XPost: comp.os.linux.advocacy, alt.computer.workshop   
   From: nuh-uh@nope.com   
      
   On 2026-01-28 18:01, Joel W. Crump wrote:   
   > On 1/28/26 8:28 PM, Alan wrote:   
   >   
   >>>>>>>>>> Prove that your S21 is any better at this than a   
   >>>>>>>>>> contemporaneous iPhone.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> Not saying that.  In fact, I bought an iPhone 12 model as a   
   >>>>>>>>> gift, which is about as old as what I have, seemed fine to me.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> So then when I asked 'What makes Samsung a "better business [to]   
   >>>>>>>> patronize" for a smartphone...   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> ...you answered with irrelevant bullshit.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Got it.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> It's relevant because what I got didn't come from Apple.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> But what makes it, "simply a better business to patronize"?   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Apple's flagship iPhone is the iPhone 17 Pro (and Pro Max), and   
   >>>>>> it's opening price is $1099 with 256GB of storage.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Show me how Samsung is offering a similar product for a much   
   >>>>>> different price.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> The problem with the iPhone is that it's an Apple product.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> So despite your claims about Apple users, this is really about your   
   >>>> irrational reaction to a particular company.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Got it.   
   >>>   
   >>> My claims about Apple users are bullshit, yeah.  I mean, there are   
   >>> extreme examples that could caricature Mac users, but that doesn't   
   >>> hold up to the statistics of people using Macs.  It's fair to say   
   >>> that Apple makes me pretty deranged and yet they behave pretty   
   >>> deranged, so, ya know.   
   >>   
   >> No. I do NOT know.   
   >>   
   >> I've worked with people who use Macs and iPhones (and iPads) for   
   >> decades, and they're no more "deranged" than any other group.   
   >   
   >   
   > I was talking about Apple corporate.   
      
   And in what way are THEY "deranged".   
      
   Watch out for circular argument here.   
      
   >   
   >   
   >>>>>   We should want to punish Apple any way possible.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Why? What have they done to deserve (and I can absolutely believe   
   >>>> you'd use this word): "punishment"?   
   >>>   
   >>> Well, let's think about it from a perspective we'd at least agree is   
   >>> worth considering - Apple through their Mac product line does serve a   
   >>> real need in computing.   
   >>   
   >> That's an unsupported assertion.   
   >>   
   >> Apple's Mac product line serves the real needs of its users so well,   
   >> they almost never EVER want to use anything else ever again.   
   >   
   >   
   > Yeah so ask yourself why, you yourself have talked up repeatedly buying   
   > Macs, you probably have the slightest insight.   
      
   Again: not really English.   
      
   > "Real need in computing"   
   > here means that there is more than a niche market for macOS and software   
   > designed for it.   
      
   Circular argument.   
      
   macOS and software designed for it encompass the vast majority of things   
   that people want to do with personal computers.   
      
   > I myself almost liked it, I admit, the Unix components   
   > made it something of value, but the Apple GUI is just too tragic.   
      
   In some way you'll never actually articulate...   
      
   > But   
   > for those who really benefit from using Macs, there isn't an   
   > alternative, and it seems that Apple could do more to offer them   
   > something of a competitive deal on a system.   
      
   Apple's role as a manufacturer and seller of...   
      
   ...well, anything...   
      
   ...is to produce products that people are willing to purchase, and to   
   make a profit while doing so.   
      
   Or do you not understand how a market economy works?   
      
   >   
   >   
   >>> There are people who simply get better results using Apple's   
   >>> equipment for a PC, their software to run it.   
   >>   
   >> Not even an understandable sentence...   
   >   
   >   
   > You're not trying very hard, then.  But that's OK, I know your only goal   
   > here is to compete with me.   
      
   You think far too highly of yourself.   
      
   >   
   >   
   >>>   As such, the price gouging on hardware sales does trouble me, as a   
   >>> regulator.   
   >>   
   >> You're NOT a "regulator".   
   >   
   >   
   > I could make Apple repay its customers for overcharging them over a long   
   > period of time.  But I know better than to overuse authority.   
      
   Your megalomania is showing again.   
      
   >   
   >   
   >>> I don't know that it crosses the line into requiring government   
   >>> oversight and yet it certainly does ask that question.   
   >>   
   >> Only in your (self-admitted) deranged mind.   
   >   
   >   
   > They probably would end up getting away with it because it's like some   
   > proprietary luxuries, unfortunately, you pay to play and these right-   
   > brained Mac users are gonna have to play by Apple's rules, even as it   
   > makes them look like sheep.  I can't just wave my hand and set their   
   > prices, though they push their luck about it frankly.   
      
   And here you go again with your circular argument.   
      
   >   
   >   
   >>> If they're continuing to make the base unit have 256 GB storage, but   
   >>> the next step up is $200 extra, at what point is that not just   
   >>> transparent gouging?   
   >>   
   >> Because offering people products they freely purchase isn't gouging of   
   >> any kind.   
   >   
   >   
   > It is gouging because if they want a non-joke of a computer they have to   
   > pay so much extra that they're doing more than their fair share to   
   > support the product line.  It's ridiculous.   
      
   Circular.   
      
   >   
   >   
   >>> Why is 256 still an option?   
   >>   
   >> Because it still works fine for many users.   
   >   
   >   
   > And it's reasonable to cost $200 to double it?   
      
   If people are willing to pay it? Yes, absolutely.   
      
   >   
   >   
   >>> How friggin' cheap is the company that isn't cheap to buy from?!   
   >>   
   >> How is that relevant?   
   >   
   >   
   > If all their revenue for the Mac line is hardware sales, it's weird how   
   > they don't focus more on having competitive hardware, but that's Apple,   
      
   Their hardware sells well.   
      
   Mac sales figures continue to trend upward, so you proceed from a false   
   premise.   
      
   > and you end up having a point because I have more judgment than to   
   > meddle in their pricing scheme, obvious though it is to be gouging in   
   > real truth, self-evident observation, but the Apple fanboys will come up   
   > with whatever stoned theory why it makes sense to pay $200 for half of a   
   > 512 GB SSD.   
      
   More belittling.   
      
   Got it.   
      
   >   
   >   
   >>>>> - but fortunately Samsung comes to the rescue, as they have for   
   >>>>> some time.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> In what way? Are their smartphones notably less expensive than the   
   >>>> equivalent iPhones?   
   >>>   
   >>> Not less expensive but as good without being iPhones.   
   >>   
   >> So it's about your hatred, not articulable, objective facts.   
   >>   
   >> Got it.   
   >   
   >   
   > Basically yeah, I hate Apple with a severe passion, almost to the point   
   > of obsession.   
      
   Oh, well past that point.   
      
   > It has led me to even exaggerate including personal   
   > attacks on Mac users, but I try to also actually address the real   
   > matters at work, and Apple is guilty of a lot.   
      
   Apple is "guilty" of making products that people want to purchase and   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)