The person who thinks sales data created by statistical firms uses old devices bought off craigslist and eBay as a source accuses someone else for trolling. The irony.
The context seemed clear to me that we're talking about the market as a whole.
You thought wrong. For most people the tablet market consisted only of the iPad at first. So for them the lowest priced iPad would've been the low end of the market, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's a 'low-end' device in terms of build quality, and usability.
The person who thinks sales data created by statistical firms uses old devices bought off craigslist and eBay as a source accuses someone else for trolling. The irony.
LOL! You're taking the whole misrepresenting what I say to a whole new level! I'm not even sure that one counts as misrepresentation. I think we've moved to outright lying by making stuff up with that one.
You thought wrong. For most people the tablet market consisted only of the iPad at first. So for them the lowest priced iPad would've been the low end of the market, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's a 'low-end' device in terms of build quality, and usability.
Solipsism didn't "think wrong." If you meant something else, then you expressed yourself poorly. It was, in the context of your statement, clear what you meant -- though, maybe it was clear to everyone except you.
Solipsism didn't "think wrong." If you meant something else, then you expressed yourself poorly. It was, in the context of your statement, clear what you meant -- though, maybe it was clear to everyone except you.
What part of this is poorly expressed?
Since Apple was the only game for a while then the cheapest (in price) option would be the low end, but not necessarily because it's in any way worse than the high end. In this instance price is the only determining factor.
While Apple wasn't technically the only game in town most people didn't know that. What's perceived is often greater than what's real.
Google's TV strategy may be complex and a bit messy at this point, but there is no denying Google is a monster competitor for Apple.
Apple used to control the smart phone and tablet markets. Now Apple is a minority player, and a shrinking one internationally, in both of those markets.
Of course, that's not 100% due to Google, but Google is a primary reason or at least a primary part of the reason that iOS no longer dominates any market in which it competes.
I personally would love to see Apple triumph in TV, but recent history doesn't suggest that Apple can fend off its more nimble and hasty competitors that well especially on a global level.
When did Apple control the smart phone market? That's news to me.
You thought wrong. For most people the tablet market consisted only of the iPad at first. So for them the lowest priced iPad would've been the low end of the market, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's a 'low-end' device in terms of build quality, and usability.
I'm pretty sure this discussion started with claims of Android-based tablets trouncing Apple. Whether people believe Apple invented the tablet (or smartphone) is irrelevant to the fact that most Android-based devices are are clearly inferior devices in both HW and OS which must account, at least in part, for their abhorrent usage numbers.
[SIZE=4][B]The Six Stages of Apple Device Denial:[/B][/SIZE]
[LIST=1] [*] "Apple will never be able to make a dent because the market is already saturated with better devices." [*] "Apple fanatics are buying all the Apple's devices." [*] "Apple is only good at marketing which is why idiots who don't understand technology are buying these inferior devices." [*] "Apple is only successful because everyone else buys their devices." [*] "Apple has lost its way because they aren't releasing new products like they did with (previous) devices." [*] "Apple had all the marketshare when they created this device but now they are losing it to others with better devices." [/LIST]
While Apple wasn't technically the only game in town most people didn't know that. What's perceived is often greater than what's real.
So, since the space shuttle was the only thing of its kind, it was at the low end?
Apple has never played in the low end of pool. They aren't interested in selling a gazillion gadgets with razor thin margins. Apple has never been the "low end." It's that simple.
When Apple starts tossing out minimum-speced, poorly constructed and designed junk at a 1% margin, flooding a particular market, then you can say that they are at the low end. But we both know that isn't going to happen.
I'm pretty sure this discussion started with claims of Android-based tablets trouncing Apple. Whether people believe Apple invented the tablet (or smartphone) is irrelevant to the fact that most Android-based devices are are clearly inferior devices in both HW and OS which must account, at least in part, for their abhorrent usage numbers.
I never denied that. My contention was that any market no matter how high end has a low end.
Monkey see monkey effing do! Google tried their hand at this bullish** a few years ago and it stanked up the industry. Sony tried with their crap. A confusing remote with dozens of buttons.
So, since the space shuttle was the only thing of its kind, it was at the low end?
Apple has never played in the low end of pool. They aren't interested in selling a gazillion gadgets with razor thin margins. Apple has never been the "low end." It's that simple.
When Apple starts tossing out minimum-speced, poorly constructed and designed junk at a 1% margin, flooding a particular market, then you can say that they are at the low end. But we both know that isn't going to happen.
Try freeing your mind from the preconceived notion of what you consider 'low end'. If that space shuttle is coming in for a landing nose up then the nose is the high end and the tail is then the low end. I will say again I'm applying these words in their simplest definition, not at what they've become to mean.
Try freeing your mind from the preconceived notion of what you consider 'low end'. If that space shuttle is coming in for a landing nose up then the nose is the high end and the tail is then the low end. I will say again I'm applying these words in their simplest definition, not at what they've become to mean.
I'm sorry, but that's not how language works. "Low end" has a specific meaning. At least, it does in English.
We can either argue about the importance of using correct terminology, or we can all agree to speak the English language in the way that 99.9% of English speakers understand it.
Now, which do you think would lead to a more productive discussion?
I never denied that. My contention was that any market no matter how high end has a low end.
I've always referred to the "low-end of a product line" as an entry-level model. I think most readers here would properly understand that more than calling it a low-end model.
I'm sorry, but that's not how language works. "Low end" has a specific meaning. At least, it does in English.
We can either argue about the importance of using correct terminology, or we can all agree to speak the English language in the way that 99.9% of English speakers understand it.
Now, which do you think would lead to a more productive discussion?
Of course that's how language works. You can't utter the words 'low end' without it meaning something cheap and crappy?
I can understand the initial confusion with dasanman's use of the term low end, but he's since clarified what he meant. He's even done so multiple times. How are people still confused?
Comments
I hope you're just trolling.
You misreading my post != Me actually saying it.
I hope you're just trolling.
You misreading my post != Me actually saying it.
So you meant one model of iPad that stopped selling years ago vs Android tablets which are currently available?
The context seemed clear to me that we're talking about the market as a whole.
I hope you're just trolling.
The person who thinks sales data created by statistical firms uses old devices bought off craigslist and eBay as a source accuses someone else for trolling. The irony.
You thought wrong. For most people the tablet market consisted only of the iPad at first. So for them the lowest priced iPad would've been the low end of the market, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's a 'low-end' device in terms of build quality, and usability.
LOL! You're taking the whole misrepresenting what I say to a whole new level! I'm not even sure that one counts as misrepresentation. I think we've moved to outright lying by making stuff up with that one.
You thought wrong. For most people the tablet market consisted only of the iPad at first. So for them the lowest priced iPad would've been the low end of the market, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's a 'low-end' device in terms of build quality, and usability.
Solipsism didn't "think wrong." If you meant something else, then you expressed yourself poorly. It was, in the context of your statement, clear what you meant -- though, maybe it was clear to everyone except you.
You're taking the whole misrepresenting what I say to a whole new level!
No one has a clue what you're saying anymore because you've moved the target so many times, no one knows where to shoot!
What part of this is poorly expressed?
While Apple wasn't technically the only game in town most people didn't know that. What's perceived is often greater than what's real.
When did Apple control the smart phone market? That's news to me.
I'm pretty sure this discussion started with claims of Android-based tablets trouncing Apple. Whether people believe Apple invented the tablet (or smartphone) is irrelevant to the fact that most Android-based devices are are clearly inferior devices in both HW and OS which must account, at least in part, for their abhorrent usage numbers.
[LIST=1]
[*] "Apple will never be able to make a dent because the market is already saturated with better devices."
[*] "Apple fanatics are buying all the Apple's devices."
[*] "Apple is only good at marketing which is why idiots who don't understand technology are buying these inferior devices."
[*] "Apple is only successful because everyone else buys their devices."
[*] "Apple has lost its way because they aren't releasing new products like they did with (previous) devices."
[*] "Apple had all the marketshare when they created this device but now they are losing it to others with better devices."
[/LIST]
What part of this is poorly expressed?
While Apple wasn't technically the only game in town most people didn't know that. What's perceived is often greater than what's real.
So, since the space shuttle was the only thing of its kind, it was at the low end?
Apple has never played in the low end of pool. They aren't interested in selling a gazillion gadgets with razor thin margins. Apple has never been the "low end." It's that simple.
When Apple starts tossing out minimum-speced, poorly constructed and designed junk at a 1% margin, flooding a particular market, then you can say that they are at the low end. But we both know that isn't going to happen.
I never denied that. My contention was that any market no matter how high end has a low end.
Google tried their hand at this bullish** a few years ago and it stanked up the industry. Sony tried with their crap. A confusing remote with dozens of buttons.
Try freeing your mind from the preconceived notion of what you consider 'low end'. If that space shuttle is coming in for a landing nose up then the nose is the high end and the tail is then the low end. I will say again I'm applying these words in their simplest definition, not at what they've become to mean.
Try freeing your mind from the preconceived notion of what you consider 'low end'. If that space shuttle is coming in for a landing nose up then the nose is the high end and the tail is then the low end. I will say again I'm applying these words in their simplest definition, not at what they've become to mean.
I'm sorry, but that's not how language works. "Low end" has a specific meaning. At least, it does in English.
We can either argue about the importance of using correct terminology, or we can all agree to speak the English language in the way that 99.9% of English speakers understand it.
Now, which do you think would lead to a more productive discussion?
I've always referred to the "low-end of a product line" as an entry-level model. I think most readers here would properly understand that more than calling it a low-end model.
Of course that's how language works. You can't utter the words 'low end' without it meaning something cheap and crappy?