minisu1980

gatorguy said:

minisu1980 said:

Google sells a garbage experience because most Android customers can’t afford to pay for a better one. They need a smartphone because of reasons, so they get in at the cheapest point possible. Being completely honest Googles strategy gets the job done, which is to be available to highest number of possible users (the poor greatly out number the well to do). Problems with taking this approach are threefold: (None, None and None)

There is no problem at all with Google's approach. With Android (and Chrome) they snatched the everyman-market away from Microsoft, preventing them from being the "other" primary mobile platform in addition to iOS. At the same time they've ported those Google core apps to iOS too and cover a majority of the high-end. So where's the problem? One way or another there's a Google service probably being used on 80% or more of all Western market handsets and perhaps as high a percentage on the desktop IMHO.

Nice, there is not a problem because there isn’t. Hard to argue with that logic.

Replacing Microsoft, wow set bar of expectations high on that one. I’ll assume you have used a Windows based machine in the last 5 years. The point here is people bought Nexus and Pixel believing Google BS that a straight Android product from them (well branded by them anyway) would be a superior offering that would circumvent all the reasons their experience was poor. Then after abject failure in the marketplace, they decided it was their customers fault they bought into the bill of good that was sold and discontinued support leaving them stranded. I am fairly certain Google will happily rebrand and do the same thing again to another wave of believers, then discontinue support when it fails. In any case you are support this treatment of their base by your defense of there business methods.

Google sells a garbage experience because most Android customers can’t afford to pay for a better one. They need a smartphone because of reasons, so they get in at the cheapest point possible. Being completely honest Googles strategy gets the job done, which is to be available to highest number of possible users (the poor greatly out number the well to do). Problems with taking this approach are threefold:

1) Android users who increase their economic condition are likely to leave the platform. Why? First, Android is the providence of the poor (which is often times roughly associated with low intelligence/poor life decisions), outside of social circles that glorify poverty, like IDK Juggalos?, most people like to be view as successful by others. Second, as a persons income rises and an an extra $20-30/m is not longer the difference between meeting basic necessities or not ... most will choose a better experience because time is starting to become more valueable to them than money.

2) Those who never improve there economic condition are not a market anyone wants to sell to. Taking a marketers prospective, this person just opted to buy a piece of junk for the device they are going to interact with most on a routine basis. Why did they do that? Answer, they are likely extremely price sensitive. If they are that hard up on disposable income, what are the odds they will buy the profitable products I sell vs the cheapest possible option. Google knows the answer to that which is why they pay so much to have access to Apples base.

3) Stupidity. Some people can’t be reasoned with even in the face of overwhelming evidence, some people are unwilling to ever admit they are wrong (even to themselves). Less intelligent/uniformed people tend to rely on sales peoples opinions when making purchases, Apple offers almost no incentives to sell their products. This means most sales people (Apple stores excluded) will push what makes them money (or makes their employer money), thus most sales people suggest Android products. This means these type of consumers are likely to start with Android or be bamboozled into switching to one. This in turn often leads back to the start of this point, I like to call it the circle of dumb.

Of course there are always exceptions to the rule. I have a brother who is intelligent and very well off, he prefers Android because he earns his living as an programmer for Windows and Android based platforms. He will likely never switch so long as his job requires him to be familiar. Those he works with use them for the same reasons and thus their is no negative stigma attached in this specific situation.

Some posters here like to spend time sourcing counterpoints to every negative Android post (see point 3). 99% of Google solutions put forth to address the issues with their platform either never happen, or do happen and then quickly let to languish or are implemented so poorly that a decent idea becomes worthless.

Bottomline the phone a user chooses to use is becomeing a fairly good indication of there competency. When I am looking to hire a person if they have an AOL email, I know up front I will have to spend a good deal of time and money showing them how to use technology so they end up getting hired for a lowere salary or as is more often the case, I just hire someone who I won’t have to spend those resources on. If they have an Android phone, I know that I have to limit their autonomy as it relates to using company funds for purchasing because low cost today trumps value with these people every single time. Typically, they also lack a sense of aesthetics since this rarely factors into their decisions. Many Android employees I have hired have personal financial issues YMMV, and this is a concern for me as this often effects an individuals ability to accomplish basic work tasks like pay for a last minute flight out of pocket or having a hard time waiting till the end of the month to be reimbursed for significant amount of mileage or other incedential expense. The list of issues goes on. All this is to say Android discontinuing support for championed products is right in line with what their base in willing to accept and their business model. I liked the article, but there we really no shockers here.

DavidAlGregory said:

I am an Apple shareholder since about the time of the OS X Public Beta- well before the bandwagon- and would not shell out $1,000 for a cell phone if Steve Jobs arose from the grave and hand delivered it to me.

It is a phone, people. A nice phone, but not worth $1,000. Back when I was buying my first Apple stock that would buy you an iMac.

Not trying to be a troll, but I consider a $1,000 phone to be an IQ test. If you buy it, you lose.

Nice, I have held Apple stock since 2008, well technically now I have contracts but that neither here nor there. I think Steve would be please with FaceID, it is truly remarkable and very much in the spirit of Apple to take something that has been half-ass implemented in the industry and make it magical (just works). They did this previously with TouchID, and even though they were still the leader in the market on that technology they still pushed the envelope and developed FaceID.

Worth is in the eye of the beholder, I just authorized my small company purchasing 7 of these a few months ago, updating from our iPhone 7's. These really aren't phones anymore, they are life management devices and have largely supplanted computers for those applications at a much cheaper cost (both up front and in terms of support). Most people spend more time interacting with their iPhone than any other device, bar none.

Not trying to troll here, but I work with lots of individuals who's IQ likely exceeds 99% of the population, 90% of them have iPhones vs Android, and those most have the iPhone X.

Insuring against ongoing business losses from a fire is a fairly typical rider included in a standard business policy. Many insurers won’t even allow this to be removed from the package or so I have been told. Bottom line to me is they either went extremely cheap on their policy with some third rate insurer or they were running a business without paying the necessary costs to run a business properly. Sucks, but it’s not Apples fault they didn’t adequately insure themselves against loss. I feel for them, but that’s why other policy holders pay premiums that odds are they will never receive a benefit from. Perhaps they should start a go fund me page instead.

macseeker said:

These Stanford "students" needs to be expelled from Stanford since they're showing that they have very low IQs.

They are the epitome of the definition of the word Snowflake.

Their parents have forgotten them a long time ago.

Just as car is a gateway to listening to music, so too is an iPhone to using social apps. Sure most people do it and it can be argued both listening to music while driving or using social media apps throughout the day is distracting, could be harmful and maybe should be avoided. Where is the outrage against car stereos, why don't these companies step up and take responsibility for the actions they enable!  Really  they should at the very least be emailing me a report so I am aware of how much I am using their product.

I very much dislike the term "snowflake". It is too often used by people as a label for the implicit purpose of completely disregarding the reasonable positions and concerns of others with conflicting viewpoints from their own. It's not at helpful, you could just say "I'm correct even if any and all evidence contradicts me because ... MAGA!!!". Even so, in this isolated case, the position in not reasonable and even if it is a valid concern it is fully within those who posses that concerns ability to alter their behavior without outside intervention. So yes, snowflake may in fact be the appropriate term here.