me for help. When I could not figure
>>>>> out how to do what she wanted on the iPhone she went to the Genius
>>>>> Bar at a local Apple store. Unfortunately, the Genius Bar employee
>>>>> explained to her what I had also learned by Googling it, the
>>>>> feature she used every work day on her Galaxy S3 was not available
>>>>> on the iPhone.
>>>>
>>>> meanwhile, there were shitloads of things the iphone did that the
>>>> samsung did not, especially an old galaxy s3.
>>>>
>>>> no device does everything.
>>>
>>> And it's unclear that smart phones do very much of anything that's of
>>> use anyway, whoever makes them. I took email off mine since it's not
>>> secure; I don't use the camera. Apart from phoning, about the only
>>> thing that's of any actual use to me might be the Google Calendar app.
>>
>> SSL much?  ie: no less secure that a properly setup personal
>> computer's e-mail.
>

> SSL is neither here nor there in this context, unless the mail client
> uses some smarts about not letting URLs and <img> downloads effectively
> phone home to the spammer.

Turn off "load images" in Mail settings. Even you could do it with a
little coaching.

Not hitting URL's might be your responsibility, alas.

>
>>
>> As to "much of anything that's of use"?  Very long list beginning with
>> messages, web access, e-mail, navigation, contacts, and too much more
>> to list...
>>
>> The camera is useful for countless things beyond snapshots.
>

> Ah, you mean for those bank robberies, plane crashes, tsunamis,
> earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions that occur on a daily basis where

> you are? Life is quieter here.

I didn't mean any of those at all ... if you have no imagination then
that's ... well, not surprising.

[sms]

On 1/10/2019 8:18 AM, Tim Streater wrote:

<snip>

> And it's unclear that smart phones do very much of anything that's of
> use anyway, whoever makes them. I took email off mine since it's not
> secure; I don't use the camera. Apart from phoning, about the only
> thing that's of any actual use to me might be the Google Calendar app.

> I use it for Twitter but trying to type on the tiny keyboard means I
> usually wait until later and do it on a proper keyboard.

The particular feature that my sister-in-law wanted was pretty basic,
simply having different volume setting for calls and for notifications.
It comes standard on new Samsung and LG phones (aww
<http://oi64.tinypic.com/2a5hl3o.jpg>) and uses a free app for other
Android phones
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.mobiletrialware.volumebutler>.

This morning I asked someone from Apple about this capability and he
said that it was not possible for an iOS App to perform this function.
The Genius Bar person just said that many people had requested that
functionality and suggested a kludgy workaround. Googling this feature
showed that many other iOS users also were trying to figure out how to
do it. It used to be possible on jailbroken iPhones.

[Jolly Roger]

“arlen holder”, everyone: proving his complete ineptitude one post at a
time.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[Jolly Roger]

Oops. How embarrassing.

[Alan Browne]

On 2019-01-11 06:26, Tim Streater wrote:
> In article <be-dndvliPhaSKrB...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne

> Much better to do what I did with my email client. Implement it such
> that mails in the Inbox don't load images until you open them (you can
> see enough in the preview area to decide whether to open them or mark
> them as spam) or until you explicitly move them into another mailbox.
>
> Much more user friendly.

1. But not portable as a phone - which is what is being discussed.
2. What I mentioned works fine - get a mail you don't trust, ignore it
and of course the images were never loaded.

You're pedaling hard against a device you don't seem to understand at all...

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-01-11 3:23 a.m., Tim Streater wrote:
> In article <g9q2ms...@mid.individual.net>, dkol <dk...@gmail.com>

> For that I'll just take the old 6Mpx Sony I bought in 2003 or whenever,
> for the very few occasions when I wanted to do that.

So that's one more thing to carry...

>
>> taking a photo of something
>> like a sim which has printing on it too small and feint to read
>> so you can read the number from the photo, taking a photo
>> of the other car that has just run into you, and the driver etc.
>

> Last time anyone ran into me was in 1985. I'd say a dashcam at £30
> would be a much better buy.
>

[nospam]

In article <q1am1o$1tbm$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Alan Baker <nu...@ness.biz>
wrote:

> >>>>
> >>>> The camera is useful for countless things beyond snapshots.
> >>>
> >>> Ah, you mean for those bank robberies, plane crashes, tsunamis,
> >>> earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions that occur on a daily basis where
> >>> you are?
> >>
> >> Nope, for taking a photo of the shelf price when shopping
> >> around, taking a photo of the model plate when looking
> >> for a part for it when it had died
> >
> > For that I'll just take the old 6Mpx Sony I bought in 2003 or whenever,
> > for the very few occasions when I wanted to do that.
>
> So that's one more thing to carry...

and much worse than a modern smartphone camera in almost every way.

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-01-11 1:39 p.m., Tim Streater wrote:
> In article <110120191425513862%nos...@nospam.invalid>, nospam

> If I wanted quality images I wouldn't be using the 15 year old Sony
> *or* a smartphone. I have a proper camera for that. At least the Sony
> just takes a couple of AA which last a long time.
>

So you're arguing that AA batteries make it better than a smartphone you
can just recharge?

[arlen holder]

On 11 Jan 2019 16:46:35 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

> ´arlen holder¡, everyone: proving his complete ineptitude one post at a
> time.

Yup. I seem to comprehend what is going on, which bothers you, Jolly Roger.

To wit, did you look at the news today?
They're starting to realize what I've realized long ago...
o Retailers are slashing iPhone prices across China as consumers say the phones arenÿt worth the cost
<https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/11/apple-iphone-retailers-are-slashing-prices-across-china.html>
"Experts said a mixture of a poor pricing strategy
and a lack of exciting features ... has led to the newest
iPhonesÿ weak performance in China."

Do you notice something in that article, Jolly Roger?
Nothing?

Really?
You don't see what they actually said?
HINT: It's not what Tim Cook said.

Now I don't blame Tim Cook for telling fibs left and right.
How can he possibly say the truth:
o They fucked customers in two complete years' of expensive iPhones
o And then, they release more flawed phones which are astronomically
priced!

No wonder Tim Cook said quite a few times he was going to try to hide the
astronomical price of the new (apparently flawed) phones from his loyal
(but admittedly stupid) consumer.

Remember, _all_ the phones released by Apple in the past years are flawed!
And, remember, there's _every indication_ that 2 of the 3 new phones are
flawed!
o Apple fucks the customer on the lower end iPhone 6
o Then Apple double fucks the customer on the higher end iPhone X
o Then Apple triple fucks the customer on the latest line of iPhones!

Surprise. Surprise.
o The sheep suddenly stopped grazing at One Infinite Loop!

"Appleÿs latest iPhone models are facing huge discounts in
China as retailers try to sell the struggling devices.
That comes as the ...Apple smartphones have posted
poor China sales on *what experts say are too-high prices*
...and *a lack of innovative features*"

While you Apple Apologists are struggling to comprehend,
I told you, all along, EXACTLY what the "surprise" was, and is.

Tim Cook lied - but - inside his lies - was the truth.
But only an adult with an intelligent mind would comprehend it.

[arlen holder]

On 11 Jan 2019 16:46:35 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

> ´arlen holder¡, everyone: proving his complete ineptitude one post at a
> time.

[dkol]

"Tim Streater" <timst...@greenbee.net> wrote in message

news:110120191123422909%timst...@greenbee.net...

> In article <g9q2ms...@mid.individual.net>, dkol <dk...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>

>>for a part for it when it had died
>
> For that I'll just take the old 6Mpx Sony I bought in 2003 or whenever,
> for the very few occasions when I wanted to do that.

The difference is that the smartphone is always close
and always with you when out of the house so you
don’t need to plan that, just do it when you need to.

>>taking a photo of something
>>like a sim which has printing on it too small and feint to read
>>so you can read the number from the photo, taking a photo
>>of the other car that has just run into you, and the driver etc.
>

> Last time anyone ran into me was in 1985. I'd say a dashcam at £30
> would be a much better buy.

Doesn’t work in plenty of situations like the last time
that happened to me, stupid cow charged out of the
parking place in one of those big supermarket car
parks without even looking, as I was backing out
of mine, and proceeded to demolish her plastic
front bumper on my tow bar. She had a massive
great gouge down the side of her car as well.
Handy to have a photo of that if she had been
stupid enough to try to claim that the accident
wasn’t her fault.

[Alan Browne]

On 2019-01-11 16:39, Tim Streater wrote:
> In article <110120191425513862%nos...@nospam.invalid>, nospam
> <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>

> If I wanted quality images I wouldn't be using the 15 year old Sony
> *or* a smartphone. I have a proper camera for that. At least the Sony
> just takes a couple of AA which last a long time.

I don't carry my high end (or medium end) cameras everywhere I go. I
almost always have my iPhone with me as it does dozens of things for me
- amongst them providing a very high quality general purpose camera.
(From there the ability to make good photos is really the photog's job).

Again, you're striving hard to put down something you don't understand
or actually use so you could understand.

[sms]

On 1/12/2019 6:58 AM, Alan Browne wrote:

<snip>

> I don't carry my high end (or medium end) cameras everywhere I go.  I
> almost always have my iPhone with me as it does dozens of things for me
> - amongst them providing a very high quality general purpose camera.
> (From there the ability to make good photos is really the photog's job).

I have a friend who is a professional photographer as well as a big fan
of iPhones. He was in line at the Apple Visitor Center on the day the Xs
was released.

The cameras on the Xs Max are better than cheap digital cameras. He's
posted some amazing photos from the Xs Max, apologizing, "I didn't have
a professional camera with me so this is the best I could do."

The cameras on the Xs are much better than those on the Xr, so just
think of the price difference as eliminating the need to purchase (and
carry) a separate camera.

[Alan Browne]

That said, for a lot of pro work the iPhone can't come close to a proper
rig with proper to the task lenses, lighting, etc.

Still on my 6+ which has a very nice camera. But I'm tired of the large
size and my next iPhone will be the best but smaller version, whatever
that will be called at the end of 2019 or even end of 2020. I like the
size and feel of my SO's 7.

[JF Mezei]

On 2019-01-12 11:09, sms wrote:

> The cameras on the Xs are much better than those on the Xr, so just
> think of the price difference as eliminating the need to purchase (and
> carry) a separate camera.

Technically, the XR has the same wide angle camera and lens as the XS.

But the XS has the 2x optical zoom as a separate camera and software to
make use of both cameras. In situations when you don't want wide angle,
the XS gives you full resolution images whereas the XR gives you half
resolution images (since software zoom only uses a portion of the full
resolution wide angle sensor)

The difference in image quality is very substantial for outdoor
landscape shots where wide angle is undesirable.

Having the 2 cameras with different focal lengths also allows fancy
tricks like faking depth of field in portrait shots. (I do not use this
but it is still a feature).

So the XS gives you much better resolution display as well as the zoom
camera and added photographic features. It is also significantly
physically smaller despite its screen being as big as the XR.

[sms]

On 1/12/2019 8:56 AM, Alan Browne wrote:

<snip>

> Still on my 6+ which has a very nice camera.  But I'm tired of the large
> size and my next iPhone will be the best but smaller version, whatever
> that will be called at the end of 2019 or even end of 2020.  I like the
> size and feel of my SO's 7.

It would be nice if there were are Xs Min for those users that want a
smaller phone, but that still want a flagship model. Right now they
don't have any small flagship phones, only mid-tier models. A new 4.7"
screen phone could be even smaller than the 8 if they got rid of the bezels.

[nospam]

In article <q1di0u$nie$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

there are rumours of an iphone se replacement, which historically has
been updated in the spring.

[arlen holder]

On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 08:09:33 -0800, sms wrote:

> The cameras on the Xs are much better than those on the Xr, so just
> think of the price difference as eliminating the need to purchase (and
> carry) a separate camera.

Hi sms,
I disagree with nothing you said, where I just want to mention "logic".
(An iPhone purchase can rarely be based on logic.)

FACT:
o You can get a good phone & a good camera for *less* than the iPhone XS!

Logically, if you're going to use these three words together:
o Phone
o Camera
o Price

Logically, I would suggest that other choices works out better.
As just one of almost infinite examples...

o Buy a $143 Android phone (includes tax)
o Which gives you a "decent" (13 MP, 1/3", 1.12痠, AF) emergency camera
o <https://www.gsmarena.com/lg_stylo_3_plus-8694.php>

o That leaves very well over a thousand bucks on the table for a camera.
<https://techcrunch.com/2018/09/12/here-are-the-prices-of-the-iphone-xs-xs-max-and-xr/>

HINT: Any well-chosen camera over $1000 will have a far better lens.

In summary, whenever someone "claims" an iPhone is 'for the camera', it's
sort of like when I hear politicians say it's 'for the kids'. In general,
the logic is such that buying an iPhone 'for the camera' defies logic.

FACT:
o You can get a good phone & a good camera for *less* than the iPhone XS!

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-01-12 1:10 p.m., arlen holder wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 08:09:33 -0800, sms wrote:
>
>> The cameras on the Xs are much better than those on the Xr, so just
>> think of the price difference as eliminating the need to purchase (and
>> carry) a separate camera.
>
> Hi sms,
> I disagree with nothing you said, where I just want to mention "logic".
> (An iPhone purchase can rarely be based on logic.)
>
> FACT:
> o You can get a good phone & a good camera for *less* than the iPhone XS!

Indeed you can.

There are several iPhones you can buy that qualify.

>
> Logically, if you're going to use these three words together:
> o Phone
> o Camera
> o Price
>
> Logically, I would suggest that other choices works out better.
> As just one of almost infinite examples...
>
> o Buy a $143 Android phone (includes tax)

> o Which gives you a "decent" (13 MP, 1/3", 1.12µm, AF) emergency camera
> o <https://www.gsmarena.com/lg_stylo_3_plus-8694.php>

You put "decent" in quotes...

...but that term doesn't appear in the link you provided.

>
> o That leaves very well over a thousand bucks on the table for a camera.
> <https://techcrunch.com/2018/09/12/here-are-the-prices-of-the-iphone-xs-xs-max-and-xr/>
>
> HINT: Any well-chosen camera over $1000 will have a far better lens.

Hint: the least expensive iPhone Xs starts at $999, so subtracting $143
leaves only $856 for the camera.

Hint: your own source told you that, so what you just did either reveals
you as a liar or a fool.

I leave it to you to choose.

>
> In summary, whenever someone "claims" an iPhone is 'for the camera', it's
> sort of like when I hear politicians say it's 'for the kids'. In general,
> the logic is such that buying an iPhone 'for the camera' defies logic.
>
> FACT:
> o You can get a good phone & a good camera for *less* than the iPhone XS!

And have to carry around two devices all the time...

[JF Mezei]

On 2019-01-12 15:26, nospam wrote:

> there are rumours of an iphone se replacement, which historically has
> been updated in the spring.

Except Apple widthdrew the still current SE last fall despite IOS still
supporting it.


It becomes hard to support the latest gadget-laden CPU chip in a small
form factor where the battery will quickly start to be unable to provide
the necessary amps.

It might make sense for Apple to create a variant of the A12 with single
core, no neural network thingny, to reduce maximum power draw. (could be
same production run and featiures disabled in software to reduce
production costs, or use chip rejects where a core, neural network was
deffective).

I think the idea would be to market a phone with a speed it can
maintain, as opposed to marketing it with a super duper speed that gets
throttled back and people complaining it isn't delivering on promised
performance.


But yeah, having an SE class phone would be great if they can make it work.

[arlen holder]

On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 18:59:33 -0500, JF Mezei wrote:

> I think the idea would be to market a phone with a speed it can
> maintain, as opposed to marketing it with a super duper speed that gets
> throttled back and people complaining it isn't delivering on promised
> performance.

Thin. _Thin!_ Don't forget *thin*!

... I think the idea would be to market a reliable phone that has a CPU
speed it can maintain for years, as opposed to marketing a super-thin super
expensive phone with a super duper speed that inevitably gets throttled
drastically with people then feeling duped in only one year when it no
longer delivers on initial performance...

Thin. _Thin!_ Don't forget *thin*!

[nospam]

In article <Fbv_D.37404$gz4....@fx05.iad>, JF Mezei

<jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:

>
> > there are rumours of an iphone se replacement, which historically has
> > been updated in the spring.
>
> Except Apple widthdrew the still current SE last fall despite IOS still
> supporting it.

one has nothing to do with the other.

[sms]

On 1/12/2019 3:59 PM, JF Mezei wrote:

> I think the idea would be to market a phone with a speed it can
> maintain, as opposed to marketing it with a super duper speed that gets
> throttled back and people complaining it isn't delivering on promised
> performance.

As long as customers are aware that the speed may be reduced I think
it's okay. In the tear-downs, it was shown that the 8 and the X had
hardware changes that allow even a degraded battery to supply sufficient
current.

Throttling due to thermal issues is also a possibility, and you see that
on a great many devices where the thermal solution is not sufficient to
permit continuous operation at maximum processor load.

They can market the same phone with a lower processor speed that will
not throttle and that will increase time between charging, they just
have to make that a choice in the settings. Android finally introduced
extensive battery optimization choices in Android 9 (Pie). You can also
choose to do throttling at as high as 75% battery capacity or as low as
5% battery capacity. iOS has always had a very different philosophy when
it comes to users having the ability to do such extensive configuration
of such settings because users shouldn't be bothered with all those
choices, it should all happen automatically.

[arlen holder]

On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 23:24:39 -0000 (UTC), arlen holder wrote:

> Duh.
> o *There is some weakness _outside of China_*
> o *Would have liked to have done better in some of our _developed markets_*

Nobody seems to be confirming what Tim Cook blamed.

The news is increasingly reporting Apple's problem is much simpler.
<https://www.fool.com/investing/2019/01/12/what-to-expect-from-apples-2019-iphones.aspx>

"Apple has now admitted that upgrade activity is slowing,
even in developed markets, and it's painfully clear that high
prices combined with increasingly incremental feature upgrades
is a recipe for poor sales. The challenge in walking back pricing
would be how to effectively justify that to consumers, after
consistently defending the price increases."

o Astronomical pricing
o No concomitant value

Even the developed world sheep stopped grazing at One Infinite Loop.

[arlen holder]

On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 16:18:49 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

> And it's unclear that smart phones do very much of anything that's of
> use anyway,

According to Tim Cook, they're indispensable - so - people will pay
astronomical prices for Apple-branded iPhones!

Further proof that Tim Cook lied... (he thinks his customer is an idiot)
is in this September report - which negates any "surprise" that Tim Cook
can claim...
o Apple Defends iPhone Pricing. Again.
o CEO Tim Cook finds ways to justify the iPhone XS & XS Max's hefty cost.
<https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/09/18/apple-defends-iphone-pricing-again.aspx>

"Pricing was the only real surprise this year, as many analysts expected
Apple to reduce the flagship price in order to sell more units."

"Responding to the inevitable question on pricing, Cook again pointed to
installment plans where many people pay $30 per month, or "about $1 a day."
Note that an installment plan for a fully loaded iPhone XS Max that has a
$30 monthly payment still requires a $730 payment up front -- or about the
full cost of another, less expensive iPhone. "

Ahem ... please add the sales tax, which, where I live is over a hundred
additional up-front bucks (so that's about $850 up front - and THEN you can
BEGIN your "dollar a day" installments!).

Notice that September article says what Tim Cook lied about being a
"surprise", since it's not a surprise to anyone (but Tim Cook), that...

"The real reason why iPhone prices are going up: iPhone unit volumes have
plateaued, and iPhone price increases have driven essentially all iPhone
revenue growth over the past year. Additionally, phone upgrade cycles have
been getting steadily longer for years, as most years' improvements are
increasingly incremental. Much like what investors are seeing play out in
other sectors like movie theaters and restaurants, when unit volumes are
stagnant, companies often turn to price increases to compensate."

[sms]

On 1/13/2019 6:31 AM, arlen holder wrote:

<snip>

> "The challenge in walking back pricing
> would be how to effectively justify that to consumers, after
> consistently defending the price increases."

You're too young to remember what happened with the original iPhone
<https://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/07/technology/07apple.html>.

Cutting prices after early adopters paid a higher price is really
upsetting to the early adopters. It was upsetting in 2007, and it will
be upsetting again. In 2007 there was a reasonable explanation--it was a
new product category, and not knowing what the price should be, they
erred on the high side and then had to cut the price when demand did not
meet expectations. in 2017 and 2018 they should have had better market
research to know the price that the market would bear, but setting
prices is both an art and a science.

There may be no upside in cutting prices to increase volumes. The
increase in unit sales would have to be very significant in order for
price cuts to result in higher revenues, plus you'd upset customers that
already paid the higher prices. In China, you'd have to make huge price
cuts to be able to compete against Huawei/Honor, Oppo, Vivo, Xiaomi,
etc. for the Chinese mass market.

[nospam]

In article <q1g0c2$kiq$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> Cutting prices after early adopters paid a higher price is really
> upsetting to the early adopters. It was upsetting in 2007, and it will
> be upsetting again. In 2007 there was a reasonable explanation--it was a
> new product category, and not knowing what the price should be, they
> erred on the high side and then had to cut the price when demand did not
> meet expectations.

apple didn't cut the price of the original iphone because sales were
slow, and not only did sales meet expectations, but they exceeded it.
iphones were selling better than ipods, and they met their goal
*before* the end of the time in which they said it would take.

> in 2017 and 2018 they should have had better market
> research to know the price that the market would bear, but setting
> prices is both an art and a science.

iphone prices are competitive with similar products, and other than
china, iphone sales are *up*, which means the prices are *not* too
high.

sales in china are overall slower for the industry, not just apple:

<https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-smartphone-research/china-smar
tphone-shipments-seen-down-12-15-5-percent-last-year-market-data-idUSKCN
1P20X2>
(Reuters) - Smartphone shipments in China fell between 12-15.5
percent last year, market data indicated, suggesting a bleak outlook
for the sector at a time when behemoths Apple and Samsung Electronics
have already issued dour forecasts.
...
Apple rival and supplier Samsung on Tuesday estimated that its
fourth-quarter earnings plunged 29 percent and that profitability
would remain subdued in the current quarter due to weak demand for
its memory chips.

<https://www.reuters.com/article/us-samsung-elec-results-preview/samsung-
electronics-braces-for-profit-drop-as-china-slowdown-chips-away-at-deman
d-idUSKCN1P00PC>
ģDepressed demand in China will further drive down Samsungđs chip
sales there. And Chinađs overall smartphone market is stalled and
declining, which will affect not only Apple but Samsung,ē Song
Myung-sup, a senior analyst at HI Investment & Securities, told
Reuters.

[JF Mezei]

On 2019-01-13 09:31, arlen holder wrote:

> "Apple has now admitted that upgrade activity is slowing,
> even in developed markets, and it's painfully clear that high
> prices combined with increasingly incremental feature upgrades
> is a recipe for poor sales. The challenge in walking back pricing
> would be how to effectively justify that to consumers, after
> consistently defending the price increases."

With regards to the incremental features, this is the same issue with
all high end phones.

Where it hurts is when midrange phones start to match (on paper) the
marketed features of high end phones. For instance, a midrange may
advertise a 13MP camera which, on paper looks better than iPhone's 12MP
even if the 13MP camera is a much lower quality.

If Apple wants to maintain it high proces, it will have to be a but more
agressive in pitching the higher quality components used in ist products
and how just looking at specs on paper isn't enough.

[JF Mezei]

On 2019-01-13 13:34, sms wrote:

> erred on the high side and then had to cut the price when demand did not
> meet expectations. in 2017 and 2018 they should have had better market
> research to know the price that the market would bear, but setting
> prices is both an art and a science.

Americans don't really see this, but the USD has risen in value
sigificantly, which makes a USD priced iPhone much more expensive
outside the USA.

Apple in the past had stated that its policy was to maintain margins at
the expense of volume when there are currency fluctuations, so with the
change in the last few months, it means iPhones outside the USA are far
mroe expensive than Apple may have planned at the time it decided on the
features that set the cost of making iPhones.

What I find interesting is how Apple seems so focused on the XR and not
the XS. When I bought my XS, I specified I needed an XS, and the red
shirted ones tried to insist I buy an XR. And I see Apple making
specials on the XR and advertising the XR.

I get the feeling that Apple miscalculated on the XR, thinking it would
be its low end model when the price level puts it in the "premium" range
but with lower quality screen and fewer cameras.

> There may be no upside in cutting prices to increase volumes.

When a company is telling shareholder and Wall Street Casino Analysts
that it is focusing on increasing service revenues, there is a huge
upside to increasing volumes because that increases the volume of people
who buy your services year after year.

> already paid the higher prices. In China, you'd have to make huge price
> cuts to be able to compete against Huawei/Honor, Oppo, Vivo, Xiaomi,
> etc. for the Chinese mass market.

This is whare marketing allows you to still charge a premium, albeit
lower than current one. Apple is often measured by Wall Street Casino
Analysts based on its profit margin, and if Apple needs to lower this to
remain competitive (hey ! market forces at work !), then Wall Street
Casino Analysts won't be happy.

But in a competitive market where product differentiation is no longer
sufficient to warrant a huge price premium, the prices have to go down.

[sms]

On 1/13/2019 10:56 AM, JF Mezei wrote:

<snip>

> Where it hurts is when midrange phones start to match (on paper) the
> marketed features of high end phones. For instance, a midrange may
> advertise a 13MP camera which, on paper looks better than iPhone's 12MP
> even if the 13MP camera is a much lower quality.

Counting megapixels on cameras is a bad idea.

> If Apple wants to maintain it high proces, it will have to be a but more
> agressive in pitching the higher quality components used in ist products
> and how just looking at specs on paper isn't enough.

It's not just the components. One big advantage of the iPhone is
privacy. Apple isn't running around selling your personal information to
everyone, like Google <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFCSp23xl40>. The
other big advantage is security since app installation is tightly
controlled.

[sms]

On 1/13/2019 11:10 AM, JF Mezei wrote:

> I get the feeling that Apple miscalculated on the XR, thinking it would
> be its low end model when the price level puts it in the "premium" range
> but with lower quality screen and fewer cameras.

The Xr was intended to be the mid-range model. The older iPhone 8/8 Plus
are now the low-end models.

Price-wise, the Xr has to compete with high-end flagship models from
Samsung like the S9+ and Note 9. Very tough to do if a consumer doesn't
value the key advantages of an iPhone: security, privacy, and customer
support. With Android 9 (Pie) the other advantages of iOS over Android
are not so obvious.

The key question is this: "how much of a price premium can the iPhone
still maintain over comparative specced Android phones?" In China the
answer appears to be "very little." In the U.S. the answer appears to be
"a pretty big," especially because Huawei, Oppo, etc., have very little
market presence here. So how do you sell essentially the same product,
at different price points, in different countries. Drug companies have
figured out how to do this. Nikon and Canon figured it out. Automobile
manufacturers figured it out.

<snip>

> But in a competitive market where product differentiation is no longer
> sufficient to warrant a huge price premium, the prices have to go down.

A painful reality that will be put off as long as possible. Look what
IBM did when margins on Thinkpads were no longer high enough for them.
Look what Motorola did when mobile phones no longer became profitable
enough for them. Apple needs to prevent the same thing from happening.

Hopefully Apple will enter new market segments that can command high
margins. Tim Cook already mentioned health care. The barriers to entry
for competitors are much higher if the products require regulatory approval.

[JF Mezei]

On 2019-01-13 13:53, nospam wrote:

> apple didn't cut the price of the original iphone because sales were
> slow, and not only did sales meet expectations, but they exceeded it.

Revisionist history. Sales were lower then expected. iPhone was
criticized for lacking 3G and limited to AT&T. Apple cut the price and
offered refunds to early adopters and then sales went through the roof.

> iphone prices are competitive with similar products, and other than
> china, iphone sales are *up*, which means the prices are *not* too
> high.

"sales are up" is meaningless metric because it can reflect lower unit
sales at higher price.

> Apple rival and supplier Samsung on Tuesday estimated that its
> fourth-quarter earnings plunged 29 percent and that profitability
> would remain subdued in the current quarter due to weak demand for
> its memory chips.

This shows that the problems at Apple are not 100% self inflicted. But
it is quite possible that Apple has been hit harder because its product
mix made Apple more exposed to a less than healthy economy.

Samsung *may* have shipped a lot more phones, stealing market share from
Apple, but as they are lower priced phones, would point to lower
profits. So again, those numbers don't give the full story.

During the heydays of the "new" smartphone, Apple was able to add new
features and keep the price of its main phone stable in USD. In last
few years, the addition of new features resulted in a big increase ion
the price of iPhones with many of these features offering little value
(such as 3D touch or faceID vs TouchID).

I suspect the general market will now focus on "standard" smartphone
without huge number of gadgets, and sold at reasonable prices. They will
cease to compete in new features but rather compete on prioce and
software. The high end may be obliterated when the adortable range
sport similar features.

[nospam]

In article <loN_D.33363$wX5....@fx47.iad>, JF Mezei

<jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:

>
> > apple didn't cut the price of the original iphone because sales were
> > slow, and not only did sales meet expectations, but they exceeded it.
>
> Revisionist history.

nope

> Sales were lower then expected.

nope. they were above expectations. they reached their goal sooner than
they thought they would

> iPhone was
> criticized for lacking 3G and limited to AT&T.

it was criticized for a lot of things, mostly by competitors who were
terrified, such as blackberry and microsoft.

the iphone did a shitload of things other phone at the time did not,
which is why it changed the entire mobile phone industry.

> Apple cut the price and
> offered refunds to early adopters and then sales went through the roof.

nope. sales were strong the entire time.

> > iphone prices are competitive with similar products, and other than
> > china, iphone sales are *up*, which means the prices are *not* too
> > high.
>
> "sales are up" is meaningless metric because it can reflect lower unit
> sales at higher price.

it's not meaningless.

iphone sales are strong, except for china, something that's affecting
more than just apple, which means it's not the price of an iphone being
the cause.

> > Apple rival and supplier Samsung on Tuesday estimated that its
> > fourth-quarter earnings plunged 29 percent and that profitability
> > would remain subdued in the current quarter due to weak demand for
> > its memory chips.
>
> This shows that the problems at Apple are not 100% self inflicted. But
> it is quite possible that Apple has been hit harder because its product
> mix made Apple more exposed to a less than healthy economy.

it shows that it's external to apple.

> Samsung *may* have shipped a lot more phones, stealing market share from
> Apple, but as they are lower priced phones, would point to lower
> profits. So again, those numbers don't give the full story.

samsung's market share in china is a tiny fraction of apple.

<https://www.reuters.com/article/us-samsung-elec-results-preview/samsung-
electronics-braces-for-profit-drop-as-china-slowdown-chips-away-at-deman
d-idUSKCN1P00PC>
Samsung has a less than 1 percent share of Chinaąs smartphone market,
versus 9 percent for Apple.

> During the heydays of the "new" smartphone, Apple was able to add new
> features and keep the price of its main phone stable in USD. In last
> few years, the addition of new features resulted in a big increase ion
> the price of iPhones with many of these features offering little value
> (such as 3D touch or faceID vs TouchID).

it's a mature market. the differences between models aren't as much as
they were several years ago.

also, just about everyone who wants a smartphone already has one.
there's almost no growth left, except in certain segments which
historically haven't bought apple products that much.

[nospam]

In article <q1g76b$uv3$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> > I get the feeling that Apple miscalculated on the XR, thinking it would
> > be its low end model when the price level puts it in the "premium" range
> > but with lower quality screen and fewer cameras.
>
> The Xr was intended to be the mid-range model. The older iPhone 8/8 Plus
> are now the low-end models.

nope. the iphone 8 is midrange.

the very popular iphone se is low end, at $139:
<https://www.walmart.com/ip/Straight-Talk-Prepaid-Apple-iPhone-SE-32GB-S
pace-Gray/497984946>

> Price-wise, the Xr has to compete with high-end flagship models from
> Samsung like the S9+ and Note 9. Very tough to do if a consumer doesn't
> value the key advantages of an iPhone: security, privacy, and customer
> support. With Android 9 (Pie) the other advantages of iOS over Android
> are not so obvious.

it's not tough at all. the xr leaves those behind *and* it's less
expensive.

> The key question is this: "how much of a price premium can the iPhone
> still maintain over comparative specced Android phones?"

there is no price premium.

the xs and xs max are comparably priced with the galaxy s9 and note 9.

the xr, which is better in many ways, is less expensive, and by quite a
bit.

[sms]

On 1/13/2019 12:41 PM, JF Mezei wrote:

<snip>

> Sales were lower then expected. iPhone was
> criticized for lacking 3G and limited to AT&T. Apple cut the price and
> offered refunds to early adopters and then sales went through the roof.

Correct. Though the refund was a $100 Apple credit, not a refund, and
the price cut of the phone was $200.

Determining proper pricing is so hard, especially for a new product
line. Pricing it too low and leaving money on the table is bad, pricing
it too high and then cutting the price when sales don't meet
expectations is a better strategy. I think that when they set the $600
price they were looking at the pricing of other smart phones on the
market (Treo, Windows Mobile phones, etc.) without realizing that
consumers would be comparing the iPhone to those other products. Also
remember that the original iPhone was unsubsidized at a time when most
carriers heavily subsidized competing phones.

From <https://www.theverge.com/2011/12/13/2612736/ios-history-iphone-ipad>:
"Although it may be difficult to imagine now, when the original iPhone
was introduced, it was actually well behind the competition when it came
to a strict feature-by-feature comparison. Windows Mobile, Palm OS,
Symbian, and even BlackBerry were all established systems in 2007, with
a wide and deep array of features. Comparatively, the iPhone didn't
support 3G, it didn't support multitasking, it didn't support 3rd party
apps, you couldn't copy or paste text, you couldn't attach arbitrary
files to emails, it didn't support MMS, it didn't support Exchange push
email, it didn't have a customizable home screen, it didn't support
tethering, it hid the filesystem from users, it didn't support editing
Office documents, it didn't support voice dialing, and it was almost
entirely locked down to hackers and developers."

<snip>

> During the heydays of the "new" smartphone, Apple was able to add new
> features and keep the price of its main phone stable in USD. In last
> few years, the addition of new features resulted in a big increase ion
> the price of iPhones with many of these features offering little value
> (such as 3D touch or faceID vs TouchID).

Actually, the useful new features, especially on the Xs Max, are better
cameras, a larger screen, and a 4x4 MIMO antenna. While competing phones
have had these features for a long time, they are compelling new
features on the iPhone that do account for some of the higher price. As
to why the Xr is not doing as well as had been hoped, my gut feeling is
that someone that can afford an Xr can probably also afford an Xs Max,
and doesn't want to spend $1000 on a non-flagship.

> I suspect the general market will now focus on "standard" smartphone
> without huge number of gadgets, and sold at reasonable prices. They will
> cease to compete in new features but rather compete on prioce and
> software. The high end may be obliterated when the adortable range
> sport similar features.

There will always be a market for high-end luxury goods for those
consumers that don't care about price.

Where the iPhone is highly valued is in the corporate world where the
security and privacy of the hardware and iOS infrastructure is
necessary. On Android, it's so easy to install rogue apps via an APK.
Also of great value, to regular consumers, are the physical Apple stores.

[nospam]

In article <q1garc$l0t$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> Also
> remember that the original iPhone was unsubsidized at a time when most
> carriers heavily subsidized competing phones.

that's the key.

apple wanted to break away from the contract subsidies, using a
different pricing model, which ended up not working out the way they
had hoped.

>
> From <https://www.theverge.com/2011/12/13/2612736/ios-history-iphone-ipad>:
> "Although it may be difficult to imagine now, when the original iPhone
> was introduced, it was actually well behind the competition when it came
> to a strict feature-by-feature comparison.

such comparisons skip the things it did *far* better than the
competition, which is why it flipped the industry on its ass.

the iphone was the first phone with a *real* browser, not a dumbed down
one that required websites to have a wap version. it was the first
phone that ran a desktop class os. it introduced pinch & zoom and other
gestures we take for granted. other features included visual voicemail,
custom keyboards and more.

> Windows Mobile, Palm OS,
> Symbian, and even BlackBerry were all established systems in 2007, with
> a wide and deep array of features.

except that they were hard to use and quite buggy.

i never met a single person who *liked* using a blackberry. they used
it only because they were *given* one by their company.

> Comparatively, the iPhone didn't
> support 3G,

true, as did other phones in 2007 and even later.

3g was relatively new at the time, with the available chipsets being
too power hungry. a phone is of little use if its battery drains in a
few hours. all day battery life was a priority for the iphone.

> it didn't support multitasking,

yes it very definitely did. it was running os x which is at its core, a
multitasking os.

for example, music could play in the background while using other apps.

> it didn't support 3rd party
> apps,

lots of phones didn't, and at the time, writing apps for other phones
was a major pain. been there done that.

> you couldn't copy or paste text, you couldn't attach arbitrary
> files to emails, it didn't support MMS,

mms is a broken spec and difficult to support.

since it included a real email app (not the crap on other phones of the
time), mms was not needed.

> it didn't support Exchange push
> email,

that arrived with ios 2. no big deal. can't have everything in v1.

> it didn't have a customizable home screen,

yes it did.

> it didn't support
> tethering,

only because carriers blocked it, which they did for quite some time.
apple fought it, but until the carriers caved, they had no choice.

> it hid the filesystem from users,

as did other phones. try getting at the file system of a flip phone.

it's also not needed.

> it didn't support editing
> Office documents,

so what.

> it didn't support voice dialing,

yes it very definitely did.

> and it was almost
> entirely locked down to hackers and developers."

not after the sdk was released, it wasn't.

> > During the heydays of the "new" smartphone, Apple was able to add new
> > features and keep the price of its main phone stable in USD. In last
> > few years, the addition of new features resulted in a big increase ion
> > the price of iPhones with many of these features offering little value
> > (such as 3D touch or faceID vs TouchID).
>
> Actually, the useful new features, especially on the Xs Max, are better
> cameras, a larger screen, and a 4x4 MIMO antenna. While competing phones
> have had these features for a long time,

no they haven't.

> they are compelling new
> features on the iPhone that do account for some of the higher price. As
> to why the Xr is not doing as well as had been hoped, my gut feeling is
> that someone that can afford an Xr can probably also afford an Xs Max,
> and doesn't want to spend $1000 on a non-flagship.

the iphone xr is doing quite well, outselling the xs and xs max

<https://www.cnet.com/news/apples-iphone-xr-has-been-its-top-selling-iph
one-since-launch-and-it-will-give-money-to-product-red/>
Apple's iPhone XR has been outselling the iPhone XS and iPhone XS
Max every day since the cheaper, colorful phone hit the market last
month.

> > I suspect the general market will now focus on "standard" smartphone
> > without huge number of gadgets, and sold at reasonable prices. They will
> > cease to compete in new features but rather compete on prioce and
> > software. The high end may be obliterated when the adortable range
> > sport similar features.
>
> There will always be a market for high-end luxury goods for those
> consumers that don't care about price.

true but irrelevant.

> Where the iPhone is highly valued is in the corporate world where the
> security and privacy of the hardware and iOS infrastructure is
> necessary. On Android, it's so easy to install rogue apps via an APK.
> Also of great value, to regular consumers, are the physical Apple stores.

that part is true.

[Alan Browne]

On 2019-01-13 16:56, nospam wrote:

> i never met a single person who *liked* using a blackberry. they used
> it only because they were *given* one by their company.

Not at all true. I knew a lot of crackberry addicts who stayed true
long after iPhone came out. Only gave up as Blackberry fell by the
side. Indeed my business' building owner only finally moved off his
crackberry about a 1 or 2 ago (onto iPhone).

Where I worked in the mid aughts we were issued Blackberries (if we
wanted them) and I thought they were great at the time.

[Rod Speed]

"JF Mezei" <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote in message
news:LRL_D.51750$P55....@fx39.iad...

Easier said than done with those whose eyes glaze over at any mention of
specs.

[nospam]

In article <jsCdnRKnFPDlVqbB...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne

<bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:

>
> > i never met a single person who *liked* using a blackberry. they used
> > it only because they were *given* one by their company.
>
> Not at all true.

it is true. i have never met anyone who liked using one. they tolerated
it.

> I knew a lot of crackberry addicts who stayed true
> long after iPhone came out. Only gave up as Blackberry fell by the
> side. Indeed my business' building owner only finally moved off his
> crackberry about a 1 or 2 ago (onto iPhone).

i know people who did so only because of bbm.

[Rod Speed]

"JF Mezei" <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote in message

news:loN_D.33363$wX5....@fx47.iad...

Cant see that happening. After all, $1.5K isnt a huge amount of money.

[arlen holder]

On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 13:56:43 -0500, JF Mezei wrote:

> For instance, a midrange may
> advertise a 13MP camera which, on paper looks better than iPhone's 12MP
> even if the 13MP camera is a much lower quality.

I only speak fact.

There are currently only two iPhones on this planet that don't have from a
dozen to many dozens of *better* phones, in terms of quality of camera
results!

You don't have to like facts - but that doesn't change the facts.

*The MARKETING of the camera output to gullibles far exceeds the truth.*
The reality is that camera output is usually on the bottom of the top 10.
<https://www.dxomark.com/category/mobile-reviews/>

Sometimes, like today, an Apple iPhone gets "near" the top, where, even the
most astronomically expensive iPhone _still_ doesn't have the best camera
output, although it's number 2, which isn't bad - but the cost for that
number 2 slot is fantastically astronomically priced out of this world.

Worse, most iPhones are killed by *dozens* of other phones camera output!
o The *iPhone 6 has at least 40* phones with equal or better camera output
o The *iPhone 7 has at least 29* phones with equal or better camera output
o The *iPhone 7 Plus has at least 27* phones of equal or better output
o The *iPhone 8 Plus has at least 16* with equal or better camera output
o The *iPhone X has at least 14* phones with equal or better camera output
o The *iPhone XR has at least 7* phones with equal or better camera output
etc.

I only speak fact.

There are currently only two iPhones on this planet that don't have from a
dozen to many dozens of *better* phones, in terms of quality of camera
results!

01 109 Huawei P20 Pro
02 105 *Apple* iPhone XS Max
03 103 HTC U12+
04 103 Samsung Galaxy Note 9
05 103 Xiaomi Mi MIX 3
06 102 Huawei P20
07 101 Google Pixel 3
08 101 *Apple* iPhone XR
09 99 Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
10 99 Xiaomi Mi 8
11 98 Google Pixel 2
12 98 OnePlus 6T
13 97 Huawei Mate 10 Pro
14 97 Xiaomi Mi MIX 2S
15 97 *Apple* iPhone X
16 96 OnePlus 6
17 94 *Apple* iPhone 8 Plus
18 94 Samsung Galaxy Note 8
19 92 *Apple* iPhone 8
20 91 Smartisan Pro 2S
21 90 Asus ZenFone 5
22 90 General Mobile GM9 Pro
23 90 Google Pixel
24 90 HTC U11
25 90 Vivo X20 Plus
26 90 Xiaomi Mi Note 3
27 89 Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
28 88 *Apple* iPhone 7 Plus
29 85 Crosscall Trekker-X4
30 85 *Apple* iPhone 7
31 84 Nokia 8 Sirocco
32 83 LG G7 ThinQ
33 83 Sony Xperia XZ Premium
34 82 LG V30
35 82 Motorola Moto Z2 Force
36 82 Samsung Galaxy S6 Edge
37 80 Archos Diamond Omega
38 79 Samsung Galaxy A8 (2018)
39 75 Sony Xperia XA2 Ultra
40 73 Google Nexus 6P
41 73 *Apple* iPhone 6
42 71 Meizu Pro 7 Plus
43 71 Samsung Galaxy J5 Prime
44 70 Lava Z25
45 70 Samsung Galaxy S5
46 69 Motorola Moto G5S
47 68 Nokia 8
48 68 *Apple* iPhone 5s
49 66 Gionee S10L
50 65 Samsung Galaxy J2 Pro (2018)
51 61 Nokia 808 PureView
52 57 Micromax Canvas Infinity
53 57 Sony Xperia L2
54 51 Intex Aqua Selfie
55 49 Energizer E520
56 48 Reliance Jio LYF Earth 1

Those are the facts.

HINT: The marketing far exceeds the actuality in terms of camera output.

[arlen holder]

On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 11:10:55 -0800, sms wrote:

> It's not just the components. One big advantage of the iPhone is
> privacy. Apple isn't running around selling your personal information to
> everyone, like Google <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFCSp23xl40>. The
> other big advantage is security since app installation is tightly
> controlled.

Hi SMS,
Please think and stop spewing utterly meaningless MARKETING BS.

In terms of "privacy", and specifically, with respect to "Google", are you
implying that Apple users don't use Google products?

*Because if they do use Google apps, how's the privacy any different?*

If you're _not_ implying that, how on earth can you say the privacy is
better, in terms of Google, when the privacy holes are EXACTLY the same for
iOs users as for Android users when using Google apps such as Google Maps,
or Google Search or Google Photos or Google Voice or Google Hangouts, or
Google Calendar, etc.?

In terms of Google, if the Apple iOS users logs into a Google app, the
privacy issue is EXACTLY the same, is it not?

In addition, you NEVER need a Google Account to use an Android phone, and
yet, you _must_ not only an Apple account to use the iOS device, but you
MUST ASSOCIATE ALL YOUR APPS to that account - which is completely not
needed on Android.

While I completely understand that you (and most people) fall for the
MARKETING bullshit that Apple spews, the facts are that you can EASILY
remove Google "spying" on Android devices (remember, you don't even need a
Google ID for Christs' sake - nor that Advertiser ID, for example).

*You can NOT easily remove those things on Apple iPhones.*

(On Android, you can easily replace the entire OS ROM for Christs' sake!)

Being a logical intelligent adult, I will grant that Apples does *default*
file-storage encryption "better" (in that it's hardware versus software)
than does Android (although full-system encryption is available to both
platforms).

But please, sms, bear in mind this sentient fact:
o The weak link of iPhones is the same as with Android phones
o Worse, in most cases, you can ameliorate the weak link on Android
o On iOS, you can't (you're stuck, for example, with "tagged" apps)

While the security & privacy is "different", the simple fact of the matter
is that you're bamboozled by Apple MARKETING if you actually think like
they WANT you to think.

The weak links on both devices are the same, and, worse,
you can't do anything about it (for the most part) on iOS,
while on Android, the power is in your own hands for privacy.

In summary, any sentient logical intelligent adult must conclude...
o Apple "says" a lot by way of Marketing (they're the best at that game!)
o But Apple ties all your apps to an app ID (Android does not)
o And Google Apps, if you use them, spy like crazy on you
o Whether you're on Android or on iOS
o And yet, on Android, you at least can do things to protect yourself
o Without needing to be rooted.
o On iOS, unless you're jailbroken - you're dead already.

So please stop spewing bullshit.
What you're really talking about is something completely different.

It's complex, but you have to comprehend these key distinctions.
(Neither Apple nor Google will tell you what I said above simply because
it's not in their best interests to talk about the truth.)

I would not mind an ADULT discussion about the merits of privacy
on both platforms, item by item by item (as I summarized above).

[arlen holder]

On Mon, 14 Jan 2019 03:08:12 -0000 (UTC), arlen holder wrote:

> In terms of "privacy", and specifically, with respect to "Google", are you
> implying that Apple users don't use Google products?

To get to a FACTUAL answer to the question, I opened a separate thread:
o What is the factual truth about PRIVACY differences or similarities between the Android & iOS mobile phone ecosystems?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.android/FCKRA_3i9CY>

Personally, I can make an argument based on facts that the weakest links to
privacy are "about the same" on both platforms (e.g., the carriers are the
same, the google apps are the same).

However, there are quite a few "differences" in the ecosystems, which make
iOS both more and less private, and which make Android more and less
private.

Let's see what facts are unearthed in that thread specific to the subject.

[sms]

On 1/13/2019 7:08 PM, arlen holder wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 11:10:55 -0800, sms wrote:
>
>> It's not just the components. One big advantage of the iPhone is
>> privacy. Apple isn't running around selling your personal information to
>> everyone, like Google <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFCSp23xl40>. The
>> other big advantage is security since app installation is tightly
>> controlled.
>
> Hi SMS,
> Please think and stop spewing utterly meaningless MARKETING BS.
>
> In terms of "privacy", and specifically, with respect to "Google", are you
> implying that Apple users don't use Google products?
>
> *Because if they do use Google apps, how's the privacy any different?*

On the iPhone it's NOT POSSIBLE to use non-Apple vetted apps. On Android
apps can be installed that come from a huge number of app stores,
especially in China where you can't even have access to the Google Play
store. It's a big security hole on Android but it does result in some
very good apps that the Google Play store won't allow, not because of
any security risk but for other reasons.

[JF Mezei]

On 2019-01-13 16:01, nospam wrote:

>> Sales were lower then expected.
>
> nope. they were above expectations. they reached their goal sooner than
> they thought they would

So if sales were so great, how come Apple saw the need to lower the
proce and refund the difference from those who bought at original price?

> it was criticized for a lot of things, mostly by competitors who were
> terrified, such as blackberry and microsoft.

more revisionist history. Blackberry was not affraid of the iPhone and
dismissed it as a fad (and this underestimating of Apple is what killed
Blackberry).

> the iphone did a shitload of things other phone at the time did not,
> which is why it changed the entire mobile phone industry.

Not really. I could load Java apps on my Sony Ericsson. Couldn't on
original iPhone. I could listen to music, take pictires, send/receive
emails and it had a browser.

What the iPhone did was give us a real browser instead of a WAP browser
and a larger and touch screen

> iphone sales are strong, except for china, something that's affecting
> more than just apple, which means it's not the price of an iphone being
> the cause.

We don't really know. Cook didn't give any specifics. We have to wait
for their SEC filed financials.

> also, just about everyone who wants a smartphone already has one.
> there's almost no growth left, except in certain segments which
> historically haven't bought apple products that much.

Because those segments want lower priced phones and Apple is out of that
market, but Android isn't. So in terms of installed base, Android will
continue to grow while Apple's is reaching maturity.

[JF Mezei]

On 2019-01-13 16:01, nospam wrote:

> the xr, which is better in many ways, is less expensive, and by quite a
> bit.

In what way is the XR better then the XS ?

[JF Mezei]

On 2019-01-13 16:56, nospam wrote:

>> it didn't support multitasking,
>
> yes it very definitely did. it was running os x which is at its core, a
> multitasking os.

Multitasking of non-Apple apps was disabled. It took a few versions
before Apple enabled it.

>> you couldn't copy or paste text, you couldn't attach arbitrary
>> files to emails, it didn't support MMS,
>
> mms is a broken spec and difficult to support.

Many of the standard featuires available on other phones such as MMS and
thethering were disabled at AT&T's request (recall original iPhone was
US only and within USA AT&T only).

>> it didn't support
>> tethering,
>
> only because carriers blocked it,

AT&T was the sole carrier, so no S in "carriers".

>which they did for quite some time.
> apple fought it, but until the carriers caved, they had no choice.

Only AT&C blocked it. Other carriers had no problems with it. But it
took a while for Apple to develop the software to suppoprt different
APNs for tethering which AT&T wanted.

Remember that jailbroken early iPhones could enable tethering easily (at
which point it used the same APN as normal phone data connection).

Also remember that 2.5G had very likited avaialble capacity for data,
and it didn't take long for AT&T's network to become overwhelmed because
of iPhones and Apple having forced AT&T to offer data-friendly packages.
So AT&T wanted to disbale tethering from those packages.

> as did other phones. try getting at the file system of a flip phone.

Had no problem mounting my Sony Ericcson to copy music, photos etc.

>> and it was almost
>> entirely locked down to hackers and developers."
>
> not after the sdk was released, it wasn't.

SDK came later, not at launch. with first iPhone ar the origial price.
It took a while after Angry Brids before the App Store was created.

> the iphone xr is doing quite well, outselling the xs and xs max

And you know this how? Apple doesn't release those numbers. But it did
admit to wanting to stirr slow sales of the XR with various promotions.

> Apple's iPhone XR has been outselling the iPhone XS and iPhone XS
> Max every day since the cheaper, colorful phone hit the market last
> month.

A phone released after a previous phone's big launch will alwats have
higher sales than the older phone that has already had its big sales cycle.

[RJH]

On 14/01/2019 02:52, arlen holder wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 13:56:43 -0500, JF Mezei wrote:
>
>> For instance, a midrange may
>> advertise a 13MP camera which, on paper looks better than iPhone's 12MP
>> even if the 13MP camera is a much lower quality.
>
> I only speak fact.
>

Not really:

https://www.androidauthority.com/dxomark-ranking-troublesome-805633/

I'd also add that different cameras have a range of strengths/weaknesses
- there's no one 'better' for all phone cameras.

And software seems to be increasingly significant, especially at the
high end. So today's 'top' could be overtaken with an improvement in the
app driving the camera.

> There are currently only two iPhones on this planet that don't have from a
> dozen to many dozens of *better* phones, in terms of quality of camera
> results!
>

You might like to include the full lineup if you must try to produce a
ranked list.


--
Cheers, Rob

[nospam]

In article <q1h16q$pd1$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

>
> On the iPhone it's NOT POSSIBLE to use non-Apple vetted apps.

of course it's possible, and you've been told this before. there are a
few options.

> On Android
> apps can be installed that come from a huge number of app stores,
> especially in China where you can't even have access to the Google Play
> store. It's a big security hole on Android but it does result in some
> very good apps that the Google Play store won't allow, not because of
> any security risk but for other reasons.

it's huge security hole.

and not only does the google play store vet apps just like apple does,
but google has removed some malicious apps from user's phones. while
apple does have that ability, they have never needed to use it.