Avon B7 said - Why the fuck is this website even giving headline space to Samsung anyway
I am sure, you know it already. But thought of posting it anyway!!!
1. The regular visitors of this website are predominantly Apple stock holders
2. They visit this website to get information about Apple (how well Apple does Vs competition)
3. Samsung is THE ONLY credible competition to Apple, right at this moment in smartphone sales in PREMIUM segment - the only segment that Apple operates
So it is natural that any -Ve news about Samsung will get a bigger visibility. Why would Apple shareholders be interested in reading +Ve news about Apple's primary competitor (only threat), by any stretch of imagination?
Avon B7 said - Why the fuck is this website even giving headline space to Samsung anyway
I am sure, you know it already. But thought of posting it anyway!!!
1. The regular visitors of this website are predominantly Apple stock holders
2. They visit this website to get information about Apple (how well Apple does Vs competition)
3. Samsung is THE ONLY credible competition to Apple, right at this moment in smartphone sales in PREMIUM segment - the only segment that Apple operates
So it is natural that any -Ve news about Samsung will get a bigger visibility. Why would Apple shareholders be interested in reading +Ve news about Apple's primary competitor (only threat), by any stretch of imagination?
I know what you mean but my reply to to someone who was complaining about people and me specifically painting and different and far more balanced picture of the situation.
To be specific to your comments I would say it is simply impossible to know if regular visitors predominantly own Apple stock.
If they wanted information about how Apple is doing against the competition, DED article is not where you want to get it. You might as well read an Apple PR blurb.
Your claim that Samsung in the ONLY credible competition for Apple is incorrect.
The article takes a stab at Samsung for achieving 5 million sales of a premium phone in just one month. Although over a longer time frame, Huawei shipped around double that number of the P9 series (premium phones) last year. Clearly Huawei can be considered a viable competitor, having achieved that feat without even having a real presence in the world's biggest premium market. Add to that that it has publicly stated that it wants to top Apple in sales within the next two years and that an ever increasing proportion of its sales are in the mid to high end and you see that Samsung is not the ONLY viable competitor Apple.
Whether those goals will be reached is another thing but from a competition standpoint it's very real.
People are starting to come to their sense that it's ridiculous to spend $1000 on a phone.
Ahh, but... You're not spending $1,000 for a phone -- you're spending $1,000 for a small always-connected mobile computer -- a pocketful of possibilities.
Back in the 1950's, the average middle-class household income was less than $10,000 per year.
Ma Bell ruled the phone roost in the US.
Ma Bell rented the phone to you for $25-45 per month. * The phone was tethered to a wall in your house by a 10-foot cord. Everyone in the house competed for use of the single phone/line. You could rent additional extension phones -- but they all shared the same line.
* Ma Bell owned the phone, you didn't!
You were charged separately for usage (voice only, no text or data back then). Basic charges for usage were another $25-$50 per month. Any calls made outside your phone area code ** were considered long-distance calls -- and were charged by the minute, e.g. $10 per minute for a call from Pasadena to Minneapolis. If you couldn't afford the long-distance call, you would text by sending a Western Union telegram at ~25 cents per word.
** Ma Bell had their own phone area codes. For example, The Pasadena phone area code only included the West Los Angles suburbs (Pasadena, Altadena, South Pasadena, Glendale, etc.) -- If you called downtown LA, etc. you were charged by the minute.
Today, you can buy a $1,000 iPhone for $46 per month under the iPhone Upgrade Program. And for $50 per month you can call/text/email/surf/Find-My-Friends to your hearts content. Streaming [Data] costs another $10-$15 per month.
You are completely correct. The article was written to diss Samsung. That's basically the only reason it exists.
The smartphone market has reached saturation point in the developed markets. The days of spectacular year on year growth are virtually gone in the Android world and possibly the iPhone world too. Perhaps the author is unaware of this. The next iPhone may buck the trend a little but unless Apple pushes deeper into the mid tier, beyond the next model, Apple will struggle to see major growth.
Talking of 'peak' Galaxys is pretty much worthless, of course.
The article supports its premise by harking back to a different age in smartphone history when, just like Apple today (in the iOS world), Samsung had no real flagship competition. All that has changed.
Huawei alone snapped up over 100 million users in 2015 and increased that to around 130 million in 2016. A figure that Included around 10 million flagship P9 series phones.
That's just from one manufacturer. In that light, the S8 numbers look very good. The pool of potential buyers is greatly reduced if compared to the same pool that the 'peak' Galaxy fished in.
What year did Samsung have no flagship competition? 2013, 2014? Stop making up alt-facts. There was more competition and more competitors then than now.
China grew dramatically, and Chinese domestic production grew to meet that. Apple grew there dramatically and Samsung basically fell off the table in China in 2015, but Samsung remains the largest phone producer globally, and Chinese producers have very limited sales in the US (the other major market).
While you make excuses for Samsung's flagship sales falling since 2014, you seem to forget that iPhones have grown dramatically since then, all around the world and particularly in China. And despite slipping in the last two years, Apple still sells virtually all of the world's high end phones. Virtually all Android is sub $400.
The point of the article is that Samsung came out and said it shipped a low number of phones and the media reported it like they'd never heard of numbers before. This supplies context.
Why are you so afraid of facts that you have to wildly spin a story of false ideas to cloud reality? Everything you post here is just delusional rubbish.
Daniel, when you analyse Samsung's profit are you sure you are looking at the full picture? Do you know where they book the profit for displays/semiconductors that they sell to the IM division? It looks to me like they double count the revenue in both divisions but only book the profit in DS. Because they are vertically integrated, they are making more profit on each phone sale than you are leading on by only showing IM profit. Considering how often you use these stats, it might be worth calling investor relations to ask.
Avon B7 said - Why the fuck is this website even giving headline space to Samsung anyway
I am sure, you know it already. But thought of posting it anyway!!!
1. The regular visitors of this website are predominantly Apple stock holders
2. They visit this website to get information about Apple (how well Apple does Vs competition)
3. Samsung is THE ONLY credible competition to Apple, right at this moment in smartphone sales in PREMIUM segment - the only segment that Apple operates
So it is natural that any -Ve news about Samsung will get a bigger visibility. Why would Apple shareholders be interested in reading +Ve news about Apple's primary competitor (only threat), by any stretch of imagination?
I know what you mean but my reply to to someone who was complaining about people and me specifically painting and different and far more balanced picture of the situation.
To be specific to your comments I would say it is simply impossible to know if regular visitors predominantly own Apple stock.
If they wanted information about how Apple is doing against the competition, DED article is not where you want to get it. You might as well read an Apple PR blurb.
Your claim that Samsung in the ONLY credible competition for Apple is incorrect.
The article takes a stab at Samsung for achieving 5 million sales of a premium phone in just one month. Although over a longer time frame, Huawei shipped around double that number of the P9 series (premium phones) last year. Clearly Huawei can be considered a viable competitor, having achieved that feat without even having a real presence in the world's biggest premium market. Add to that that it has publicly stated that it wants to top Apple in sales within the next two years and that an ever increasing proportion of its sales are in the mid to high end and you see that Samsung is not the ONLY viable competitor Apple.
Whether those goals will be reached is another thing but from a competition standpoint it's very real.
Painting a far more balanced picture of the situation - Given the amount of hostile responses that your posts get, hope you can understand the futility of that. Regarding Huawei, what they have done so far is really amazing, particularly with respect to their own Kirin SoCs and NOT relying on Qualcomm for ALL of their high end mobiles (Mate, P series). But they are still a distant 3rd in the smartphone game globally (4th, if you combine Oppo/Vivo as BBK) and may or may not catch up to Samsung in next 2 years. Until they at least equal Samsung, they cannot be considered as competition to Apple because the Profit gap between Apple and Samsung is that huge and Huawei has not even reached Samsung's level YET. The allegations related to spying doesn't help their cause either.
You are completely correct. The article was written to diss Samsung. That's basically the only reason it exists.
No it isn't. It's actually written to diss other publications like CNet or BGR who always compare Apple's current sales figures with previous ones, whereas they provide no comparison whatsoever for Samsung. 5 million is a big number and looks good on headlines but what is it compared to your previous high? Here's a link on LinkedIn that basically groups all the raving headlines for the S8. What DED is saying, if that were Apple selling less than half iPhones when compared to the peak iPhone 6 cycle then the sky would be falling.
Loving all the ‘corrections’ made by the Samsung apologists. As for the criticism of Mr. Dilger’s article he is doing nothing more or less than the tech media at large does when they do the opposite and “yes, but...” Apple into oblivion.
...it quite an experience seeing grown up people (i am assuming you are grown up) making some of the rediculous arguments. this artticle is flawed in so many ways that it doesnt even merit to be talked about. if you are going to diss samsung, first get your facts right: The S8 was released on April 21st and the last time I checked the month is not over yet. Second, Samsung does make money out of its smart, its actually one of the few android OEM actually making money out of their smartphones. Of course not incomparison to Apple but the fact is they still profit from their smartphones.
just a piece of advice, if you are going to make claims especially negative ones about someone get your facts right.
It's really funny making grandiose statements about the maturity of others, while you can't even go one sentence without making a serious spelling error, let alone using proper punctuation and capitalization of characters. I did not make any remarks on your grammar because English may not be your first language. It isn't mine either. However there is a thing called spell checkers, very important when trying to convey a message in a language not you own.
You are completely correct. The article was written to diss Samsung. That's basically the only reason it exists.
The smartphone market has reached saturation point in the developed markets. The days of spectacular year on year growth are virtually gone in the Android world and possibly the iPhone world too. Perhaps the author is unaware of this. The next iPhone may buck the trend a little but unless Apple pushes deeper into the mid tier, beyond the next model, Apple will struggle to see major growth.
Talking of 'peak' Galaxys is pretty much worthless, of course.
The article supports its premise by harking back to a different age in smartphone history when, just like Apple today (in the iOS world), Samsung had no real flagship competition. All that has changed.
Huawei alone snapped up over 100 million users in 2015 and increased that to around 130 million in 2016. A figure that Included around 10 million flagship P9 series phones.
That's just from one manufacturer. In that light, the S8 numbers look very good. The pool of potential buyers is greatly reduced if compared to the same pool that the 'peak' Galaxy fished in.
What year did Samsung have no flagship competition? 2013, 2014? Stop making up alt-facts. There was more competition and more competitors then than now.
China grew dramatically, and Chinese domestic production grew to meet that. Apple grew there dramatically and Samsung basically fell off the table in China in 2015, but Samsung remains the largest phone producer globally, and Chinese producers have very limited sales in the US (the other major market).
While you make excuses for Samsung's flagship sales falling since 2014, you seem to forget that iPhones have grown dramatically since then, all around the world and particularly in China. And despite slipping in the last two years, Apple still sells virtually all of the world's high end phones. Virtually all Android is sub $400.
The point of the article is that Samsung came out and said it shipped a low number of phones and the media reported it like they'd never heard of numbers before. This supplies context.
Why are you so afraid of facts that you have to wildly spin a story of false ideas to cloud reality? Everything you post here is just delusional rubbish.
Was that a deliberate misquote?
No real flagship competition. Flagships have been there but only Samsung could ship them in huge numbers.
So who was pushing Samsung? HTC? LG? Sony? They had flagships but it was Samsung that took the glory.
The point of the article is to diss Samsung. Samsung today. Google tomorrow. Like a pendulum. What alt facts did I put on the table?
I don't spin anything but that is amusing coming from someone who is famous for spinning.
Where is the clouded reality? You don't think that Huawei jumping feet first into the handset market and selling 200+ million handsets in the last two years affected Samsung's sales. You don't think that Huawei carrier vouchers had a direct impact? You don't think that carriers putting Huawei phones front and centre in shop windows and directly promoting them over Samsung had an effect? How do you think Huawei wiped Apple from the map in some markets. You don't think the market is saturated (and could even see some contraction!)?
Prediction: sales are set to explode later in the year. Or was that phones.
5 MM in a month sounds bad as they sold more previously. We aren't talking about growth, we are talking about how many phones you can produce and then sell.
Once you get in the 60 MM range or more a qtr, it's harder to grow.
Galaxy S2 hit 10 million in 5 months. Galaxy S3 hit 10 million in 55 days. Note 3 hit 10 million in 60 days. Galaxy S4 hit 10 million in 29 days.
This is the last time Samsung ever reported sales figures for any of their devices. Samsung has a web page called the "10 Million Club" which lists all devices that hit that milestone. Hasn't been updated in some time.
Agreed..Samsung won't hit those milestones...maybe not again. But also the Android space has changed there are a LOT more OEMs making quality phones now. More competition...... iPhone sales are pretty flat right now too.... http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS42507917
You are completely correct. The article was written to diss Samsung. That's basically the only reason it exists.
You're saying that like it's a bad thing.
Why the fuck do you even come to this website anyway?
I suppose the correct reply should be:
"Why the fuck is this website even giving headline space to Samsung anyway?"
Are you seriously wondering why people are commenting as a result?
And no. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, just pointing out a different perspective. Forgive me for thinking this was a discussion forum.
Because every news article taut S8 beats iPhone 7. And many articles encourages iPhone users to switch to S8.
Galaxy S2 hit 10 million in 5 months. Galaxy S3 hit 10 million in 55 days. Note 3 hit 10 million in 60 days. Galaxy S4 hit 10 million in 29 days.
This is the last time Samsung ever reported sales figures for any of their devices. Samsung has a web page called the "10 Million Club" which lists all devices that hit that milestone. Hasn't been updated in some time.
Agreed..Samsung won't hit those milestones...maybe not again. But also the Android space has changed there are a LOT more OEMs making quality phones now. More competition...... iPhone sales are pretty flat right now too.... http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS42507917
You are completely correct. The article was written to diss Samsung. That's basically the only reason it exists.
You're saying that like it's a bad thing.
Why the fuck do you even come to this website anyway?
I suppose the correct reply should be:
"Why the fuck is this website even giving headline space to Samsung anyway?"
Are you seriously wondering why people are commenting as a result?
And no. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, just pointing out a different perspective. Forgive me for thinking this was a discussion forum.
Because every news article taut S8 beats iPhone 7. And many articles encourages iPhone users to switch to S8.
I don't that that is necessarily true and is definitely not a reason for people not to comment. I haven't read more than two or three S8 reviews but none wanted me to drop an iPhone for an S8.
Galaxy S2 hit 10 million in 5 months. Galaxy S3 hit 10 million in 55 days. Note 3 hit 10 million in 60 days. Galaxy S4 hit 10 million in 29 days.
This is the last time Samsung ever reported sales figures for any of their devices. Samsung has a web page called the "10 Million Club" which lists all devices that hit that milestone. Hasn't been updated in some time.
Agreed..Samsung won't hit those milestones...maybe not again. But also the Android space has changed there are a LOT more OEMs making quality phones now. More competition...... iPhone sales are pretty flat right now too.... http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS42507917
You are completely correct. The article was written to diss Samsung. That's basically the only reason it exists.
You're saying that like it's a bad thing.
Why the fuck do you even come to this website anyway?
I suppose the correct reply should be:
"Why the fuck is this website even giving headline space to Samsung anyway?"
Are you seriously wondering why people are commenting as a result?
And no. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, just pointing out a different perspective. Forgive me for thinking this was a discussion forum.
Because every news article taut S8 beats iPhone 7. And many articles encourages iPhone users to switch to S8.
Can you please share all the links for that? S8 is not universally appreciated (and rightly so, particularly for the FP placement) even within Android world, not even to the level of S7 which got near perfect reviews last year.
Another point - Is Apple/AI really worried that people would switch to S8, based on some of the reviews (I am yet to see one though)? Hard to imagine Apple being worried about reviews from Android tech sites, for sure. Does that mean AI is worried about S8 sales?
...it quite an experience seeing grown up people (i am assuming you are grown up) making some of the rediculous arguments. this artticle is flawed in so many ways that it doesnt even merit to be talked about. if you are going to diss samsung, first get your facts right: The S8 was released on April 21st and the last time I checked the month is not over yet. Second, Samsung does make money out of its smart, its actually one of the few android OEM actually making money out of their smartphones. Of course not incomparison to Apple but the fact is they still profit from their smartphones.
just a piece of advice, if you are going to make claims especially negative ones about someone get your facts right.
You're new here. DED has facts that run circles around whatever it is you're trying to suggest.
Avon B7 said - Why the fuck is this website even giving headline space to Samsung anyway
I am sure, you know it already. But thought of posting it anyway!!!
1. The regular visitors of this website are predominantly Apple stock holders
2. They visit this website to get information about Apple (how well Apple does Vs competition)
3. Samsung is THE ONLY credible competition to Apple, right at this moment in smartphone sales in PREMIUM segment - the only segment that Apple operates
So it is natural that any -Ve news about Samsung will get a bigger visibility. Why would Apple shareholders be interested in reading +Ve news about Apple's primary competitor (only threat), by any stretch of imagination?
I know what you mean but my reply to to someone who was complaining about people and me specifically painting and different and far more balanced picture of the situation.
To be specific to your comments I would say it is simply impossible to know if regular visitors predominantly own Apple stock.
If they wanted information about how Apple is doing against the competition, DED article is not where you want to get it. You might as well read an Apple PR blurb.
You paint a balanced picture of the situation? Yeah right, your sole reason for posting is to bring up knockoffs and move goalposts.
Nope, writing columns about how well Apple is doing and the double standard when looking at knockoff sales doesn't make DED a PR flack. His pieces just bother people like you because they consistently show what's what, and it's not great for the knockoffs.
Avon B7 said - Why the fuck is this website even giving headline space to Samsung anyway
I am sure, you know it already. But thought of posting it anyway!!!
1. The regular visitors of this website are predominantly Apple stock holders
2. They visit this website to get information about Apple (how well Apple does Vs competition)
3. Samsung is THE ONLY credible competition to Apple, right at this moment in smartphone sales in PREMIUM segment - the only segment that Apple operates
So it is natural that any -Ve news about Samsung will get a bigger visibility. Why would Apple shareholders be interested in reading +Ve news about Apple's primary competitor (only threat), by any stretch of imagination?
I know what you mean but my reply to to someone who was complaining about people and me specifically painting and different and far more balanced picture of the situation.
To be specific to your comments I would say it is simply impossible to know if regular visitors predominantly own Apple stock.
If they wanted information about how Apple is doing against the competition, DED article is not where you want to get it. You might as well read an Apple PR blurb.
You paint a balanced picture of the situation? Yeah right, your sole reason for posting is to bring up knockoffs and move goalposts.
Nope, writing columns about how well Apple is doing and the double standard when looking at knockoff sales doesn't make DED a PR flack. His pieces just bother people like you because they consistently show what's what, and it's not great for the knockoffs.
Actually they don't.
They are architected pieces to skew the picture, to present a biased image in favour of Apple and specifically against anyone or anything that competes against them. It's his opinion which is built around some cherry picked information then wrapped (and often drowned) in a four thousand word apology to everything Apple. Other writers do the same in the Android, Windows, PC world. All such articles inevitably and ultimately lack credibility as a balanced source of information. That however is just my opinion which you don't share. Others do.
A supposed media double standard should be completely irrevelent on a supposed 'Apple fan site' (dubious term by the way). Moreso when Apple is doing so well and was also the press darling for many years (and still is). Is it so hard to be pro Apple and not anti everything else? Does everything he writes have to take a jab at Samsung, Google, Android or anything that challenges Apple?
Nothing he writes is even slightly balanced. Can you remember a critical piece? But as I said, that's my opinion.
Your 'knock-off' line, which you throw out at every opportunity has absolutely no value as you never back it up. I have asked you to do do so on many occasions but nothing much has been forthcoming. That is telling. Moreso as I have already provided you with numerous reasons for your claim holding very little water.
Comments
Avon B7 said - Why the fuck is this website even giving headline space to Samsung anyway
I am sure, you know it already. But thought of posting it anyway!!!
1. The regular visitors of this website are predominantly Apple stock holders
2. They visit this website to get information about Apple (how well Apple does Vs competition)
3. Samsung is THE ONLY credible competition to Apple, right at this moment in smartphone sales in PREMIUM segment - the only segment that Apple operates
So it is natural that any -Ve news about Samsung will get a bigger visibility. Why would Apple shareholders be interested in reading +Ve news about Apple's primary competitor (only threat), by any stretch of imagination?
To be specific to your comments I would say it is simply impossible to know if regular visitors predominantly own Apple stock.
If they wanted information about how Apple is doing against the competition, DED article is not where you want to get it. You might as well read an Apple PR blurb.
Your claim that Samsung in the ONLY credible competition for Apple is incorrect.
The article takes a stab at Samsung for achieving 5 million sales of a premium phone in just one month. Although over a longer time frame, Huawei shipped around double that number of the P9 series (premium phones) last year. Clearly Huawei can be considered a viable competitor, having achieved that feat without even having a real presence in the world's biggest premium market. Add to that that it has publicly stated that it wants to top Apple in sales within the next two years and that an ever increasing proportion of its sales are in the mid to high end and you see that Samsung is not the ONLY viable competitor Apple.
Whether those goals will be reached is another thing but from a competition standpoint it's very real.
Ahh, but... You're not spending $1,000 for a phone -- you're spending $1,000 for a small always-connected mobile computer -- a pocketful of possibilities.
Back in the 1950's, the average middle-class household income was less than $10,000 per year.
Ma Bell ruled the phone roost in the US.
Ma Bell rented the phone to you for $25-45 per month. * The phone was tethered to a wall in your house by a 10-foot cord. Everyone in the house competed for use of the single phone/line. You could rent additional extension phones -- but they all shared the same line.
* Ma Bell owned the phone, you didn't!
You were charged separately for usage (voice only, no text or data back then). Basic charges for usage were another $25-$50 per month. Any calls made outside your phone area code ** were considered long-distance calls -- and were charged by the minute, e.g. $10 per minute for a call from Pasadena to Minneapolis. If you couldn't afford the long-distance call, you would text by sending a Western Union telegram at ~25 cents per word.
** Ma Bell had their own phone area codes. For example, The Pasadena phone area code only included the West Los Angles suburbs (Pasadena, Altadena, South Pasadena, Glendale, etc.) -- If you called downtown LA, etc. you were charged by the minute.
Today, you can buy a $1,000 iPhone for $46 per month under the iPhone Upgrade Program. And for $50 per month you can call/text/email/surf/Find-My-Friends to your hearts content. Streaming [Data] costs another $10-$15 per month.
We have it pretty good!
Here's a link on LinkedIn that basically groups all the raving headlines for the S8.
What DED is saying, if that were Apple selling less than half iPhones when compared to the peak iPhone 6 cycle then the sky would be falling.
However there is a thing called spell checkers, very important when trying to convey a message in a language not you own.
No real flagship competition. Flagships have been there but only Samsung could ship them in huge numbers.
So who was pushing Samsung? HTC? LG? Sony? They had flagships but it was Samsung that took the glory.
The point of the article is to diss Samsung. Samsung today. Google tomorrow. Like a pendulum. What alt facts did I put on the table?
I don't spin anything but that is amusing coming from someone who is famous for spinning.
Where is the clouded reality? You don't think that Huawei jumping feet first into the handset market and selling 200+ million handsets in the last two years affected Samsung's sales. You don't think that Huawei carrier vouchers had a direct impact? You don't think that carriers putting Huawei phones front and centre in shop windows and directly promoting them over Samsung had an effect? How do you think Huawei wiped Apple from the map in some markets. You don't think the market is saturated (and could even see some contraction!)?
5 MM in a month sounds bad as they sold more previously. We aren't talking about growth, we are talking about how many phones you can produce and then sell.
Once you get in the 60 MM range or more a qtr, it's harder to grow.
1. Blowing up
2. Being banned from use
3. Being forcibly turned off by the manufacturer so that they can't use them
Nope, writing columns about how well Apple is doing and the double standard when looking at knockoff sales doesn't make DED a PR flack. His pieces just bother people like you because they consistently show what's what, and it's not great for the knockoffs.
They are architected pieces to skew the picture, to present a biased image in favour of Apple and specifically against anyone or anything that competes against them. It's his opinion which is built around some cherry picked information then wrapped (and often drowned) in a four thousand word apology to everything Apple. Other writers do the same in the Android, Windows, PC world. All such articles inevitably and ultimately lack credibility as a balanced source of information. That however is just my opinion which you don't share. Others do.
A supposed media double standard should be completely irrevelent on a supposed 'Apple fan site' (dubious term by the way). Moreso when Apple is doing so well and was also the press darling for many years (and still is). Is it so hard to be pro Apple and not anti everything else? Does everything he writes have to take a jab at Samsung, Google, Android or anything that challenges Apple?
Nothing he writes is even slightly balanced. Can you remember a critical piece? But as I said, that's my opinion.
Your 'knock-off' line, which you throw out at every opportunity has absolutely no value as you never back it up. I have asked you to do do so on many occasions but nothing much has been forthcoming. That is telling. Moreso as I have already provided you with numerous reasons for your claim holding very little water.