3 ms·
> IMO, that's the same sentiment that comes up in the app store tax threads. Some Apple users say they're willing to pay more, but the reality is they're being
by dann0 5y ago
> IMO, that's the same sentiment that comes up in the app store tax threads. Some Apple users say they're willing to pay more, but the reality is they're being subsidized by the users that don't need or want those features.
Well, true, but I have no influence on other consumers decisions, but they obviously see value in the overall proposition. I don’t demand a price reduction from my ISP because I don’t use torrents or tor.
If you don’t see the total value in Apple’s offer, buy something else.
> If you want to pay 2x or 3x or whatever's needed to make up the difference that's fine by me. Just don't make me participate in that system because I don't need it.
Buy a different brand, then.
I do agree that it’s very desirable to be able to simply and cheaply replace broken components. It intensely annoys me too, but, for me, it’s ok (not great) given the overall proposition, to ensure end to end security.
I replaced a screen, parts and labour, on my phone this week for AUD$45 with Apple Care. Can anyone else do that for $15 or $25 as you suggest?
I don’t see the other manufacturers being significantly better in this regard.
The big opportunity for Apple, in my opinion, is to figure out a more compelling recycling program.
> There's not a manufacturer in the solar system that's going to forgo the use of parts serialization unless it gets prohibited with legislation. The money to be made by locking out competition is too appealing.
Our points are the same, but one never hears this level of criticism directed at Samsung or Google. Are they any better? Maybe in a few different ways, but not as a whole.
But pretending that Apple is somehow the worst, when they are categorically far from it, is just disingenuous and frankly boring.
- donmcronald 5y ago> But pretending that Apple is somehow the worst, when they are categorically far from it, is just disingenuous and frankly boring. Apple is pioneering an extremely anti-consumer system and once they prove it'll be tolerated (and extremely profitable), every other manufacturer will do the same, so I don't think it's completely unfair to paint them as being one of the worst participants in the idea. I definitely don't think Samsung or Google are better. They're the same and they'll participate in the same type of schemes. The problem that I have is that everyone is going to do this. We'll have artificially restricted supply on everything we buy and the total cost of ownership will increase accordingly. I don't want that system, but I'm going to be forced into it because not enough people can understand the long term, negative consequences for the average person. > Buy a different brand, then. I do. I've always bought LG phones after they've been on the market long enough to be discounted. I try to get them for $300 or less and my cost average on phones for the last 6-8 years has been about $100 per year. I also pay $<20 per month for a phone plan that only includes 1GB of rate limited data and I limit my usage to important things like tethering my laptop for RDP. It's easy to use "vote with your wallet" as a response to criticism, but some of us actually do. I do it because I can see a terrible future where parts serialization, planned obsolescence, and subscription repair plans foster an era of non-ownership. If we let it happen it's going to be nasty and anyone who's not rich is going to suffer pretty badly IMO.