3 ms·

> Users are easily duped by marketing. Even technologists. Ah yes. Everything can be explained by marketing, and marketing alone. Poor, poor Google, and Samsun

> Users are easily duped by marketing. Even technologists. Ah yes. Everything can be explained by marketing, and marketing alone. Poor, poor Google, and Samsung, and so on, who are struggling to find the money and the power to make people buy Android phones through the power of marketing. Perhaps, just perhaps, I'm going on a limb here, Apple actually makes a phone that people want?

lern_too_spel 5y ago
We are, in this very thread, discussing a reason why Apple's phones are worse that people have been duped into putting in the pros column. They are also worse for privacy, yet Apple markets their devices' privacy. They are worse for security, yet Apple markets their devices' security. The shoe fits. Apple has been a marketing-driven company for decades now and is better at it than any other tech company by a country mile. It's why they bought Beats, not for their technology, but for their marketing prowess. The other companies you listed pick features that are better on their devices to market. Apple's marketing department figured out long ago that no such restriction is necessary.
- dmitriid 5y ago
  > We are, in this very thread, discussing a reason why Apple's phones are worse Right now, in this very thread I see no such discussion. > They are also worse for privacy > They are worse for security Worse than what? > The shoe fits. It doesn't fit, not really. It's gross incompetence and ignorance to explain everything by marketing and people being stupid. Because what you're saying, is that a good chunk of people on HN are stupid and are "duped by marketing". That I am stupid and am duped by marketing. However, I've seen and tried the alternatives, and I found them lacking.
  - lern_too_spel 5y ago
    > Right now, in this very thread I see no such discussion. Look at the first comment you replied to. It's about how Apple restricts how you can browse the web for user lock in but has convinced people it is for the sake of their battery. > Worse than what? Worse than Pixels, Android One devices, and ChromeOS devices currently. There are several open source focused devices in the pipeline that have better security design than iOS devices as well but are not yet ready. > That I am stupid and am duped by marketing. I did not say you are stupid. I said that people are duped by marketing, and I gave examples. I even pointed out that technologists can be duped, and they are smart in the field they were duped in. Apple's marketing department is smart, and Apple's other employees are smart for supporting their efforts, though when they get caught parroting marketing talking points that are clearly false, it can be embarrassing.
    - dmitriid 5y ago
      > Look at the first comment you replied to. It's about how Apple restricts how you can browse the web for user lock in but has convinced people it is for the sake of their battery. Ah yes. That comment is obviously wrong, and your comment is obviously correct because you are right, and the other person is wrong. Is that how this works? > Worse than Pixels, ... and ChromeOS devices currently. So. Pixels and ChromeOS are made by Google. You know, - 80% of Google's money comes from online advertising. And this advertising relies on far-reaching privacy invasive tracking - Google's own employees admitted that they have no idea how to turn the various methods of tracking off. Among others location tracking is so intertwined in Google's products that it's impossible to turn it off at all Yup. These devices are surely worse for privacy than iPhones which go as far as limit tracking at the OS level. Can't attest to the devices current security. Given Android's spotty track record of updates, I wouldn't hold my breath for AndroidOne. Oh. And Pixel 3 which was released in the ancient times of exactly three years ago will no longer receive any updates. So yeah. Meanwhile the iOS 15 which was released this September is available on iPhone SE from 5 years ago. > There are several open source focused devices in the pipeline that have better ... but are not yet ready. I yes. Imaginary non-existent phones. In that case I have a phone that's better than any of those, and better than iPhone, and better than Pixel 6. Care to buy one? > I said that people are duped by marketing, and I gave examples. No, you didn't. What you did, was make overly broad statements that are either pure speculation, or can be easily refuted.
      - lern_too_spel 5y ago
        > Is that how this works? Read my comment in the context of what it was responding to. You seem to have grossly misunderstood it. > Yup. These devices are surely worse for privacy than iPhones which go as far as limit tracking at the OS level. iOS devices do not support end-to-end encryption of message backups, do not support allowing a user to run apps on the device without telling Apple, and do not support getting a user's location without telling Apple. Despite what you may infer about each company's motives, each company's actual actions show a very clear difference in privacy on their devices. Apple is motivated to make money by any means it has available. If it can make money by charging users more for devices and violating their privacy by marketing their devices as being better for privacy, it will do so, and we can see that this is happening right now. > Meanwhile the iOS 15 which was released this September is available on iPhone SE from 5 years ago. So you admit an iPhone from 6 years ago is insecure. The fact that only recent devices from either vendor are secure is the same for both, so a user who cares about security will only use a recent device. The difference is that recent devices from Google are far more secure than recent devices from Apple. > Imaginary non-existent phones. I was just illustrating that there will be more options in the future. Apple knows about the security features offered by current and future devices but despite that hasn't tried to match those security features and instead contents itself with merely marketing security. > No, you didn't. Read my first post. You still haven't refuted it.

lern_too_spel 5y ago

We are, in this very thread, discussing a reason why Apple's phones are worse that people have been duped into putting in the pros column. They are also worse for privacy, yet Apple markets their devices' privacy. They are worse for security, yet Apple markets their devices' security. The shoe fits. Apple has been a marketing-driven company for decades now and is better at it than any other tech company by a country mile. It's why they bought Beats, not for their technology, but for their marketing prowess. The other companies you listed pick features that are better on their devices to market. Apple's marketing department figured out long ago that no such restriction is necessary.

dmitriid 5y ago
> We are, in this very thread, discussing a reason why Apple's phones are worse Right now, in this very thread I see no such discussion. > They are also worse for privacy > They are worse for security Worse than what? > The shoe fits. It doesn't fit, not really. It's gross incompetence and ignorance to explain everything by marketing and people being stupid. Because what you're saying, is that a good chunk of people on HN are stupid and are "duped by marketing". That I am stupid and am duped by marketing. However, I've seen and tried the alternatives, and I found them lacking.
- lern_too_spel 5y ago
  > Right now, in this very thread I see no such discussion. Look at the first comment you replied to. It's about how Apple restricts how you can browse the web for user lock in but has convinced people it is for the sake of their battery. > Worse than what? Worse than Pixels, Android One devices, and ChromeOS devices currently. There are several open source focused devices in the pipeline that have better security design than iOS devices as well but are not yet ready. > That I am stupid and am duped by marketing. I did not say you are stupid. I said that people are duped by marketing, and I gave examples. I even pointed out that technologists can be duped, and they are smart in the field they were duped in. Apple's marketing department is smart, and Apple's other employees are smart for supporting their efforts, though when they get caught parroting marketing talking points that are clearly false, it can be embarrassing.
  - dmitriid 5y ago
    > Look at the first comment you replied to. It's about how Apple restricts how you can browse the web for user lock in but has convinced people it is for the sake of their battery. Ah yes. That comment is obviously wrong, and your comment is obviously correct because you are right, and the other person is wrong. Is that how this works? > Worse than Pixels, ... and ChromeOS devices currently. So. Pixels and ChromeOS are made by Google. You know, - 80% of Google's money comes from online advertising. And this advertising relies on far-reaching privacy invasive tracking - Google's own employees admitted that they have no idea how to turn the various methods of tracking off. Among others location tracking is so intertwined in Google's products that it's impossible to turn it off at all Yup. These devices are surely worse for privacy than iPhones which go as far as limit tracking at the OS level. Can't attest to the devices current security. Given Android's spotty track record of updates, I wouldn't hold my breath for AndroidOne. Oh. And Pixel 3 which was released in the ancient times of exactly three years ago will no longer receive any updates. So yeah. Meanwhile the iOS 15 which was released this September is available on iPhone SE from 5 years ago. > There are several open source focused devices in the pipeline that have better ... but are not yet ready. I yes. Imaginary non-existent phones. In that case I have a phone that's better than any of those, and better than iPhone, and better than Pixel 6. Care to buy one? > I said that people are duped by marketing, and I gave examples. No, you didn't. What you did, was make overly broad statements that are either pure speculation, or can be easily refuted.
    - lern_too_spel 5y ago
      > Is that how this works? Read my comment in the context of what it was responding to. You seem to have grossly misunderstood it. > Yup. These devices are surely worse for privacy than iPhones which go as far as limit tracking at the OS level. iOS devices do not support end-to-end encryption of message backups, do not support allowing a user to run apps on the device without telling Apple, and do not support getting a user's location without telling Apple. Despite what you may infer about each company's motives, each company's actual actions show a very clear difference in privacy on their devices. Apple is motivated to make money by any means it has available. If it can make money by charging users more for devices and violating their privacy by marketing their devices as being better for privacy, it will do so, and we can see that this is happening right now. > Meanwhile the iOS 15 which was released this September is available on iPhone SE from 5 years ago. So you admit an iPhone from 6 years ago is insecure. The fact that only recent devices from either vendor are secure is the same for both, so a user who cares about security will only use a recent device. The difference is that recent devices from Google are far more secure than recent devices from Apple. > Imaginary non-existent phones. I was just illustrating that there will be more options in the future. Apple knows about the security features offered by current and future devices but despite that hasn't tried to match those security features and instead contents itself with merely marketing security. > No, you didn't. Read my first post. You still haven't refuted it.