Ever hear of "the squeaky wheel gets the grease"? The bitchers and whiners, while they represent a minority, are a very vocal minority... prolly due to their Type-A, early-adopter personalities.
The squeaky wheel gets the grease if the guy that has the grease hears it.
Since you based your argument on the fact you consider the consumer helpless
I never said "helpless". Only having weak control and a very blunt instrument for effecting changes, yes, but not "helpless". Half-reading what I wrote includes overlaying what I wrote with your own convenient oversimplifications.
Quote:
That effectively discounted the entirety of your argument since it's underpinnings had been shown to be unfounded. Based on that, I don't HAVE to respond to the rest, QED.
You glossed over my point with a sloppy mischaracterization and oversimplification, you hardly addressed it.
Quote:
The consumer has TONS of other manufactures that produce items that compete with Apple and it's iPhone product to chose from. There is no monopoly.
No one offers anything as good as the web browser in an iPhone, and we have yet to see if anyone can provide a touch interface as good -- which might be hard given Apple patents on that. I don't consider giving up the good points of the iPhone, simply because of a EULA and deliberate technology crippling, and especially because the manufacturer is deliberately fighting back against the consumer taking more control over his or her own device, "TONS" of choice.
Corporate power allows the range of product offerings to be like a cafeteria that only serves shit sandwiches, where it's illegal to take the shit out of the sandwich, and your only choices are about the amount of shit and kind of shit you eat, or not to eat at all.
Quote:
The consumer can take their iPhone and open it, change it, eat it, bury it, etc. The consumer has total control over what he or she does with the device. What the consumer doesn't have is control over the intellectual property (the code that makes the iPhone more than a collection of electronic parts and turns it into the premium device that it is) that he or she agrees at the onset of the activation of the device belongs to Apple and ONLY Apple.
I don't go along with the current trend in IP law to grant such over-arching control over how software and hardware is used. If I'm not trying to steal the IP and re-sell it, merely modifying it for my own use and benefit, I don't give a damn about how the IP owner wants to restrict my use.
Quote:
Don't agree, but if you do, then honor your agreement.
You've completely ignored what I've said about the DRM example. Care to address where we'd be right now in regards to DRM if everyone in the world was such a Dudley Do-Right about the one-sided, no-bargaining-power-other-than-buy-it-or-don't world of corporate-written EULAs?
I never said "helpless". Only having weak control and a very blunt instrument for effecting changes, yes, but not "helpless". Half-reading what I wrote includes overlaying what I wrote with your own convenient oversimplifications.
OK. That doesn't support your claim and it doesn't weaken mine, but whatever. You can bitch all day about what words are used, it's your dime. You're still wrong. The consumer has total control. Period. ... unless you can provide evidence where a consumer was forced to purchase a phone, that is. Good luck with that.
Quote:
You glossed over my point with a sloppy mischaracterization and oversimplification, you hardly addressed it.
OK. I glossed. You don't like my characterization. Fine. You've still failed to provide any evidence for your assertions.
Quote:
No one offers anything as good as the web browser in an iPhone, and we have yet to see if anyone can provide a touch interface as good -- which might be hard given Apple patents on that. I don't consider giving up the good points of the iPhone, simply because of a EULA and deliberate technology crippling, and especially because the manufacturer is deliberately fighting back against the consumer taking more control over his or her own device, "TONS" of choice.
The quality of a product doesn't a monopolist make. You DO realize how lame that argument is, right? "Apple makes the best, therefore the consumer is forced to fight against the EULA!" - it lacks something... Oh yeah, logic!
Quote:
Corporate power allows the range of product offerings to be like a cafeteria that only serves shit sandwiches, where it's illegal to take the shit out of the sandwich, and your only choices are about the amount of shit and kind of shit you eat, or not to eat at all.
I pick "not to eat", but if you feel compelled to start munching, I'd say it's a reflection on you, not the corporation. After all - I'm not going to frequent that establishment and you don't have to either.
Quote:
I don't go along with the current trend in IP law to grant such over-arching control over how software and hardware is used. If I'm not trying to steal the IP and re-sell it, merely modifying it for my own use and benefit, I don't give a damn about how the IP owner wants to restrict my use.
Good for you! It doesn't mean anything, but hey, if saying that made you feel better, it's all good, right? The law of the land may or may not need to change, but all we have to work with are the cards on the table.
Quote:
You've completely ignored what I've said about the DRM example. Care to address where we'd be right now in regards to DRM if everyone in the world was such a Dudley Do-Right about the one-sided, no-bargaining-power-other-than-buy-it-or-don't world of corporate-written EULAs?
I've ignored the castle in the sky 'cause it's based on ... nothing. It's opinion and as such, I can't argue with you. I have opinions too. Everyone does.
Then there are facts, and I've presented those. You've not. Not only have you not, you can't substantiate your position with facts, whereas I have.
The consumer has all the power where phones, media players, and mobile internet access devices are concerned. Buy a Nokia, a Motorola, whatever. Not only that, but those are probably cheaper. Or, don't buy one. It's not a requirement. Oh, by the way - I didn't buy a Nokia. I didn't like their offering, but I don't go blaming them for it by posting crap on an internet forum... except to offer that fact as an example.
That's my proof. Argue against that, and show your work.
Corporate power allows the range of product offerings to be like a cafeteria that only serves shit sandwiches, where it's illegal to take the shit out of the sandwich, and your only choices are about the amount of shit and kind of shit you eat, or not to eat at all.
I pick "not to eat", but if you feel compelled to start munching, I'd say it's a reflection on you, not the corporation. After all - I'm not going to frequent that establishment and you don't have to either.
You make flat, grand assertions like that about how markets work, and I'm the one who has to provide proof? It's "total consumer control" until proven otherwise?
Quote:
You've still failed to provide any evidence for your assertions.
What? Do you demand documentation of a official consumer survey to prove obvious truths like the fact that consumers aren't always thrilled with the range of options presented to them? This is "mere speculation" to you until otherwise proven?
There's a difference between a customer bitching that he can't buy a car for $20 that gets 300 mpg -- where the technology simply isn't there and the economics make no sense -- and the situation where a small number of electronics manufactures and carriers can use the power over the market that they have to artificially limit choices and cripple technology, driven by a desire to force a desired business model, regardless of available technology and consumer desires.
Especially when it comes to the carriers, who are supposedly being granted licenses to PUBLIC airwaves for PUBLIC service, the public can (or could, if our politicians better represent the average consumer) and should demand what's best for the public interest in EXCHANGE for the RIGHT to use those airwaves, rather than letting the carriers dictate so much of the terms.
I'm not sure how much of the current iPhone limitations Apple would impose on its own, and how much is due to having to strike a deal with a carrier like AT&T, but you're living on another planet if you think a corporation like AT&T functions in an idealized Adam Smith market place of perfect competition, and doesn't have extra power over the consumer through sweetheart legislation.
Quote:
Oh yeah, logic!I pick "not to eat", but if you feel compelled to start munching, I'd say it's a reflection on you, not the corporation. After all - I'm not going to frequent that establishment and you don't have to either.
Are you saying you'd simply live without a cellphone of any kind whatsoever in symbolic defiance of the choices of cell phones and cell phone contracts available if none of them perfectly suited you?
And even if you are such an oh-so-noble by-the-book creature, that you'd deprive yourself of a cellphone rather than buy one close to what you want and try to circumvent any annoying restrictions, do you imagine there are anywhere near enough consumers who behave that way to have significant market impact?
What I'm saying is that people breaking these restrictive rules provide a very useful market pressure that simple buy/don't buy decision making won't provide all by itself, and I'm very happy that they're out there and that I don't live in a world full of dutiful, obedient, let's-give-more-power-to-the-powerful consumerbots out of some corporate wet dream.
Quote:
...but I don't go blaming them for it by posting crap on an internet forum... except to offer that fact as an example.
I'm not "blaming" anyone. I'm pointing out the useful addition to consumer power provided by having consumers who don't play strictly by the lopsided rules where one side rights all of the rules, writes the contracts, even writes the laws Congress passes, and the only input the consumer gets is to sign or not sign.
Just try bringing a lawyer with you the next time you try to buy cell phone service and see if you can re-negotiate a new contract for yourself. You'll see exactly how balanced the bargaining power is here.
Quote:
...and show your work.
You've been working on that pedantic putz act of yours, haven't you?
This is an argument like arguing who's going to make the best next President -- there's can be no ultimate proof because not only is their no fixed criteria for "best", but you can't run experiments with multiple people being the next President in cleanly isolated parallel universes and then compare results at the end.
If you don't know how to handle complex arguments about messy, complicated real-world situations, and expect everything to boil down to simple statements of rules and "proofs", that's not my problem.
At least in the universe I live in, there's nobody forcing me to pick a phone. I can even prove it, if you like. I can offer links to multiple providers for phones, multiple providers for media players - heck, there's even whole stores that sell consumer electronics from bajillions of manufactures and it doesn't even include the iPhone!. There are phones, mp3 players, etc. Here's the link:
Now, I've shown proof that consumers have choices. It's not messy or complicated, heck, even a 12 year old can understand. Then again, I don't need to make it complicated to make my point...
Now, I've shown proof that consumers have choices. It's not messy or complicated, heck, even a 12 year old can understand. Then again, I don't need to make it complicated to make my point...
You can't really be this dense about this -- I'll give you credit for not being that dumb -- so all I can think of is that you think this annoying pretense of not getting what I'm saying is some sort of effective rhetorical tool.
How about you "prove" to me where I've said that the consumer doesn't have choices? Hint: you have to be able to handle shades of gray, more than simple binary yes/no thinking, to respond to deal with this discussion.
It's not my obligation to prove stupidly oversimplified versions of what I've said to you.
You can't really be this dense about this -- I'll give you credit for not being that dumb -- so all I can think of is that you think this annoying pretense of not getting what I'm saying is some sort of effective rhetorical tool.
How about you "prove" to me where I've said that the consumer doesn't have choices? Hint: you have to be able to handle shades of gray, more than simple binary yes/no thinking, to respond to deal with this discussion.
It's not my obligation to prove stupidly oversimplified versions of what I've said to you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline
When you have a product like the iPod, and even more so the iPhone, which can only be effectively produced and marketed by a small number of large companies, those companies don't have to be very responsive to consumer desires. Monopolistic (or effectively so) powers, plus lopsided intellectual property and telecommunications laws, mean that a whole industry can easily band together and not give people what they want, but rather "just enough" to keep them buying under less-than-wonderful terms, because the only other options are to do without a given product entirely, withno one else to turn to to buy a better version.
Do I need to explain what the big words mean?
More proof that consumers are in control: The iPhone price drop. Over 30% mere weeks after the product was introduced (by a newcomer in the phone business, no less!). Yeah, I bet you hate it when those monopolies drop their prices... er...
More proof that consumers are in control: The iPhone price drop. Over 30% mere weeks after the product was introduced. Yeah, I bet you hate it when those monopolies drop their prices... er...
It's all too complicated. You won't understand.
Poor choices is not no choices.
Some control is not total control.
Some responsiveness to some consumer demand is not always adequate responsiveness to all reasonable consumer demands.
Do I have to explain what "suffering from excessively binary thinking" means?
Some responsiveness to some consumer demand is not always adequate responsiveness to all reasonable consumer demands.
Do I have to explain what "suffering from excessively binary thinking" means?
Nope, I think you've shown me all you can how one can suffer from excessive thinking, binary or otherwise.
You've tried to complicate things in your own mind so black is white and people are having their arms twisted in their purchase of phones in the highly competitive cellular phone business. I think you need to let your brain rest now.
You've tried to complicate things in your own mind so black is white and people are having their arms twisted in their purchase of phones in the highly competitive cellular phone business. I think you need to let your brain rest now.
You simply can't handle dealing with my real argument, can you? It seems every response you make is based on a binary simplification or excessive overstatement of what I've said. You can't argue against what I'm saying, for example, unless you superimpose "arm twisting" on top of my words.
It doesn't take "arm twisting" to get people to pay $2 or more for a 30-second ringtone. That kind of pricing, however, doesn't happen on a level playing field either. Carrier-locked phones, camera phones where you have to pay to e-mail yourself the pictures you take, phones where you can't load any games other than the ones your carrier will sell you, etc., wouldn't exist, or wouldn't survive on the market very long, if the cell phone and cell phone service markets were on a level playing field.
There may be other options for phones and service, but they're nearly all bad trade-offs, all because of artificially imposed -- not technically necessary or even technically sensible -- restrictions designed not for the benefit of consumers, but for the benefit of propping up beloved business models.
I don't think my tax dollars should be spent enforcing strongly big-corporation biased IP laws. I don't think MY airwaves should be sold off to companies that are going to take advantage of limited RF spectrum, and their hold on a chunk of it, to give me a less favorable deal than a truly free market would provide.
By the way, if your brain can handle facts that don't fit into your cartoonish oversimplification of the world, I own an iPhone, I paid the full $600 for it, and I didn't bitch and moan that other people got $200 off later. I judged owning the phone to be worth $600 when I bought it, and I have no trouble dealing with that.
I'm not currently having any problems with my iPhone either. I'm not a "disgruntled customer" with an iBrick, and my sympathy for those performing risky hacks is limited.
I'm glad, however, that others are out their taking those risks and hacking their phones, because that's a very useful force in the marketplace, one that helps out where binary buy/don't-buy choices fail to provide sufficient pro-consumer market pressure. And if Apple deliberately went out their way to cause bricking, rather than merely not spending additional effort to avoid the problem, I'd consider that damn sleazy, and I would hope they take a big PR hit for that. I can't really say either way, however, because no one seems to know what the definitive answer is about this.
It looks like Apple did go out of they're way to break non-iTunes store ring tones via iToner, and I think that is scummy of them. Does my ire about that rise high enough to make me never, ever buy an iPhone again? Probably not. Even if it did, my own personal iPhone boycott would be very, very unlikely to amount to sufficient market pressure to make any difference.
If I trusted the hacks, I'd much, much rather buy an iPhone and hack it to my liking rather than treat the EULA as a sacred blood oath, to be strictly followed or not entered into at all, because of all of the available choices on the market, a custom-hacked iPhone is potentially the best choice of all.
If I can create my own best choice for a cell phone or other product, rather than wait for a market that protects itself with favorable laws and monopolistic powers from having to be fully responsive to consumer desires, why not? What, in your opinion, is so damned noble about either choosing to live without a cell phone, or only strictly following EULAs for whatever you buy?
You seem to have a vindictive streak that delights in the idea of deliberate bricking to "punish" anyone who doesn't fall in line like sheep and either settle for exactly what their given, or not buy a product at all.
A note of irony for those feeling all high-and-mighty about being good, EULA-abiding doobies, eager to see all of those who aren't such goody two-shoes suffer: Apple got its start based largely based on money Steve Jobs made selling "blue boxes" -- devices for hacking the phone system and steal service from the phone companies.
Much of the outcry stems from sudden changes in Apple policies and the now dangerously uncertain corporate/consumer relationship. Apple is alienating much of their fan base by intentionally blocking advancements. (How about a world without podcasts, anyone?) They are expanding their power from owning all things Apple, to controlling all things Apple and users don't want to give up that power. Looking back, the signs are obvious (e.g. "Made for iPod" marketing ploy). Unfortunately, our power over the products we buy is dwindling away one by one. I personally do not like the road we are headed down and see no resolution to this problem without humiliation and serious backlash against Apple. I like this company and am a Apple fan, but they are making wrong choices hand over fist since working with AT&T. The only certainty from this alliance is that it will either hurt Apple or its costomers.
I think this is very short sighted of you. It seems like you are blaming apples decisions on AT&T. AT&T was pretty much the only network operator in the United States that could service a nationwide GSM phone. They were the only company willing to push their own proprietary mobile web service to the side (and it's potentional revenue rewards). AT&T makes nothing (or possibly very little) each time you buy a ringtone.. they make nothing when you buy a song. The iPhone is a new system, it is also a new operating system. Apple is trying to make the phone stable and that is where I believe their primary concern should be. 3rd party developers will have to wait until there is a stable product. I went through this in the early days of Windows Mobile. I was lucky enough to have a device which was supported through several OS updates, however each time I upgraded it broke any 3rd party apps which I had installed. The iPhone is no different. The API is a moving target and it is easier for them to disallow 3rd party apps then it would be to deal with the complaints everytime they broke something which causes a few thousand people to have to purchase an update to continue using the 3rd party app.
Not to mention with the multi-market releases there is defiently more effort being placed on getting the products to market in a timely fashion then there is on making the camera record video so a drunk frat boy can take a picture of his girlfriend stripping at the bar and email it to his friends.
I bought a phone, and as long as it continues to make phone calls.. I will enjoy it. Apple has always had a bad track record bringing new products to market. They are the kings of hype but they can't aways control the spin after launch.. hmm.. I'm mixing too many analogies here.. but I think you get the point.
You simply can't handle dealing with my real argument, can you?
...
What, in your opinion, is so damned noble about either choosing to live without a cell phone, or only strictly following EULAs for whatever you buy?
You seem to have a vindictive streak that delights in the idea of deliberate bricking to "punish" anyone who doesn't fall in line like sheep and either settle for exactly what their given, or not buy a product at all.
A note of irony for those feeling all high-and-mighty about being good, EULA-abiding doobies, eager to see all of those who aren't such goody two-shoes suffer: Apple got its start based largely based on money Steve Jobs made selling "blue boxes" -- devices for hacking the phone system and steal service from the phone companies.
First, you have no real arguments. You ramble and make accusations. Thats not presenting an argument.
Next, the "nobility" thing is a figment of your imagination. I made no claim to noble behavior, nor did I impugn the behavior of those that don't follow the EULA.
My position is - once someone breaks the agreement they made with Apple, they shouldn't bitch 'cause Apple considers their agreement with them broken. Don't screw them over and they won't screw you over.
I personally see it as an integrity thing, not an aspect of nobility. You confusing my position isn't surprising though, considering your ramblings. I live up to the commitments I make. I don't make them lightly. It's neither noble nor is not living up to ones agreements ignoble - it's unethical.
You asked where you posted that the consumer doesn't have choices. I did. Your argument hinges on that and I provided evidence that proves the consumer does, indeed, have choices. You have failed to provide any evidence to the contrary. Oh, you provided a lot of opinion.. a lot of hot air too, but no evidence. Sucks to be you.
You see, I'm not vindictive. I'm just pointing out that your argument lacks any logical premise because it's inaccurate. That fact isn't my fault.
First, you have no real arguments. You ramble and make accusations. Thats not presenting an argument.
No, you just have a very stilted, cramped view of what an "argument" entails -- anything beyond cut and dried, yes/no, black/white statements of rules and encyclopedic facts seems to be beyond your ability to cope.
Pretty much all interesting arguments about real world issues involve opinion, conjecture, etc. You'd have to engage at a much more subtle, nuanced level than you willing or capable of doing to participate in that kind of discussion. All you can do, apparently, is bleat "You have no facts! You haven't proven anything!"
Quote:
Next, the "nobility" thing is a figment of your imagination. I personally see it as an integrity thing, not an aspect of nobility. You confusing my position isn't surprising though, considering your ramblings.
Yes, I suppose it is all rambling to a simple, dull mind. I'd get a more engaging conversation by talking to one of my cats. And you apparently don't even know that the concepts of nobility and integrity are loose synonyms, with integrity being the common concept here -- not that I actually think you're a great example of either from the dishonest way you conduct an argument, although I imagine you style yourself to be quite virtuous.
Quote:
You asked where you posted that the consumer doesn't have choices. I did.
No, you did not. You said that I said consumers had NO choices. You then quoted a passage where I cited factors that lead to LIMITATIONS of choices, reasons why the available choices are not always such great choices. Nowhere in the quoted passage -- apart from you own apparently congenital inability to grasp the slightest nuance -- did I ever say there were NO choices, and your counterargument depends greatly on that overblown straw man version of what I've said.
I find it interesting that you consider that as a rebuttal. it speaks volumes about you, almost as much as your insistence for entitlement.
You assert monopolistic powers exist and are at work and that there is no one else for the consumer to turn to. Now you're taking exception because I took your assertions to mean consumers had no choices? (see post #49)
If you don't know what the big words mean, you shouldn't use them. Either that, or retract the whole "monopoly" thing, take your pick.
I find it interesting that you consider that as a rebuttal. it speaks volumes about you, almost as much as your insistence for entitlement.
I find it interesting that you continue to evade the slightest bit of discussion that would take you beyond your limited comfort zone for dealing with a nuanced adult conversation.
Or that you can't even deal with your problem of distinguishing LIMITED vs. NONE.
I find it interesting that you continue to evade the slightest bit of discussion that would take you beyond your limited comfort zone for dealing with a nuanced adult conversation.
Or that you can't even deal with your problem of distinguishing LIMITED vs. NONE.
I told you before - I don't disagree with opinions. Everyone's got their right to them. It's when someone makes false assertions that I feel need to be corrected (because in this case its so outlandish) that I feel the need to correct them. As for "adult", you got a ways to go before. I'd classify your diatribe as adult. Come back in 30 years.
I told you before - I don't disagree with opinions. Everyone's got their right to them.
Most interesting adult conversations about about real-world issues involve discussing opinions and their relative merits. Everyone having a "right" to an opinion has nothing to do with discussing or not discussing the relative merits of those opinion that people rightfully have.
Quote:
It's when someone makes false assertions that I feel need to be corrected (because in this case its so outlandish) that I feel the need to correct them.
You've failed to point out a single false assertion that didn't derive from your own exaggeration or oversimplification of things I said. You're a champ at beating up on your own straw men though -- I'll grant you that.
Quote:
As for "adult", you got a ways to go before. I'd classify your diatribe as adult. Come back in 30 years.
By your own admission ("I don't disagree with opinions") you've ruled yourself out from participation in most of what exists of interesting adult conversation. I guess what that leaves for you is imperiously pronouncing judgment (and providing "correction") on whatever you can oversimplify into fitting into your limited discussion range.
It seems your definition of "diatribe" is any discussion that wanders beyond that stultifying narrow range. (But that's just further diatribe, because I can't look it up in a book or published report to "prove" it to you.)
Most interesting adult conversations about about real-world issues involve discussing opinions and their relative merits. Everyone having a "right" to an opinion has nothing to do with discussing or not discussing the relative merits of those opinion that people rightfully have.
There's nothing to discuss. You claimed a monopoly exists keeping the consumer down where the iPhone is concerned when no such monopoly exists except as a figment of your imagination. Any proof to the contrary (in the form of a link to a site that provides competitive products of all stripes) was met with ... whatever you met it with, but whatever it was, it wasn't discussing the relative merits of the evidence, it was crap and bluster. You tell me I'm black and white one moment, you accuse me of strawmen, the next. All as a cover to avoid the only point I've made - the core of your argument is inaccurate and that makes the entirety of it illogical and inaccurate. More, I don't think you're capable of an adult conversation. It's probably 'cause you're too young.
Quote:
It seems your definition of "diatribe" is any discussion that wanders beyond that stultifying narrow range. (But that's just further diatribe, because I can't look it up in a book or published report to "prove" it to you.)
My definition of the word is the same as the one in the dictionary.
Bottom line:
I believe you have no evidence to support your assertion that a monopoly (or a near monopoly, whichever assertion you want to support... you made both) exists in the cellular phone market and has anything to do with the introduction and sale of the iPhone.
I've provided evidence that supports my assertion that the consumer is totally and thoroughly in control, in the form of a link to competitive products and the fact that a 30% reduction in the price of the device occurred weeks after product introduction.
I've said it before, I'm saying it again, and all you've done is dance the fools dance trying to avoid substantiating your assertion. You want to delve into "opinion" 'cause you ain't got no facts, Jack. You're talk and no walk. Back your shit up now if you want to continue this, or come back with more of your crap if you want it to end. It's up to you. I don't care one way or the other, but the dance you're dancing is getting old and I'm growing tired of watching you make a fool of yourself.
You know, adult conversations usually includes people supporting their assertions. In fact, I don't see how an adult conversation can take place if a challenged assertion isn't supported by some kind of structured logic or evidence. You might want to consider that. If you want to engage with me in adult conversation and debate, bring your facts with you along with the proof to back them up. Otherwise, have a nice day, kid.
Perhaps if I kept this down to "Oh, you're such a good cat!" you'd be able to handle the discussion.
Quote:
You claimed a monopoly exists keeping the consumer down where the iPhone is concerned when no such monopoly exists except as a figment of your imagination.
What a thoroughly exaggerated, unsubtle take on what I said.
Quote:
Any proof to the contrary (in the form of a link to a site that provides competitive products of all stripes) was met with ... whatever you met it with, but whatever it was, it wasn't discussing the relative merits of the evidence, it was crap and bluster.
What am I supposed to be "proving"? What I actually said, or what you think I said?
Quote:
You tell me I'm black and white one moment, you accuse me of strawmen, the next.
The two accusations go together. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to figure out the connection. If you can't even connect those two things (sort of like the way the nobility/integrity connection that escaped you earlier) you're pretty much hopeless.
Quote:
All as a cover to avoid the only point I've made - the core of your argument is inaccurate and that makes the entirety of it illogical and inaccurate.
Because nothing seems to be able to shake you free of rigid, binary thinking, you haven't a clue what the "core of [my] argument" is to be able to comment on it.
Quote:
I believe you have no evidence to support your assertion that a monopoly (or a near monopoly, whichever assertion you want to support... you made both) exists in the cellular phone market and has anything to do with the introduction and sale of the iPhone.
This is not about number of products, or availability of service, it's about restrictive terms of service and deliberate "misfeatures". Do you wish to deny the existence of restrictive terms of service? Do you wish to deny the existence of deliberately feature-crippled phones? Do you wish to assert that those phenomena are expressions of TOTAL consumer choice?
Quote:
I've provided evidence that supports my assertion that the consumer is totally and thoroughly in control, in the form of a link to competitive products and the fact that a 30% reduction in the price of the device occurred weeks after product introduction.
You've provided no such evidence whatsoever. You state a few facts, and draw an absurdly exaggerated conclusion from them. Pointing to a range of production a price reductions does not prove TOTAL consumer control. Partial control? Yes. Total? No. There's some real competition out there, no doubt about that, but the big carriers (especially in the US) have much more power than the consumer to set the terms of that competition than consumers do.
Being able to buy ringtones for the iPhone only from the iTunes Store is, I take it, a consumer-driven feature? The masses cried out, "Oh, please! Limit my ringtone choices and make me pay for the same music twice!"? This is where the "shit sandwich" analogy comes in. No consumer wants that limitation, but that's the shit the consumer has to take in order to get the rest of what is good about an iPhone. You can avoid that particular lump of shit by choosing a different phone or different carrier or different service plan, but those options will all have their own shit too, often artificially imposed.
Just compare the European and Asian cell phone markets to the American market. The iPhone is an incredibly rare exception for a "hot new phone" hitting the US market first. I've heard many people from outside the US comment in dismay about how poor the selection of phones and features is in the US.
What do you imagine the biggest reason is for that difference? American consumers simply want less out of a cell phone? Via their "total control" over the marketplace they've asserted a clear desire for older technology with lesser capabilities? Or could it be that laws in most other countries force carriers elsewhere to be more competitive with each other? Perhaps that it's harder elsewhere for a phone company to force a cell phone manufacture to cripple a phone to the phone company's advantage?
Quote:
You know, adult conversations usually includes people supporting their assertions.
I have no problem supporting my assertions. But I have no obligation to support your barely recognizable take on what my assertions are.
Comments
Ever hear of "the squeaky wheel gets the grease"? The bitchers and whiners, while they represent a minority, are a very vocal minority... prolly due to their Type-A, early-adopter personalities.
The squeaky wheel gets the grease if the guy that has the grease hears it.
Who here has grease?
Since you based your argument on the fact you consider the consumer helpless
I never said "helpless". Only having weak control and a very blunt instrument for effecting changes, yes, but not "helpless". Half-reading what I wrote includes overlaying what I wrote with your own convenient oversimplifications.
That effectively discounted the entirety of your argument since it's underpinnings had been shown to be unfounded. Based on that, I don't HAVE to respond to the rest, QED.
You glossed over my point with a sloppy mischaracterization and oversimplification, you hardly addressed it.
The consumer has TONS of other manufactures that produce items that compete with Apple and it's iPhone product to chose from. There is no monopoly.
No one offers anything as good as the web browser in an iPhone, and we have yet to see if anyone can provide a touch interface as good -- which might be hard given Apple patents on that. I don't consider giving up the good points of the iPhone, simply because of a EULA and deliberate technology crippling, and especially because the manufacturer is deliberately fighting back against the consumer taking more control over his or her own device, "TONS" of choice.
Corporate power allows the range of product offerings to be like a cafeteria that only serves shit sandwiches, where it's illegal to take the shit out of the sandwich, and your only choices are about the amount of shit and kind of shit you eat, or not to eat at all.
The consumer can take their iPhone and open it, change it, eat it, bury it, etc. The consumer has total control over what he or she does with the device. What the consumer doesn't have is control over the intellectual property (the code that makes the iPhone more than a collection of electronic parts and turns it into the premium device that it is) that he or she agrees at the onset of the activation of the device belongs to Apple and ONLY Apple.
I don't go along with the current trend in IP law to grant such over-arching control over how software and hardware is used. If I'm not trying to steal the IP and re-sell it, merely modifying it for my own use and benefit, I don't give a damn about how the IP owner wants to restrict my use.
Don't agree, but if you do, then honor your agreement.
You've completely ignored what I've said about the DRM example. Care to address where we'd be right now in regards to DRM if everyone in the world was such a Dudley Do-Right about the one-sided, no-bargaining-power-other-than-buy-it-or-don't world of corporate-written EULAs?
I never said "helpless". Only having weak control and a very blunt instrument for effecting changes, yes, but not "helpless". Half-reading what I wrote includes overlaying what I wrote with your own convenient oversimplifications.
OK. That doesn't support your claim and it doesn't weaken mine, but whatever. You can bitch all day about what words are used, it's your dime. You're still wrong. The consumer has total control. Period. ... unless you can provide evidence where a consumer was forced to purchase a phone, that is. Good luck with that.
You glossed over my point with a sloppy mischaracterization and oversimplification, you hardly addressed it.
OK. I glossed. You don't like my characterization. Fine. You've still failed to provide any evidence for your assertions.
No one offers anything as good as the web browser in an iPhone, and we have yet to see if anyone can provide a touch interface as good -- which might be hard given Apple patents on that. I don't consider giving up the good points of the iPhone, simply because of a EULA and deliberate technology crippling, and especially because the manufacturer is deliberately fighting back against the consumer taking more control over his or her own device, "TONS" of choice.
The quality of a product doesn't a monopolist make. You DO realize how lame that argument is, right? "Apple makes the best, therefore the consumer is forced to fight against the EULA!" - it lacks something... Oh yeah, logic!
Corporate power allows the range of product offerings to be like a cafeteria that only serves shit sandwiches, where it's illegal to take the shit out of the sandwich, and your only choices are about the amount of shit and kind of shit you eat, or not to eat at all.
I pick "not to eat", but if you feel compelled to start munching, I'd say it's a reflection on you, not the corporation. After all - I'm not going to frequent that establishment and you don't have to either.
I don't go along with the current trend in IP law to grant such over-arching control over how software and hardware is used. If I'm not trying to steal the IP and re-sell it, merely modifying it for my own use and benefit, I don't give a damn about how the IP owner wants to restrict my use.
Good for you! It doesn't mean anything, but hey, if saying that made you feel better, it's all good, right? The law of the land may or may not need to change, but all we have to work with are the cards on the table.
You've completely ignored what I've said about the DRM example. Care to address where we'd be right now in regards to DRM if everyone in the world was such a Dudley Do-Right about the one-sided, no-bargaining-power-other-than-buy-it-or-don't world of corporate-written EULAs?
I've ignored the castle in the sky 'cause it's based on ... nothing. It's opinion and as such, I can't argue with you. I have opinions too. Everyone does.
Then there are facts, and I've presented those. You've not. Not only have you not, you can't substantiate your position with facts, whereas I have.
The consumer has all the power where phones, media players, and mobile internet access devices are concerned. Buy a Nokia, a Motorola, whatever. Not only that, but those are probably cheaper. Or, don't buy one. It's not a requirement. Oh, by the way - I didn't buy a Nokia. I didn't like their offering, but I don't go blaming them for it by posting crap on an internet forum... except to offer that fact as an example.
That's my proof. Argue against that, and show your work.
Corporate power allows the range of product offerings to be like a cafeteria that only serves shit sandwiches, where it's illegal to take the shit out of the sandwich, and your only choices are about the amount of shit and kind of shit you eat, or not to eat at all.
I pick "not to eat", but if you feel compelled to start munching, I'd say it's a reflection on you, not the corporation. After all - I'm not going to frequent that establishment and you don't have to either.
Easy for you to say. You don't live on campus.
The consumer has total control.
You make flat, grand assertions like that about how markets work, and I'm the one who has to provide proof? It's "total consumer control" until proven otherwise?
You've still failed to provide any evidence for your assertions.
What? Do you demand documentation of a official consumer survey to prove obvious truths like the fact that consumers aren't always thrilled with the range of options presented to them? This is "mere speculation" to you until otherwise proven?
There's a difference between a customer bitching that he can't buy a car for $20 that gets 300 mpg -- where the technology simply isn't there and the economics make no sense -- and the situation where a small number of electronics manufactures and carriers can use the power over the market that they have to artificially limit choices and cripple technology, driven by a desire to force a desired business model, regardless of available technology and consumer desires.
Especially when it comes to the carriers, who are supposedly being granted licenses to PUBLIC airwaves for PUBLIC service, the public can (or could, if our politicians better represent the average consumer) and should demand what's best for the public interest in EXCHANGE for the RIGHT to use those airwaves, rather than letting the carriers dictate so much of the terms.
I'm not sure how much of the current iPhone limitations Apple would impose on its own, and how much is due to having to strike a deal with a carrier like AT&T, but you're living on another planet if you think a corporation like AT&T functions in an idealized Adam Smith market place of perfect competition, and doesn't have extra power over the consumer through sweetheart legislation.
Oh yeah, logic!I pick "not to eat", but if you feel compelled to start munching, I'd say it's a reflection on you, not the corporation. After all - I'm not going to frequent that establishment and you don't have to either.
Are you saying you'd simply live without a cellphone of any kind whatsoever in symbolic defiance of the choices of cell phones and cell phone contracts available if none of them perfectly suited you?
And even if you are such an oh-so-noble by-the-book creature, that you'd deprive yourself of a cellphone rather than buy one close to what you want and try to circumvent any annoying restrictions, do you imagine there are anywhere near enough consumers who behave that way to have significant market impact?
What I'm saying is that people breaking these restrictive rules provide a very useful market pressure that simple buy/don't buy decision making won't provide all by itself, and I'm very happy that they're out there and that I don't live in a world full of dutiful, obedient, let's-give-more-power-to-the-powerful consumerbots out of some corporate wet dream.
...but I don't go blaming them for it by posting crap on an internet forum... except to offer that fact as an example.
I'm not "blaming" anyone. I'm pointing out the useful addition to consumer power provided by having consumers who don't play strictly by the lopsided rules where one side rights all of the rules, writes the contracts, even writes the laws Congress passes, and the only input the consumer gets is to sign or not sign.
Just try bringing a lawyer with you the next time you try to buy cell phone service and see if you can re-negotiate a new contract for yourself. You'll see exactly how balanced the bargaining power is here.
...and show your work.
You've been working on that pedantic putz act of yours, haven't you?
This is an argument like arguing who's going to make the best next President -- there's can be no ultimate proof because not only is their no fixed criteria for "best", but you can't run experiments with multiple people being the next President in cleanly isolated parallel universes and then compare results at the end.
If you don't know how to handle complex arguments about messy, complicated real-world situations, and expect everything to boil down to simple statements of rules and "proofs", that's not my problem.
www.bestbuy.com
Now, I've shown proof that consumers have choices. It's not messy or complicated, heck, even a 12 year old can understand. Then again, I don't need to make it complicated to make my point...
Your move.
Now, I've shown proof that consumers have choices. It's not messy or complicated, heck, even a 12 year old can understand. Then again, I don't need to make it complicated to make my point...
You can't really be this dense about this -- I'll give you credit for not being that dumb -- so all I can think of is that you think this annoying pretense of not getting what I'm saying is some sort of effective rhetorical tool.
How about you "prove" to me where I've said that the consumer doesn't have choices? Hint: you have to be able to handle shades of gray, more than simple binary yes/no thinking, to respond to deal with this discussion.
It's not my obligation to prove stupidly oversimplified versions of what I've said to you.
You can't really be this dense about this -- I'll give you credit for not being that dumb -- so all I can think of is that you think this annoying pretense of not getting what I'm saying is some sort of effective rhetorical tool.
How about you "prove" to me where I've said that the consumer doesn't have choices? Hint: you have to be able to handle shades of gray, more than simple binary yes/no thinking, to respond to deal with this discussion.
It's not my obligation to prove stupidly oversimplified versions of what I've said to you.
When you have a product like the iPod, and even more so the iPhone, which can only be effectively produced and marketed by a small number of large companies, those companies don't have to be very responsive to consumer desires. Monopolistic (or effectively so) powers, plus lopsided intellectual property and telecommunications laws, mean that a whole industry can easily band together and not give people what they want, but rather "just enough" to keep them buying under less-than-wonderful terms, because the only other options are to do without a given product entirely, with no one else to turn to to buy a better version.
Do I need to explain what the big words mean?
More proof that consumers are in control: The iPhone price drop. Over 30% mere weeks after the product was introduced (by a newcomer in the phone business, no less!). Yeah, I bet you hate it when those monopolies drop their prices... er...
It's all too complicated. You won't understand.
Do I need to explain what the big words mean?
More proof that consumers are in control: The iPhone price drop. Over 30% mere weeks after the product was introduced. Yeah, I bet you hate it when those monopolies drop their prices... er...
It's all too complicated. You won't understand.
Poor choices is not no choices.
Some control is not total control.
Some responsiveness to some consumer demand is not always adequate responsiveness to all reasonable consumer demands.
Do I have to explain what "suffering from excessively binary thinking" means?
Poor choices is not no choices.
Some control is not total control.
Some responsiveness to some consumer demand is not always adequate responsiveness to all reasonable consumer demands.
Do I have to explain what "suffering from excessively binary thinking" means?
Nope, I think you've shown me all you can how one can suffer from excessive thinking, binary or otherwise.
You've tried to complicate things in your own mind so black is white and people are having their arms twisted in their purchase of phones in the highly competitive cellular phone business. I think you need to let your brain rest now.
You've tried to complicate things in your own mind so black is white and people are having their arms twisted in their purchase of phones in the highly competitive cellular phone business. I think you need to let your brain rest now.
You simply can't handle dealing with my real argument, can you? It seems every response you make is based on a binary simplification or excessive overstatement of what I've said. You can't argue against what I'm saying, for example, unless you superimpose "arm twisting" on top of my words.
It doesn't take "arm twisting" to get people to pay $2 or more for a 30-second ringtone. That kind of pricing, however, doesn't happen on a level playing field either. Carrier-locked phones, camera phones where you have to pay to e-mail yourself the pictures you take, phones where you can't load any games other than the ones your carrier will sell you, etc., wouldn't exist, or wouldn't survive on the market very long, if the cell phone and cell phone service markets were on a level playing field.
There may be other options for phones and service, but they're nearly all bad trade-offs, all because of artificially imposed -- not technically necessary or even technically sensible -- restrictions designed not for the benefit of consumers, but for the benefit of propping up beloved business models.
I don't think my tax dollars should be spent enforcing strongly big-corporation biased IP laws. I don't think MY airwaves should be sold off to companies that are going to take advantage of limited RF spectrum, and their hold on a chunk of it, to give me a less favorable deal than a truly free market would provide.
By the way, if your brain can handle facts that don't fit into your cartoonish oversimplification of the world, I own an iPhone, I paid the full $600 for it, and I didn't bitch and moan that other people got $200 off later. I judged owning the phone to be worth $600 when I bought it, and I have no trouble dealing with that.
I'm not currently having any problems with my iPhone either. I'm not a "disgruntled customer" with an iBrick, and my sympathy for those performing risky hacks is limited.
I'm glad, however, that others are out their taking those risks and hacking their phones, because that's a very useful force in the marketplace, one that helps out where binary buy/don't-buy choices fail to provide sufficient pro-consumer market pressure. And if Apple deliberately went out their way to cause bricking, rather than merely not spending additional effort to avoid the problem, I'd consider that damn sleazy, and I would hope they take a big PR hit for that. I can't really say either way, however, because no one seems to know what the definitive answer is about this.
It looks like Apple did go out of they're way to break non-iTunes store ring tones via iToner, and I think that is scummy of them. Does my ire about that rise high enough to make me never, ever buy an iPhone again? Probably not. Even if it did, my own personal iPhone boycott would be very, very unlikely to amount to sufficient market pressure to make any difference.
If I trusted the hacks, I'd much, much rather buy an iPhone and hack it to my liking rather than treat the EULA as a sacred blood oath, to be strictly followed or not entered into at all, because of all of the available choices on the market, a custom-hacked iPhone is potentially the best choice of all.
If I can create my own best choice for a cell phone or other product, rather than wait for a market that protects itself with favorable laws and monopolistic powers from having to be fully responsive to consumer desires, why not? What, in your opinion, is so damned noble about either choosing to live without a cell phone, or only strictly following EULAs for whatever you buy?
You seem to have a vindictive streak that delights in the idea of deliberate bricking to "punish" anyone who doesn't fall in line like sheep and either settle for exactly what their given, or not buy a product at all.
A note of irony for those feeling all high-and-mighty about being good, EULA-abiding doobies, eager to see all of those who aren't such goody two-shoes suffer: Apple got its start based largely based on money Steve Jobs made selling "blue boxes" -- devices for hacking the phone system and steal service from the phone companies.
Much of the outcry stems from sudden changes in Apple policies and the now dangerously uncertain corporate/consumer relationship. Apple is alienating much of their fan base by intentionally blocking advancements. (How about a world without podcasts, anyone?) They are expanding their power from owning all things Apple, to controlling all things Apple and users don't want to give up that power. Looking back, the signs are obvious (e.g. "Made for iPod" marketing ploy). Unfortunately, our power over the products we buy is dwindling away one by one. I personally do not like the road we are headed down and see no resolution to this problem without humiliation and serious backlash against Apple. I like this company and am a Apple fan, but they are making wrong choices hand over fist since working with AT&T. The only certainty from this alliance is that it will either hurt Apple or its costomers.
I think this is very short sighted of you. It seems like you are blaming apples decisions on AT&T. AT&T was pretty much the only network operator in the United States that could service a nationwide GSM phone. They were the only company willing to push their own proprietary mobile web service to the side (and it's potentional revenue rewards). AT&T makes nothing (or possibly very little) each time you buy a ringtone.. they make nothing when you buy a song. The iPhone is a new system, it is also a new operating system. Apple is trying to make the phone stable and that is where I believe their primary concern should be. 3rd party developers will have to wait until there is a stable product. I went through this in the early days of Windows Mobile. I was lucky enough to have a device which was supported through several OS updates, however each time I upgraded it broke any 3rd party apps which I had installed. The iPhone is no different. The API is a moving target and it is easier for them to disallow 3rd party apps then it would be to deal with the complaints everytime they broke something which causes a few thousand people to have to purchase an update to continue using the 3rd party app.
Not to mention with the multi-market releases there is defiently more effort being placed on getting the products to market in a timely fashion then there is on making the camera record video so a drunk frat boy can take a picture of his girlfriend stripping at the bar and email it to his friends.
I bought a phone, and as long as it continues to make phone calls.. I will enjoy it. Apple has always had a bad track record bringing new products to market. They are the kings of hype but they can't aways control the spin after launch.. hmm.. I'm mixing too many analogies here.. but I think you get the point.
You simply can't handle dealing with my real argument, can you?
...
What, in your opinion, is so damned noble about either choosing to live without a cell phone, or only strictly following EULAs for whatever you buy?
You seem to have a vindictive streak that delights in the idea of deliberate bricking to "punish" anyone who doesn't fall in line like sheep and either settle for exactly what their given, or not buy a product at all.
A note of irony for those feeling all high-and-mighty about being good, EULA-abiding doobies, eager to see all of those who aren't such goody two-shoes suffer: Apple got its start based largely based on money Steve Jobs made selling "blue boxes" -- devices for hacking the phone system and steal service from the phone companies.
First, you have no real arguments. You ramble and make accusations. Thats not presenting an argument.
Next, the "nobility" thing is a figment of your imagination. I made no claim to noble behavior, nor did I impugn the behavior of those that don't follow the EULA.
My position is - once someone breaks the agreement they made with Apple, they shouldn't bitch 'cause Apple considers their agreement with them broken. Don't screw them over and they won't screw you over.
I personally see it as an integrity thing, not an aspect of nobility. You confusing my position isn't surprising though, considering your ramblings. I live up to the commitments I make. I don't make them lightly. It's neither noble nor is not living up to ones agreements ignoble - it's unethical.
You asked where you posted that the consumer doesn't have choices. I did. Your argument hinges on that and I provided evidence that proves the consumer does, indeed, have choices. You have failed to provide any evidence to the contrary. Oh, you provided a lot of opinion.. a lot of hot air too, but no evidence. Sucks to be you.
You see, I'm not vindictive. I'm just pointing out that your argument lacks any logical premise because it's inaccurate. That fact isn't my fault.
First, you have no real arguments. You ramble and make accusations. Thats not presenting an argument.
No, you just have a very stilted, cramped view of what an "argument" entails -- anything beyond cut and dried, yes/no, black/white statements of rules and encyclopedic facts seems to be beyond your ability to cope.
Pretty much all interesting arguments about real world issues involve opinion, conjecture, etc. You'd have to engage at a much more subtle, nuanced level than you willing or capable of doing to participate in that kind of discussion. All you can do, apparently, is bleat "You have no facts! You haven't proven anything!"
Next, the "nobility" thing is a figment of your imagination. I personally see it as an integrity thing, not an aspect of nobility. You confusing my position isn't surprising though, considering your ramblings.
Yes, I suppose it is all rambling to a simple, dull mind. I'd get a more engaging conversation by talking to one of my cats. And you apparently don't even know that the concepts of nobility and integrity are loose synonyms, with integrity being the common concept here -- not that I actually think you're a great example of either from the dishonest way you conduct an argument, although I imagine you style yourself to be quite virtuous.
You asked where you posted that the consumer doesn't have choices. I did.
No, you did not. You said that I said consumers had NO choices. You then quoted a passage where I cited factors that lead to LIMITATIONS of choices, reasons why the available choices are not always such great choices. Nowhere in the quoted passage -- apart from you own apparently congenital inability to grasp the slightest nuance -- did I ever say there were NO choices, and your counterargument depends greatly on that overblown straw man version of what I've said.
You assert monopolistic powers exist and are at work and that there is no one else for the consumer to turn to. Now you're taking exception because I took your assertions to mean consumers had no choices? (see post #49)
If you don't know what the big words mean, you shouldn't use them. Either that, or retract the whole "monopoly" thing, take your pick.
I find it interesting that you consider that as a rebuttal. it speaks volumes about you, almost as much as your insistence for entitlement.
I find it interesting that you continue to evade the slightest bit of discussion that would take you beyond your limited comfort zone for dealing with a nuanced adult conversation.
Or that you can't even deal with your problem of distinguishing LIMITED vs. NONE.
I find it interesting that you continue to evade the slightest bit of discussion that would take you beyond your limited comfort zone for dealing with a nuanced adult conversation.
Or that you can't even deal with your problem of distinguishing LIMITED vs. NONE.
I told you before - I don't disagree with opinions. Everyone's got their right to them. It's when someone makes false assertions that I feel need to be corrected (because in this case its so outlandish) that I feel the need to correct them. As for "adult", you got a ways to go before. I'd classify your diatribe as adult. Come back in 30 years.
I told you before - I don't disagree with opinions. Everyone's got their right to them.
Most interesting adult conversations about about real-world issues involve discussing opinions and their relative merits. Everyone having a "right" to an opinion has nothing to do with discussing or not discussing the relative merits of those opinion that people rightfully have.
It's when someone makes false assertions that I feel need to be corrected (because in this case its so outlandish) that I feel the need to correct them.
You've failed to point out a single false assertion that didn't derive from your own exaggeration or oversimplification of things I said. You're a champ at beating up on your own straw men though -- I'll grant you that.
As for "adult", you got a ways to go before. I'd classify your diatribe as adult. Come back in 30 years.
By your own admission ("I don't disagree with opinions") you've ruled yourself out from participation in most of what exists of interesting adult conversation. I guess what that leaves for you is imperiously pronouncing judgment (and providing "correction") on whatever you can oversimplify into fitting into your limited discussion range.
It seems your definition of "diatribe" is any discussion that wanders beyond that stultifying narrow range. (But that's just further diatribe, because I can't look it up in a book or published report to "prove" it to you.)
Most interesting adult conversations about about real-world issues involve discussing opinions and their relative merits. Everyone having a "right" to an opinion has nothing to do with discussing or not discussing the relative merits of those opinion that people rightfully have.
There's nothing to discuss. You claimed a monopoly exists keeping the consumer down where the iPhone is concerned when no such monopoly exists except as a figment of your imagination. Any proof to the contrary (in the form of a link to a site that provides competitive products of all stripes) was met with ... whatever you met it with, but whatever it was, it wasn't discussing the relative merits of the evidence, it was crap and bluster. You tell me I'm black and white one moment, you accuse me of strawmen, the next. All as a cover to avoid the only point I've made - the core of your argument is inaccurate and that makes the entirety of it illogical and inaccurate. More, I don't think you're capable of an adult conversation. It's probably 'cause you're too young.
It seems your definition of "diatribe" is any discussion that wanders beyond that stultifying narrow range. (But that's just further diatribe, because I can't look it up in a book or published report to "prove" it to you.)
My definition of the word is the same as the one in the dictionary.
Bottom line:
I believe you have no evidence to support your assertion that a monopoly (or a near monopoly, whichever assertion you want to support... you made both) exists in the cellular phone market and has anything to do with the introduction and sale of the iPhone.
I've provided evidence that supports my assertion that the consumer is totally and thoroughly in control, in the form of a link to competitive products and the fact that a 30% reduction in the price of the device occurred weeks after product introduction.
I've said it before, I'm saying it again, and all you've done is dance the fools dance trying to avoid substantiating your assertion. You want to delve into "opinion" 'cause you ain't got no facts, Jack. You're talk and no walk. Back your shit up now if you want to continue this, or come back with more of your crap if you want it to end. It's up to you. I don't care one way or the other, but the dance you're dancing is getting old and I'm growing tired of watching you make a fool of yourself.
You know, adult conversations usually includes people supporting their assertions. In fact, I don't see how an adult conversation can take place if a challenged assertion isn't supported by some kind of structured logic or evidence. You might want to consider that. If you want to engage with me in adult conversation and debate, bring your facts with you along with the proof to back them up. Otherwise, have a nice day, kid.
There's nothing to discuss.
Perhaps if I kept this down to "Oh, you're such a good cat!" you'd be able to handle the discussion.
You claimed a monopoly exists keeping the consumer down where the iPhone is concerned when no such monopoly exists except as a figment of your imagination.
What a thoroughly exaggerated, unsubtle take on what I said.
Any proof to the contrary (in the form of a link to a site that provides competitive products of all stripes) was met with ... whatever you met it with, but whatever it was, it wasn't discussing the relative merits of the evidence, it was crap and bluster.
What am I supposed to be "proving"? What I actually said, or what you think I said?
You tell me I'm black and white one moment, you accuse me of strawmen, the next.
The two accusations go together. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to figure out the connection. If you can't even connect those two things (sort of like the way the nobility/integrity connection that escaped you earlier) you're pretty much hopeless.
All as a cover to avoid the only point I've made - the core of your argument is inaccurate and that makes the entirety of it illogical and inaccurate.
Because nothing seems to be able to shake you free of rigid, binary thinking, you haven't a clue what the "core of [my] argument" is to be able to comment on it.
I believe you have no evidence to support your assertion that a monopoly (or a near monopoly, whichever assertion you want to support... you made both) exists in the cellular phone market and has anything to do with the introduction and sale of the iPhone.
This is not about number of products, or availability of service, it's about restrictive terms of service and deliberate "misfeatures". Do you wish to deny the existence of restrictive terms of service? Do you wish to deny the existence of deliberately feature-crippled phones? Do you wish to assert that those phenomena are expressions of TOTAL consumer choice?
I've provided evidence that supports my assertion that the consumer is totally and thoroughly in control, in the form of a link to competitive products and the fact that a 30% reduction in the price of the device occurred weeks after product introduction.
You've provided no such evidence whatsoever. You state a few facts, and draw an absurdly exaggerated conclusion from them. Pointing to a range of production a price reductions does not prove TOTAL consumer control. Partial control? Yes. Total? No. There's some real competition out there, no doubt about that, but the big carriers (especially in the US) have much more power than the consumer to set the terms of that competition than consumers do.
Being able to buy ringtones for the iPhone only from the iTunes Store is, I take it, a consumer-driven feature? The masses cried out, "Oh, please! Limit my ringtone choices and make me pay for the same music twice!"? This is where the "shit sandwich" analogy comes in. No consumer wants that limitation, but that's the shit the consumer has to take in order to get the rest of what is good about an iPhone. You can avoid that particular lump of shit by choosing a different phone or different carrier or different service plan, but those options will all have their own shit too, often artificially imposed.
Just compare the European and Asian cell phone markets to the American market. The iPhone is an incredibly rare exception for a "hot new phone" hitting the US market first. I've heard many people from outside the US comment in dismay about how poor the selection of phones and features is in the US.
What do you imagine the biggest reason is for that difference? American consumers simply want less out of a cell phone? Via their "total control" over the marketplace they've asserted a clear desire for older technology with lesser capabilities? Or could it be that laws in most other countries force carriers elsewhere to be more competitive with each other? Perhaps that it's harder elsewhere for a phone company to force a cell phone manufacture to cripple a phone to the phone company's advantage?
You know, adult conversations usually includes people supporting their assertions.
I have no problem supporting my assertions. But I have no obligation to support your barely recognizable take on what my assertions are.