OK, you guys apparently don't understand how an analogy works. I suppose it's the fault of educational systems. It's OK, you aren't alone, analogies seem to be a tough one for a lot of people. Here's how they work...
In this analogy, the iPhone 5 is compared to something people know and understand is well made and precisely crafted: a Rolex watch. Other phones are said to be like something cheaply made, mass produced, inferior in all respects: a Timex watch. It doesn't matter that there are better watches, nor that there are cheaper watches, the point is simply that there is a gulf of quality between them.
See, there are only 2 columns, and each phone can only be in 1 of those 2 columns. There's not, in this analogy, some 3rd column that the iPhone didn't make it into, or some other mysterious columns that these other phones belong in. There are these two columns. The first, the "Rolex Quality" column, represents all the phones that have a build quality comparable to a Rolex. It doesn't matter that there are better watches, because no phones are said to be comparable to other, better watches. It doesn't matter that there are worse watches, because no phones are said to be comparable to other, more cheaply made watches. There are only two watches mentioned, and the rest are irrelevant to the comparison.
BTW, this should give a hint on how you might want to argue against the analogy. Better watches are irrelevant, unless you want to nudge the iPhone up to a higher pedestal, because there isn't a credible argument to be made that any other phone has even an equivalent build quality. However, you might argue that there are some that are more cheaply made than Timex watches (some have already argued this), or you might try to nudge your favorite phone up to some position between Timex and Rolex. Are you starting to understand how these analogies work?
Frankly, I think you've got a difficult argument to overcome this one. There is clearly a huge difference in the material and build quality of the iPhone 5 and the rest of the field. So, while you might be able to legitimately jockey for position down in the area around Timex, there isn't a valid argument to be made for any of these other phones that would push them up close to the Rolex level.
I hope this has been helpful and that you'll have an easier time understanding analogies in the future.
Of course (pedantic, smart-ass comments aside). You did leave out one important remark though. What matters in this type of analogy is the consumer's PERCEPTION of quality, not the actual quality. Even if Rolex watches were total crap, if the average consumer perceives them of being high quality, then the analogy still works.
However, I still think they could have chosen a better example than Rolex. To me, Rolex symbolizes overpriced, glitzy watches that are more about show than quality. The glitter and diamonds and massive gold bands alone make it unrepresentative of Apple's products. A better example would have been Movado (which focuses on minimalist design) but still represents a quality image.
While the analogy works with Rolex, it also creates undesirable side-images (more show than substance) which detracts from the analogy.
Other phones are said to be like something cheaply made, mass produced, inferior in all respects:
iPhones are mass produced and although they use high quality materials they can be manufactured at a very similar cost to any of the other smartphones. The thing that separates iPhone from the rest is industrial design and software. Rolexes are much more expensive than Timexes because they are made with 24k gold and diamonds but they don't keep better time. iPhones are not any more expensive than a Samsung SIII, for example. The original analogy was pompous.
... However, I still think they could have chosen a better example than Rolex. To me, Rolex symbolizes overpriced, glitzy watches that are more about show than quality. The glitter and diamonds and massive gold bands alone make it unrepresentative of Apple's products. ...
Interesting. When I think Rolex, I think something more like this:
Interesting. When I think Rolex, I think something more like this:
And that's my point. Look at the design of that watch. Clumsy and overcomplicated. Lots of design features that add absolutely no value. And that's probably one of the LEAST gaudy Rolex watches out there.
iPhones are mass produced and although they use high quality materials they can be manufactured at a very similar cost to any of the other smartphones. The thing that separates iPhone from the rest is industrial design and software. Rolexes are much more expensive than Timexes because they are made with 24k gold and diamonds but they don't keep better time. iPhones are not any more expensive than a Samsung SIII, for example. The original analogy was pompous.
I think it's important to think of PERCEPTIONS. For the average person, 'Rolex' means top quality at a premium price. The comparison "a Rolex among a sea of Timexes" (especially when they added "Rolex at a Timex price") gets the message across. The average consumer sees the Rolex as a premium product and the comparison says that you can get a premium product for the same price as a generic. They could have said "BMW at a Hyundai price" or "Ruth Chris at a McDonald's price" or "Chateau Lafitte at a Boone's Farm price" or any number of other comparisons.
It's fine to quibble about it, but the message was clear.
I think it's important to think of PERCEPTIONS. For the average person, 'Rolex' means top quality at a premium price. The comparison "a Rolex among a sea of Timexes" (especially when they added "Rolex at a Timex price") gets the message across. The average consumer sees the Rolex as a premium product and the comparison says that you can get a premium product for the same price as a generic. They could have said "BMW at a Hyundai price" or "Ruth Chris at a McDonald's price" or "Chateau Lafitte at a Boone's Farm price" or any number of other comparisons.
It's fine to quibble about it, but the message was clear.
emphasis mine - The analogy was well used and perfectly clear. A highly regarded well known(rolex) phone among a sea of otherwise shitty(android) phones. Perfect example.
And that's my point. Look at the design of that watch. Clumsy and overcomplicated. Lots of design features that add absolutely no value. And that's probably one of the LEAST gaudy Rolex watches out there.
There aren't any, "design features that add absolutely no value," on that watch, and most of Rolex's watches over the years are more like that than what you describe. The Movado is a nice watch to wear to the opera, but it doesn't offer the functionality of a Rolex.
I will agree that an iPhone's outward design shares many characteristics with a Movado, but, overall, Rolex is not a bad choice for the present analogy.
I think it's important to think of PERCEPTIONS. For the average person, 'Rolex' means top quality at a premium price. The comparison "a Rolex among a sea of Timexes" (especially when they added "Rolex at a Timex price") gets the message across. The average consumer sees the Rolex as a premium product and the comparison says that you can get a premium product for the same price as a generic. They could have said "BMW at a Hyundai price" or "Ruth Chris at a McDonald's price" or "Chateau Lafitte at a Boone's Farm price" or any number of other comparisons.
It's fine to quibble about it, but the message was clear.
I guess I was so unimpressed with the title that I failed to read the text that said get a Rolex at the same price as a Timex. Now that just sounds like a stolen Rolex. Sure I got the message just fine - iPhones are gorgeous compared to other smartphones. I have since noticed that Apple is also saying it is 'made with the level of precision of a finely crafted watch' on their website http://www.apple.com/iphone/design/
Regarding the conclusion of your post here, I already knew prior to their respective releases that Mountain Lion would be better than Windows 8 ... There are some things we can predict based upon experience. /grin
That is also very relative, but I wouldn't expect anything else from you ;-)
I think the point that is missed here is that Rolex watches are considered to be the brand that best holds its resale value.
The posters who pooh-pooh Rolexes as being worse than Timexes or quartz watches seem to prove themselves to be similar to Android fans who equate features to quality, even if they are wrapped in cheap plastic. The thing is that next year, there will be one thing faster, glitzier, more powerful that will have Android users dumping this year's shiny model. The iPhone is iconic because of its timeless quality, like Rolexes.
It's hard to beat the resale price of a Rolex Submariner that to this day is consider the standard for military divers.
There aren't any, "design features that add absolutely no value," on that watch, and most of Rolex's watches over the years are more like that than what you describe. The Movado is a nice watch to wear to the opera, but it doesn't offer the functionality of a Rolex.
I will agree that an iPhone's outward design shares many characteristics with a Movado, but, overall, Rolex is not a bad choice for the present analogy.
And there are many time pieces built better than a Rolex.
Sure, but an analyst making the statement that it's like a Patek Phillipe vs. a Baume & Mercier might not help the majority of people understand what he's saying.
iPhones are mass produced and although they use high quality materials they can be manufactured at a very similar cost to any of the other smartphones. The thing that separates iPhone from the rest is industrial design and software. Rolexes are much more expensive than Timexes because they are made with 24k gold and diamonds but they don't keep better time. iPhones are not any more expensive than a Samsung SIII, for example. The original analogy was pompous.
You have no idea what makes a Rolex expensive. First 24k gold is too soft and only a few Rolexes have diamonds. The precisely built internal mechanism is where the money's at.
You have no idea what makes a Rolex expensive. First 24k gold is too soft and only a few Rolexes have diamonds. The precisely built internal mechanism is where the money's at.
Actually, even though few people use them for diving, the real value is in the crystal and the oyster stem.
Let's see:
Faster processor
Lighter weight
Bigger screen
Better camera
LTE (which is available in hundreds of cities)
Yeah, no one could possibly use any of those features. /s
If they had dropped the iPhone 5 in exactly the same way, there would probably have been no breakage.
No one will know the difference between the iPhone 4 and 4S so they'll all buy the iPhone 4. I guess that's why the 4S was such a lousy seller. /s
All of those features are speed bump/improvements. Not that people won't use any of those features, but it's a matter of degree. I have an iPhone 4, I could drop $200 and upgrade it locking me to another two year contract, but none of those features justify that commitment to me -- you see? If money were no object, sure, why not -- just pay $700 and get an unlocked 5, right? The 4 does the job well, still meets all of my needs, without sacrificing too many features of iOS 6. Why should I upgrade for performance upgrades I may or may not see in the real world? I didn't see Em between the original iPhone and the 3G, or 3GS. But the 4 made a significant leap for me, to a place where I have no urgent need to improve anything, especially given the relatively unspectacular improvements on the 5. Would I recommend the 5 to someone with the 3G or 3GS -- you betcha. But the 4S will handle most, if not all, of the new features in a smaller form factor, and for less money. I would definitely encourage friends to consider that option as well.
As for the breakage, the 5 is essentially the same as the original iPhone in construction. The original iPhone suffered plenty of damage to the front glass with a metal back (even if not dropped on its face), and the metal suffered dents that could compromise the tightly packed interior components. Being of unibody construction, I would expect the 5 to keep its structural integrity a little better, and who knows if it has better shock absorption that the original iPhone with respect to the glass (and it still has two glass panels on the back). Either way, given the similarities to the original iPhone construction, I would expect it to be just as prone to damage, albeit less so than the 4/S. is this a reason not to buy the 5? No. But it's not a reason to buy the 5 either, even though I would call it an improvement.
Finally, the 4S sold better than the 4 because it was the latest, greatest offering from Apple and had Siri. There will be a lot of people who buy the 5, perhaps the majority, because it is the latest & greatest, not because they need all, or any of the improved features. I don't know anything about TI, other than what my friends who work their tell me, that many of the employees who just bought the 4S last year, plan on paying the early upgrade fee to get the iPhone 5, simply because they want it and can, not because they need it. Ultimately, I'm just putting out thoughts for discussion here, I haven't seen any sales figures. But given that the 4 and 4S are so similar in both appearance and performance, I would speculate that those who don't care about Siri, will likely opt for the free 4, and the rest opt for the 5, leaving the minority to choose the 4S. Again without seeing any data, I would suggest this stands in contrast to those choosing to pay for the 4, over the free 3GS, because it looked like the 4S, and had similar features.
Why is looking at the new iPhone release pragmatically automatically considered trolling? Why do people who express opinions get slammed as if they are espousing facts? forums are a place to discuss ideas. Ocassionally someone will offer facts in which case, yeah -- call them on the source. But generally, I find anything less than unbridled, blind enthusiasm for even the most modest improvement of an Apple product on this forum is met with vitriol and bile. But whatever ... Just an observation. I don't really take any of this too seriously ... It's a rumor forum, and even the most cogent of debaters on this forum are routinely wrong.
Not a good analogy in my opinion. There are so many great watches out there, but smartphones, not so much... And if we are talking about Swiss watches, there are plenty of watches in that price and quality category that I would choose over a Rolex.
Not a PERFECT analogy -- but what would fit any better? Rolex is just a well-known name.
Of course, he could have said; "The iphone is an iPhone in a sea of Androids" but that would be a bit self-referrential.
Neither Rolls nor Rolex. The Rolex analogy fails on so many levels - Thinner/sleeker? Form following function? Rolex is nothing except a statement that a gunked-up, ungainly Roccoco piece of junk does nothing better than any $10 timepiece, but means "I have (or had) some money to blow on conspicious consumption. See? See?" The one thing they have in common is that both are knocked off by other companies.
And Rolls-Royce also fails, unless you consider having to hire a chauffeur akin to using Siri.
If you want an examplar of sexy, consumer lusted for build quality and high tech (that unlike the Rolls Royce actually sells in some quantity and someone in your hood can be seen driving one) a BMW or Audi in what someone else cleverly called "a sea of Kias" is more on the money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by flippysc
What's a watch?
Kind of like a look only more focused.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
I don't understand why people that read about watch makers call themselves horologists. You aren't studying time, you're studying timepieces. When I read about sports I don't call myself an athlete. It's very different to know the stats and history of players and teams, then how to be one. Horologists are the people that build the timepieces to be so exact with the time, not the people who drool over a glossy photo of a $300,000 watch in Forbes magazine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Horology is the study of the art or science of time measurement. Is calling a timepiece enthusiast a horologist overkill? Probably but most are elitist, self serving mofos that need to feel important.
I study prostitutes, so that makes me a....... ;-p
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodent
What a crock! It's just a stupid iPhone, another in a series, # 5s is coming and then 6 then 6s etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SWS
OOOOO NO!!!
You CRACKED the code!!!! You must be a very learned individual. You have it all figured out. Now that we now the system, we can just go back to using land lines. You know. Now that we know the fix is in. . . .
NEWS FLASH. This is the best iPhone made. And the next one that comes out, if Apple does their job, will be even better. That's how it works. Apple sells technology. Not rocks. Technology improves. Apple makes money on improving technology. Get over it.
Don't worry, there's a conspiracy theory for that too. As in "everybody" knows they're holding back all the good stuff in "the secret" back room - the one where the giant corporations have been holding those carburetors (remember carburetors?) that allow cars to run 300 miles on a gallon of water, tires that never wear out, etc. since I was a kid - and others I still hear today.....
Americans Have Spent $5.9 Billion on Damaged iPhones
The latest SquareTrade iPhone study is out, and the revelations in it are sure to shock. The biggest news out of it? iPhones break, and that costs Americans a pretty penny!
Damaged iPhones have cost Americans $5.9 billion since 2007
30% of iPhone owners have experienced accidental damage in the past 12 months
17% of iPhone owners have damaged an iPhone more than once
Comments
Of course (pedantic, smart-ass comments aside). You did leave out one important remark though. What matters in this type of analogy is the consumer's PERCEPTION of quality, not the actual quality. Even if Rolex watches were total crap, if the average consumer perceives them of being high quality, then the analogy still works.
However, I still think they could have chosen a better example than Rolex. To me, Rolex symbolizes overpriced, glitzy watches that are more about show than quality. The glitter and diamonds and massive gold bands alone make it unrepresentative of Apple's products. A better example would have been Movado (which focuses on minimalist design) but still represents a quality image.
While the analogy works with Rolex, it also creates undesirable side-images (more show than substance) which detracts from the analogy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Other phones are said to be like something cheaply made, mass produced, inferior in all respects:
iPhones are mass produced and although they use high quality materials they can be manufactured at a very similar cost to any of the other smartphones. The thing that separates iPhone from the rest is industrial design and software. Rolexes are much more expensive than Timexes because they are made with 24k gold and diamonds but they don't keep better time. iPhones are not any more expensive than a Samsung SIII, for example. The original analogy was pompous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
... However, I still think they could have chosen a better example than Rolex. To me, Rolex symbolizes overpriced, glitzy watches that are more about show than quality. The glitter and diamonds and massive gold bands alone make it unrepresentative of Apple's products. ...
Interesting. When I think Rolex, I think something more like this:
And that's my point. Look at the design of that watch. Clumsy and overcomplicated. Lots of design features that add absolutely no value. And that's probably one of the LEAST gaudy Rolex watches out there.
Now, compare it to this:
http://www.ashford.com/watches/movado/corporate-exclusive/0605975.pid?source=602555123
or
http://www.overstock.com/Jewelry-Watches/Movado-Womens-Museum-Watch/6581056/product.html?cid=144060&fp=F&TRACK=CSEPG&mr:referralID=61d24787-ff6a-11e1-8751-001b2166c2c0
or
http://shop.nordstrom.com/s/movado-concerto-ladies-bracelet-watch/3146202?cm_cat=datafeed&cm_ite=movado_'concerto'_ladies'_bracelet_watch:333780_1&cm_pla=jewelry:women:watch&cm_ven=pricegrabber&mr:referralID=73c238c0-ff6a-11e1-8751-001b2166c2c0
I think it's important to think of PERCEPTIONS. For the average person, 'Rolex' means top quality at a premium price. The comparison "a Rolex among a sea of Timexes" (especially when they added "Rolex at a Timex price") gets the message across. The average consumer sees the Rolex as a premium product and the comparison says that you can get a premium product for the same price as a generic. They could have said "BMW at a Hyundai price" or "Ruth Chris at a McDonald's price" or "Chateau Lafitte at a Boone's Farm price" or any number of other comparisons.
It's fine to quibble about it, but the message was clear.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
I think it's important to think of PERCEPTIONS. For the average person, 'Rolex' means top quality at a premium price. The comparison "a Rolex among a sea of Timexes" (especially when they added "Rolex at a Timex price") gets the message across. The average consumer sees the Rolex as a premium product and the comparison says that you can get a premium product for the same price as a generic. They could have said "BMW at a Hyundai price" or "Ruth Chris at a McDonald's price" or "Chateau Lafitte at a Boone's Farm price" or any number of other comparisons.
It's fine to quibble about it, but the message was clear.
emphasis mine - The analogy was well used and perfectly clear. A highly regarded well known(rolex) phone among a sea of otherwise shitty(android) phones. Perfect example.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
And that's my point. Look at the design of that watch. Clumsy and overcomplicated. Lots of design features that add absolutely no value. And that's probably one of the LEAST gaudy Rolex watches out there.
There aren't any, "design features that add absolutely no value," on that watch, and most of Rolex's watches over the years are more like that than what you describe. The Movado is a nice watch to wear to the opera, but it doesn't offer the functionality of a Rolex.
I will agree that an iPhone's outward design shares many characteristics with a Movado, but, overall, Rolex is not a bad choice for the present analogy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
I think it's important to think of PERCEPTIONS. For the average person, 'Rolex' means top quality at a premium price. The comparison "a Rolex among a sea of Timexes" (especially when they added "Rolex at a Timex price") gets the message across. The average consumer sees the Rolex as a premium product and the comparison says that you can get a premium product for the same price as a generic. They could have said "BMW at a Hyundai price" or "Ruth Chris at a McDonald's price" or "Chateau Lafitte at a Boone's Farm price" or any number of other comparisons.
It's fine to quibble about it, but the message was clear.
I guess I was so unimpressed with the title that I failed to read the text that said get a Rolex at the same price as a Timex. Now that just sounds like a stolen Rolex. Sure I got the message just fine - iPhones are gorgeous compared to other smartphones. I have since noticed that Apple is also saying it is 'made with the level of precision of a finely crafted watch' on their website http://www.apple.com/iphone/design/
That is also very relative, but I wouldn't expect anything else from you ;-)
The posters who pooh-pooh Rolexes as being worse than Timexes or quartz watches seem to prove themselves to be similar to Android fans who equate features to quality, even if they are wrapped in cheap plastic. The thing is that next year, there will be one thing faster, glitzier, more powerful that will have Android users dumping this year's shiny model. The iPhone is iconic because of its timeless quality, like Rolexes.
It's hard to beat the resale price of a Rolex Submariner that to this day is consider the standard for military divers.
How many atmospheres are those Movados good to?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
And there are many time pieces built better than a Rolex.
Sure, but an analyst making the statement that it's like a Patek Phillipe vs. a Baume & Mercier might not help the majority of people understand what he's saying.
You have no idea what makes a Rolex expensive. First 24k gold is too soft and only a few Rolexes have diamonds. The precisely built internal mechanism is where the money's at.
Actually, even though few people use them for diving, the real value is in the crystal and the oyster stem.
Ben
All of those features are speed bump/improvements. Not that people won't use any of those features, but it's a matter of degree. I have an iPhone 4, I could drop $200 and upgrade it locking me to another two year contract, but none of those features justify that commitment to me -- you see? If money were no object, sure, why not -- just pay $700 and get an unlocked 5, right? The 4 does the job well, still meets all of my needs, without sacrificing too many features of iOS 6. Why should I upgrade for performance upgrades I may or may not see in the real world? I didn't see Em between the original iPhone and the 3G, or 3GS. But the 4 made a significant leap for me, to a place where I have no urgent need to improve anything, especially given the relatively unspectacular improvements on the 5. Would I recommend the 5 to someone with the 3G or 3GS -- you betcha. But the 4S will handle most, if not all, of the new features in a smaller form factor, and for less money. I would definitely encourage friends to consider that option as well.
As for the breakage, the 5 is essentially the same as the original iPhone in construction. The original iPhone suffered plenty of damage to the front glass with a metal back (even if not dropped on its face), and the metal suffered dents that could compromise the tightly packed interior components. Being of unibody construction, I would expect the 5 to keep its structural integrity a little better, and who knows if it has better shock absorption that the original iPhone with respect to the glass (and it still has two glass panels on the back). Either way, given the similarities to the original iPhone construction, I would expect it to be just as prone to damage, albeit less so than the 4/S. is this a reason not to buy the 5? No. But it's not a reason to buy the 5 either, even though I would call it an improvement.
Finally, the 4S sold better than the 4 because it was the latest, greatest offering from Apple and had Siri. There will be a lot of people who buy the 5, perhaps the majority, because it is the latest & greatest, not because they need all, or any of the improved features. I don't know anything about TI, other than what my friends who work their tell me, that many of the employees who just bought the 4S last year, plan on paying the early upgrade fee to get the iPhone 5, simply because they want it and can, not because they need it. Ultimately, I'm just putting out thoughts for discussion here, I haven't seen any sales figures. But given that the 4 and 4S are so similar in both appearance and performance, I would speculate that those who don't care about Siri, will likely opt for the free 4, and the rest opt for the 5, leaving the minority to choose the 4S. Again without seeing any data, I would suggest this stands in contrast to those choosing to pay for the 4, over the free 3GS, because it looked like the 4S, and had similar features.
Why is looking at the new iPhone release pragmatically automatically considered trolling? Why do people who express opinions get slammed as if they are espousing facts? forums are a place to discuss ideas. Ocassionally someone will offer facts in which case, yeah -- call them on the source. But generally, I find anything less than unbridled, blind enthusiasm for even the most modest improvement of an Apple product on this forum is met with vitriol and bile. But whatever ... Just an observation. I don't really take any of this too seriously ... It's a rumor forum, and even the most cogent of debaters on this forum are routinely wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chadmatic
Not a good analogy in my opinion. There are so many great watches out there, but smartphones, not so much... And if we are talking about Swiss watches, there are plenty of watches in that price and quality category that I would choose over a Rolex.
Not a PERFECT analogy -- but what would fit any better? Rolex is just a well-known name.
Of course, he could have said; "The iphone is an iPhone in a sea of Androids" but that would be a bit self-referrential.
Neither Rolls nor Rolex. The Rolex analogy fails on so many levels - Thinner/sleeker? Form following function? Rolex is nothing except a statement that a gunked-up, ungainly Roccoco piece of junk does nothing better than any $10 timepiece, but means "I have (or had) some money to blow on conspicious consumption. See? See?" The one thing they have in common is that both are knocked off by other companies.
And Rolls-Royce also fails, unless you consider having to hire a chauffeur akin to using Siri.
If you want an examplar of sexy, consumer lusted for build quality and high tech (that unlike the Rolls Royce actually sells in some quantity and someone in your hood can be seen driving one) a BMW or Audi in what someone else cleverly called "a sea of Kias" is more on the money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by flippysc
What's a watch?
Kind of like a look only more focused.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
I don't understand why people that read about watch makers call themselves horologists. You aren't studying time, you're studying timepieces. When I read about sports I don't call myself an athlete. It's very different to know the stats and history of players and teams, then how to be one. Horologists are the people that build the timepieces to be so exact with the time, not the people who drool over a glossy photo of a $300,000 watch in Forbes magazine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Horology is the study of the art or science of time measurement. Is calling a timepiece enthusiast a horologist overkill? Probably but most are elitist, self serving mofos that need to feel important.
I study prostitutes, so that makes me a....... ;-p
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodent
What a crock! It's just a stupid iPhone, another in a series, # 5s is coming and then 6 then 6s etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SWS
OOOOO NO!!!
You CRACKED the code!!!! You must be a very learned individual. You have it all figured out. Now that we now the system, we can just go back to using land lines. You know. Now that we know the fix is in. . . .
NEWS FLASH. This is the best iPhone made. And the next one that comes out, if Apple does their job, will be even better. That's how it works. Apple sells technology. Not rocks. Technology improves. Apple makes money on improving technology. Get over it.
Don't worry, there's a conspiracy theory for that too. As in "everybody" knows they're holding back all the good stuff in "the secret" back room - the one where the giant corporations have been holding those carburetors (remember carburetors?) that allow cars to run 300 miles on a gallon of water, tires that never wear out, etc. since I was a kid - and others I still hear today.....
A proctologist? Lol oh wait that's the study of a'holes. Then you're in the right place.
Americans Have Spent $5.9 Billion on Damaged iPhones
The latest SquareTrade iPhone study is out, and the revelations in it are sure to shock. The biggest news out of it? iPhones break, and that costs Americans a pretty penny!
Damaged iPhones have cost Americans $5.9 billion since 2007
30% of iPhone owners have experienced accidental damage in the past 12 months
17% of iPhone owners have damaged an iPhone more than once
6% of iPhone users have taped up their phone
That doesn't sound like a Rolex to me.