Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com>
Newsgroups: misc.phone.mobile.iphone
Subject: Re: People ask if the overpriced underpowered iPhone SE can compete
 with Android
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2024 11:35:28 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 79
Message-ID: <v792tg$1utf1$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v6kgao$imf$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
 <v6khv9$e13s$1@solani.org> <v6kk41$r2r$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
 <v6mgb7$20ff2$4@dont-email.me>
 <xn0oo5key3b3y8o002@reader443.eternal-september.org>
 <v6mic1$20qdr$1@dont-email.me> <lf87a0F3evlU1@mid.individual.net>
 <v6ms62$ecjs$1@solani.org> <v6msu0$2298n$1@dont-email.me>
 <lfadr3Fdi9fU2@mid.individual.net>
 <v6pjio$2sqn$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> <v76qa0$o8h9$1@solani.org>
 <v78de0$1gj8$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> <v78i51$p3pj$1@solani.org>
 <v78omb$1t6c1$1@dont-email.me> <lfqa7vFq06lU3@mid.individual.net>
 <v7915h$27m1$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2024 20:35:29 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="86233041187918657bf31bf92b0aae21";
	logging-data="2061793"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+IMNVX4m25RbPH90g53uZaiWgnsThfADE="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Rc+9PCKid5pmN+hL0ajLfYZJa84=
In-Reply-To: <v7915h$27m1$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
Content-Language: en-CA
Bytes: 4545

On 2024-07-17 11:05, Andrew wrote:
> Jolly Roger wrote on 17 Jul 2024 16:36:15 GMT :
> 
>>> What is technical about pointing out obvious lies?
>>
>> He's trying really hard to play the plausible deniability card, like
>> most cowards do.
> 
> Which of these facts are you religious fundamentalists claiming is a lie?
> 
>   The $200 Nothing CMF1 battery capacity = 5,000mAh
>   The iPhone SE battery capacity = 1642 mAh.
> 
>   The $200 Nothing CMF1 RAM capacity = 8GB
>   The iPhone SE RAM capacity = 4GB
> 
>   The $200 Nothing CMF1 display = 6.67" Super AMOLED
>   The iPhone SE display = 4.7" LCD IPS
> 
>   The $200 Nothing CMF1 display refresh = 120Hz
>   The iPhone SE display refresh = 60Hz
> 
>   The $200 Nothing CMF1 removable portable storage capability = 2TB
>   The iPhone SE removable portable storage capability = 0 bytes

This particular part of the conversation was focused on your reply to 
BGM, who had said that many people prefer iOS.

Your reply wasn't a listing of specifications (again).

It was this (in its entirety):

'Hi badgolferman,

You'll never hear me disagree with a sensibly logical statement.

So thanks for pointing that out, which, as you're likely aware, is 
almost completely due to pure marketing spending (not R&D spending) by 
Apple.

As you're likely aware, Apple's R&D spend has always been the lowest in
high tech - while Apple's marketing spend is one of the highest on earth.

Marketing alone, e.g., convincing people to believe that the Apple
ecosystem is safer and more secure, is what drives that high demand.

Not functionality. Not performance. Not capabilities.
Marketing alone.'

This statement:

'As you're likely aware, Apple's R&D spend has always been the lowest in
high tech - while Apple's marketing spend is one of the highest on earth.'

Is a complete lie. You are deliberately lying.

And it's not a technical argument. It is simple, deliberate lie about 
easily checked facts:

<https://www.fdiintelligence.com/content/feature/global-innovation-leaders-2022-edition-82527>

As of that report, only three companies outspend Apple in R&D:

Amazon, Alphabet (Google), and Meta (Facebook).

Now, you have tried to advance the notion that what matters is R&D 
spending as a percentage of revenue, but that is absurd on its face.

Let me do a thought experiment for you (well, really for everyone else, 
because there is precious little evidence that you ever bother thinking):

Let us imagine an innovative technology company spending $X on R&D, and 
that number is 30% of their revenue, when suddenly, the product that 
they sell becomes tremendously successful; doubling their revenue while 
their R&D spending remains constant.

Is that company suddenly less innovative because their revenues have grown?

BGM: what do you think?