sagan_student

maestro64 said: 

Just goes to show, most people are sheep, i listen to music today and do not pay over and over again, i listen to the radio with some ads which i tune out, or i listen to my private collection which I paid once and can listen to it as many times as I want. But people got suckered into paying to listen and keep shelling out money each month. In this generation subscription models, people will be shelling out $1000's of each year and have nothing to show for it.

While I can appreciate your own personal perspective and rationale for why you dislike the subscription model I disagree with the statement of people being sheep if they use the subscription model. I get that with subscriptions there is no ownership, and that when you stop paying you have nothing to show for your purchases. So if you are someone that wants/needs to own something physical then yes, subscriptions are a scam. And while I don’t totally agree with the amount of money these individual sheeple will be spending each year on subscriptions, it doesn’t undermine the spirit of your argument. 

I am one of those sheeple you speak of and I, for one, see value in the subscription model. I used to buy tons of CD’s and DVD’s in my younger years thinking the same thing you are. If I own it, I will be able to consume it whenever I want and as often as I want. But unfortunately the perks of growing up and making more money also has it’s drawbacks; I no longer have spare time to watch the same movie 3 times or more as that is no longer a reality for me (and many others I would assume) Not only that but I can no longer watch some of my all time favourites because I only owned it on VHS and never repurchased them on DVD or Blu-Ray. I have even bought movies after watching them thinking I’ll be watching them again at some point only to discover years later that they are still unopened. I see this all the time at friends houses, purchased media never being opened. The amount of money I was spending on CD’s back in the day was also more than my monthly family payment for Apple Music of 15 dollars a month. That 15 bucks a month gives me any song I could want to listen to, the ability to find and be exposed to new artists and music easily, and to never have to worry that I will need to maintain an aging device to keep playing that media. This is some of my rationale for why I prefer the subscription model over the purchasing. And while it is different than yours, I do take offence at being labelled as someone who bought into model that only a follower and non-thinker would buy into. 

People need to recognize there is only so much time in a day. If they are subscribing to enough media where they are paying 1000’s (2000+ is how I read that) of dollars a year for it, then they really need to sit down and think about what it they are actually purchasing, because at 2000+ a year, I have got to assume those people are paying for the convenience and privilege to consume everything they want when they want; which is a completely different issue. So if that’s your argument for who qualifies as sheeple then I would agree, those people have lost the plot. I, however, recognize that I only have so much time available for consuming media and as such only subscribe to 2 video companies at a time, Apple Music, 3 podcasts, and 3 media sites. My totally monthly bill for those equals less than what I would be paying for full cable television. I also benefit from never having to be subjected to advertisements and knowing that a portion of that money is going to those who contributed to creating the content. But yeah, if you are someone who watches every sport and 15 movies a month and tons of other shorter shows, etc, then you probably should be paying more because you are consuming more. 

K

gatorguy said:

If he's looking for three years of SUPPORT guaranteed then the Pixels are the only Android devices that qualify AFAIK.  For isntance my used OG Pixel shipped with Android 7.1 (Nougat). Since then it's been updated to Oreo and now Pie. Not likely to get the next major update this coming fall but it could. 

 Regarding Apple I'm not aware they've guaranteed any particular number of updates and maybe you know where to find that. Obviously tho Apple has traditionally (not always) supported at least 4 years. Kudos due. 

And my apologies to you. I did not read his comment as meaning OS updates guaranteed (and not certain they are) but instead device warranty. I had to read it again, but now I get what he meant. Again apologies Strangedays. Now I understand why you were asking what you did.

I was referring to iOS support. I personally don’t buy AppleCare as I am okay with the year long warranty that is provided. And as you noted, Apple does deserve kudos for continuing to support older models. I really do feel this will keep people coming back especially if they are taking longer to upgrade. The longer people wait to upgrade, the more the evidence mounts in favor of Apple. And now with the Xr, all new iPhones  lack a physical home button (a big reason for product failure), I see people keeping their phones for even longer. Sure it may hurt Apple a bit, but the bottom line is that they will purchase Apple next time too. 

seanismorris said:

Apple is trying to address all price with referbs and retreads.

A new iPhone 6s is $449.99 at Sprint.
A pre-owned IPhone 7 is $288

The cheapest modern IPhone the XR is $749.99

The biggest problem is no one knows how long older iPhones like the 6s are going to be supported.  I would hope any new iPhone would have OS updates for 4 years.  For me, I buy an iPhone for the updates so that I know security issues will get patched.  I don’t trust Android to do the same.

If you are at the low end and are looking to replace a dead Android, you can get a more powerful Andriod vs. a comparably priced iPhone.  Who knows which phone will be supported longer...

I’m a little confused by this portion of your statement (in bold). Since we obviously can’t look into the future, we have to look at the past and when you do it becomes apparent that the iPhone would be supported longer. The easiest piece of evidence on the iphone front is the continued support for the 5s! But you already addressed that when you said why you buy iPhones. We would then have to look at android and to see which models are still supported... but I think your two of your statements below shed light on the realities of the situation.  

I don’t trust Andriod to do the same.

If Huawei guaranteed timely Andriod OS updates for 4 years I’d certainly consider one...

On a separate note, I do agree with Dan that Apple is in the best situation to weather the storm should these trends continue for the next 5 years or longer. They have money in the bank and their phones will last as long as people need them to last. If I was someone who last purchased a 5s and it finally dies on me next year and I need to upgrade on a budget, I would have no problem looking to a refurbished 8 to get me through the next 3 years. I am unaware of any andriod manufacturer that can guarantee the same.

k2kw said:

radarthekat said

And all the while Apple is acting as my agent to buy out any of my partners (co-owners of Apple) who don’t have the confidence in the company’s future I have and Apple management has.  Thank you Apple.  I’m happy owning a larger and larger share of the company’s future earnings.  Every quarter my percentage ownership goes up.  And while the stock price falls on fear, uncertainty and doubt, Apple has just told us that, even with a year-over-year drop in revenues, the company will report its highest ever earnings per share this quarter.  And that reduced share count will yield similar results long into the future; it’s not merely a one-time effect.  

I think Apple should have spent more of that money to acquire HERE Maps 5 years ago, SONOS a few years ago, and Canon now, along with a lot more money into Solid State Battery research.    I would hate to see Apple having to pay LG, Samsung, or Panasonic for the technology when it comes along.    I would much rather Apple be the first two to three years ahead (Edit2: ago) with the Technology.   And of Course Apple should have been putting BILLIONS into fixing SIRI half a decade ago.


Edit: if they were going to drop QualComm they should have also invested in designing and manufacturing their own modems 5 years ago too.

That sure is a lot of investment you are expecting them to do. You make it sound so simple. I mean, it’s amazing they had never thought of doing such things. Can you please explain your logic that a company should invest in and buy up everything? Can you name me one example in which a company being run like you suggested survives to see the fruits of their labour? 

wizard69 said:

Interesting  chip, and one long article.   The problem as I see it is that Apple needs for somebody to put this in high end devices, especially tablets.   To put it simply they need the competition.  Frankly there is t anAndroid tablet worth adamn right now and a straight Linux based tablet is even harder to find.  The lack of competition in this arena leaves Apple free too charge high prices, this isn’t good in the long run.  

I don’t understand what you mean by high prices. It costs money to be continually advancing technology; it costs money to use better materials to aid in recycling; it costs money to push and expand into new markets. You can buy the second best tablet on the market today (the iPad) for $330 US. How is this expensive?