Apple Vs. The Media, This is why I don't put any weight behind most reviews.

[mib1800]

So? What does iPhone pricing have to do with anything? So what if Apple enjoys higher market share in countries with high subsidies like US and Japan? That's simply a by-product of its business model. They target the segment of the market that appreciates nice things and a great user experience, and who appreciates these factors enough to be willing to spend to get it.

So what if I paid less or more for my iPhone? (For the record, I am using a 5s, and will upgrade the 6s next year, though I have not yet decided which model to get). I simply prefer the iPhone more, and at any rate, would rather pay a bit more for a device I enjoy to use, then spend less on a device which I won't enjoy using. Give me a Note4 for free and I still won't use it over my 5s, not least because it would break continuity with my other Apple products (inability to link iMessage to my phone number, no airplay, lack of access to iCloud, just to name a few).

If this really irritates you so much, then I suggest that you put your money where your mouth is. There are also tons of Android users who like to constantly laugh and deride iPhone users for reasons too numerous and ludicrous to list here. Did it ever strike you to speak out against them?

Those in non subsidies country do not want the iPhone because it is not competitive. At market value the iPhone is uncompetitive.

Iphone do well in subsidized country because it is dirt cheap. At $199 any phone with mediocre specs like iphone will be snapped up.

Apple can have this high profit because it cahoots with the telcos to screw the consumers (aka you) through hidden cost built into phone contract. They made non contract phone plan so unattractive that you have no choice but to buy on contract.

 

[I7guy]

I am saying the scenario I gave is much more likely than your "I compared screen and I bought the 6+ because it has a better screen".

Sure, from your perspective, because in your minds eye, nobody would ever pick the i6 over the note 4.

----------

Those in non subsidies country do not want the iPhone because it is not competitive. At market value the iPhone is uncompetitive.

Iphone do well in subsidized country because it is dirt cheap. At $199 any phone with mediocre specs like iphone will be snapped up.

Apple can have this high profit because it cahoots with the telcos to screw the consumers (aka you) through hidden cost built into phone contract. They made non contract phone plan so unattractive that you have no choice but to buy on contract.

Is China subsidized? There is a pent up demand in that country. You can think what you want but with a market cap of 660b they are doing something right. If you think they are screwing their customers, so be it. The stock price tells the whole story.

 

[Abazigal]

Those in non subsidies country do not want the iPhone because it is not competitive. At market value the iPhone is uncompetitive.

Iphone do well in subsidized country because it is dirt cheap. At $199 any phone with mediocre specs like iphone will be snapped up.

Apple can have this high profit because it cahoots with the telcos to screw the consumers (aka you) through hidden cost built into phone contract. They made non contract phone plan so unattractive that you have no choice but to buy on contract.

Many people in non-subsidised countries simply can't afford an iPhone, so whether they want one or not is immaterial. It's that simple. Try selling your Note4 or any other equivalent high-end Android phone in those countries - it won't do much better either.

I don't think the iPhone has mediocre specs. It's impossible to have too good a user experience, and so I willing pay whatever asking price Apple sets for their iPhone because the user experience it offers isn't replicated anywhere else. For example,

• Their dual-core A-series processor smokes quad-core, higher-clocked snapdragon processors in benchmark tests. In real life usage, you see this in the form in apps generally being quicker to launch on iOS devices, for one.
• Their 8 mp cameras have larger pixels and tend to be as good as, if not better at taking consistently-good photos compared to Android smartphones with higher mp-count cameras.
• iPhones have equivalent battery life despite sporting a battery with a much smaller capacity.
• Touch-ID actually works, compared to the fingerprint sensors in some of the Android devices which are both cumbersome and inconvenient to use.
• This is hard to quantity, but I think many people will agree that the iPhone has a better touchscreen (and consequently, better touchscreen experience) than Android phones.
• Another strength that can only be felt, not bullet-pointed - Safari on ios tends to offer a superior browsing experience than Chrome for Android. Even Androidpolice flat-out admits as such.

What I like about Apple is that they tend to focus more on the end user experience, rather than numbers on a spreadsheet. Sorry to say this, but that's something many Android OEMs simply don't get.

 

[mib1800]

Sure, from your perspective, because in your minds eye, nobody would ever pick the i6 over the note 4.

----------

Nope. If you choose the 6+ and then push it as the best with reasons that are contrary to evidences then don't cry foul when others counter and dismantle your reasons.

Is China subsidized? There is a pent up demand in that country. You can think what you want but with a market cap of 660b they are doing something right. If you think they are screwing their customers, so be it. The stock price tells the whole story.

What's the market share of apple in China?

----------

Many people in non-subsidised countries simply can't afford an iPhone, so whether they want one or not is immaterial. It's that simple. Try selling your Note4 or any other equivalent high-end Android phone in those countries - it won't do much better either.

I don't think the iPhone has mediocre specs. It's impossible to have too good a user experience, and so I willing pay whatever asking price Apple sets for their iPhone because the user experience it offers isn't replicated anywhere else. For example,

• Their dual-core A-series processor smokes quad-core, higher-clocked snapdragon processors in benchmark tests. In real life usage, you see this in the form in apps generally being quicker to launch on iOS devices, for one.
• Their 8 mp cameras have larger pixels and tend to be as good as, if not better at taking consistently-good photos compared to Android smartphones with higher mp-count cameras.
• iPhones have equivalent battery life despite sporting a battery with a much smaller capacity.
• Touch-ID actually works, compared to the fingerprint sensors in some of the Android devices which are both cumbersome and inconvenient to use.
• This is hard to quantity, but I think many people will agree that the iPhone has a better touchscreen (and consequently, better touchscreen experience) than Android phones.
• Another strength that can only be felt, not bullet-pointed - Safari on ios tends to offer a superior browsing experience than Chrome for Android. Even Androidpolice flat-out admits as such.

What I like about Apple is that they tend to focus more on the end user experience, rather than numbers on a spreadsheet. Sorry to say this, but that's something many Android OEMs simply don't get.

Don't tell me the whole of Europe is so much poorer than people in US that they can't afford the iPhone. And don't forget iphone is far more expensive than you think after you factor in the hidden cost of the phone plan. But then you thought you got your iPhone for cheap.

Let's see. A phone that cost 1/3 price has more Ram. You can keep deceiving yourself that iphone doesn't need more Ram. Or you could keep deceiving yourself that the iPhone cpu can perform better in a true multi tasking environment that Android supports but ios doesn't. Or think the everyone finds the extremely rudimentary ui of iphone is efficient. Or go on thinking safari which cant reflow text at your preset reading font size and thus requiring tedious side scrolling is better

 

[Abazigal]

[/COLOR]
Don't tell me the whole of Europe is so much poorer than people in US that they can't afford the iPhone. And don't forget iphone is far more expensive than you think after you factor in the hidden cost of the phone plan. But then you thought you got your iPhone for cheap.

Let's see. A phone that cost 1/3 price has more Ram. You can keep deceiving yourself that iphone doesn't need more Ram. Or you could keep deceiving yourself that the iPhone cpu can perform better in a true multi tasking environment that Android supports but ios doesn't. Or think the everyone finds the extremely rudimentary ui of iphone is efficient. Or go on thinking safari which cant reflow text at your preset reading font size and thus requiring tedious side scrolling is better

I know the full price of the iPhone. Like I said, I willingly pay the price because it offers great utility for me. So what if it costs more upfront? I find they more than pay for themselves quickly enough in the form of improved productivity and fewer problems. In this context, it offers me greater value than any non-phone product, however cheap. So what if I can buy 3 Xiaomi or Moto X phones for the price of 1 iPhone? 3 Moto X phones don't equal 1 iPhone in the way I want to use it at any rate.

I am not saying that specs don't matter, but what Apple has demonstrated time and time again is that specs aren't the sole arbiter of what makes for a great user experience in a mobile device, and what companies like Samsung have also demonstrated is that great specs alone don't necessarily result in a great end user experience.

All other things equal, I won't object to more ram in my iPhone. But since Apple has shown that they have managed to eke out excellent performance on the iPhone despite it having just 1gb of ram, hey, that's something I can (and will) live with.

Likewise, the reality is that these theoretical "true multitasking environments" for which a quad-core processor is preferable to a dual-core processor typically doesn't exist in a thermally-constrained device like a smartphone that has limited battery life, nor does it even apply to the majority of users either way. For most people, multi-tasking means playing music in the background while I run another app in the foreground, and for that, a dual-core chip more than suffices. Most people are not going to be able to fully tap on all 4 cores (much less 8) in a smartphone to begin with.

I also find the basic "grid of app icons" design of iOS quite simple and intuitive, not least because the home screen is the place where I spend the least of my usage time in (it's practically there just to launch apps). I am not sure what you mean by text reflow. If I need to expand text for easier reading, that's what the reader mode in Safari is for.

The bottom line is, the iPhone is better for me.

 

[mib1800]

I know the full price of the iPhone. Like I said, I willingly pay the price because it offers great utility for me. So what if it costs more upfront? I find they more than pay for themselves quickly enough in the form of improved productivity and fewer problems. In this context, it offers me greater value than any non-phone product, however cheap. So what if I can buy 3 Xiaomi or Moto X phones for the price of 1 iPhone? 3 Moto X phones don't equal 1 iPhone in the way I want to use it at any rate.

I am not saying that specs don't matter, but what Apple has demonstrated time and time again is that specs aren't the sole arbiter of what makes for a great user experience in a mobile device, and what companies like Samsung have also demonstrated is that great specs alone don't necessarily result in a great end user experience.

All other things equal, I won't object to more ram in my iPhone. But since Apple has shown that they have managed to eke out excellent performance on the iPhone despite it having just 1gb of ram, hey, that's something I can (and will) live with.

Likewise, the reality is that these theoretical "true multitasking environments" for which a quad-core processor is preferable to a dual-core processor typically doesn't exist in a thermally-constrained device like a smartphone that has limited battery life, nor does it even apply to the majority of users either way. For most people, multi-tasking means playing music in the background while I run another app in the foreground, and for that, a dual-core chip more than suffices. Most people are not going to be able to fully tap on all 4 cores (much less 8) in a smartphone to begin with.

I also find the basic "grid of app icons" design of iOS quite simple and intuitive, not least because the home screen is the place where I spend the least of my usage time in (it's practically there just to launch apps). I am not sure what you mean by text reflow. If I need to expand text for easier reading, that's what the reader mode in Safari is for.

The bottom line is, the iPhone is better for me.

You are assuming that the lowest denominator is all that is needed by everyone. I am not going to argue with you if you say that is enough for you and you are happy. But why do you need to defend when someone said what you have is not as good as other devices since you already acknowledged you are happy with specs that is not the best.

 

[Abazigal]

You are assuming that the lowest denominator is all that is needed by everyone. I am not going to argue with you if you say that is enough for you and you are happy. But why do you need to defend when someone said what you have is not as good as other devices since you already acknowledged you are happy with specs that is not the best.

Because what you (and many others) seem to be implying here is that lower specs (on paper) necessarily translate to a poorer user experience overall, and that the iPhone is somehow crippled because of it. And by extension, that iPhone users are somehow more stupid for going with "worse" specs over supposedly "better" ones.

What I am saying is that despite its "inferior" paper specs, the iPhone still offers me a better user experience (as I perceive it) relative to the rest of the competition.

 

[mib1800]

Because what you (and many others) seem to be implying here is that lower specs (on paper) necessarily translate to a poorer user experience overall, and that the iPhone is somehow crippled because of it. And by extension, that iPhone users are somehow more stupid for going with "worse" specs over supposedly "better" ones.

What I am saying is that despite its "inferior" paper specs, the iPhone still offers me a better user experience (as I perceive it) relative to the rest of the competition.

I am saying you can view it as good experience for youself but to me it would not be up standards with constant tab reloading or bigger size phone with smaller screen or put up with workarounds like with email attachment or the expensive price or the proprietary stuff.

At least I gave examples why some of your better experience is just your feel not grounded in reality (like the 1 gb ram)

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

Apple Vs. The Media, This is why I don't put any weight behind most reviews.

Those in non subsidies country do not want the iPhone because it is not competitive. At market value the iPhone is uncompetitive.

Iphone do well in subsidized country because it is dirt cheap. At $199 any phone with mediocre specs like iphone will be snapped up.

Apple can have this high profit because it cahoots with the telcos to screw the consumers (aka you) through hidden cost built into phone contract. They made non contract phone plan so unattractive that you have no choice but to buy on contract.

The iPhone is not the only phone that has its cost absorbed into the monthly contract. If I had upgraded to the Note 4 it would be advertised as 'free' but the monthly tariff would be £20 more a month than I pay for the iPhone. They all get your money somehow so if you want a flagship phone, you have to accept the cost is included in your monthly tariff.

There is no hidden cost and if anything the cost of the iPhone is more transparent because you pay an upfront fee at the start. In the UK you are not allowed to mislead consumers with hidden costs and carriers get tough penalties if this practise is breached. You might want to reconsider your claim unless you live in a country where corruption is standard.

People like me know the full price of the iPhone and it is worth every penny because it has a user experience I personally prefer over any other. Specs like screen resolution, LED lights are not deal breakers and if they are for you then you should be happy with what you've bought and do just that, be happy.

 

[Oletros]

What I like about Apple is that they tend to focus more on the end user experience, rather than numbers on a spreadsheet. Sorry to say this, but that's something many Android OEMs simply don't get.

Only when those numbers are lower than the competition, if not, they are very happy to show how great they are.

 

[Abazigal]

Only when those numbers are lower than the competition, if not, they are very happy to show how great they are.

Android devices, by their very spec-chasing nature, is supposed to exceed iOS devices just to eke out comparable performance. If Apple is able to match or even exceed them on raw specs (and remember that Apple devices are typically able to achieve the same degree of performance with less resources), then something is very wrong here, don't you agree?

 

[Oletros]

Android devices, by their very spec-chasing nature, is supposed to exceed iOS devices just to eke out comparable performance. If Apple is able to match or even exceed them on raw specs (and remember that Apple devices are typically able to achieve the same degree of performance with less resources), then something is very wrong here, don't you agree?

No, I don't agree. But now are you changing goals when reality don't agree with you and you have o continue to bash non Apple constructors?

 

[Abazigal]

No, I don't agree. But now are you changing goals when reality don't agree with you and you have o continue to bash non Apple constructors?

I don't see how I am changing goalposts. Fact is that Apple emphasizes user experience first and foremost. Maybe other companies do try to do this as well, but I don't see it reflected in their final products.

Sometimes, as a by product, that will result in better specs over the rest of the competition, sometimes it won't, but the spec in itself isn't the main overriding concern.

I am not bashing on "Apple critics", I simply saw something I don't agree with, and am calling the person out for it.

 

[Oletros]

I don't see how I am changing goalposts. Fact is that Apple emphasizes user experience first and foremost. Maybe other companies do try to do this as well, but I don't see it reflected in their final products.

Sometimes, as a by product, that will result in better specs over the rest of the competition, sometimes it won't, but the spec in itself isn't the main overriding concern.

I am not bashing on "Apple critics", I simply saw something I don't agree with, and am calling the person out for it.

Yes, you're changing goals. Apple is happy to show how big are the specs when the numbers favour them, you only have to look at the keynotes.

And when you post as a fact that Apple only cares about user experience and ALL the other companies cares just about a spec wars it only say that you're just bashing other companies.

 

[Abazigal]

Yes, you're changing goals. Apple is happy to show how big are the specs when the numbers favour them, you only have to look at the keynotes.



And when you post as a fact that Apple only cares about user experience and ALL the other companies cares just about a spec wars it only say that you're just bashing other companies.

You mean to say that they aren't? 16 mp cameras. 8-core processors. 2k displays. Gimmicky software gestures like eye scrolling that don't work properly half the time. What purpose do all these serve save to serve as a bullet list of marketing points?

 

[FFR]

You mean to say that they aren't? 16 mp cameras. 8-core processors. 2k displays. Gimmicky software gestures like eye scrolling that don't work properly half the time. What purpose do all these serve save to serve as a bullet list of marketing points?

Completely true.
Another example is the lg G3.
It's gpu can barely handle the 2k screen, which causes stutter, lag, and models running unusually hot.

 

[zhenya]

When it comes to iProducts and theverge I don't pay any attention. They keep giving iPad scores over 9 yet sales are dropping each year.

All tablet sales are slowing because it turns out the tablet market is more like the PC market than the mobile phone market. People just don't upgrade as often. A score of 9 for the iPad is still reasonable because as the market exists today there is really little that competes at its level. Which really says a lot more about the competition than Apple. I feel like this a repeat of the early years of the iPod when the strategy Apple was using was so simple if you looked, but no other company could get it together to follow that simple formula. Really, why does the Nexus 9 still suck??

Those in non subsidies country do not want the iPhone because it is not competitive. At market value the iPhone is uncompetitive.

Iphone do well in subsidized country because it is dirt cheap. At $199 any phone with mediocre specs like iphone will be snapped up.

Apple can have this high profit because it cahoots with the telcos to screw the consumers (aka you) through hidden cost built into phone contract. They made non contract phone plan so unattractive that you have no choice but to buy on contract.

Apple has always gone after the premium market because that is where the profits are. As such, their first and primary targets have been the wealthy markets, not the poor ones. Yes, the subsidies have helped them grow, but the same could be said of every other manufacturer as well. If it weren't for '$200' smart phones on subsidy, we'd all be left with what we actually could get for $200 which is pretty crummy. Further, every American phone company is pushing the subsidized model out and if anything it looks to be driving sales even higher once people really know what these devices cost.

$600 phones can thrive in wealthy markets because even though they are a reach, they are still in the realm of attain-ability for much of the population. In poorer markets, $200 might be THEIR reach and $600 is just beyond what is possible.

 

[beosound3200]

Yes, you're changing goals. Apple is happy to show how big are the specs when the numbers favour them, you only have to look at the keynotes.

And when you post as a fact that Apple only cares about user experience and ALL the other companies cares just about a spec wars it only say that you're just bashing other companies.

Just how they mentoned 3rd core in a8x or absolutely the fastest gpu?

 

[Oletros]

Further, every American phone company is pushing the subsidized model out and if anything it looks to be driving sales even higher once people really know what these devices cost.

Can you link to any source about those figures rising without subsidies?

 

[JediZenMaster]

It feels like a case of damned if you do and dammed if you don't. There is biased in every review. The only way to have an unbiased review is to find someone who never used a phone.

People seem to have a dislike against Apple but it would happen also if the roles were reversed.

It feels like honestly people would like to see Apple bankrupt so that their "side" can win but there are no sides

 

[mib1800]

The iPhone is not the only phone that has its cost absorbed into the monthly contract. If I had upgraded to the Note 4 it would be advertised as 'free' but the monthly tariff would be £20 more a month than I pay for the iPhone. They all get your money somehow so if you want a flagship phone, you have to accept the cost is included in your monthly tariff.

There is no hidden cost and if anything the cost of the iPhone is more transparent because you pay an upfront fee at the start. In the UK you are not allowed to mislead consumers with hidden costs and carriers get tough penalties if this practise is breached. You might want to reconsider your claim unless you live in a country where corruption is standard.

People like me know the full price of the iPhone and it is worth every penny because it has a user experience I personally prefer over any other. Specs like screen resolution, LED lights are not deal breakers and if they are for you then you should be happy with what you've bought and do just that, be happy.

This was not the discussion point.

What transpired was Apple made lots of profit. I am saying without subsidies price plan, Apple will not be able to sell that many phones (and thus lower profit). Look at most countries in Europe without phone subsidies scheme, Apple only has small market share. Most Joe Bloggs will not pay $600+ for a phone upfront (whether iphone or galaxy). Apple can sell in volume because of the enticing $199 upfront (with the rest of the cost hidden in much higher monthly fees which you have no say)

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

This was not the discussion point.

What transpired was Apple made lots of profit. I am saying without subsidies price plan, Apple will not be able to sell that many phones (and thus lower profit). Look at most countries in Europe without phone subsidies scheme, Apple only has small market share. Most Joe Bloggs will not pay $600+ for a phone upfront (whether iphone or galaxy). Apple can sell in volume because of the enticing $199 upfront (with the rest of the cost hidden in much higher monthly fees which you have no say)

But the flagship Android phones are free here on comparable contracts with their entire cost included within the monthly tariff, how is that any different at all? The iPhone is possibly the only phone in this range that requires an upfront fee yet has the biggest demand in Europe not just the UK.

People it seems are willing to buy it and know full well it costs more than the £199 or £230 I paid upfront. Not every consumer is dull and considering you have a credit check before you buy, you are more than aware what you are getting yourself into.

 

[I7guy]

It feels like a case of damned if you do and dammed if you don't. There is biased in every review. The only way to have an unbiased review is to find someone who never used a phone.

People seem to have a dislike against Apple but it would happen also if the roles were reversed.

It feels like honestly people would like to see Apple bankrupt so that their "side" can win but there are no sides

Exactly. Frankly this latest sidebar conversation is bogus. The whole premise of the thread which is Apple controls the media, dupes its customers, hypnotizes the masses, while reaching into their customers wsllets through overpriced phone plans is laughable. /s

 

[Osamede]

Exactly. Frankly this latest sidebar conversation is bogus. The whole premise of the thread which is Apple controls the media, dupes its customers, hypnotizes the masses, while reaching into their customers wsllets through overpriced phone plans is laughable. /s

What's laughable is someone has no insight into marketing and making such sweeping statements, especially regarding the first two points. Any top marketer would understand that those points are unmistakable and indisputable. They are not crimes - they are marketing strategies that are designed to maximise attention when they want it, at the least possible marketing expenditure - and to command positive coverage when they get attention.

And all of this is executed well enough to produce denial in the audience.

The part on phone plans is business strategy and again its a good one. If you actually understand that one, you will also understand why the AppleTV remains a crippled "hobby" item: Apple already has all the pieces to do that product much better - they are waiting until someone is willing to subsidise it at a very high price. That time is coming near.

The last bits have to do with the manufacturing/supply chain strategy, IP strategy and very tightly controlled product management and retail/customer service strategies

Its not a laughing matter when you look at the sustained profitability and the stock price. Of course that all comes out of your pocket if you're entranced in the lights, so the denial is understandable...

 

[I7guy]

What's laughable is someone has no insight into marketing and making such sweeping statements, especially regarding the first two points. Any top marketer would understand that those points are unmistakable and indisputable. They are not crimes - they are marketing strategies that are designed to maximise attention when they want it, at the least possible marketing expenditure - and to command positive coverage when they get attention.

And all of this is executed well enough to produce denial in the audience.

The part on phone plans is business strategy and again its a good one. If you actually understand that one, you will also understand why the AppleTV remains a crippled "hobby" item: Apple already has all the pieces to do that product much better - they are waiting until someone is willing to subsidise it at a very high price. That time is coming near.

The last bits have to do with the manufacturing/supply chain strategy, IP strategy and very tightly controlled product management and retail/customer service strategies

Its not a laughing matter when you look at the sustained profitability and the stock price. Of course that all comes out of your pocket if you're entranced in the lights, so the denial is understandable...

Your keen analysis is impressive and its obvious you have called Apple out on their subtle strategies. I guess due to isheep like me Apple is worth 660B. /sarcasm

Edit: my phone plan is the same as when I had my old BB on the plan.