3 things here:
1. Don't treat one poster like they're the only ones with the problem. v5v is not the only one with the sentiment that some Apple products are priced too high. I'm not the only one either. So stop your condescending/personal attacks (esp. you, Solipism). Many of us pose questions/issues in order to present a point that is general sentiment, not necessarily a point that we personally 100% believe in. You can call us stupid an/or an idiot, and you can tell us "just don't buy it"...but I prefer that you address the important points, not dismiss us.
2. In regards to "high price", TS said it himself (in response to v5v), that "high" profit margins is subjective. So there you are...and I agree...it's subjective as far as the consumer's perspective. I appreciate examples and explanation, but to just make one argument and then think everyone else is stupid for not "getting it" is just pure arrogance.
3. While I don't like feeding the trolls, I also am not afraid or upset by them. Many of us are Apple lovers but are not Apple purists or Apple cultists. We engage here at this site to get to the truth and to gain balanced information. Stop treating posters like they're either Apple purists or Apple haters. Some are happily in between.
May your 2013 be one of good health and happiness.
1) Whom did I attack?
2) Of course Apple's products are too high, for not just some people, but most people, otherwise they would be purchased. How does the concept of value escape so many people. I can afford a $50 video game but since I am not a video game player that $50 price is too high for me. Does that mean I go around pooh-poohing all video games that aren't free because that's the only monetary value I'm willing to invest in them? Of course not! And from what I can see from the industry as a whole their prices are right where the market can bearthem. Apple is different in that they continually have trouble keeping up with demand that it could be argued there prices are below what the market can bear.
3) If you et al. don't want to accept that you're not Apple's only customers that's fine, but you shouldn't be getting on your soapbox to say any company should do this or that based your singular desire. Chances are you are not their ideal customer by virtue of the fact you don't think their prices match the value of their products.
As evidence I present their enormous cash reserve and executive compensation packages that are beyond the realm of what 99% of the population can even IMAGINE. More than a lottery jackpot per person per year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
This is not for you to decide. You have zero say in this beyond your choice of purchasing a product. That's how a free market economy works.
And to TS, I wholeheartedly agree.
v5v, you really do need to stop relating compassionate capitalism with product prices. Cash reserve/executive compensation can be a good issue and profit margins is also a good issue, but to argue that the two equals "corporate greed" makes you sound like one of those in the "entitlement" society...and that's a very dangerous place to be. I realize that many people feel powerless against large corporations and organizations/gov't (and understandably so), but that's an issue for another place/time.
Do I get that Apple is more of a premium brand?...yes. But to make the analogy of Mercedes and paint jobs?...that's not brilliant, it's highly inaccurate.
In many cases, Apple offers similar products at VERY similar price points to the main stream. Apple absolutely knows that they cannot be both "the Mercedes" brand AND a successful computer company at the same time...and that's why things have changed over the last 7 years. I would say that 90% of new Mercedes car owners are wealthy (I just made up that 90% btw). And Mercedes does just fine with that strategy. But I don't that will work in today's computer industry/environment.
Stop thinking that Apple is like Mercedes. It's not.
And I won't even address the color paint job...unless you can explain why that analogy even makes sense. Don't mean to be rude, I just don't get your analogy.
You're right, they are not the same. I think Mercedes wishes it could be more like Apple. What company doesn't want to have majority of the mindshare and be able to produce highly profitable products at such a large scale and efficiency.
How has Apple attacked the low-end of the PC market? Not with netbooks, but with the iPad. Imagine if Mercedes could go after the $10-15k cars by producing a high-quality, desirably scooter that was highly profitable for them but killed a huge part of the low-end car sales as a result. That would be what Apple is doing with the iPad but I don't see that as being possible with some limited transportation device.
How has Apple attacked the low-end of the PC market? Not with netbooks, but with the iPad. Imagine if Mercedes could go after the $10-15k cars by producing a high-quality, desirably scooter that was highly profitable for them but killed a huge part of the low-end car sales as a result. That would be what Apple is doing with the iPad but I don't see that as being possible with some limited transportation device.
If you misunderstood, that's my fault. I don't mean to imply that Apple is or should ever attack the low end. But more so, Apple is not Mercedes because it is attacking (more now than ever before) the midrange/mainstream.
Yes, Mercedes probably does wish it could be more like Apple...and my guess is that they have already thought about ways to attack the mainstream without damage to its brand.
Stop thinking that Apple is like Mercedes. It's not.
¡ That is a sarcasm mark. It denotes sarcasm.
And I won't even address the color paint job...unless you can explain why that analogy even makes sense. Don't mean to be rude, I just don't get your analogy.
His name is "justmeblue" and PhilBoogie presented a specific color in the RGB set…
Yes, Mercedes probably does wish it could be more like Apple...and my guess is that they have already thought about ways to attack the mainstream without damage to its brand.
That's always the trick, isn't it. Growing the brand without damaging the brand. So many companies have irreparably ruined their reputation by pushing too quickly and/or haphazardly into a cheaper market. Short term the numbers always seem to look good but long term they tend to kill off the brand. It's hard to come back from that. I respect Apple (and others) for their careful maneuvering even if it's frustrating at times as a customer.
2) Of course Apple's products are too high, for not just some people, but most people, otherwise they would be purchased. How does the concept of value escape so many people. I can afford a $50 video game but since I am not a video game player that $50 price is too high for me. Does that mean I go around pooh-poohing all video games that aren't free because that's the only monetary value I'm willing to invest in them? Of course not! And from what I can see from the industry as a whole their prices are right where the market can bare them. Apple is different in that they continually have trouble keeping up with demand that it could be argued there prices are below what the market can bare.
3) If you et al. don't want to accept that you're not Apple's only customers that's fine, but you shouldn't be getting on your soapbox to say any company should do this or that based your singular desire. Chances are you are not their ideal customer by virtue of the fact you don't think their prices match the value of their products.
1) My apologies...it appears as if v5v was calling himself an idiot, and then you merely quote him. My bad.
2) Yes, I try to factually explain "value" to all who will listen. Yet, some still buy some other crappy item just to return back to the Apple product later. It's frustrating. But again, I am still concerned that the growing sentiment among the mainstream is that Apple upgrades are too expensive, and those potential customers instead buy a competitors product or forego the upgrade...but if Apple brought down those upgrades by just a moderate amount, Apple would be able to expand their customer base...which I think is a good thing (not a bad thing, which some Apple purists seem to want to cling to). As for the latest models of iPhones though, it doesn't matter, Apple can't make them fast enough anyway...so it makes zero sense (at this point) to lower any of those prices. I'm hoping that Mr. Cook will be able to improve on supply chain/manufacturing of iPhones.
3) I don't get on my soapbox for the mere sake of argument...I do so ONLY IF I think the argument is valid (i.e. it's valid if it's NOT singular desire, but is more of a commonplace or popular/growing sentiment). So let me make a specific valid argument with you: wrt iPads/Mini, I think that many people think that $100 more for a 16 GB upgrade is too high. You seem to think it's a minority, but I beg to differ. I think the majority think that's too high and NOT worth the value of an extra $100.
Edit: #3...I'm not trying to endlessly argue the balance between quality/brand/supply/demand issue, I just think that bringing down the cost of 16GB upgrade would increase profits and increase customer base without damage to brand.
1) My apologies...it appears as if v5v was calling himself an idiot, and then you merely quote him. My bad.
For the record, I was responding to others who called me an idiot. It's not a big deal, but I want to be clear that I only call myself an idiot when I realize I've made a mistake. Which actually means I call myself an idiot a lot, but not that particular time.
[...] Apple is different in that they continually have trouble keeping up with demand that it could be argued there prices are below what the market can bare.
With due respect, I don't think that's a valid argument in defense of Apple. I actually consider it an indictment of their manufacturing.
If they can't meet demand while delivering fewer units than their competitors, it's not an indication that demand is great, it means their manufacturing is inferior.
If, as an arbitrary example, Samsung sells 10 million GS3s and still has some surplus inventory, while Apple keeps running out on their way to selling 5 million iP5s, the frequent stock-outs might give the impression that there's a lot of demand for the iPhone, but in the meantime the other unit is outselling it 2-to-1.
I'm not suggesting other products are superior or that the numbers are accurate or anything -- they're just for illustration purposes -- but just that limited supply is not necessarily an indication of strong demand.
Edit: #3...I'm not trying to endlessly argue the balance between quality/brand/supply/demand issue, I just think that bringing down the cost of 16GB upgrade would increase profits and increase customer base without damage to brand.
This has been addressed but I'm willing to listen to how this can be achieved and still make more money.
I think people tend to forget that even mass produced items are finite. There if you can only get your hands on x-number 16GB NAND chips, (x * 0.5) 32GB NAND chips, and (x - 0.8) 64GB NAND chips you can't have the difference between the 16GB iPad and 64GB iPad be $20 apart. Surely you can see in this extreme example that you've priced the 64GB NAND upgrade far too low for the market.
With due respect, I don't think that's a valid argument in defense of Apple. I actually consider it an indictment of their manufacturing.
If they can't meet demand while delivering fewer units than their competitors, it's not an indication that demand is great, it means their manufacturing is inferior.
If, as an arbitrary example, Samsung sells 10 million GS3s and still has some surplus inventory, while Apple keeps running out on their way to selling 5 million iP5s, the frequent stock-outs might give the impression that there's a lot of demand for the iPhone, but in the meantime the other unit is outselling it 2-to-1.
I'm not suggesting other products are superior or that the numbers are accurate or anything -- they're just for illustration purposes -- but just that limited supply is not necessarily an indication of strong demand.
1) There are 10 different models with distinct ASIC and/or baseband configurations of the S3. This can cause issues for developers just as different resolutions can for a non-wndowed OS which is why Apple is very careful with how they alter these items. This causes a lot less headaches for consumers or which I am grateful. On top of that, Apple sells a lot more units than Samsung does of any identical model.
2) Are you implying that Apple's iPhone sales numbers are not and indication of strong demand? I don't know of a single vendor that sells as many units of the same brand. Lets not forget that they use a lot of the same components in their iPads and iPods, too. This, of course, can its pros and cons. I've argued plenty of times that Apple needs to let go of this "boutique" style production because it can't possibly keep up with component demand they way they used to. To accept that you also have to accept that there are finite resources available at any one time.
v5v, you really do need to stop relating compassionate capitalism with product prices. Cash reserve/executive compensation can be a good issue and profit margins is also a good issue, but to argue that the two equals "corporate greed" makes you sound like one of those in the "entitlement" society...and that's a very dangerous place to be.
Not my intent at all.
Consider this scenario: Under the current model, a Mac is a really expensive device on which Apple makes a really healthy profit. They make it impossible for you to use third-party components to upgrade, then charge literally twice as much for upgrades as third-party components would cost.
We have three shoppers look at it:
One says, "I'll pay that because I want a Mac and that's what it costs to have a Mac."
The second says, "Damn, that's just too much money. I'll buy something else."
The third says, "WTF! That's SO much more than equivalent hardware from this other supplier! Screw you, Apple!"
Apple sells one computer.
When a fourth shopper starts asking around for opinions on what (s)he should buy, the remarks are:
1. "Macs are awesome!"
2. "I don't know. The Mac was really expensive so I just bought a Dell. It's been fine."
3. "Whatever you do, DON'T buy anything from Apple! They rip you off!"
That fourth buyer might buy a Mac anyway, but two out of three people voiced price as an obstacle so the perceived benefit of the "They just work" mantra is countered by a fear of overpaying.
Now consider an alternative model, where margins are held to a very healthy 30% or so and upgrade prices are within 25% of equivalent after-market products. Then have the same three shoppers look at it:
One says, "Price isn't a major factor in my purchasing decision, I just want a Mac."
The second says, "It costs more than other brands, but it seems like a better machine so it's worth it."
The third says, "WTF! Whaddaya mean I can't use SO-DIMMs from TenCentRAM.com? Screw you, Apple!"
Apple sells two computers. Despite the lower margins, their net profit is actually higher. There is also twice as much demand for software, benefiting both Apple and the developer community.
When a fourth shopper starts asking around for opinions on what (s)he should buy, the remarks are:
1. "Macs are awesome!"
2. "I got a Mac and love it. It wasn't the cheapest one I saw, but it was worth it."
3. "Whatever you do, DON'T buy anything from Apple! They rip you off!"
Now the word of mouth carries a more positive tone that doesn't pit a benefit against a liability.
The post had a yellow background color which even popped up when I hit the Quote button "<backgroundcolor=>" and with his username having blue in it I suggested to use a blue background. But it's understandable to no not understand as I don't see the background color myself anymore...
Cheers
edit: note to self: keep on telling people to read the whole thread before posting, and do so myself as well!
Fair point and a good argument. However, if we're comparing just the computer part of Apple's sales not including iDevices, which is what I was talking about, I suspect Apple would not be the leader.
Actually my analogy wasn't a very good one, since there is no BMW-as-an-alternative-to-Mercedes equivalent in the consumer computer market. Perhaps if there WERE a competing "high end" product it would put some pressure on Apple to improve pricing and options. Since there isn't, Apple can do pretty much whatever they want.
The post had a yellow background color which even popped up when I hit the Quote button "" and with his username having blue in it I suggested to use a blue background. But it's understandable to no not understand as I don't see the background color myself anymore...
He must be either typing his post elsewhere and copying it in or setting the color himself, but I've been editing it out as of late.
The post had a yellow background color which even popped up when I hit the Quote button "" and with his username having blue in it I suggested to use a blue background. But it's understandable to no not understand as I don't see the background color myself anymore...=>
He must be either typing his post elsewhere and copying it in or setting the color himself, but I've been editing it out as of late.
I noticed this, and appreciate it. Makes for a 'cleaner clean'.
Fair point and a good argument. However, if we're comparing just the computer part of Apple's sales not including iDevices, which is what I was talking about, I suspect Apple would not be the leader./
Comments
1) Whom did I attack?
2) Of course Apple's products are too high, for not just some people, but most people, otherwise they would be purchased. How does the concept of value escape so many people. I can afford a $50 video game but since I am not a video game player that $50 price is too high for me. Does that mean I go around pooh-poohing all video games that aren't free because that's the only monetary value I'm willing to invest in them? Of course not! And from what I can see from the industry as a whole their prices are right where the market can bearthem. Apple is different in that they continually have trouble keeping up with demand that it could be argued there prices are below what the market can bear.
3) If you et al. don't want to accept that you're not Apple's only customers that's fine, but you shouldn't be getting on your soapbox to say any company should do this or that based your singular desire. Chances are you are not their ideal customer by virtue of the fact you don't think their prices match the value of their products.
edit: odd autocorrect of bear.
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v
As evidence I present their enormous cash reserve and executive compensation packages that are beyond the realm of what 99% of the population can even IMAGINE. More than a lottery jackpot per person per year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
This is not for you to decide. You have zero say in this beyond your choice of purchasing a product. That's how a free market economy works.
And to TS, I wholeheartedly agree.
v5v, you really do need to stop relating compassionate capitalism with product prices. Cash reserve/executive compensation can be a good issue and profit margins is also a good issue, but to argue that the two equals "corporate greed" makes you sound like one of those in the "entitlement" society...and that's a very dangerous place to be. I realize that many people feel powerless against large corporations and organizations/gov't (and understandably so), but that's an issue for another place/time.
You're right, they are not the same. I think Mercedes wishes it could be more like Apple. What company doesn't want to have majority of the mindshare and be able to produce highly profitable products at such a large scale and efficiency.
How has Apple attacked the low-end of the PC market? Not with netbooks, but with the iPad. Imagine if Mercedes could go after the $10-15k cars by producing a high-quality, desirably scooter that was highly profitable for them but killed a huge part of the low-end car sales as a result. That would be what Apple is doing with the iPad but I don't see that as being possible with some limited transportation device.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
How has Apple attacked the low-end of the PC market? Not with netbooks, but with the iPad. Imagine if Mercedes could go after the $10-15k cars by producing a high-quality, desirably scooter that was highly profitable for them but killed a huge part of the low-end car sales as a result. That would be what Apple is doing with the iPad but I don't see that as being possible with some limited transportation device.
If you misunderstood, that's my fault. I don't mean to imply that Apple is or should ever attack the low end. But more so, Apple is not Mercedes because it is attacking (more now than ever before) the midrange/mainstream.
Yes, Mercedes probably does wish it could be more like Apple...and my guess is that they have already thought about ways to attack the mainstream without damage to its brand.
Originally Posted by drewys808
Stop thinking that Apple is like Mercedes. It's not.
¡ That is a sarcasm mark. It denotes sarcasm.
And I won't even address the color paint job...unless you can explain why that analogy even makes sense. Don't mean to be rude, I just don't get your analogy.
His name is "justmeblue" and PhilBoogie presented a specific color in the RGB set…
That's always the trick, isn't it. Growing the brand without damaging the brand. So many companies have irreparably ruined their reputation by pushing too quickly and/or haphazardly into a cheaper market. Short term the numbers always seem to look good but long term they tend to kill off the brand. It's hard to come back from that. I respect Apple (and others) for their careful maneuvering even if it's frustrating at times as a customer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
1) Whom did I attack?
2) Of course Apple's products are too high, for not just some people, but most people, otherwise they would be purchased. How does the concept of value escape so many people. I can afford a $50 video game but since I am not a video game player that $50 price is too high for me. Does that mean I go around pooh-poohing all video games that aren't free because that's the only monetary value I'm willing to invest in them? Of course not! And from what I can see from the industry as a whole their prices are right where the market can bare them. Apple is different in that they continually have trouble keeping up with demand that it could be argued there prices are below what the market can bare.
3) If you et al. don't want to accept that you're not Apple's only customers that's fine, but you shouldn't be getting on your soapbox to say any company should do this or that based your singular desire. Chances are you are not their ideal customer by virtue of the fact you don't think their prices match the value of their products.
1) My apologies...it appears as if v5v was calling himself an idiot, and then you merely quote him. My bad.
2) Yes, I try to factually explain "value" to all who will listen. Yet, some still buy some other crappy item just to return back to the Apple product later. It's frustrating. But again, I am still concerned that the growing sentiment among the mainstream is that Apple upgrades are too expensive, and those potential customers instead buy a competitors product or forego the upgrade...but if Apple brought down those upgrades by just a moderate amount, Apple would be able to expand their customer base...which I think is a good thing (not a bad thing, which some Apple purists seem to want to cling to). As for the latest models of iPhones though, it doesn't matter, Apple can't make them fast enough anyway...so it makes zero sense (at this point) to lower any of those prices. I'm hoping that Mr. Cook will be able to improve on supply chain/manufacturing of iPhones.
3) I don't get on my soapbox for the mere sake of argument...I do so ONLY IF I think the argument is valid (i.e. it's valid if it's NOT singular desire, but is more of a commonplace or popular/growing sentiment). So let me make a specific valid argument with you: wrt iPads/Mini, I think that many people think that $100 more for a 16 GB upgrade is too high. You seem to think it's a minority, but I beg to differ. I think the majority think that's too high and NOT worth the value of an extra $100.
Edit: #3...I'm not trying to endlessly argue the balance between quality/brand/supply/demand issue, I just think that bringing down the cost of 16GB upgrade would increase profits and increase customer base without damage to brand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
¡ That is a sarcasm mark. It denotes sarcasm.
His name is "justmeblue" and PhilBoogie presented a specific color in the RGB set…
Got it...thanks.
I wish we could just settle on the /s for sarcasm...things are getting too cryptic. :-)
Quote:
Originally Posted by drewys808
1) My apologies...it appears as if v5v was calling himself an idiot, and then you merely quote him. My bad.
For the record, I was responding to others who called me an idiot. It's not a big deal, but I want to be clear that I only call myself an idiot when I realize I've made a mistake. Which actually means I call myself an idiot a lot, but not that particular time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
[...] Apple is different in that they continually have trouble keeping up with demand that it could be argued there prices are below what the market can bare.
With due respect, I don't think that's a valid argument in defense of Apple. I actually consider it an indictment of their manufacturing.
If they can't meet demand while delivering fewer units than their competitors, it's not an indication that demand is great, it means their manufacturing is inferior.
If, as an arbitrary example, Samsung sells 10 million GS3s and still has some surplus inventory, while Apple keeps running out on their way to selling 5 million iP5s, the frequent stock-outs might give the impression that there's a lot of demand for the iPhone, but in the meantime the other unit is outselling it 2-to-1.
I'm not suggesting other products are superior or that the numbers are accurate or anything -- they're just for illustration purposes -- but just that limited supply is not necessarily an indication of strong demand.
This has been addressed but I'm willing to listen to how this can be achieved and still make more money.
I think people tend to forget that even mass produced items are finite. There if you can only get your hands on x-number 16GB NAND chips, (x * 0.5) 32GB NAND chips, and (x - 0.8) 64GB NAND chips you can't have the difference between the 16GB iPad and 64GB iPad be $20 apart. Surely you can see in this extreme example that you've priced the 64GB NAND upgrade far too low for the market.
1) There are 10 different models with distinct ASIC and/or baseband configurations of the S3. This can cause issues for developers just as different resolutions can for a non-wndowed OS which is why Apple is very careful with how they alter these items. This causes a lot less headaches for consumers or which I am grateful. On top of that, Apple sells a lot more units than Samsung does of any identical model.
2) Are you implying that Apple's iPhone sales numbers are not and indication of strong demand? I don't know of a single vendor that sells as many units of the same brand. Lets not forget that they use a lot of the same components in their iPads and iPods, too. This, of course, can its pros and cons. I've argued plenty of times that Apple needs to let go of this "boutique" style production because it can't possibly keep up with component demand they way they used to. To accept that you also have to accept that there are finite resources available at any one time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drewys808
v5v, you really do need to stop relating compassionate capitalism with product prices. Cash reserve/executive compensation can be a good issue and profit margins is also a good issue, but to argue that the two equals "corporate greed" makes you sound like one of those in the "entitlement" society...and that's a very dangerous place to be.
Not my intent at all.
Consider this scenario: Under the current model, a Mac is a really expensive device on which Apple makes a really healthy profit. They make it impossible for you to use third-party components to upgrade, then charge literally twice as much for upgrades as third-party components would cost.
We have three shoppers look at it:
One says, "I'll pay that because I want a Mac and that's what it costs to have a Mac."
The second says, "Damn, that's just too much money. I'll buy something else."
The third says, "WTF! That's SO much more than equivalent hardware from this other supplier! Screw you, Apple!"
Apple sells one computer.
When a fourth shopper starts asking around for opinions on what (s)he should buy, the remarks are:
1. "Macs are awesome!"
2. "I don't know. The Mac was really expensive so I just bought a Dell. It's been fine."
3. "Whatever you do, DON'T buy anything from Apple! They rip you off!"
That fourth buyer might buy a Mac anyway, but two out of three people voiced price as an obstacle so the perceived benefit of the "They just work" mantra is countered by a fear of overpaying.
Now consider an alternative model, where margins are held to a very healthy 30% or so and upgrade prices are within 25% of equivalent after-market products. Then have the same three shoppers look at it:
One says, "Price isn't a major factor in my purchasing decision, I just want a Mac."
The second says, "It costs more than other brands, but it seems like a better machine so it's worth it."
The third says, "WTF! Whaddaya mean I can't use SO-DIMMs from TenCentRAM.com? Screw you, Apple!"
Apple sells two computers. Despite the lower margins, their net profit is actually higher. There is also twice as much demand for software, benefiting both Apple and the developer community.
When a fourth shopper starts asking around for opinions on what (s)he should buy, the remarks are:
1. "Macs are awesome!"
2. "I got a Mac and love it. It wasn't the cheapest one I saw, but it was worth it."
3. "Whatever you do, DON'T buy anything from Apple! They rip you off!"
Now the word of mouth carries a more positive tone that doesn't pit a benefit against a liability.
[EDIT: Removed weak car shopping analogy]
Who made more money last year, Apple, HP or Dell?
The post had a yellow background color which even popped up when I hit the Quote button "<backgroundcolor=>" and with his username having blue in it I suggested to use a blue background. But it's understandable to no not understand as I don't see the background color myself anymore...
Cheers
edit: note to self: keep on telling people to read the whole thread before posting, and do so myself as well!
Quote:
Originally Posted by piot
Who made more money last year, Apple, HP or Dell?
Fair point and a good argument. However, if we're comparing just the computer part of Apple's sales not including iDevices, which is what I was talking about, I suspect Apple would not be the leader.
Actually my analogy wasn't a very good one, since there is no BMW-as-an-alternative-to-Mercedes equivalent in the consumer computer market. Perhaps if there WERE a competing "high end" product it would put some pressure on Apple to improve pricing and options. Since there isn't, Apple can do pretty much whatever they want.
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie
The post had a yellow background color which even popped up when I hit the Quote button "" and with his username having blue in it I suggested to use a blue background. But it's understandable to no not understand as I don't see the background color myself anymore...
He must be either typing his post elsewhere and copying it in or setting the color himself, but I've been editing it out as of late.
I noticed this, and appreciate it. Makes for a 'cleaner clean'.
You suspect wrong!
Quote:
Originally Posted by piot
You suspect wrong!
Big talk... a meaningless contradiction with no sales figures to back it up.
Moving on.
Originally Posted by v5v
Big talk... a meaningless contradiction with no sales figures to back it up.
What do sales figures have to do with an argument about profit?