Loading...Loading...
Loading...

Loading...

moonrockreptiles Rules of Conduct

[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

I know you're smoking something . . .

Posted By: Intellect Inside (12.205.181.147)
Date: Friday, 7 September 2007, at 7:16 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Two questions . . . (J242)

Steve's pole, perhaps?

: So, you're saying that the natural product cycle of updating your software
: and hardware lines is "fleecing" consumers?

No, I'm saying Apple's rapid meth-head pace of updating every year and charging full price all over again is fleecing their customers. They add supprt for a new codec to QuickTime Pro, and want $30 all over again. That's the sort of thing I'm talking about.

: As far as charging for bug fixes and whatnot,
: that's what the updates are for. You
: are thinking about MS more than Apple here.

Microsoft doesn't charge for service packs. Apple will ignore annoying bugs until the next paid upgrade. If you've been keeping MacOS and Windows up-to-date since OSX and XP were first released, you'll have spent a lot more on OSX than on Windows. Yeah, OSX is better, but it shouldn't cost $130 every year or two.

: Ummm, again, it's a growing industry where every other provider charges

Blah, blah, blah. The point is clearly beyond your comprehension level, as I've already addressed your faulty logic of "Apple are'nt quite as bad, therefore we should worship them."

: Ummm, so it's inexcusable for Apple to try to make money and not make it
: completely obvious to anyone how to bypass their attempt?

Simply put: yes. If they hid the preferences folder and made us pay them $1 every time we need a corrupt plist file deleted, it would be analogous to this situation, and I'm sure you'd be just as pissed as me over something like that. So why are you sucking Steve's cock in gratitude for charging you $1 to make ringtone from a song for which you've already paid?

: how many times have you seen a car give instructions on how to swap your
: engine for a more efficient one in the owner's manual? Oh, wait a minute,
: in order to do that you have to know what you're doing? What criminals!
: How dare they! lol
: Or, how about your chainsaw giving you information freely on how to up the
: horsepower then giving you a kit so you can do it for free all by yourself!

These are faulty analogies. A proper analog would be this situation: the chainsaw manufacturer makes it so I have to go to a shop and pay labor fees to have the spark plug replaced. Or the car manufacturer makes it so I have to pay a technician to fill the tank with gas. Again, I'm sure you'd be outraged over such nonsense, but for some reason you love Steve for doing the same thing with the iPhone and ringtones.

: What are you talking about? All I said was that they are potentially
: canibalizing iPhone sales by releasing the Touch.

No, they are not. Nobody was going to buy the iPhone, which must be activated with AT&T before any of its functions are available, without the intention of using it as a phone. The iPod Touch is not going to cannibalise iPhone sales. Nothing "potential" about it.

: All of the perks of the
: iPhone yet no need to switch your service or pay AT&T.

Not all of the perks: it isn't a phone. No cannibalisation here.

: Talking about the
: time-frame they released it at has nothing to do with the conversation
: unless you are trying to imply some sinister scheme other than standard
: business, you know making money?

Nice try. You can't turn it around now. You implied Apple had no iPod Touch plans until after they announced the iPhone and people said "I want an iPod like that." It's a ridiculous notion, which is what I was pointing out.

: Duh, no one is saying otherwise. All I'm saying is that Apple (unlike oh so
: many companies) are listening to their user base.

No, they really aren't. They haven't listened to complaints about the crappy displays they've been putting in the MacBooks and iMacs. Their idea of "responding to demand" for an iTower was to create the Mini...not quite what the user base was asking for. They satisfied maybe half of the people who wanted a low-cost tower. To the rest, they said "fuck off." They still haven't released MacOS Xintel sans TPM. There's still no Get Info panel built into the Finder window available in all view modes...not even in the upcoming Leopard. After all these years they're still not listening on that one. WTF?

They come up with some really "cool" stuff and make people feel good about forking over money in a perpetual cycle, but they aren't really listening to the people from whom they take that money. They're listening to their shareholders instead. Steve said essentially "too bad, fuck off" to early iPhone adopters concerning the $200 premium they paid, and only changed his tune when Apple's stock price dropped 6% over the affair.

: Again, how many pieces of equipment have you owned in your lifetime that give
: you the option to go ahead, take them apart at their respective physical
: or code levels and then support you in doing so?

You are high. We're not talking about decompiling any software. We're talking about allowing people to use the GUI that's already built into MacOS to transfer some files to the iPhone, rather than requiring them to fork money over to Apple on a pay-per-use basis.

: Funny, again. How does this affect you professionally or personally? I'd bet
: money that you wouldn't have been able to tell unless you had read on
: article about it in the first place.

I explained that before: I recommend Macs to people. I recommended the iMac to my best friend, not knowing the display would be crap, as no Mac mag ever mentioned it (since they're paid off by Apple). I'm typing this post at his place right now, and I can see the dithering in the photos he has cycling on his desktop background. It pisses me off. I recommend Apple products to people, and they fork over big money, and this is how Apple rewards us? Fuck Steve!

: Now, just a head's up for you. Toshiba, Dell and Samsung LCD's

Who is paying premium prices for these? Nobody. Apple charges premium prices, and Apple has a reputation for quality. I expect more from them. And I expect honesty in advertising from any business. I hope they get their asses handed to them in court over this.

: Also, how exactly is it that you came to the conclusion that Apple
: is charging you an extra $100 bucks for a lower quality screen?

Actually, more than an extra $100. If I built my own PC with the iMac's specs, and with a 24" display with true 24-bit color, it would come in a couple hundred below the 20" iMac. Premium prices should buy premium hardware, not cheap shitware like Compaq sells.

Password:

Messages In This Thread

 

Post Response
Your Name:
Your E-Mail Address:
Subject:
Message:

If you'd like to include a link to another page with your message,
please provide both the URL address and the title of the page:

Optional Link URL:
Optional Link Title:

If you'd like to include an image (picture) with your message,
please provide the URL address of the image file:

Optional Image URL:

If you'd like to have the option of deleting your post later,
please provide a password (CASE SENSITIVE!):

Password:

If you'd like e-mail notification of responses, please check this box:

 

 

[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

moonrockreptiles Forum is maintained by moonrockreptiles Administrators with WebBBS 5.12.

Loading...

Web Design for the 21st Century

Site Designed/Edited/Published by Jason Buck and Stephan Jones- Apple, Mac, Macintosh, and Mac OS are trademarks of Apple, any other trademarks used are property of their respective owners - © 2001 Jason Buck and Stephan Jones. All rights reserved. Neither all or part may be reproduced or distributed without prior consent, including this copyright notice. Contact Us.