This isn't about Apple, at all. I merely cited an obvious example that happened to involve an iPhone. Do you deny that the tech industry thrives on replacing devices that are fully functional if not for software? People replacing working devices is part of the plan for the industry. That's planned obsolescence. Period. I also happen to not mind it, being the well-funded consumer I am.
My initial point was that this high tech plan of replacing obsolete devices is materially wasteful, and that should be obvious. Then I get a couple zealots wearing blinders trying to dismiss statements that are indisputable with arguments that don't apply to the issue.
"You're wrong because I don't like a New York Times story that has nothing to do with your point." Good one.
This isn't about Apple, at all. Do you deny that the tech industry thrives on replacing devices that are fully functional if not for software? People replacing working devices is part of the plan for the industry. That's planned obsolescence. Period. I also happen to not mind it, being the well-funded consumer I am.
My initial point was that this high tech plan of replacing obsolete devices is materially wasteful, and that should be obvious. Then I get a couple zealots wearing blinders trying to dismiss statements that are indisputable with arguments that don't apply to the issue.
"You're wrong because I don't like a New York Times story that has nothing to do with your point." Good one.
This isn't about Apple, at all. Do you deny that the tech industry thrives on replacing devices that are fully functional if not for software? People replacing working devices is part of the plan for the industry. That's planned obsolescence. Period. I also happen to not mind it, being the well-funded consumer I am.
My initial point was that this high tech plan of replacing obsolete devices is materially wasteful, and that should be obvious. Then I get a couple zealots wearing blinders trying to dismiss statements that are indisputable with arguments that don't apply to the issue.
"You're wrong because I don't like a New York Times story that has nothing to do with your point." Good one.
I don't deny that some of the tech industry is careless about the longevity, durability, sustained usability of their products.
I do assert that one of Apple's goals is to make their devices as durable as is reasonable for an expensive consumer device, and to sustain them with the best possible software within the limitations of the device.
My original iPad still works well after three years and thousands of hours, but is not eligible for iOS 6, wisely, since it is already RAM-challenged by present-day Web practice.
On the other hand, Apple overreaches and makes mistakes, in my opinion, and so I would never have bothered putting iOS 7 on an iPhone 4 or even on my 4S, which is still using iOS 6. The owner has some responsibility to curate the old technology. I mention this as someone who still uses a 1971 VW Bug as a daily driver.
VW is no longer the company it was once, dedicated to planned sustainability instead of obsolescence. They made the same car for 35 years. Now they don't or can't care so much. Companies are different, companies change.
Apple is dedicated to different goals than other consumer electronics companies. Relevant here is their goal to provide maximum delight and amazement over the lifetime of the device, so the longer the lifetime the better. I can't make you believe this, and if you don't see it plainly before your very eyes, then there's nothing more to discuss. And I am not a zealot. This stuff is obvious.
Edit: And you're right. Planned obsolescence is wasteful. I have hated it since it was perfected in the 1950s. I was there and saw it at work. Now Detroit is living out the consequences. Fools blame the Unions, I blame planned obsolescence and its wasteful spawn, the SUV.
I don't deny that some of the tech industry is careless about the longevity, durability, sustained usability of their products.
I do assert that one of Apple's goals is to make their devices as durable as is reasonable for an expensive consumer device, and to sustain them with the best possible software within the limitations of the device.
My original iPad still works well after three years and thousands of hours, but is not eligible for iOS 6, wisely, since it is already RAM-challenged by present-day Web practice.
On the other hand, Apple overreaches and makes mistakes, in my opinion, and so I would never have bothered putting iOS 7 on an iPhone 4 or even on my 4S, which is still using iOS 6. The owner has some responsibility to curate the old technology. I mention this as someone who still uses a 1971 VW Bug as a daily driver.
VW is no longer the company it was once, dedicated to planned sustainability instead of obsolescence. They made the same car for 35 years. Now they don't or can't care so much. Companies are different, companies change.
Apple is dedicated to different goals than other consumer electronics companies. Relevant here is their goal to provide maximum delight and amazement over the lifetime of the device, so the longer the lifetime the better. I can't make you believe this, and if you don't see it plainly before your very eyes, then there's nothing more to discuss. And I am not a zealot. This stuff is obvious.
Edit: And you're right. Planned obsolescence is wasteful. I have hated it since it was perfected in the 1950s. I was there and saw it at work. Now Detroit is living out the consequences. Fools blame the Unions, I blame planned obsolescence and its wasteful spawn, the SUV.
Yeah, I don't disagree with any of that. My original point is that it should be no surprise that there are drawers full of no-longer used, but otherwise functional iPhones, Androids, Razors, etc. etc. all around the developed world, and that is part of the plan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronJ
My are point?
Umm ....
You said (expanding the contraction): "And you are point is?" And at this point, my point is trolling you b/c you have no argument.
On the other hand, Apple overreaches and makes mistakes, in my opinion, and so I would never have bothered putting iOS 7 on an iPhone 4 or even on my 4S, which is still using iOS 6. The owner has some responsibility to curate the old technology.
My wife said I shouldn't upgrade and I responded that Apple has always restricted updates to only devices that can manage them, so if my device is on the "eligible" list I have nothing to worry about. I think this is the first time that hasn't been completely true, so THIS time I hold Apple responsible. NEXT time it's on me. Fool me once, etc.
I like the idea that Apple let me decide whether or not the new features are worth the trade-off in performance though. I hope that policy continues, just with the added component of a back-out procedure for those who decide it's not a good fit.
My wife said I shouldn't upgrade and I responded that Apple has always restricted updates to only devices that can manage them, so if my device is on the "eligible" list I have nothing to worry about. I think this is the first time that hasn't been completely true, so THIS time I hold Apple responsible. NEXT time it's on me. Fool me once, etc.
I like the idea that Apple let me decide whether or not the new features are worth the trade-off in performance though. I hope that policy continues, just with the added component of a back-out procedure for those who decide it's not a good fit.
And the ability to delete the unasked-for download taking up space in my 4s's memory that I never installed, and probably never will.
Comments
This isn't about Apple, at all. I merely cited an obvious example that happened to involve an iPhone. Do you deny that the tech industry thrives on replacing devices that are fully functional if not for software? People replacing working devices is part of the plan for the industry. That's planned obsolescence. Period. I also happen to not mind it, being the well-funded consumer I am.
My initial point was that this high tech plan of replacing obsolete devices is materially wasteful, and that should be obvious. Then I get a couple zealots wearing blinders trying to dismiss statements that are indisputable with arguments that don't apply to the issue.
"You're wrong because I don't like a New York Times story that has nothing to do with your point." Good one.
This isn't about Apple, at all. Do you deny that the tech industry thrives on replacing devices that are fully functional if not for software? People replacing working devices is part of the plan for the industry. That's planned obsolescence. Period. I also happen to not mind it, being the well-funded consumer I am.
My initial point was that this high tech plan of replacing obsolete devices is materially wasteful, and that should be obvious. Then I get a couple zealots wearing blinders trying to dismiss statements that are indisputable with arguments that don't apply to the issue.
"You're wrong because I don't like a New York Times story that has nothing to do with your point." Good one.
So, you're point is?
So, you're point is?
My are point?
Please don't mention Motorola in this thread; many thanks.
My are point?
My are point?
Umm ....
I don't deny that some of the tech industry is careless about the longevity, durability, sustained usability of their products.
I do assert that one of Apple's goals is to make their devices as durable as is reasonable for an expensive consumer device, and to sustain them with the best possible software within the limitations of the device.
My original iPad still works well after three years and thousands of hours, but is not eligible for iOS 6, wisely, since it is already RAM-challenged by present-day Web practice.
On the other hand, Apple overreaches and makes mistakes, in my opinion, and so I would never have bothered putting iOS 7 on an iPhone 4 or even on my 4S, which is still using iOS 6. The owner has some responsibility to curate the old technology. I mention this as someone who still uses a 1971 VW Bug as a daily driver.
VW is no longer the company it was once, dedicated to planned sustainability instead of obsolescence. They made the same car for 35 years. Now they don't or can't care so much. Companies are different, companies change.
Apple is dedicated to different goals than other consumer electronics companies. Relevant here is their goal to provide maximum delight and amazement over the lifetime of the device, so the longer the lifetime the better. I can't make you believe this, and if you don't see it plainly before your very eyes, then there's nothing more to discuss. And I am not a zealot. This stuff is obvious.
Edit: And you're right. Planned obsolescence is wasteful. I have hated it since it was perfected in the 1950s. I was there and saw it at work. Now Detroit is living out the consequences. Fools blame the Unions, I blame planned obsolescence and its wasteful spawn, the SUV.
Your words, in the order you typed them, agreed with me.
No, they didn’t. Try reading the words.
This isn't about Apple, at all.
Keep moving those goalposts.
Do you deny that the tech industry thrives on replacing devices that are fully functional if not for software?
Yes. Shut up.
Nope. Sorry.
My initial point was that this high tech plan of replacing obsolete devices is materially wasteful, and that should be obvious.
It isn’t, because it isn’t a plan. Keep changing your claims and we’ll keep proving you wrong.
My are point? Umm ....
I broke his brain. Just ignore the idiocy.
I don't deny that some of the tech industry is careless about the longevity, durability, sustained usability of their products.
I do assert that one of Apple's goals is to make their devices as durable as is reasonable for an expensive consumer device, and to sustain them with the best possible software within the limitations of the device.
My original iPad still works well after three years and thousands of hours, but is not eligible for iOS 6, wisely, since it is already RAM-challenged by present-day Web practice.
On the other hand, Apple overreaches and makes mistakes, in my opinion, and so I would never have bothered putting iOS 7 on an iPhone 4 or even on my 4S, which is still using iOS 6. The owner has some responsibility to curate the old technology. I mention this as someone who still uses a 1971 VW Bug as a daily driver.
VW is no longer the company it was once, dedicated to planned sustainability instead of obsolescence. They made the same car for 35 years. Now they don't or can't care so much. Companies are different, companies change.
Apple is dedicated to different goals than other consumer electronics companies. Relevant here is their goal to provide maximum delight and amazement over the lifetime of the device, so the longer the lifetime the better. I can't make you believe this, and if you don't see it plainly before your very eyes, then there's nothing more to discuss. And I am not a zealot. This stuff is obvious.
Edit: And you're right. Planned obsolescence is wasteful. I have hated it since it was perfected in the 1950s. I was there and saw it at work. Now Detroit is living out the consequences. Fools blame the Unions, I blame planned obsolescence and its wasteful spawn, the SUV.
Yeah, I don't disagree with any of that. My original point is that it should be no surprise that there are drawers full of no-longer used, but otherwise functional iPhones, Androids, Razors, etc. etc. all around the developed world, and that is part of the plan.
Quote:
My are point?
Umm ....
You said (expanding the contraction): "And you are point is?" And at this point, my point is trolling you b/c you have no argument.
YEAH. That sure fits the bill¡
And YEAH. You sure were forced to update¡
Oh, so you agree.
No, they didn’t. Try reading the words.
The word "YEAH" is slang for "YES," which indicates agreement.
Quote:
I broke his brain. Just ignore the idiocy.
I broke your brain. Just ignore your illiteracy.
On the other hand, Apple overreaches and makes mistakes, in my opinion, and so I would never have bothered putting iOS 7 on an iPhone 4 or even on my 4S, which is still using iOS 6. The owner has some responsibility to curate the old technology.
My wife said I shouldn't upgrade and I responded that Apple has always restricted updates to only devices that can manage them, so if my device is on the "eligible" list I have nothing to worry about. I think this is the first time that hasn't been completely true, so THIS time I hold Apple responsible. NEXT time it's on me. Fool me once, etc.
I like the idea that Apple let me decide whether or not the new features are worth the trade-off in performance though. I hope that policy continues, just with the added component of a back-out procedure for those who decide it's not a good fit.
And the ability to delete the unasked-for download taking up space in my 4s's memory that I never installed, and probably never will.
You said (expanding the contraction): "And you are point is?" And at this point, my point is trolling you b/c you have no argument.
I'm trolling? Really? Wow.
I'm trolling? Really? Wow.
Surprisingly, he said, “my point is trolling you,” which is apropos for every ‘point’ he has ever made, really.
Just saying...