Well obviously, I was simply giving my opinion on the etymology of the use of the term 'Thermonuclear' in the context of Apple wreaking vengeance. I could be wrong but I was guessing DED used it for that reason. Perhaps he can correct me if I am wrong. I read it as a homage to Steve used in that way.
Ah yes, Apple will go nuclear to drive down Samsung, with factories in democratic South Korea. But it has no problem making its own products in cheap-labor China, a brutally repressive, single-party dictatorship. I've come to suspect that the company of "think different" doesn't think at all%u2014at least about democracy and freedom. Its obsession with profit extends all the way down to the corporate bedrock and its ideas about virtues never go beyond putting solar panels up.
I don't know obviously but I hope ... the more deadly effect over time will be destroying a very good friendship Apple and Google had by trying to repeat Microsoft's model of stealing Apple's OS and sharing it (albeit Gates at least had the brains to charge for Windblows). Life is strange and now we see IBM and Microsoft working quite well with Apple and fences being mended. Oracle is friendly to Apple too. That's a pretty formidable group of companies not trying to destroy each other.
One doesn't have to purposely set out to destroy someone to destroy them. All the companies you mentioned have other revenue streams. It would have been foolish for Google to count on all their mobile revenue stream to come from Apple.
Ah yes, Apple will go nuclear to drive down Samsung, with factories in democratic South Korea. But it has no problem making its own products in cheap-labor China, a brutally repressive, single-party dictatorship. I've come to suspect that the company of "think different" doesn't think at all%u2014at least about democracy and freedom. Its obsession with profit extends all the way down to the corporate bedrock and its ideas about virtues never go beyond putting solar panels up.
I respectfully disagree with you. Selling high priced, highly subsidized phablets through carriers, generating huge profits, is a real market innovation. As said, my personal guess is that Samsung discovered this quite by accident. They kept increasing the screen size on their phones, because they could, and they kept selling more. And my guess is that it surprised the heck out of them. But it is an innovation regardless. And to give Samsung credit where due, so is building very large, very high resolution OLED screens in very large quantities. Which is why Apple, I think, was held back from entering this market earlier. No other supplier could match Samsung's screen innovation.
There is no money out there outside the G-20 for both a smartphone and a computer. These folks are not interested in smaller and faster. They just want and need something they can afford that works.
I don't believe Apple does "something they can afford that works". That's a "truck" in Steve Jobs' parlance. Apple doesn't do trucks. iPhones are cars.
The Lenovo's/Xiaomi's/Huwei's of the world will make the trucks.
You don't have arguments, you just rant off the top of your head making up things you believe are true. It's like talking to a religious nutter who thinks faith is the source of everything factual.
I don't believe Apple does "something they can afford that works". That's a "truck" in Steve Jobs' parlance. Apple doesn't do trucks. iPhones are cars.
The Lenovo's/Xiaomi's/Huwei's of the world will make the trucks.
"There is hardly anything in the world that someone cannot make a little worse and sell a little cheaper, and the people who consider price alone are that man's lawful prey." -unknown, often misattributed to John Ruskin
One doesn't have to purposely set out to destroy someone to destroy them. All the companies you mentioned have other revenue streams. It would have been foolish for Google to count on all their mobile revenue stream to come from Apple.
You will have to give me time to try to figure out the connection between what i write and your responses this morning, I'm not seeing them. Perhaps i need more coffee.
I respectfully disagree with you. Selling high priced, highly subsidized phablets through carriers, generating huge profits, is a real market innovation. As said, my personal guess is that Samsung discovered this quite by accident. They kept increasing the screen size on their phones, because they could, and they kept selling more. And my guess is that it surprised the heck out of them. But it is an innovation regardless. And to give Samsung credit where due, so is building very large, very high resolution OLED screens in very large quantities. Which is why Apple, I think, was held back from entering this market earlier. No other supplier could match Samsung's screen innovation.
"We could have done a larger iPhone years ago," Cook told Charlie Rose in an interview that airs later today on PBS. "It's never been about just making a larger phone ... it's been about making a better phone in every single way. And so we ship things when they're ready, and we think that both the display technology here, the battery technology, but all — but everything else and the software."
Ah yes, Apple will go nuclear to drive down Samsung, with factories in democratic South Korea. But it has no problem making its own products in cheap-labor China, a brutally repressive, single-party dictatorship. I've come to suspect that the company of "think different" doesn't think at all%u2014at least about democracy and freedom. Its obsession with profit extends all the way down to the corporate bedrock and its ideas about virtues never go beyond putting solar panels up.
You can't change China from the outside. Foxconn et al is better today because of Apple.
China's politics are one thing, but treating the workers justly is what Apple can do. Foxconn wants to make a profit too, and if Apple says it can and will evolve away from their infrastructure if they don't treat Apple Subcontracted work force with respect. Profit is a powerful force for good, too.
DED at his worst. I'm not sure if DED lives in some sort of fantasy land or not but, but I couldn't read through most of this BS. Building a better product has been Apples goal since iPhone 1. The fact that Apple now has the hardware to deliver on its goals has nothing to do with Samsung. I should mention that software is also important to delivering on Apples goals and that that infrastructure doesn't happen over night either.
So how is Apple evolving its product line in a rational manner going after Samsung as if they even bothered to target Samsung? More so I'd be a bit worried about Apple because they have fallen into the large cell phone fad and have left the small end unprotected. Forgetting about performance and features in smaller cell phones is pretty stupid on Apples part.
DED at his worst. I'm not sure if DED lives in some sort of fantasy land or not but, but I couldn't read through most of this BS. Building a better product has been Apples goal since iPhone 1. The fact that Apple now has the hardware to deliver on its goals has nothing to do with Samsung. I should mention that software is also important to delivering on Apples goals and that that infrastructure doesn't happen over night either.
So how is Apple evolving its product line in a rational manner going after Samsung as if they even bothered to target Samsung? More so I'd be a bit worried about Apple because they have fallen into the large cell phone fad and have left the small end unprotected. Forgetting about performance and features in smaller cell phones is pretty stupid on Apples part.
Just been reading through many of your back posts. I must compliment you on your ever present total confidence in all your emphatic expounding and your unwavering belief that all you say is unquestionably the only answer possible to any topic discussed.
Comments
Well obviously, I was simply giving my opinion on the etymology of the use of the term 'Thermonuclear' in the context of Apple wreaking vengeance. I could be wrong but I was guessing DED used it for that reason. Perhaps he can correct me if I am wrong. I read it as a homage to Steve used in that way.
Me too. I already suggested a lien on Boo-Keun Yoon's house.
Fixed that for ya!
I think you kind of missed the point.
One doesn't have to purposely set out to destroy someone to destroy them. All the companies you mentioned have other revenue streams. It would have been foolish for Google to count on all their mobile revenue stream to come from Apple.
Bitter?
There is no money out there outside the G-20 for both a smartphone and a computer. These folks are not interested in smaller and faster. They just want and need something they can afford that works.
I don't believe Apple does "something they can afford that works". That's a "truck" in Steve Jobs' parlance. Apple doesn't do trucks. iPhones are cars.
The Lenovo's/Xiaomi's/Huwei's of the world will make the trucks.
Yes. Especially in 2013 and 2012.
The large screen Samsung phones had HORRIBLE BATTERY LIFE. Most only last 4 hours of use.
Only in late 2013 early 2014 did these large phones finally have good enough battery life.
You just make shit up as you go:
Samsung Galaxy S3 (May 2012) - 50hr & Note 3 (Sep 2012) 69hr vs iPhone 5 (Sep. 2012) 51hr & iPhone 5s (Sep. 2013) 53hr
Please note that a 2012 Note 3 bests a 2014 iPhone 6 which is 61hr.
http://www.gsmarena.com/battery-test.php3
You don't have arguments, you just rant off the top of your head making up things you believe are true. It's like talking to a religious nutter who thinks faith is the source of everything factual.
They do however make Hummers now.
http://www.businessinsider.com/steve-jobs-was-wrong-about-big-phones-2014-9
They do however make Hummers now.
http://www.businessinsider.com/steve-jobs-was-wrong-about-big-phones-2014-9
The next biggerer thing is here...
You will have to give me time to try to figure out the connection between what i write and your responses this morning, I'm not seeing them. Perhaps i need more coffee.
I respectfully disagree with you. Selling high priced, highly subsidized phablets through carriers, generating huge profits, is a real market innovation. As said, my personal guess is that Samsung discovered this quite by accident. They kept increasing the screen size on their phones, because they could, and they kept selling more. And my guess is that it surprised the heck out of them. But it is an innovation regardless. And to give Samsung credit where due, so is building very large, very high resolution OLED screens in very large quantities. Which is why Apple, I think, was held back from entering this market earlier. No other supplier could match Samsung's screen innovation.
Nope. I'm not ranting off the top of my head.
http://www.theverge.com/2014/9/12/6142359/tim-cook-says-apple-could-have-made-a-bigger-iphone-years-ago
"We could have done a larger iPhone years ago," Cook told Charlie Rose in an interview that airs later today on PBS. "It's never been about just making a larger phone ... it's been about making a better phone in every single way. And so we ship things when they're ready, and we think that both the display technology here, the battery technology, but all — but everything else and the software."
So who am I going to believe?
Tim Cook or some stupid azz Android battery test?
You are a parody of yourself.
Ah yes, Apple will go nuclear to drive down Samsung, with factories in democratic South Korea. But it has no problem making its own products in cheap-labor China, a brutally repressive, single-party dictatorship. I've come to suspect that the company of "think different" doesn't think at all%u2014at least about democracy and freedom. Its obsession with profit extends all the way down to the corporate bedrock and its ideas about virtues never go beyond putting solar panels up.
You can't change China from the outside. Foxconn et al is better today because of Apple.
China's politics are one thing, but treating the workers justly is what Apple can do. Foxconn wants to make a profit too, and if Apple says it can and will evolve away from their infrastructure if they don't treat Apple Subcontracted work force with respect. Profit is a powerful force for good, too.
So how is Apple evolving its product line in a rational manner going after Samsung as if they even bothered to target Samsung? More so I'd be a bit worried about Apple because they have fallen into the large cell phone fad and have left the small end unprotected. Forgetting about performance and features in smaller cell phones is pretty stupid on Apples part.
Just been reading through many of your back posts. I must compliment you on your ever present total confidence in all your emphatic expounding and your unwavering belief that all you say is unquestionably the only answer possible to any topic discussed.