1) the people on here who rubbished big screens -- many making the argument that Apple is always right -- were wrong.
2) the excuses for the 5C were incorrect. Cook said that the 6, not the 6+ was top seller this year. it looks like there wasn't a plan to sell fewer 5Cs last year. They miscalculated. Maybe on price.
1) Why does the focus always get misattributed to larger screens instead of larger devices? The iPhone 6 is lighter and has less volume than all the 3.5" iPhones that came before it. Having that 4.7" iPhone was simply not possible years ago.
2) What excuses for the iPhone 5C? It may not have sold like Apple expected (I think there is some comment from Apple about that) but it certainly sold well enough to be in the top 3 spots for most US carriers for most of the year. It was unusual that Apple removed the iPhone 5 to sell an new product with a new casing that was plastic. There was a hypothesis that the increase in iPhone sales meant they couldn't create enough iPhone 5 and 5S casings so they had to balance their resources by shifting the (mostly) year-old internals to a plastic casing. Sounds like a reasonable hypothesis to me, and makes me wonder if the move to two sizes this year was to help balance production and resources in other ways, which then makes me wonder what will happen to the iPhone 6 and 6 Plus this Autumn with the next iPhones are launched.
Not really childish. "What's next" is a useless question. You can ask that every year. Apple has a lot of people thinking about and designing "what's next".
I find that to be a very tool in abductive reasoning (what Sherlock Holmes and others actually do, not deductive reasoning). For example, years ago on this forum I suggested that Apple could potentially make Mac OS X free to all as a way of creating a net gain to their profits and spelled out my reasoning for it. I had no idea if my hypothesis would ever happen, and still have no idea if my specific reasoning is the same as what prompted Apple to make Mac OS X free of charge, but that doesn't matter because it was a useful tool in trying to see casualty between multiple components constantly in flux.
I don't believe I ever said Apple shouldn't do a big phone. I hoped it wouldn't do a Phablet. I was ok with the <5" iPhone.
I've said time and time again that I want a smaller phone but bigger display. Why the term phone and display are interchanged is beyond my understanding, because as we've seen with the iPhone 6 it's lighter than all iPhones up through the iPhone 4S and has less volume than all iPhones up through the iPhone 3GS.
Actually it isn't. It is only your assertion (and a pretty stupid one) that his disagreement arises from his employment by the U.S. Government.
His justifications may be based on impersonal legal arguments, however his income and lifestyle depends on his position, which can only exist thanks to tax dollars. You can dispute the motivation, but you cannot dispute the self-interested connection. Ipso facto, one exists thanks to the other.
So... Show us an example of limited government that works. Anywhere.
Do you seriously want us to make the U.S. a fucking experiment, when there are mountains of research that contradicts the Ayn Rand moronic view that "the free market fixes itself", which it never has?
Somalia dissolved the "failed government" of which you speak in 1992 FFS.
What, 23 years is not enough time for "small government" to do its Randian magic?
Fail.
The U.S. was an Enlightenment experiment. A highly successful one.
Ah, Somalia! That bastion of individual rights! You can't start with politics. Metaphysics and epistemology first, and that's where it gets screwed. Every time.
Regardless, none of that refutes the assertion that tax = force.
A government employee disagrees because his livelihood is completely dependent on taxation? Shocker.
I don't work for the government and Justice Holmes had more intellectual horsepower than that and as with most any Supreme Court Justice they're earning power outside of the court would dwarf their government pay.
OTOH I use a LOT of services provided by the government, from air traffic control to interstates to clean air and water and as a responsible adult I prefer to pay for what I benefit from. The freeloader mentality is a recognized phenomena I'll agree. Along with President Bush's take: "VooDoo Economics".
I don't work for the government and Justice Holmes had more intellectual horsepower than that and as with most any Supreme Court Justice they're earning power outside of the court would dwarf their government pay.
OTOH I use a LOT of services provided by the government, from air traffic control to interstates to clean air and water and as a responsible adult I prefer to pay for what I benefit from. The freeloader mentality is a recognized phenomena I'll agree. Along with President Bush's take: "VooDoo Economics".
The freeloader mentality that cutting taxes while maintaining and even expanding government services as the cut taxes "magically" stimulate the economy (Reagan's pet fantasy) is very much "VooDoo" as President Bush rightly termed it.
Actually it isn't. It is only your assertion (and a pretty stupid one) that his disagreement arises from his employment by the U.S. Government.
His justifications may be based on impersonal legal arguments, however his income and lifestyle depends on his position, which can only exist thanks to tax dollars. You can dispute the motivation, but you cannot dispute the self-interested connection. Ipso facto, one exists thanks to the other.
Yes - OK - but you claimed direct causation, and then reiterated it as a fact. And if, by "self-interested connection", you still mean that his employment influenced his opinion, then not even a smattering of Latin is going to win the argument. If that also reflects your broader view of how everyone else forms opinions - narrow-minded self-interest - then I would have to suggest that you are actually just projecting.
The same as you and I? Or I guess you are cool with paying a higher percentage?
Quit being apple fanboys. I love apple just as much as you guys do. But they don't actually pay taxes just like none of these huge corps do. Quit defending them. If they actually paid they wouldn't be hoarding it all in Ireland and trying to get Obama to strike a deal to bring the cash back. Period.
Actually no it isn't a problem. In many cases Apple is simply avoiding having its earnings tacked multiple times.
Actually I haven't seen a ligitimate argument for more taxes on Apple or any company. The people whining are often those that do the least for the economy. Frankly screw them if they aren't willing to work.
More baloney! The people arguing this point are almost certainly trying to surpress the rights of other for their own gain. More so when corporations are targeted, it is often coverage for the real intention which is to go after private organizations. In other words ugly left wing attempts to take people's freedom away.
Taking 'freedoms' away is when the super rich own the planet and say what goes, which is exactly what these huge corporations are doing. They use their extra billions to BUY the government and then own you and I. Tell me what 'freedoms' you think you'll have then? None.
The same as you and I? Or I guess you are cool with paying a higher percentage?
Quit being apple fanboys. I love apple just as much as you guys do. But they don't actually pay taxes just like none of these huge corps do. Quit defending them. If they actually paid they wouldn't be hoarding it all in Ireland and trying to get Obama to strike a deal to bring the cash back. Period.
What blew me away when I read the details was Tim Cook saying less than 15% of the sales #s of iPhones were from updaters. I really thought that number was going to be a lot higher. That certainly bodes well for future upside surprises.
They said there was a higher number of Android switchers than ever before and this can be seen from the performance of Android phone manufacturers. The larger models were not for existing customers. If you look at upgrade rates for the older iPhones, they were 55-75%. The latest models are for the likes of India, China and in general, Android people.
The design is also a step backwards for existing iPhone users:
The screen is better but not the overall design.
It means more users to upgrade overall in future. If they offer more reasonable sizes and clean the design up, more existing users will upgrade.
In my opinion you are placing the blame on the wrong party? Who's at fault for buying the govt, the buyer or the seller? Or the person who appointed the seller in the first place (voter)?
Every single person should be maximizing the tax code to their benefit in terms of deductions and such. I'd like to see the tax filings for anyone who feigns outrage.
Taking 'freedoms' away is when the super rich own the planet and say what goes, which is exactly what these huge corporations are doing. They use their extra billions to BUY the government and then own you and I. Tell me what 'freedoms' you think you'll have then? None.
No, it's not. His then current occupation may have been in public service, however there's no doubt his livelihood would have faired quite well in the private sector.
Comments
1) Why does the focus always get misattributed to larger screens instead of larger devices? The iPhone 6 is lighter and has less volume than all the 3.5" iPhones that came before it. Having that 4.7" iPhone was simply not possible years ago.
2) What excuses for the iPhone 5C? It may not have sold like Apple expected (I think there is some comment from Apple about that) but it certainly sold well enough to be in the top 3 spots for most US carriers for most of the year. It was unusual that Apple removed the iPhone 5 to sell an new product with a new casing that was plastic. There was a hypothesis that the increase in iPhone sales meant they couldn't create enough iPhone 5 and 5S casings so they had to balance their resources by shifting the (mostly) year-old internals to a plastic casing. Sounds like a reasonable hypothesis to me, and makes me wonder if the move to two sizes this year was to help balance production and resources in other ways, which then makes me wonder what will happen to the iPhone 6 and 6 Plus this Autumn with the next iPhones are launched.
I find that to be a very tool in abductive reasoning (what Sherlock Holmes and others actually do, not deductive reasoning). For example, years ago on this forum I suggested that Apple could potentially make Mac OS X free to all as a way of creating a net gain to their profits and spelled out my reasoning for it. I had no idea if my hypothesis would ever happen, and still have no idea if my specific reasoning is the same as what prompted Apple to make Mac OS X free of charge, but that doesn't matter because it was a useful tool in trying to see casualty between multiple components constantly in flux.
I've said time and time again that I want a smaller phone but bigger display. Why the term phone and display are interchanged is beyond my understanding, because as we've seen with the iPhone 6 it's lighter than all iPhones up through the iPhone 4S and has less volume than all iPhones up through the iPhone 3GS.
His justifications may be based on impersonal legal arguments, however his income and lifestyle depends on his position, which can only exist thanks to tax dollars. You can dispute the motivation, but you cannot dispute the self-interested connection. Ipso facto, one exists thanks to the other.
Misery loves company
Like force. And two shit alternatives. My concrete actions will have zero bearing on the nature of tax as a concept.
The U.S. was an Enlightenment experiment. A highly successful one.
Ah, Somalia! That bastion of individual rights! You can't start with politics. Metaphysics and epistemology first, and that's where it gets screwed. Every time.
Regardless, none of that refutes the assertion that tax = force.
A government employee disagrees because his livelihood is completely dependent on taxation? Shocker.
I don't work for the government and Justice Holmes had more intellectual horsepower than that and as with most any Supreme Court Justice they're earning power outside of the court would dwarf their government pay.
OTOH I use a LOT of services provided by the government, from air traffic control to interstates to clean air and water and as a responsible adult I prefer to pay for what I benefit from. The freeloader mentality is a recognized phenomena I'll agree. Along with President Bush's take: "VooDoo Economics".
I don't work for the government and Justice Holmes had more intellectual horsepower than that and as with most any Supreme Court Justice they're earning power outside of the court would dwarf their government pay.
OTOH I use a LOT of services provided by the government, from air traffic control to interstates to clean air and water and as a responsible adult I prefer to pay for what I benefit from. The freeloader mentality is a recognized phenomena I'll agree. Along with President Bush's take: "VooDoo Economics".
That's not "voodoo economics".
That's not "voodoo economics".
The freeloader mentality that cutting taxes while maintaining and even expanding government services as the cut taxes "magically" stimulate the economy (Reagan's pet fantasy) is very much "VooDoo" as President Bush rightly termed it.
Sometimes cutting taxes (prices) does stimulate the economy (sales). Depends on where you are on the Laffer curve.
One million dollars will circulate through the economy much quicker in the hands of many, than in the hands of one.
Actually it isn't. It is only your assertion (and a pretty stupid one) that his disagreement arises from his employment by the U.S. Government.
His justifications may be based on impersonal legal arguments, however his income and lifestyle depends on his position, which can only exist thanks to tax dollars. You can dispute the motivation, but you cannot dispute the self-interested connection. Ipso facto, one exists thanks to the other.
Yes - OK - but you claimed direct causation, and then reiterated it as a fact. And if, by "self-interested connection", you still mean that his employment influenced his opinion, then not even a smattering of Latin is going to win the argument. If that also reflects your broader view of how everyone else forms opinions - narrow-minded self-interest - then I would have to suggest that you are actually just projecting.
…maybe now you can pay some taxes?
Shut up and go away.
Provide a rigorous definition of "fair share"
The same as you and I? Or I guess you are cool with paying a higher percentage?
Quit being apple fanboys. I love apple just as much as you guys do. But they don't actually pay taxes just like none of these huge corps do. Quit defending them. If they actually paid they wouldn't be hoarding it all in Ireland and trying to get Obama to strike a deal to bring the cash back. Period.
Actually no it isn't a problem. In many cases Apple is simply avoiding having its earnings tacked multiple times.
Actually I haven't seen a ligitimate argument for more taxes on Apple or any company. The people whining are often those that do the least for the economy. Frankly screw them if they aren't willing to work.
More baloney! The people arguing this point are almost certainly trying to surpress the rights of other for their own gain. More so when corporations are targeted, it is often coverage for the real intention which is to go after private organizations. In other words ugly left wing attempts to take people's freedom away.
Taking 'freedoms' away is when the super rich own the planet and say what goes, which is exactly what these huge corporations are doing. They use their extra billions to BUY the government and then own you and I. Tell me what 'freedoms' you think you'll have then? None.
They said there was a higher number of Android switchers than ever before and this can be seen from the performance of Android phone manufacturers. The larger models were not for existing customers. If you look at upgrade rates for the older iPhones, they were 55-75%. The latest models are for the likes of India, China and in general, Android people.
The design is also a step backwards for existing iPhone users:
The screen is better but not the overall design.
It means more users to upgrade overall in future. If they offer more reasonable sizes and clean the design up, more existing users will upgrade.
Every single person should be maximizing the tax code to their benefit in terms of deductions and such. I'd like to see the tax filings for anyone who feigns outrage.