sree

fallenjt said:

Told you guys before. India is not like China. The Chinese can sell a kidney for an iPhone while the Indian wouldn’t even give up a Masala for it...bottom line: Indians are cheap, man...lol no offense!

Yes the guy who will sell a kidney for a phone is the ideal to strive for.... 

antoniofonseca said:

In overprotective countries such as India, Brazil and Turkey it is difficult for Apple to push for competitive prices because of over-regulation, high taxes and market restraint measures that in practice only make the consumer's life harder and more expensive.

The taxes and regulations are the same for all the companies. While all the other smartphones are cheaper in india than the US, only the iPhone is costlier. We are all flummoxed how apple is achieving that.

All the android phones that apple is unable to compete against in India are all non-indian companies too (Motorola, Samsumg, Sony, Xaomi, One Plus, Google, Lenovo). How is it that their global prices are the same as their indian prices? while apple devices (especially new releases) easily cost about $200 more in india?

gmgravytrain said:

There's no way Apple can ever sell many iPhones in India. Apple doesn't sell $100 smartphones. A used iPhone 4s could be too expensive for most Indian consumers. That's just the way it is. I'm sure Apple must realize this and is merely going through the motions so as not to insult India. India should have allowed Apple to sell refurbished iPhones to consumers but pride seems to be more important than common sense. Both Apple and Indian consumers lose out. Android smartphones have about 98% market share in India. Just unbelievable. That fact alone practically obliterates any chance of Apple gaining global smartphone market share percentage. The Android smartphone manufacturers are laughing hard at Apple in India.

India does not discriminate for or against apple. It does not allow any used or refurbished goods to be sold in the country (from any company), since such a regulation can and will be misused by the 'global' corporations to dump electronic junk in the country. 

The restriction exists for the sake of the environment, and we don't see any reason why it should be changed.

rogifan_new said:

Why should Apple get a recurring cut of subscriptions? Apple isn’t hosting the content. If I buy a subscription to a magazine I bought at Walmart should they get a cut of that subscription?

If you buy the subscription directly from the magazine then no.

But if you are getting the subscription from Walmart itself? In that scenario wouldn't Walmart charge a cut for selling the magazine's subscription in their stores?

Take another example, you can get magazines/newspapers directly from the source through a subscription or you can get it through the local newspaper agency that offers everything. do you think the local newspaper agency doesn't get a cut?

Another example, you can buy a google chromecast or an amazon firestick from local electronic stores, or you can buy them direct from play store/amazon. The local store gets a cut even if the item is priced the same.

randominternetperson said:

Soli said:

randominternetperson said:

I wonder why the Brits refer to scooters as mopeds?  American readers think of mopeds as underpowered 49cc motorcycles that can also be pedaled (and haven't had any real presence on our roads since the 80's).  The vehicles used in these raids are the size and weight of "real" motorcycles.  I expect a traditional moped would have a hard time breaking through a glass wall.

I've always seen them as mostly synonymous term, but if one sounded less powerful than another I'd say that's scooter, which is a horrible nickname for some people and a term used to move a very short distance. Scooters don't even have to be motorized, but a moped, on the other hand, mentions a motor and  a pedal in its name.

Agreed about "scooter" being a silly name for "a motorcycle with a pass-through frame and an automatic transmission."

Moped: 

Scooter:

Scooter:

Scooter:

The nomenclature has some history.

two-wheels with a chain being a cycle, add a motor to the chain and remove the pedals and it becomes a motorcycle. 

Mopeds were motorised cycles with pedals to use as a cycle incase you ran out of gas. They rarely has gas tanks larger than 2-3ltrs anyway.

Scooters work with a different mechanism. they don't have a chain. The motor is directly attached to the rear wheel. So, the principle is very different. Also, this means that the motor in a scooter is under the back seat directly connected to the rear wheel (petrol tank is usually located at the same place), while in a motorbike it is under the petrol tank at the front. 

They are different things, speaking as an engineer.