hippo

macplusplus said:

bocaboy said:

I'm very disappointed in the Mini 5's memory options. 64 GB is not enough memory for the base configuration. I have the same gripe with the iPhone X and Xs. I realize it's an up-sell gimmick by Apple, but it doesn't make it any more palatable. Frankly, it looks like a money-grab to wring out the last few dollars of profitability. For the record, I'm an Apple shareholder and want the company to be profitable. I also want them to give the best value possible to the tens of millions of users of these devices, and being chintzy with memory in the new Mini and existing X/Xs isn't the way to to do it.

The base configuration should be 128 GB, on all devices, including the Mini and X/Xs. Considering the price being charged for them, the difference in added expense to Apple would be minimal, and it would go a long way to justifying the more expensive prices.

So today I'm speaking with my wallet. I would have upgraded my wife's iPad Mini 4 yesterday if it wasn't for this issue. I'll wait it out for Amazon, B&H or Adorama to put it on sale, or get a refurbished one when they show up on the Apple website.

Many people who don't store a lot of games and every incoming WhatsApp cat video on their iPhones don't need 128 GB; forcing them to pay for unneeded storage would not be fair. Besides, the ecosystem of almost the majority of iPhone users consists of more than one Apple Device: consider the Watch, the AirPods, the iPad, the Mac computers, the Apple TV... Since their digital life is not limited to only one smartphone, a more granular control over their purchase power is an added bonus Apple provides to them when setting price points.

If you disregard these facts, then you're investing on wrong stock...

auxio said:

StrangeDays said:

auxio said:

spice-boy said:

Wow! Dan, I usually find your articles quite brilliant but your "communism" "capitalism" analogy is really off the mark.

Yeah, I found myself saying "wtf?" to the whole communist section too.  Every hardware manufacturer (including Apple) is taking advantage of the manufacturing cost savings from China, which are mainly due to cheap labour in certain areas of the country combined with technology manufacturing expertise and lax environmental laws.  Those manufacturing conditions are similar to a number of other non-Communist countries in the world (aside from the technology manufacturing expertise).  For example, manufacturing clothing in Bangladesh.  To frame Apple as championing Capitalism while everyone else is championing Communism is really confused.

Well, according to Jobs and Apple, it's not the labor cost that keeps them in China, it's the entire industry of component manufacturing -- it's all in Asia. So it makes less sense to ship it all back elsewhere to assemble. That and their willingness/ability to ramp up lines quickly and around the clock.

Yeah, that's why I mentioned technology manufacturing expertise in the same breath, something which is unique to China (and nearby areas) compared to other areas of the world (and which the US is lacking).    But yeah, the main point was the fact that it's really not about Capitalism vs Communism at all.

doggone said:

fred stein said:

DJT started a trade war. Apple is collateral damage. Sad.

Got to agree.  I think the Chinese government had established an atmosphere where it is unpatriotic to buy foreign products. In the past, buying high end products would be a status symbol.  Now having an iPhone may have negative connotations especially when working with government officials.  I don't know if China has imposed any additional import duties on these products as well.