3 ms·

Beautiful. For Apple, it's all about controlling the minds of consumers. And controlling their access to information about the devices. For Samsung, it's les

Beautiful. For Apple, it's all about controlling the minds of consumers. And controlling their access to information about the devices. For Samsung, it's less about that and more about plain old lack of interoperability: proprietary plugs, crappy Windows proprietary "install" software that was written hastily, and other little annoyances, stuff that will only work with Samsung. Like every other Asian manufacturer for as long as I can remember. (But at least companies like Samsung make SSD's and other components that can be used in any device. They keep companies like Apple afloat. Can Apple make its own components? Not as cost-effectively as Samsung.) The result is always the same: the consumer overpays for these cheap electronics and gets next to zero customer service. It's "take it or leave it". Showing a random Starbucks customer OSX in a virtual machine? Priceless. If they only knew what their iPhones, iPads, "iOS" and "OSX" were really made of. They might never care. But they do care about overpaying.

taligent 14y ago
Well this is odd. You do know that other companies beside Samsung make components and thinking that Samsung is keeping Apple afloat is pure and utter delusion.
- delllapssuck 14y ago
  Yes, I know that. Samsung is one company among many. For example, in the first iPods (which kicked off this insane run Apple is having), they relied on Toshiba for the drives. I also know that thinking Apple would be able to stay afloat if they did not use manufacturers in Asia, such as Samsung, is "utter delusion". Is that what you're suggesting?
MaysonL 14y ago
But they do care about overpaying. But they keep coming back to Starbucks, and they buy subsidised cellphones, with two-year plans. And they think they care about overpaying.
- delllapssuck 14y ago
  One word: choice. Starbucks has forced other coffee shops (assuming there were any- in many cities they wasn't anything comparable to Starbucks in recent times) out of the picture. Are Starbucks customers faced with an abundance of choice of which coffee shop to visit? Or is Starbucks front and center, the "default choice"? Maybe things have changed but in the past there were no unsubsidised cellphones available to US customers. Are US consumers wanting a cellphone now having to decide whether to buy a subsidised (locked) or unsubsidised cellphone? Maybe things are changing. In many other countries the phones are not locked. Choice. When someone in the US goes to buy a touchscreen tablet, how much choice of other alternatives will they have?
nachteilig 14y ago
How can you claim to say what it's all about for Apple? You are very far out of bounds to claim it's about controlling something. From my perspective it's about making devices that offer a good experience, and from their current earnings I'd say that consumers believe it to be a fair price for that experience.
- delllapssuck 14y ago
  How can you define what is a "good experience" for other users? What is a "good experience" for you might not be for someone else, e.g., someone who knows how to program, someone who knows how to make their computer do lots of things Apple's devices either cannot do or will no do unless Apple can extert control and extract income from the user in the process (after the user has purchased and owns the device!). You cannot infer too much about what other users want simply from Apple's earnings. Users are bomabarded with marketing. They are told what to want. But most importantly they do not know what is possible. Apple actively tries to prevent purchasers from tinkering with their own purchases to learn about them. If you keep users naive about what's possible from a computer, then it's easy to define the experience they will have (and claim they want the experience you provide). Because you are preventing users from exploring any other experience! Apple computers are locked down. They do everything possible to try to stop you from even opening the case. As a user, I can't change much of anything about the "experience". I have to accept what Apple gives me, their definition of "user experience" and be happy with it. End of story. Is that choice? No. Fail. No one define what is a "good experience" for anyone else. That is their decision to make. But you can control their access to information, manipulate their choices and pass their "decision" off as being independent and based on merit. You can believe your own hype. You can even initiate lawsuits and claim they are not about patents and money, but about "values". Of course, outside of the industry, this looks quite silly. When I want to demonstrate my "values", I file lawsuits in order to do it? WTF? This is the culture at Apple. The legacy of Steve Jobs' emotional immaturity and hissy fits: "I'm gonna sue Google into oblivion for Android even if it brings down this company." (paraphrasing his whining on a cell phone call to Eric Schmidt from Burning Man when Android was released) Apple's "values" are crystal clear. They've been pulling this crap since the 80's. It's just risen to unprecedented levels now with their post-iPod success. They have more influence on the industry as a whole than ever before. They may turn out to be even more toxic to personal computing than Microsoft. Be happy with what Apple gives you. Because if they have their way that is _all_ you're going to get.

taligent 14y ago

Well this is odd. You do know that other companies beside Samsung make components and thinking that Samsung is keeping Apple afloat is pure and utter delusion.

delllapssuck 14y ago
Yes, I know that. Samsung is one company among many. For example, in the first iPods (which kicked off this insane run Apple is having), they relied on Toshiba for the drives. I also know that thinking Apple would be able to stay afloat if they did not use manufacturers in Asia, such as Samsung, is "utter delusion". Is that what you're suggesting?

MaysonL 14y ago

But they do care about overpaying. But they keep coming back to Starbucks, and they buy subsidised cellphones, with two-year plans. And they think they care about overpaying.

delllapssuck 14y ago
One word: choice. Starbucks has forced other coffee shops (assuming there were any- in many cities they wasn't anything comparable to Starbucks in recent times) out of the picture. Are Starbucks customers faced with an abundance of choice of which coffee shop to visit? Or is Starbucks front and center, the "default choice"? Maybe things have changed but in the past there were no unsubsidised cellphones available to US customers. Are US consumers wanting a cellphone now having to decide whether to buy a subsidised (locked) or unsubsidised cellphone? Maybe things are changing. In many other countries the phones are not locked. Choice. When someone in the US goes to buy a touchscreen tablet, how much choice of other alternatives will they have?

nachteilig 14y ago

How can you claim to say what it's all about for Apple? You are very far out of bounds to claim it's about controlling something. From my perspective it's about making devices that offer a good experience, and from their current earnings I'd say that consumers believe it to be a fair price for that experience.

delllapssuck 14y ago
How can you define what is a "good experience" for other users? What is a "good experience" for you might not be for someone else, e.g., someone who knows how to program, someone who knows how to make their computer do lots of things Apple's devices either cannot do or will no do unless Apple can extert control and extract income from the user in the process (after the user has purchased and owns the device!). You cannot infer too much about what other users want simply from Apple's earnings. Users are bomabarded with marketing. They are told what to want. But most importantly they do not know what is possible. Apple actively tries to prevent purchasers from tinkering with their own purchases to learn about them. If you keep users naive about what's possible from a computer, then it's easy to define the experience they will have (and claim they want the experience you provide). Because you are preventing users from exploring any other experience! Apple computers are locked down. They do everything possible to try to stop you from even opening the case. As a user, I can't change much of anything about the "experience". I have to accept what Apple gives me, their definition of "user experience" and be happy with it. End of story. Is that choice? No. Fail. No one define what is a "good experience" for anyone else. That is their decision to make. But you can control their access to information, manipulate their choices and pass their "decision" off as being independent and based on merit. You can believe your own hype. You can even initiate lawsuits and claim they are not about patents and money, but about "values". Of course, outside of the industry, this looks quite silly. When I want to demonstrate my "values", I file lawsuits in order to do it? WTF? This is the culture at Apple. The legacy of Steve Jobs' emotional immaturity and hissy fits: "I'm gonna sue Google into oblivion for Android even if it brings down this company." (paraphrasing his whining on a cell phone call to Eric Schmidt from Burning Man when Android was released) Apple's "values" are crystal clear. They've been pulling this crap since the 80's. It's just risen to unprecedented levels now with their post-iPod success. They have more influence on the industry as a whole than ever before. They may turn out to be even more toxic to personal computing than Microsoft. Be happy with what Apple gives you. Because if they have their way that is _all_ you're going to get.