XPost: comp.os.linux.advocacy   
   From: nuh-uh@nope.com   
      
   On 2025-12-16 10:36, CrudeSausage wrote:   
   > On 2025-12-16 1:08 p.m., Alan wrote:   
   >> On 2025-12-16 06:47, CrudeSausage wrote:   
   >>> On 2025-12-15 9:44 p.m., Alan wrote:   
   >>>> On 2025-12-15 17:15, CrudeSausage wrote:   
   >>>>> On 2025-12-15 5:54 p.m., -hh wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>> What do current benchmarks show you between two comparable   
   >>>>>>> machines at the same price?   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Don't know, as I'm not currently in the market for new hardware.   
   >>>>>> What's your current PC do and when was it put into service?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Zephyrus G14 2021 with AMD R9 5900HS CPU and RTX3060 GPU. It's a   
   >>>>> 2021 model. The new 2TB NVMe is a Samsung 990 EVO. The Pro was only   
   >>>>> $10 more but it used more power and I wouldn't have been able to   
   >>>>> use its full speed anyway since my laptop's interface is a PCIe 3.0   
   >>>>> x4.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>> I doubt providing less bang for the buck is part of what the   
   >>>>>>> Apple stockholders want the company to offer. Higher profit   
   >>>>>>> margins, for sure, but not an inevitable backlash from customers   
   >>>>>>> who eventually realize that they're being ripped off.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Apple has been 'pricey' since the Apple ][ shipped 45+ years ago,   
   >>>>>> which suggests a different value paradigm than what you're assuming.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Jobs wanted to give people the impression that their machines were   
   >>>>> premium by charging more. In the end, their machines weren't   
   >>>>> actually capable of anything more than the competition, though I   
   >>>>> believe that the Apple ][ felt more robust than machines from Atari   
   >>>>> and Commodore. Of course, I wasn't old enough to even own one at   
   >>>>> the time, so I'm basing myself on what other people have said.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> What?   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Complete bullshit you just made up.   
   >>>   
   >>> Another quote, from Bing: "Steve Jobs had a strong belief in the   
   >>> value of innovation and quality, which influenced his approach to   
   >>> pricing. He often chose prices that were significantly higher than   
   >>> the cost of production, reflecting his vision for creating products   
   >>> that combined elegance and functionality. For example, the original   
   >>> Apple-1 computer was priced at $666.66, which was a deliberate choice   
   >>> to emphasize the product's uniqueness and the power of ideas behind   
   >>> it. Jobs's philosophy was that by investing in quality and   
   >>> innovation, Apple could command a premium price, positioning the   
   >>> company as a luxury brand in the tech industry. "   
   >>>   
   >>> Here's another link to prove it:   
   >>>   
   >>> >> pricing- strategy/>   
   >>>   
   >>> "1. Premium Pricing Strategy   
   >>> One of the most significant ways Steve Jobs influenced Apple’s   
   >>> pricing strategy was through the adoption of a premium pricing model.   
   >>> Jobs firmly believed in creating products that combined elegance,   
   >>> functionality, and innovation. This vision allowed Apple to position   
   >>> itself as a luxury brand in the tech industry, similar to how high-   
   >>> end fashion brands are priced higher due to their perceived value.   
   >>>   
   >>> Rather than competing on price, Apple focused on providing   
   >>> exceptional design, user experience, and quality. This strategy   
   >>> enabled Apple to charge a premium for its products while maintaining   
   >>> customer loyalty and satisfaction. For example, the iPhone, which was   
   >>> launched in 2007, was priced significantly higher than most other   
   >>> smartphones on the market at the time. Jobs understood that customers   
   >>> were willing to pay more for a product that not only functioned well   
   >>> but also looked and felt superior. This pricing strategy reinforced   
   >>> Apple’s identity as a premium brand, willing to sacrifice mass-market   
   >>> appeal for exclusivity and quality."   
   >>>   
   >>> This is where you'll claim that my original sentence was structured   
   >>> in such and such a way and that I'm still wrong. I've seen it before   
   >>> and it's part of why I don't take you seriously.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> What you've not shown are Jobs actual words, but rather others'   
   >> interpretations.   
   >  >   
   >> And offering higher quality for higher prices is not "giving people   
   >> the impression of higher quality".   
   >   
   > In other words, Alan is saying that even when he's proven wrong, he is   
   > right.   
      
   Nope.   
      
   Because you haven't even supported your first claim that:   
      
   'Jobs wanted to give people the IMPRESSION that their machines were   
   premium by charging more.'   
      
   Actually building premium machines isn't giving people an impression   
   that they're premium.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)