iPhone 5, 5C, 5S. Same business strategy, different naming convention. 13 Pro=13, 14=13C, 14 Pro=13S.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Other Tim Cook’s latest iPhone scam explained
- Thread starter ThomasJL
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
How about basic iPhone 14 = basic iPhone 13, is this a scam or a “business strategy”?
Neither.
The iPhone 14 has emergency SOS support, the headline feature of the 14 series.
The 13 does not.
The 14 has 6GB of RAM.
The 13 has 4.
The 14 has 5 GPU cores.
The 13 has 4.
The 14 came in a plus variant.
The 13 came in a mini variant.
The 14 has crash detection.
The 13 does not.
You can argue these are not significant changes. I’d say they aren’t.
But this isn’t even the smallest year over year upgrade between phones.
The First generation iPhone from 2007 and the second generation from 2008 had:
The same 412 MHz ARM11 processor.
Same 128MB of RAM.
Same exact 3.5 inch 320X480 display.
Same 2MP camera.
In fact, I’d argue the 3G was actually worse than the original iPhone in some ways. It moved from an aluminum and plastic back to an all plastic back, the battery shrunk from 1400mAh to 1150 mAh and the phone received only two years of software support compared to the original iPhones almost 3.
And get this. Not counting two year contracts, the original iPhone was $399 before the 3G launched.
What was the cost to buy a 3G out of contract? That same $399.
And that was under Jobs.
Seems to me that super corporations that reduce competition to where capitalism no longer works effectively is nothing but capitalism working out super effectively. Not that I want capitalism to be like that. Due to how market forces operate predominantly in the world right now, extreme inequality is inevitable. Not only creating the division between a few people who have a lot and a lot of people who have little, but also the division between a few dominant corporations and many subordinated ones.
The essence might lie in exploring how capitalism and socialism can be like the two wheels for some mode of transport to function properly rather than being a dichotomy. What I am trying to say is that I believe that you need them both, not just functionally but also for capitalism to have eyes. Without the other wheel called socialism, capitalism is blind, which I think can be easily observed around the world.
What makes a discussion on capitalism meaningful may be different for you than it is for me. I do believe however that I have discussed capitalism in my previous posts.
What would make a discussion on capitalism meaningful to me is a shared recognition that any model of capitalism reflects us. Any pursued or implemented economic system shows how far we have come as a species. It reflects how we are where we are in our evolutionary journey. While discussing economic principles can be quite interesting and useful, I don’t believe we’d get to what capitalism actually and essentially is if we’d leave out human nature.
I mentioned happiness because it is everyone’s most important endeavor. I mentioned man’s hunger for power because it is what he thinks he needs to become happy. He is conditioned to believe that his happiness comes from others. Even loved ones tell each other what to do or what not to do in order for them to be made happy by the other. I mentioned man’s fear because it is basic to his competitive animal nature.
Now, why did I make that sweeping generalization as you called it? It is capitalism as it is now that builds pitiful, petty, empty people who are made to live egoistically and greedy off others rather than made to live socially with others. “Empty” because man is only happy when such and such a thing is met. An external support system is needed for him to be happy. Hence he’s looking at others to give him a state of happiness, which is a temporarily state and therefore not even real happiness. By himself he can’t be happy. No. And capitalism as it is now produces and strengthens that predicament of man.
The fact that market forces have competitiveness as their main instrument is problematic, because in a competitive world, not all humans are born under advantageous conditions. While justice is a prerequisite for peace, an economy based on market forces has injustice built in. Hence aside from breeding greed, market forces also breed hostility.
Greed cannot but follow and accompany competitiveness, because competitiveness strengthens a sense of separation, and thereby fear. This fear-producing sense of separation forms the basis for greed. But separation is a veil. It’s false and hides a fact of life: there is unity in diversity. Man’s growth towards knowing who he, beyond his mind, in life really is, gets sabotaged by competition and facilitated and fostered by co-operation.
My preference for an economy would be a merger of capitalism and socialism, respectively 30 percent and 70 percent, to make economy work justly for all. It would bring out in us a sense of connectedness. From it, trust would ensue, which would do away with fear, because where there’s trust, fear just cannot be. Fear points to our ego, whereas trust points to our true Self. Fear dissipates in the light of our true Self that is guiding us from within towards living outwardly co-operatively in Peace. Creativity and thereby innovation would thrive as never before.
The SOC is NOT iPhone specific. It’s A-series. The non-pro has a different SOC than the pro models. Why is this so shocking? It’s perfect sense.
The proposition of a 70 percent socialism and 30 percent capitalism split in an economy may sound appealing (to you), but it fails to address the inherent issues that arise from such a system. Socialism, with its emphasis on equal distribution and central planning, has consistently demonstrated inefficiencies in resource allocation. When a substantial part of the economy operates under socialist principles, it tends to stifle the drive for innovation and productivity. Limited incentives for individuals to excel and compete can lead to a stagnation of overall economic growth.
Furthermore, socialism often involves increased government control and regulation. While it aims to promote equality, it may come at the cost of curtailing individual freedoms and choices. A society with a dominant socialist system risks compromising personal liberties when the government significantly influences economic decision-making. Dependence on the government becomes more pronounced in such a system, discouraging self-reliance and individual responsibility. This, in turn, hampers personal development and initiative, impeding the growth of the economy and the citizens' well-being.
Implementing a 70 percent socialism share can also introduce market distortions. Price controls and subsidies may disrupt supply and demand dynamics, resulting in shortages or surpluses of goods and services, disrupting the balance of the economy. Moreover, a significant portion of socialism may discourage private investment and entrepreneurship. Investors and entrepreneurs may be dissuaded by the increased regulation and taxation that often accompanies a predominantly socialist economy. This could lead to a lack of job opportunities and hinder overall economic growth.
While both socialism and capitalism have their merits, attempting to tilt the balance overwhelmingly towards socialism risks neglecting the importance of individual freedom, competition, and incentives for innovation and economic growth. A thriving economy requires a thoughtful blend of both systems, fostering prosperity, innovation, and personal development for all citizens. It is crucial to acknowledge that socialism has never fully succeeded in any society, and embracing a more balanced approach can lead to a more sustainable and prosperous economic model.
Every negative that you've associated with socialism in this post can just as easily apply to capitalism.
Capitalism also has tremendous problems with resource allocation. Food and water resources are wasted by the rich while the poor starve. It can also stifle innovation(as we see in the pharmaceutical industry where ongoing treatments are valued over cures. It certainly leads to the curtailing of individual freedoms as corporations take control of the government from the people. Poverty and debt take away a whole lot of choice.
As you said, the answer is finding a better balance.
I completely agree that Capitalism isn't a flawless system, and the reasons you pointed out highlight the areas that require improvement and balance. Currently, we have a mix of Capitalistic and Socialistic principles in our society, but there's definitely room for further progress to ensure that everyone benefits from it. However, I do find it perplexing when some propose a predominantly or entirely Socialistic system, considering its historical track record of not achieving success in any society where it has been implemented.
I don't know what you mean by not achieving success. There are plenty of examples of primarily socialist countries that are successful. Scandinavian countries are a good example. The are usually ranked at the top of the countries with the happiest populations.
I appreciate your perspective, and it's true that some Scandinavian countries have policies that are often associated with socialism. However, it's essential to clarify that these countries are not entirely socialist; instead, they are more accurately described as centrist nations with a mixed economy.
The Scandinavian countries, such as Denmark, Sweden, and Norway, have indeed implemented various social welfare programs and progressive taxation, which contribute to their high rankings in terms of happiness and social indicators. These policies aim to provide a strong safety net and support for their citizens.
However, it's crucial to note that their economic systems are still primarily based on capitalism, with robust private sectors, free markets, and high levels of economic freedom. Their governments have managed to strike a balance between social welfare and market-driven policies, creating a mix of capitalist and socialist elements.
In contrast, when I refer to purely socialist systems, I mean economies where the government owns and controls the means of production and distribution. Historically, such systems have faced significant challenges and have not proven to be as successful in fostering sustainable economic growth and individual prosperity.
So, while it's accurate to point out that Scandinavian countries have achieved success with their centrist approach, we should be cautious in labeling them as purely socialist examples. They demonstrate that a balanced combination of capitalist and socialistic principles can be beneficial in providing a better quality of life for their citizens.
I didn't label them as purely socialist. I clearly said "primarily socialist".
And your comment that I was replying to wasn't limited to purely socialist, as you also included "predominately" socialist. Which is a synonym for "primarily".
I think we are mainly in agreement about needing a balance. I just don't get your claim that socialism hasn't been successful historically. If you are limiting it to pure socialism, has a pure socialist country ever existed? I don't think so.
You're right, and I apologize for any confusion in my previous response. I appreciate your clarification, and I understand that you used the term "primarily socialist" to describe the policies in Scandinavian countries accurately. My intention was not to put words in your mouth, and I apologize if it seemed that way.I didn't label them as purely socialist. I clearly said "primarily socialist".
And your comment that I was replying to wasn't limited to purely socialist, as you also included "predominately" socialist. Which is a synonym for "primarily".
I think we are mainly in agreement about needing a balance. I just don't get your claim that socialism hasn't been successful historically. If you are limiting it to pure socialism, has a pure socialist country ever existed? I don't think so.
Regarding the use of "predominantly" socialist, I see how it could be interpreted as synonymous with "primarily," and I apologize for any oversight in my language.
We indeed seem to agree on the importance of finding a balance between different economic principles to create a fair and prosperous society.
As for the historical success of socialism, you bring up a valid point. If we define socialism as a purely socialist system with complete public ownership and control of the means of production, it's true that such a system has not been realized in its ideal form on a large scale. There have been attempts at socialist experiments, but they have often faced significant challenges.
However, it's also essential to recognize that various countries have adopted socialist policies or elements within mixed economic systems, and some of these have indeed achieved positive outcomes for their citizens. The context and specific policies matter when evaluating the success of different economic models.
My intention was not to dismiss the achievements of countries that have embraced socialist policies, such as Scandinavian nations. Rather, I wanted to emphasize that a balanced approach that draws from various economic principles can lead to success and prosperity.
Here's my working definition of Socialism: Government ownership of the means of production. I'll avoid using "success" as a metric because that spins into a whole other debate, but I think you'll be hard pressed to find a western country that is primarily Socialist in Scandinavia or elsewhere.
I'm not sure of a quick measure to rank countries as more or less Socialist, but I'll start with a straw man definition of size of government in the economy. By that measure, once you get past the little island nations at the top of the list, and a nation at war, you reach France and Italy before you reach Scandinavia.
Expenditure isn't the full measure though as it relates to this discussion. I don't think these countries fit the "primarily socialist" definition in the sense that the government owns the majority share of means of production, Renault aside.
France does have more public involvement in industry than many other countries, but if you look at a list of government owned companies, again leaving aside Renault, they tilt heavily toward utilities and transportation companies-- which are areas where government monopolies are commonly granted even when privately owned:
en.wikipedia.org
Sweden's government only spends something like 8% more of GDP on government than the US does. Not such a stretch really given their much larger public contributions to healthcare, education and pensions and welfare.
So without a detailed analysis, I'm willing to guess that most of the high government spending in these countries is defense, social welfare and tax and transfer-- the first two addressing things that capitalism is notoriously bad at, and the third retaining capitalism as the engine of innovation and resource allocation. Not due to significant government ownership of production. Certainly not as the primary or predominant owner of production capacity.
So bringing it back to the iPhone scam, none of these "more socialist" systems would find it helpful to say "don't maximize profit" because that's the same as saying "be less efficient" or at least saying "hide your true value". More often the house will just take a bigger cut of the pot after each hand and redistribute it to the players to keep the game alive.
I'm not sure of a quick measure to rank countries as more or less Socialist, but I'll start with a straw man definition of size of government in the economy. By that measure, once you get past the little island nations at the top of the list, and a nation at war, you reach France and Italy before you reach Scandinavia.
Expenditure isn't the full measure though as it relates to this discussion. I don't think these countries fit the "primarily socialist" definition in the sense that the government owns the majority share of means of production, Renault aside.
France does have more public involvement in industry than many other countries, but if you look at a list of government owned companies, again leaving aside Renault, they tilt heavily toward utilities and transportation companies-- which are areas where government monopolies are commonly granted even when privately owned:
Category:Government-owned companies of France - Wikipedia
Sweden's government only spends something like 8% more of GDP on government than the US does. Not such a stretch really given their much larger public contributions to healthcare, education and pensions and welfare.
So without a detailed analysis, I'm willing to guess that most of the high government spending in these countries is defense, social welfare and tax and transfer-- the first two addressing things that capitalism is notoriously bad at, and the third retaining capitalism as the engine of innovation and resource allocation. Not due to significant government ownership of production. Certainly not as the primary or predominant owner of production capacity.
So bringing it back to the iPhone scam, none of these "more socialist" systems would find it helpful to say "don't maximize profit" because that's the same as saying "be less efficient" or at least saying "hide your true value". More often the house will just take a bigger cut of the pot after each hand and redistribute it to the players to keep the game alive.
Lucky for me, I have 15 people who need phones… so I buy 1-4 new phones every year, I always get a new one and the others get the 2, 3, 4 year old phones.
Except it's not a 1 year old SoC. It's a 1 year old design and a brand new SoC with a couple unbinned graphics modules, if they follow suit from last time. So it's not even a comparable chip as it does more.
If only technical people read the specs, then only technical people are going to be looking for, let alone notice, any perceptible difference in speed.
As it is, the new phone will feel faster because the components are newer and not heat and electrical cycled to death.
It would be a scam if Apple hid the CPU in those iPhones. They are not - in fact, they are advertising those older CPUs proudly, because they are still top of the line.
They build products around features, not specs. This is what they made - and it’s no scam, because they are transparent about it. It’s up to you whether you consider it worth it or not.
They build products around features, not specs. This is what they made - and it’s no scam, because they are transparent about it. It’s up to you whether you consider it worth it or not.
Im so sick of this being at the top of Mac Rumors lol. So much so that I logged in just to complain. SHEW Go away
I am shocked, shocked, that Apple thinks of maximizing profits for shareholders!!
...Here are your profits.
..Oh, thank you.
And just like that, it's out of the featured threads entirely!
Thanks for sharing the trick! I'll be making good use of the SHEW command in the future!
[adding an extra SHEW here in case it's a toggle...]
I am sorry to read that my view perplexed you. I trust you’ll get over it
If separation is false and only appears real, which is what I think, wouldn’t capitalism be as socialistic as socialism is, and wouldn’t socialism be as capitalistic as capitalism is, with the difference between the “two” only being a matter of more or less?
Current dominant economic systems assume that if we each pursue our own objectives, then the social good somehow will magically be achieved by us, aka the invisible hand of the market economy. I don’t think that's completely nonsensical, because individual initiative motivated by profit can result of course in innovation and economic growth. But as a concept, this invisible hand is fundamentally flawed, because it can and does result in stunning complacency in the face of suffering and destruction of the Earth. A perplexing level of indifference is what we can expect and also got due to the belief that this miraculous free market will somehow make things go right for all of us if each person looks out mainly for themselves.
To me, the fundamental problem in the world isn't economic but spiritual in nature; it's human beings not knowing who they really are. The best economy would be an economy based on human beings who understand there’s just one humanity and are capable of recognizing themselves deeply in all other human beings.
In this, I completely agree. It's true that the fundamental issues in the world often go beyond mere economic concerns. The spiritual aspect of humanity plays a crucial role in shaping our values, beliefs, and interactions with others. When people are disconnected from their true selves, they may fall into the trap of pursuing material wealth without considering its impact on others and the world around them. In such cases, the acquisition of wealth can become corrupt and driven by selfish motives, leading to inequality, exploitation, and harm to the environment and society.
A truly enlightened economy would be one where individuals are aware of their interconnectedness with all other human beings and the planet. In this scenario, people would approach wealth acquisition with a sense of responsibility, empathy, and a commitment to the well-being of others. Such a conscious approach to economics could lead to a more equitable and sustainable world for everyone. Recognizing our shared humanity and embracing a deeper understanding of ourselves and others is a powerful way to address the root causes of many problems we face today. It fosters compassion, cooperation, and a sense of collective responsibility, helping to build a world that values spiritual growth alongside material progress.