5 ms·
> (But I won’t buy a $1,000 phone; sorry, Mr. Cook.) Strange that the author correctly dissects the problem with Apple's competitors, i.e. that their products
by stupidcar 8y ago
> (But I won’t buy a $1,000 phone; sorry, Mr. Cook.)
Strange that the author correctly dissects the problem with Apple's competitors, i.e. that their products are subsidised by violating their users' privacy and selling their data, but then ends with the conclusion that they still won't pay what Apple is charging. I wish they'd elaborated: Are they arguing that it'd better not to have a smartphone, or better to accept selling your privacy to get a cheaper phone?
- NeedMoreTea 8y agoNo need to buy the overrated $1k flagship, the $400ish SE is a fine phone for most people.
- dingaling 8y agoOr get the cheaper subsidised phone and don't submit to the data collection. Much like buying a Windows laptop subsidised with crapware but putting Linux on it.
- MBCook 8y agoHow do you not submit to the data collection? Didn’t we just find out google does that when you turn it off?
- solarkraft 8y agoRemove Google software. Unfortunately usually seems to result in a pretty bad experience.
- MBCook 8y agoThat’s Apple’s top of the line phone. You can ge a very nice new phone for $700 from them as well. That was all I read into it.
- ko27 8y ago> or better to accept selling your privacy to get a cheaper phone? Or better to not support propriety and locked down systems to benefit all consumers in the future? Android vs Apple is not even remotely close to being a black and white morality issue.
- partiallypro 8y agoI wouldn't call it "subsidizing," the profit margins on the iPhone and other flagships are around ~40%+. It's more like padding profit margins. Google is the the main company that makes money from user data, and that is used to subsidize Android development itself, not the hardware.