XPost: comp.os.linux.advocacy, alt.computer.workshop   
   From: nuh-uh@nope.com   
      
   On 2026-02-04 18:21, Joel W. Crump wrote:   
   > On 2/4/26 6:46 PM, Alan wrote:   
   >   
   >>>>>>>>>>> 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.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Again:  you are admitting not really being able to read English.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> No. I'm stating that you wrote a sentence that makes no sense.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Let's remove the somewhat parenthetical clause from the middle of   
   >>>> the sentence, and look at what you wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>> "Yeah so ask yourself why you probably have the slightest insight.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> In what world does that sentence make sense?   
   >>>   
   >>> Uh dude, that is simple mental retardation.  I didn't write that.   
   >>> You're literally gluing two completely separate phrases into one.   
   >>> Were you serious about that?  If so, you need to see if you can pass   
   >>> a cognitive test like Trump.   
   >>   
   >> I removed a separate clause, that was separated by commas from the   
   >> rest, which shouldn't have affected the grammar and sense of what   
   >> remained.   
   >>   
   >> Watch:   
   >>   
   >> 'I removed a separate clause which shouldn't have affected the grammar   
   >> and sense of what remained.'   
   >>   
   >> See?   
   >   
   >   
   > Wow, I think the other poster who questioned whether you were on the   
   > spectrum might have been right.   
      
   You don't understand English grammar.   
      
   Got it.   
      
   >   
   >   
   >>>>>>>>> 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.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> It'll never be circular when half of a 512 GB SSD is $200.  You have   
   >>>>> not addressed that basic fact.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> It doesn't need address.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Apple offers products for sale.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> People freely buy them.   
   >>>   
   >>> Then answer me why my $190 mini PC has a 512 GB SSD *along with the   
   >>> rest of its parts*, how are they so much better able than Apple to   
   >>> get parts?   
   >>   
   >> Because people don't buy PARTS. They buy a SYSTEM.   
   >   
   >   
   > I didn't buy the mini as parts, myself, for once, and it turned out I   
   > really preferred the concept, disaster turned into something kind of   
   > beneficial, but nevertheless, its whole retail price on Amazon was less   
   > than Apple is charging for half of your modestly sized SSD.   
   >   
   > You have not addressed that.  Because no one can.  Apple charges   
   > whatever they want, you pay it because you're loyal, but damn is it   
   > expensive.   
      
   You miss the point.   
      
   Yes. Macs are more expensive. But their value is the system as a whole.   
      
   >   
   >   
   >>>   What a load of bullshit, dude, you just work for Apple, so you're   
   >>> getting your slice of the pie.  It's obvious.   
   >>   
   >> Nope. Sorry. The closest I ever came to "work[ing] for Apple" was when   
   >> I was selling Macs at an Apple dealer...   
   >>   
   >> nearly 30 YEARS ago.   
   >   
   >   
   > I want to believe you, but it would really almost be worse, to be such a   
   > fan that you do this backbreaking work for them without being   
   > compensated.  When I first came to the advocacy newsgroups, I was   
   > promoting Windows 7, for example, I have my past as a Linux skeptic, but   
   > I also promoted what was then called OpenOffice, I was critical of MS in   
   > ways that showed insight and willingness to acknowledge its flaws.   
   >   
   > You don't seem to have anything negative to say about Apple.   
      
   I have lots of negative things to say.   
      
   You're just not paying attention.   
      
   >   
   >   
   >>>>>>>>> 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.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Spoken like an Apple employee.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Spoken like someone who understands free market capitalism.   
   >>>   
   >>> Uh huh except for the little fact that this favors those with more   
   >>> means, they can pay for the privilege of having pretty Apple hardware   
   >>> in their house to keep up with the Joneses, how nice for them.  If   
   >>> you're OK with supporting such a racket, it's your money I guess.   
   >>   
   >> The PEOPLE who BUY the Apple devices feel like they're getting good   
   >> value for their money.   
   >>   
   >> Period.   
   >   
   >   
   > They can do what they want, there are worse luxuries people spend on to   
   > be sure, far worse at that - however, you do have to ask, wouldn't   
   > investing in a Mac be a lot like in a luxury vehicle?  It seems like a   
   > good comparison, because they are examples of functional products in   
   > categories that enough people own to be considered ubiquitous, but at   
   > the same time in the higher end in cost of ownership of the categories.   
   > And your point would essentially be fair, that they chose freely to   
   > spend the money on these products, but what is really better about them?   
   >   
   > Obviously, the person buying it believes there is something better about   
   > it, but to me it seems marginal.  There's nothing a Hyundai is missing   
   > that actually matters in a car.  But it's half the sticker price of a   
   > Lexus.   
   >   
   > You see the comparison, therefore, between Apple's hardware offerings   
   > and a luxury car, at worst for my argument you could point out that   
   > higher-end PCs are also expensive, but I would simply retort that they   
   > have higher specs.   
   >   
   > Apple sucks, dude.  Face reality.   
      
   Nope. You are utterly missing the point.   
      
   >   
   >   
   >>>>>>> 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.   
   >>>>>>   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)