Write enough to be clear—I'm told elsewhere it's too much. Keep it short—another imparts all kinds of nasty sh!t I didn't say. Ya can't please everyone.
Originally Posted by cameronj
Are you aware of the different levels of income per capital between Japan, one of the largest economies in the world, and the generally backwards countries that use those RTL languages? Apple clearly doesn't think that it's worth the investment to develop whatever feature you apparently think is so important. Maybe they said to themselves - 'all those users already use Textedit, so why bother compete against something that sells for less than we want to sell our product for.'
Why don't you come out and explain to us, without all the deflected implications, what exactly you're saying. Are you saying Apple is racist? Stupid? What's your point brother? You've poo-pooed all of the reasonable explanations for why a rational, profit maximizing company would make a decision, so you clearly think Apple is doing something else. What is it?
This will be a little lengthy because, heaven forbid, I'd hate to leave room for "deflected implications." You asked, here it is:
First you complain that I put words in your mouth, than you apply "Racist" to mine, even though I implied no such thing. What's your problem, brother?
For the sake of accuracy, I should not have used the exact phrasing, "So what you're saying is." I should have said something along the lines of, "What you said implies" or, "If what you said is true, than wouldn't "x" also be true?" or "Are you also saying "x" ?"
I didn't attempt to alter your meaning or assign one that can't be reasonably be inferred from your words. If my understanding of your intended meaning was incorrect as you seem to be complaining, feel free to clarify them and show me how I got it wrong.
Nothing I said, or the way I worded it, could reasonably be construed an accusation of racism. That was YOUR word. There were no "deflected implications." If that's what you got from it, than that's what you read into it. In fact, your argument (especially using words like "backwards") does no less to imply, that YOU think Apple is "racist" than what I said. So YOU might want to be a little more careful about the words you choose. Given how Apple comes down on social issues, I am pretty sure there is nothing racist about Apple's corporate philosophy and I made no such implication, and I'm sure you didn't either. However, "racist" was the word that appeared on the screen when you moved your fingers around on your keyboard.
-------------------------------Here is how I can have a rational opinion that differs from yours:
Of course I'm aware the world is made of different income groups. I assume Apple's view on the topic at hand is probably the argument you are offering. I'm arguing that there is an alternative way to look at the same information. Neither, has anything to do with "racism" or "stupidity." Data is data. However, there is rarely a single way to interpret any set of numbers—especially if the information is incomplete, nonexistent, old, or needs to be assessed as projected future trends over time.
One reason I can come to a different conclusion than you (without accusing anyone with a different opinion of implying racism on the part of someone else) is because, I (as do you ) have know idea if anyone in the world has actually done a census comparing the number of Japanese speakers at a certain income level vs. RTL speakers at an income level.
Another reason is, aside the fact that I recognize this information may or many not exist, I know that Apple will have to make inferences about what information (if any) that does. No matter what data exists, or how accurate it is, Apple will have to make certain assumptions (guesses) about any data, even if it's been researched extensively because it won't be static.
Therefore, I don't think evaluating risks about whether or not to enter a particular market is as clear cut as it seems you are suggesting. I doubt it's a simple or cheap calculation to make. We're talking about gathering historical data about population and income levels for large numbers of people in far flung groups, assuming that every country tracks this data with accuracy. When you're done spending the substantial wad of dough required to gather that info, it will reflect the past not the present. You will be using those numbers to predict the future. A prediction is just an educated guess, not a certainty. Maybe Apple has spent the money to do this, maybe not. I wouldn't be surprised to find that they probably developed an overview based on a generalized theory (again, they guess). They may barely have thought about it all.
If Apple, or any company, was in possession of a magical, super advanced formula for predicting the future with complete accuracy, they would rule the world (metaphorically, please don't accuse me of implying that Steve Jobs has an underground villain's lair and a Dr. Evil costume he likes to wear in private).
Choosing to hold a different rational opinion than your rational opinion is not the same as "poo-pooing" it.
-------------------------------Here is what that opinion is:
I would hardly call Israel and all the people in other countries that correspond with them backwards. Nor would I say that everyone in the middle east is poor. There is also a large number of Arabic speakers living in affluent countries in Europe, not to mention the US, that correspond to any number of people in other countries. The income level is striated, but it doesn't mean there isn't a large enough number of RTL speakers in the world with enough money to make marketing to them profitable. More importantly, it also doesn't mean there won't be in the future. Even if that number is a small percentage, the total number is so huge compared to the number of Japanese speakers, that even a small percentage of RTL speakers with enough income to buy electronics could rival or even surpass the number of Japanese speakers. Again, the exact number is something that neither you, nor I know with any certainty. We are both guessing.
However, an international company that doesn't seek to break into new markets is a company that is missing opportunities. Apple seems to think (as do you) the current numbers don't warrant the risk. I'm saying the value is more about the future than the present, although it still could be valid market to approach now. IMO, a wealthy company with capital in reserve but a relatively low market share would be making a good investment by entering an evolving economy at the ground level. The "first world" is becoming a saturated market, especially concerning electronics. We are to the point of inventing invisible theoretical products (like exotic, mortgage backed derivatives) to sell to each other because the sale of physical goods to a saturated culture is increasingly difficult. Developing economies represent a huge potential market (key word: potential) that any international company who wants to secure it's future should be looking at because that's where the majority of human beings live. Not necessarily because there are enough customers there that need your products now, but so you are already there before anyone else when the day comes that they need what you have. The differences we're talking about in part, is short term, vs. long term.
That's what I'm saying (you asked).
You can say what you want.