Bullshit. You're being paid by someone to come here and discredit information detrimental to them. I doubt very much that you own any Apple hardware.
You caught me! I must be some sort of spy agent!
Are you clinically insane? Because what you just said was monumentally crazy. Because I don't like the tone of DED's articles I must not own anything Apple? Sorry I'm not an Apple worshiper like some people here. I love their products, but they'll never rule my world like they do for you. I like unbiased articles and intelligent answers other than "OMGZ APPLES RULEZ EVERYBODY ELSE SUCKZ" thank you very much.
Could DED be banned from writing for AppleInsider? Please. He's a disgrace to this website with his immature fanboy-ness. Apple may make great products, but they are not the center of the universe no matter how much the author wants us to believe. Get over it.
It's AppleInsider. It's not Arstechnica, Engadget, Gizmodo, etc.
It's AppleInsider. You come to a site about what's going on inside Apple and you bitch when it's focused on it?
I read here ...LG is committing to developing 50 new Windows Mobile phones by the end of 2012...
That's 2 models/month they need to build while being already tired of Windows 7.
This will seriously drain LG's resources for migrating to something non-Windows.
Once they start migrating, though, we may actually see 3-4 LG phone models/month !
Which brings me to my main point: Why so many models?
Apple only needs 1(exceptionally, 1.5) models/year to deliver.
After all it is the a
pps and the OS that determine most of the functionality of the hardware. And apps/OS are updatable, no need for separate models.
LG may end up having difficulties surviving facing the competition of (a) company/ies that use their resources in a vastly more efficient manner.
Talking about complicated: LG phones are already confusing, even before purchase.
Because they simply don't have what it takes to make one and only one that's good enough. Which is why there is no iPhone-Killer in existence. So the preferred strategy is to just flood the market with a lot of fragmented junk by whoring out your poorly-copied OS to anyone that can slam together a box.
Because I don't like the tone of DED's articles I must not own anything Apple? Sorry I'm not an Apple worshiper like some people here. I love their products, but they'll never rule my world like they do for you. I like unbiased articles and intelligent answers...
So don't read or comment on them, is that such a hard concept to grasp?
WP7 looks like it has some cool and innovative features in their OS, but I'm sorry that thing is BUTT UGLY. Monochrome tacky VGA-looking hard-edged blocky tiles on the homescreen? Are you kidding? Wtf was Microsoft thinking? Can you believe this is their best effort??
Let's think about this a bit: Microsoft knows full well it is trying to develop a "cool", usable yet fashionable electronic device and that it is competing with the king of cool (Apple), and what do they come up with? Blocky boring squares that you must look at every time you unlock the phone. It's not even as if they are photo-realistic, they are just square blobs of monochrome colour. And this is the best their designers could come up with?
My theory is that Microsoft is not now, nor was it ever, "hip". It made its living creating serious corporate software that just happened to become the defacto standard, and their design philosophy is totally geared toward this - "let's make it functional and who cares what it looks like so long as it gets the job done?" Classic engineering. This worked well for desktop computers (and I have nothing against Windows per se), but falls utterly flat when trying to design for a segment like the smartphone which must rise above functionality and offer "chic" as well.
Innovative features wrapped in an ugly GUI encased in a cheap plasticky generic cell phone case. That sums up WP7 for me. I would not touch it with a 10 foot pole. If WP7 fails, Microsoft richly deserves it. They don't appear to be able to design themselves out of a wet paper bag.
Finally, a word about iOS: as much as I love it, I do believe it's time to provide some serious updates as Android (and even Microsoft to an extent) are working hard to offer cool new subtle features which seem more interactive. For example, my friend's Android displays "live" snowflakes drifting down its homescreen when it's snowing outside (local weather). Does that make it a better platform? Hardly, but it's a nice touch, and the kind of thing we would typically expect from Apple. IMHO I think Apple needs to improve its instant messaging (so incoming messages don't grind the system to a halt when a text comes in), offer "live" widgets of some sort so the phone feels more alive and interactive, and offer extensive customization of the "lock" screen and the homepage so you can, for example, choose to display today's upcoming calendar events on the "lock" screen so you don't need to unlock it to see what your next appointment or task is, or some such thing. I think it could also overhaul its folders to improve their look and function, and contain more apps (use a "peek" feature perhaps?). A failure to substantially update the look of their iOS risks them falling behind competitors, and the iPhone starts to look like an application launcher and not much more. My 2 cents. Anybody else have other suggestions?
It's AppleInsider. It's not Arstechnica, Engadget, Gizmodo, etc.
It's AppleInsider. You come to a site about what's going on inside Apple and you bitch when it's focused on it?
Genius.
Take a look at MacRumors. They actually give the facts. The facts. Not stupid commentary by some immature fanboy, not trashing other companies in their articles. Genius!
Finally, a word about iOS: as much as I love it, I do believe it's time to provide some serious updates as Android (and even Microsoft to an extent) are working hard to offer cool new subtle features which seem more interactive. For example, my friend's Android displays "live" snowflakes drifting down its homescreen when it's snowing outside (local weather). Does that make it a better platform? Hardly, but it's a nice touch, and the kind of thing we would typically expect from Apple. IMHO I think Apple needs to improve its instant messaging (so incoming messages don't grind the system to a halt when a text comes in), offer "live" widgets of some sort so the phone feels more alive and interactive, and offer extensive customization of the "lock" screen and the homepage so you can, for example, choose to display today's upcoming calendar events on the "lock" screen so you don't need to unlock it to see what your next appointment or task is, or some such thing.
I agree on the need of bringing more live information onto the home and lock screens.
BTW, the weather Dashboard widget in OS X (which I think is made by Apple) has exactly these live snowflakes.
Choice is good. Competition is good. I only wish Apple fans would be able to see that.
Competition is good, competition drives innovation and progress.
These and similar statements are regularly declared as absolute facts especially by USians and yet they demonstrably aren't in many cases. I suggest that competition is like a tool or process, it depends how it is used and it can be used for good or evil.
Most of what we have is less than optimal, much of it is junk, 'competition creates junk' arguably is just as true as 'competition drives innovation'. A company may make a top product, top quality ensuring a decent product life, low maintenance, good support and whatever else goes in to making a good product. Competition brings in another company that trims a bit here and there and offers a lower price point, say 25%, and that is taken back usually more so over the life of the product or the lack of life because it craps out sooner. The fragmentation of the market means that the quality manufacturer can not take advantage of the economies of scale that would accrue if the lowballing competition was not there so the end user is the loser.
In reality what usually happens is that there will be a number of cheap competitors shaving prices and seeking to differentiate their products and persuade people to buy them, with a 25% cost saving they can put some of that towards advertising. Now in many industries, and people in business will know this or can easily find out with a little research, the advertising spend is recommended to be 10% - 15% of revenue. So as a consumer for 12.5% less you end up with a product that is 25% worse and that 25% will be paid back in time with higher maintenance and more rapid depreciation. So the cheap junk is actually much more expensive.
Shopping is a cost, takes my time, I'd rather be doing something else. Every time I feel the need to buy a new cell I spend a few hours checking things out and making a decision. I would much rather be happy with one for a few years and save those hours to spend doing something more rewarding. If I hear of a new feature that sounds great yes maybe I'll buy a new one sooner, when I hear means from a real person, in real life, on a forum or blog or even a review in the press each opinion naturally weighted for the credibility of the source. Advertisements are not good sources of information and get ignored, I have to pay for them anyway in the cost of the products that I buy I sure as hell don't want to pay for them in time too.
Advertising is a propaganda tool, persuading people to accept it throughout their lives is essential for those who want to tell us untruths. Advertising was never as pervasive as it is now, there are still some laws prohibiting advertising in some places and for some categories of products but much has been repealed over the last few decades. The promise of cable TV was pay a subscription and get no advertising, that didn't last long.
The most offensive abuse of competition and advertising is food. Most food is junk, people know it is junk and still eat it, what passes for food is far from what one should be eating and nothing like what your great grandparents ate for mostly they ate organically grown local food. Powdered corn and soya glued back together with some artificial colour and flavour is not good food. It appears to be cheap but is actually very expensive for remedies for the ill effects far outweigh paying double or triple for proper food. Visits to the gym are likely to be needed, spending money and time, to get rid of excess fat. Personal hygiene products are needed to dispel the odours created by junk foods, need medical treatments attempt to ameliorate the effects of junk foods. Constantly pushing surplus through the dietary system wears it out faster, shoes wear out faster carrying more weight, chairs need to be wider, transportation takes more fuel and millions of other tiny incremental expenditure increases result from bad food.
Real good food would cost less than the aggregate costs of junk food with economies of scale in food production and savings in overheads and remedial costs. Plus the benefits of more healthy time to profit from work or simply to enjoy the pleasures of life.
Competition is not necessarily good but a monoculture is undeniably fraught with great danger, I don't argue for either and anyway that is not the problem. Companies should exist to create benefit for their customers, to do that they need to pay their overheads, have a reserve to maintain operations in tough trading conditions, pay wages including to the owner who is also perhaps due some additional reward for taking the risk. Instead companies' primary obligation is to return profits for the shareholders and this takes precedence over doing the right thing by their customers.
Companies driven by the urge to make great products usually do, they usually are managed by the owner or founder. With good judgment, dedication and the customers benefit as the first priority a company can rise from nowhere to lead an industry in just a decade. The worst aspects to deal with are the dirty tricks from the competition, they may have to be avoided, addressed and rebutted but must not divert the focus of attention away from building great products otherwise they have won.
Most companies are controlled by the bankers, by Wall Street and the City of London, they aren't interested in the good of the consumer, they are interested in buying their next Lamborghini, Cartier or island in the sun. They have no loyalty to the company and less to the company's customers, their loyalty is to the dollars. They also like the power that they gain from advertising and control of the media.
Competition vs monopoly is not the question neither is conservative vs socialist the structural changes that are required need to address the problems of expensive junk and lack of quality information. The financial system which is designed to remove control of companies from the founders to the bankers needs to be addressed with more equitable distributions of money and responsibility. Ownership of the media the gatekeepers to information and funding of the media by advertisers in other words the corporations controlled by the bankers needs to be addressed.
Competition only works when there is real competition, the vast majority of companies are controlled by the same group of people, the bankers, and competition between such companies is an illusion. Competition as it is currently perceived and enacted does not benefit the people of this planet just a select few.
Could DED be banned from writing for AppleInsider? Please. He's a disgrace to this website with his immature fanboy-ness. Apple may make great products, but they are not the center of the universe no matter how much the author wants us to believe. Get over it.
The fact that DED gets this kind of worried comments from the trolls means that he is getting something very right indeed.
"One of the problems," the report noted, "is that some believe that the OS is so easy to use that it?s a bit boring."
Choi himself said that, "for tech guys like us it might be a little bit boring after a week or two, but there are certain segments that it really appeals to. We strongly feel that it has a strong potential even though the first push wasn?t what everyone expected?.
.
He could easily be describing iOS here. And/or he could easily be describing the iPad.
In early 2007, LG was highlighting its Adobe Flash lite-based Prada phone, a model it later claimed Apple had copied in its design of the original iPhone, even as it had long aped Apple's iPod design in its popular Verizon Chocolate feature phone.
In 2009, LG released the LG-GM730, a Windows Mobile 6.5 bearing a striking resemblance to Apple's original iPhone. This year, the company is planning to release the Android-based Optimus X2, its first high end smartphone. It bears a striking resemblance to last year's iPhone 4.
The fact that DED gets this kind of worried comments from the trolls means that he is getting something very right indeed.
Keep up the great work AI/DED!!
"From the trolls"?????? DED is a troll. He is such a damn good troll he has made a career out of it.
The flood of (often emotional) responses to DED articles is a sign of the quality of DED's trolling.
I wish he would tone it down, but I do understand why AI keep him around. Over the past week his articles have generated almost triple the comments (hence revenue) compared to the average of the other writers. That is even after assigning several articles written under "AppleInsider Staff" to the "others" group that I suspect were actually written by DED.
That makes him at least three times more valuable than the other writers, but probably much more than that.
No surprises here really. Windows7 literally was "doomed" to begin with. Ballmer is trying to start the race literally years after Apple kickstarted it back in 2007. Their marketing ads are a disappointment to say the least.
The android system is a perfect example of what happens where there are too many players in a given team. Everyone wants a shot, but no one gets any serious time on the field. The market is literally dumping so many Android phones out there that it is in essence confusing Joe-consumer with an onslaught of choice, different configurations, and all of it is a mess. Factor in the cheap-plastic, flimsy construction and it's back to the same self-destructive cycle.
And then there's the iPhone. One phone, looking really nice by itself. Clean, simple, built like a tank, and just waiting for you.
No contest. Let the rest of the folks battle for the bottom of the barrel. It's very sad actually.
Personally, I think the term "kickstarted" doesn't begin to describe Apple's contribution. They completely rewrote the book on smartphones. It was stunning. First, years of condemnation. How dare Apple even try to complete with Motorola, Nokia, etc. They'll destroy Apple. Apple doesn't know what it's getting into. And then the iPhone was released. Jaws dropped everywhere. Now everybody, but everybody, is trying to copy Apple's ground breaking design. As you've noted, the Android market has splintered as everybody now tries to differentiate themselves. I think Microsoft is preventing much of the same thing for Windows Phone. They've stipulated exactly what the hardware must be, so no odd screen resolutions, etc. They prevented companies from rewriting the user interface, so no MotoBlur or Sense. Nothing that should degrade the Windows Phone experience, or ruin the consistency of Windows Phone across the line of phones. I like what they're doing. Their biggest mistake was use of the word "Windows" in the product name.
"From the trolls"?????? DED is a troll. He is such a damn good troll he has made a career out of it.
The flood of (often emotional) responses to DED articles is a sign of the quality of DED's trolling.
I wish he would tone it down, but I do understand why AI keep him around. Over the past week his articles have generated almost triple the comments (hence revenue) compared to the average of the other writers. That is even after assigning several articles written under "AppleInsider Staff" to the "others" group that I suspect were actually written by DED.
That makes him at least three times more valuable than the other writers, but probably much more than that.
Can we please stop this "troll" nonsense in the comments. It's OK if somebody deliberately decides to play devil's advocate. If you don't like what they have to say, you can either ignore it or specifically state why you think they're wrong. But stop the stupid name calling. It certainly doesn't make you look any better. And trying to get somebody banned just because you don't like what they have to say is pretty damn disrespectful. Not everybody has to drink the Kool-Aid. So will there now be a call for me to be banned from commenting?
Can we please stop this "troll" nonsense in the comments. It's OK if somebody deliberately decides to play devil's advocate. If you don't like what they have to say, you can either ignore it or specifically state why you think they're wrong. But stop the stupid name calling. It certainly doesn't make you look any better. And trying to get somebody banned just because you don't like what they have to say is pretty damn disrespectful. Not everybody has to drink the Kool-Aid. So will there now be a call for me to be banned from commenting?
That's pretty much the point I was trying to make. "DED" is Daniel Eran Dilger - the guy that actually wrote this article.
I was making the point that he writes articles to intentionally irritate, provoke and inflame readers, and that he does it very successfully.
That pretty much makes him a textbook "troll" (if you want to use that term). When someone calls another user a "troll" who tries to defend a product that DED has rubbished is not only ironic but also incorrect. If anything they are a victim in DED's net!
I also pointed out that what he does makes him a pretty valuable asset for AI.
You wouldn't get banned for writing what you did, just like I wouldn't get banned for this. Pointing out that you like a product that Apple doesn't make won't get you banned (although it will get you flamed), either will pointing out things you don't like about Apple or this site - as long as you are actually trying to make a reasonable point.
I know this because I've argued with actual mods about the quality of some site content and the accuracy of the facts they presented and came out the other side unscathed (I admit it probably helped that I was right! )
The people that get banned generally act like smart ass tools and try to irritate people. I'm pretty sure most are alternate accounts as well (which the mods could probably pick out of an IP log).
Remember, this site isn't called Windows Insider or Android Insider or Linux Insider.
So you would rather read inaccurate BS because it chears for your team? Grow up and learn to think for yourself. There are no teams here unles you actually work for Apple MS or Google. If a phone makes you happy you should not care what other people choose to buy. I own several iPhones, and no Android or Windows phones, but I find DED's articals sickening. They are perfect for stupid rats who want to follow a pied piper, but they are hardly informative or inciteful.
I want to follow Apple's developement. I want insight into how they are approaching the competition. I want a reasonable analysis of where Apple leads and where they lag. Where they are catching up, or where the competition is catching up. I don't need to read constant bashing of Android or WP7. Apple makes a damn good product, no need to bash the competition to make them look better.
That's pretty much the point I was trying to make. "DED" is Daniel Eran Dilger - the guy that actually wrote this article.
I was making the point that he writes articles to intentionally irritate, provoke and inflame readers, and that he does it very successfully.
That pretty much makes him a textbook "troll" (if you want to use that term). When someone calls another user a "troll" who tries to defend a product that DED has rubbished is not only ironic but also incorrect. If anything they are a victim in DED's net!
I also pointed out that what he does makes him a pretty valuable asset for AI.
You wouldn't get banned for writing what you did, just like I wouldn't get banned for this. Pointing out that you like a product that Apple doesn't make won't get you banned (although it will get you flamed), either will pointing out things you don't like about Apple or this site - as long as you are actually trying to make a reasonable point.
I know this because I've argued with actual mods about the quality of some site content and the accuracy of the facts they presented and came out the other side unscathed (I admit it probably helped that I was right! )
The people that get banned generally act like smart ass tools and try to irritate people. I'm pretty sure most are alternate accounts as well (which the mods could probably pick out of an IP log).
I still don't see the need for anybody to be banned. Just ignore the posts you find offensive. I know everybody has heard this before, but just don't feed them. Ignore them. And can we at least get everybody to stop the name calling? The word "troll" should never be posted again.
You wouldn't get banned for writing what you did, just like I wouldn't get banned for this. Pointing out that you like a product that Apple doesn't make won't get you banned (although it will get you flamed), either will pointing out things you don't like about Apple or this site - as long as you are actually trying to make a reasonable point.
I know this because I've argued with actual mods about the quality of some site content and the accuracy of the facts they presented and came out the other side unscathed (I admit it probably helped that I was right! )
The people that get banned generally act like smart ass tools and try to irritate people. I'm pretty sure most are alternate accounts as well (which the mods could probably pick out of an IP log).
At least on this forum you have the option of going to your user CP and adding particular commenters to your "ignore" list. I personally don't do that as I enjoy reading most of the comments and I'm able to quickly skip over those that don't add anything to the discussion.
I happen to be one those who enjoy reading DED's posts yet I can see where others would feel like he's inciting flame wars because of his writing style (especially when he inserts gratuitous political analogies into a discussion of high tech).
@ Firefly: I also enjoy reading your posts. They help offer another POV.
Comments
Bullshit. You're being paid by someone to come here and discredit information detrimental to them. I doubt very much that you own any Apple hardware.
You caught me! I must be some sort of spy agent!
Are you clinically insane? Because what you just said was monumentally crazy. Because I don't like the tone of DED's articles I must not own anything Apple? Sorry I'm not an Apple worshiper like some people here. I love their products, but they'll never rule my world like they do for you. I like unbiased articles and intelligent answers other than "OMGZ APPLES RULEZ EVERYBODY ELSE SUCKZ" thank you very much.
Could DED be banned from writing for AppleInsider? Please. He's a disgrace to this website with his immature fanboy-ness. Apple may make great products, but they are not the center of the universe no matter how much the author wants us to believe. Get over it.
It's AppleInsider. It's not Arstechnica, Engadget, Gizmodo, etc.
It's AppleInsider. You come to a site about what's going on inside Apple and you bitch when it's focused on it?
Genius.
I read here ...LG is committing to developing 50 new Windows Mobile phones by the end of 2012...
That's 2 models/month they need to build while being already tired of Windows 7.
This will seriously drain LG's resources for migrating to something non-Windows.
Once they start migrating, though, we may actually see 3-4 LG phone models/month !
Which brings me to my main point: Why so many models?
Apple only needs 1(exceptionally, 1.5) models/year to deliver.
After all it is the a
pps and the OS that determine most of the functionality of the hardware. And apps/OS are updatable, no need for separate models.
LG may end up having difficulties surviving facing the competition of (a) company/ies that use their resources in a vastly more efficient manner.
Talking about complicated: LG phones are already confusing, even before purchase.
Because they simply don't have what it takes to make one and only one that's good enough. Which is why there is no iPhone-Killer in existence. So the preferred strategy is to just flood the market with a lot of fragmented junk by whoring out your poorly-copied OS to anyone that can slam together a box.
Because I don't like the tone of DED's articles I must not own anything Apple? Sorry I'm not an Apple worshiper like some people here. I love their products, but they'll never rule my world like they do for you. I like unbiased articles and intelligent answers...
So don't read or comment on them, is that such a hard concept to grasp?
Let's think about this a bit: Microsoft knows full well it is trying to develop a "cool", usable yet fashionable electronic device and that it is competing with the king of cool (Apple), and what do they come up with? Blocky boring squares that you must look at every time you unlock the phone. It's not even as if they are photo-realistic, they are just square blobs of monochrome colour. And this is the best their designers could come up with?
My theory is that Microsoft is not now, nor was it ever, "hip". It made its living creating serious corporate software that just happened to become the defacto standard, and their design philosophy is totally geared toward this - "let's make it functional and who cares what it looks like so long as it gets the job done?" Classic engineering. This worked well for desktop computers (and I have nothing against Windows per se), but falls utterly flat when trying to design for a segment like the smartphone which must rise above functionality and offer "chic" as well.
Innovative features wrapped in an ugly GUI encased in a cheap plasticky generic cell phone case. That sums up WP7 for me. I would not touch it with a 10 foot pole. If WP7 fails, Microsoft richly deserves it. They don't appear to be able to design themselves out of a wet paper bag.
Finally, a word about iOS: as much as I love it, I do believe it's time to provide some serious updates as Android (and even Microsoft to an extent) are working hard to offer cool new subtle features which seem more interactive. For example, my friend's Android displays "live" snowflakes drifting down its homescreen when it's snowing outside (local weather). Does that make it a better platform? Hardly, but it's a nice touch, and the kind of thing we would typically expect from Apple. IMHO I think Apple needs to improve its instant messaging (so incoming messages don't grind the system to a halt when a text comes in), offer "live" widgets of some sort so the phone feels more alive and interactive, and offer extensive customization of the "lock" screen and the homepage so you can, for example, choose to display today's upcoming calendar events on the "lock" screen so you don't need to unlock it to see what your next appointment or task is, or some such thing. I think it could also overhaul its folders to improve their look and function, and contain more apps (use a "peek" feature perhaps?). A failure to substantially update the look of their iOS risks them falling behind competitors, and the iPhone starts to look like an application launcher and not much more. My 2 cents. Anybody else have other suggestions?
It's AppleInsider. It's not Arstechnica, Engadget, Gizmodo, etc.
It's AppleInsider. You come to a site about what's going on inside Apple and you bitch when it's focused on it?
Genius.
Take a look at MacRumors. They actually give the facts. The facts. Not stupid commentary by some immature fanboy, not trashing other companies in their articles. Genius!
.
Finally, a word about iOS: as much as I love it, I do believe it's time to provide some serious updates as Android (and even Microsoft to an extent) are working hard to offer cool new subtle features which seem more interactive. For example, my friend's Android displays "live" snowflakes drifting down its homescreen when it's snowing outside (local weather). Does that make it a better platform? Hardly, but it's a nice touch, and the kind of thing we would typically expect from Apple. IMHO I think Apple needs to improve its instant messaging (so incoming messages don't grind the system to a halt when a text comes in), offer "live" widgets of some sort so the phone feels more alive and interactive, and offer extensive customization of the "lock" screen and the homepage so you can, for example, choose to display today's upcoming calendar events on the "lock" screen so you don't need to unlock it to see what your next appointment or task is, or some such thing.
I agree on the need of bringing more live information onto the home and lock screens.
BTW, the weather Dashboard widget in OS X (which I think is made by Apple) has exactly these live snowflakes.
Choice is good. Competition is good. I only wish Apple fans would be able to see that.
Competition is good, competition drives innovation and progress.
These and similar statements are regularly declared as absolute facts especially by USians and yet they demonstrably aren't in many cases. I suggest that competition is like a tool or process, it depends how it is used and it can be used for good or evil.
Most of what we have is less than optimal, much of it is junk, 'competition creates junk' arguably is just as true as 'competition drives innovation'. A company may make a top product, top quality ensuring a decent product life, low maintenance, good support and whatever else goes in to making a good product. Competition brings in another company that trims a bit here and there and offers a lower price point, say 25%, and that is taken back usually more so over the life of the product or the lack of life because it craps out sooner. The fragmentation of the market means that the quality manufacturer can not take advantage of the economies of scale that would accrue if the lowballing competition was not there so the end user is the loser.
In reality what usually happens is that there will be a number of cheap competitors shaving prices and seeking to differentiate their products and persuade people to buy them, with a 25% cost saving they can put some of that towards advertising. Now in many industries, and people in business will know this or can easily find out with a little research, the advertising spend is recommended to be 10% - 15% of revenue. So as a consumer for 12.5% less you end up with a product that is 25% worse and that 25% will be paid back in time with higher maintenance and more rapid depreciation. So the cheap junk is actually much more expensive.
Shopping is a cost, takes my time, I'd rather be doing something else. Every time I feel the need to buy a new cell I spend a few hours checking things out and making a decision. I would much rather be happy with one for a few years and save those hours to spend doing something more rewarding. If I hear of a new feature that sounds great yes maybe I'll buy a new one sooner, when I hear means from a real person, in real life, on a forum or blog or even a review in the press each opinion naturally weighted for the credibility of the source. Advertisements are not good sources of information and get ignored, I have to pay for them anyway in the cost of the products that I buy I sure as hell don't want to pay for them in time too.
Advertising is a propaganda tool, persuading people to accept it throughout their lives is essential for those who want to tell us untruths. Advertising was never as pervasive as it is now, there are still some laws prohibiting advertising in some places and for some categories of products but much has been repealed over the last few decades. The promise of cable TV was pay a subscription and get no advertising, that didn't last long.
The most offensive abuse of competition and advertising is food. Most food is junk, people know it is junk and still eat it, what passes for food is far from what one should be eating and nothing like what your great grandparents ate for mostly they ate organically grown local food. Powdered corn and soya glued back together with some artificial colour and flavour is not good food. It appears to be cheap but is actually very expensive for remedies for the ill effects far outweigh paying double or triple for proper food. Visits to the gym are likely to be needed, spending money and time, to get rid of excess fat. Personal hygiene products are needed to dispel the odours created by junk foods, need medical treatments attempt to ameliorate the effects of junk foods. Constantly pushing surplus through the dietary system wears it out faster, shoes wear out faster carrying more weight, chairs need to be wider, transportation takes more fuel and millions of other tiny incremental expenditure increases result from bad food.
Real good food would cost less than the aggregate costs of junk food with economies of scale in food production and savings in overheads and remedial costs. Plus the benefits of more healthy time to profit from work or simply to enjoy the pleasures of life.
Competition is not necessarily good but a monoculture is undeniably fraught with great danger, I don't argue for either and anyway that is not the problem. Companies should exist to create benefit for their customers, to do that they need to pay their overheads, have a reserve to maintain operations in tough trading conditions, pay wages including to the owner who is also perhaps due some additional reward for taking the risk. Instead companies' primary obligation is to return profits for the shareholders and this takes precedence over doing the right thing by their customers.
Companies driven by the urge to make great products usually do, they usually are managed by the owner or founder. With good judgment, dedication and the customers benefit as the first priority a company can rise from nowhere to lead an industry in just a decade. The worst aspects to deal with are the dirty tricks from the competition, they may have to be avoided, addressed and rebutted but must not divert the focus of attention away from building great products otherwise they have won.
Most companies are controlled by the bankers, by Wall Street and the City of London, they aren't interested in the good of the consumer, they are interested in buying their next Lamborghini, Cartier or island in the sun. They have no loyalty to the company and less to the company's customers, their loyalty is to the dollars. They also like the power that they gain from advertising and control of the media.
Competition vs monopoly is not the question neither is conservative vs socialist the structural changes that are required need to address the problems of expensive junk and lack of quality information. The financial system which is designed to remove control of companies from the founders to the bankers needs to be addressed with more equitable distributions of money and responsibility. Ownership of the media the gatekeepers to information and funding of the media by advertisers in other words the corporations controlled by the bankers needs to be addressed.
Competition only works when there is real competition, the vast majority of companies are controlled by the same group of people, the bankers, and competition between such companies is an illusion. Competition as it is currently perceived and enacted does not benefit the people of this planet just a select few.
Could DED be banned from writing for AppleInsider? Please. He's a disgrace to this website with his immature fanboy-ness. Apple may make great products, but they are not the center of the universe no matter how much the author wants us to believe. Get over it.
The fact that DED gets this kind of worried comments from the trolls means that he is getting something very right indeed.
Keep up the great work AI/DED!!
"One of the problems," the report noted, "is that some believe that the OS is so easy to use that it?s a bit boring."
Choi himself said that, "for tech guys like us it might be a little bit boring after a week or two, but there are certain segments that it really appeals to. We strongly feel that it has a strong potential even though the first push wasn?t what everyone expected?.
.
He could easily be describing iOS here. And/or he could easily be describing the iPad.
LG struggles to copy Apple
In early 2007, LG was highlighting its Adobe Flash lite-based Prada phone, a model it later claimed Apple had copied in its design of the original iPhone, even as it had long aped Apple's iPod design in its popular Verizon Chocolate feature phone.
In 2009, LG released the LG-GM730, a Windows Mobile 6.5 bearing a striking resemblance to Apple's original iPhone. This year, the company is planning to release the Android-based Optimus X2, its first high end smartphone. It bears a striking resemblance to last year's iPhone 4.
Apple is rubber, LG is glue.
I know you are, LG, but what is Apple?
Was this article written by PeeWee Herman?
The fact that DED gets this kind of worried comments from the trolls means that he is getting something very right indeed.
Keep up the great work AI/DED!!
"From the trolls"?????? DED is a troll. He is such a damn good troll he has made a career out of it.
The flood of (often emotional) responses to DED articles is a sign of the quality of DED's trolling.
I wish he would tone it down, but I do understand why AI keep him around. Over the past week his articles have generated almost triple the comments (hence revenue) compared to the average of the other writers. That is even after assigning several articles written under "AppleInsider Staff" to the "others" group that I suspect were actually written by DED.
That makes him at least three times more valuable than the other writers, but probably much more than that.
No surprises here really. Windows7 literally was "doomed" to begin with. Ballmer is trying to start the race literally years after Apple kickstarted it back in 2007. Their marketing ads are a disappointment to say the least.
The android system is a perfect example of what happens where there are too many players in a given team. Everyone wants a shot, but no one gets any serious time on the field. The market is literally dumping so many Android phones out there that it is in essence confusing Joe-consumer with an onslaught of choice, different configurations, and all of it is a mess. Factor in the cheap-plastic, flimsy construction and it's back to the same self-destructive cycle.
And then there's the iPhone. One phone, looking really nice by itself. Clean, simple, built like a tank, and just waiting for you.
No contest. Let the rest of the folks battle for the bottom of the barrel. It's very sad actually.
Personally, I think the term "kickstarted" doesn't begin to describe Apple's contribution. They completely rewrote the book on smartphones. It was stunning. First, years of condemnation. How dare Apple even try to complete with Motorola, Nokia, etc. They'll destroy Apple. Apple doesn't know what it's getting into. And then the iPhone was released. Jaws dropped everywhere. Now everybody, but everybody, is trying to copy Apple's ground breaking design. As you've noted, the Android market has splintered as everybody now tries to differentiate themselves. I think Microsoft is preventing much of the same thing for Windows Phone. They've stipulated exactly what the hardware must be, so no odd screen resolutions, etc. They prevented companies from rewriting the user interface, so no MotoBlur or Sense. Nothing that should degrade the Windows Phone experience, or ruin the consistency of Windows Phone across the line of phones. I like what they're doing. Their biggest mistake was use of the word "Windows" in the product name.
"From the trolls"?????? DED is a troll. He is such a damn good troll he has made a career out of it.
The flood of (often emotional) responses to DED articles is a sign of the quality of DED's trolling.
I wish he would tone it down, but I do understand why AI keep him around. Over the past week his articles have generated almost triple the comments (hence revenue) compared to the average of the other writers. That is even after assigning several articles written under "AppleInsider Staff" to the "others" group that I suspect were actually written by DED.
That makes him at least three times more valuable than the other writers, but probably much more than that.
Can we please stop this "troll" nonsense in the comments. It's OK if somebody deliberately decides to play devil's advocate. If you don't like what they have to say, you can either ignore it or specifically state why you think they're wrong. But stop the stupid name calling. It certainly doesn't make you look any better. And trying to get somebody banned just because you don't like what they have to say is pretty damn disrespectful. Not everybody has to drink the Kool-Aid. So will there now be a call for me to be banned from commenting?
Can we please stop this "troll" nonsense in the comments. It's OK if somebody deliberately decides to play devil's advocate. If you don't like what they have to say, you can either ignore it or specifically state why you think they're wrong. But stop the stupid name calling. It certainly doesn't make you look any better. And trying to get somebody banned just because you don't like what they have to say is pretty damn disrespectful. Not everybody has to drink the Kool-Aid. So will there now be a call for me to be banned from commenting?
That's pretty much the point I was trying to make. "DED" is Daniel Eran Dilger - the guy that actually wrote this article.
I was making the point that he writes articles to intentionally irritate, provoke and inflame readers, and that he does it very successfully.
That pretty much makes him a textbook "troll" (if you want to use that term). When someone calls another user a "troll" who tries to defend a product that DED has rubbished is not only ironic but also incorrect. If anything they are a victim in DED's net!
I also pointed out that what he does makes him a pretty valuable asset for AI.
You wouldn't get banned for writing what you did, just like I wouldn't get banned for this. Pointing out that you like a product that Apple doesn't make won't get you banned (although it will get you flamed), either will pointing out things you don't like about Apple or this site - as long as you are actually trying to make a reasonable point.
I know this because I've argued with actual mods about the quality of some site content and the accuracy of the facts they presented and came out the other side unscathed (I admit it probably helped that I was right!
The people that get banned generally act like smart ass tools and try to irritate people. I'm pretty sure most are alternate accounts as well (which the mods could probably pick out of an IP log).
I'll second that!
Remember, this site isn't called Windows Insider or Android Insider or Linux Insider.
So you would rather read inaccurate BS because it chears for your team? Grow up and learn to think for yourself. There are no teams here unles you actually work for Apple MS or Google. If a phone makes you happy you should not care what other people choose to buy. I own several iPhones, and no Android or Windows phones, but I find DED's articals sickening. They are perfect for stupid rats who want to follow a pied piper, but they are hardly informative or inciteful.
I want to follow Apple's developement. I want insight into how they are approaching the competition. I want a reasonable analysis of where Apple leads and where they lag. Where they are catching up, or where the competition is catching up. I don't need to read constant bashing of Android or WP7. Apple makes a damn good product, no need to bash the competition to make them look better.
That's pretty much the point I was trying to make. "DED" is Daniel Eran Dilger - the guy that actually wrote this article.
I was making the point that he writes articles to intentionally irritate, provoke and inflame readers, and that he does it very successfully.
That pretty much makes him a textbook "troll" (if you want to use that term). When someone calls another user a "troll" who tries to defend a product that DED has rubbished is not only ironic but also incorrect. If anything they are a victim in DED's net!
I also pointed out that what he does makes him a pretty valuable asset for AI.
You wouldn't get banned for writing what you did, just like I wouldn't get banned for this. Pointing out that you like a product that Apple doesn't make won't get you banned (although it will get you flamed), either will pointing out things you don't like about Apple or this site - as long as you are actually trying to make a reasonable point.
I know this because I've argued with actual mods about the quality of some site content and the accuracy of the facts they presented and came out the other side unscathed (I admit it probably helped that I was right!
The people that get banned generally act like smart ass tools and try to irritate people. I'm pretty sure most are alternate accounts as well (which the mods could probably pick out of an IP log).
I still don't see the need for anybody to be banned. Just ignore the posts you find offensive. I know everybody has heard this before, but just don't feed them. Ignore them. And can we at least get everybody to stop the name calling? The word "troll" should never be posted again.
You wouldn't get banned for writing what you did, just like I wouldn't get banned for this. Pointing out that you like a product that Apple doesn't make won't get you banned (although it will get you flamed), either will pointing out things you don't like about Apple or this site - as long as you are actually trying to make a reasonable point.
I know this because I've argued with actual mods about the quality of some site content and the accuracy of the facts they presented and came out the other side unscathed (I admit it probably helped that I was right!
The people that get banned generally act like smart ass tools and try to irritate people. I'm pretty sure most are alternate accounts as well (which the mods could probably pick out of an IP log).
At least on this forum you have the option of going to your user CP and adding particular commenters to your "ignore" list. I personally don't do that as I enjoy reading most of the comments and I'm able to quickly skip over those that don't add anything to the discussion.
I happen to be one those who enjoy reading DED's posts yet I can see where others would feel like he's inciting flame wars because of his writing style (especially when he inserts gratuitous political analogies into a discussion of high tech).
@ Firefly: I also enjoy reading your posts. They help offer another POV.