271–280 of 286 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, I agreed with the usb-C law until I realized how easily usb-C cables snap compared to the alternatives lol
I've never seen a usb-c cable snap, and lightning doesn't look much sturdier to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well 52% of Americans use iOS and 31% are Samsung which now get 7 years of support so I think that's actually a pretty large majority now.
This argument would only make any sense if you believed that the reason Americans were buying from Apple and Samsung was for their software update policy, which I'm pretty sure you don't.
I know a lot of iPhone users who will only buy iPhones because of their longevity. They'll keep them for many generations, and they simply don't have faith in Android phone brands to keep up that long. Phones are large purchases, sometimes financed, like a car. So when it comes to buying, some consumers treat them like cars. They weight reliability and longevity very high, and they'll often buy slightly used phones. A generation or two old iPhone is really still top of the line.
A lot of that is marketing perception but there's also some truth to it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've never seen a usb-c cable snap, and lightning doesn't look much sturdier to me.
Lightning is definitely sturdier, but I don't think that's enough to outweigh the benefits of USB-C. USB-C is much more universal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lightning is definitely sturdier, but I don't think that's enough to outweigh the benefits of USB-C. USB-C is much more universal.
Regardless of whether lightning is better than USB-C or vice versa, I am more worried about the general principle. The only organization that has a track record of building smartphones that I enjoy using is Apple. It's certainly not the EU. Thus I want Apple to be able to make design decisions as freely as possible because in practice that seems to result in a good product. I'd make an exception for things that are O…
Lightning was/is the most blatantly money grabbing technology ever.
The reason Apple stuck to lightning is not because they liked the design, or because it was superior (it wasn't). It's because you have to license the connector to use it. Every single lightning cable sold, whether it be from Apple or not, Apple made a pretty penny.
Running such a racket at the expense of consumers is bad. Someone had to step in, because it was becoming increasingly obvious Apple had 0 intention of ramping down the money grubbing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Both of these tactics reduce the sale price of a stolen phone. One is extremely effective. One is marginally effective. But that still means both of them are effective just to different degrees.
Yes, but one harms the consumer far more than any possible benefit from reduced theft (again, I would argue that carrier locks don't reduce theft), and the other causes no harm to the consumer while providing a huge benefit by reducing theft.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but one harms the consumer far more than any possible benefit from reduced theft (again, I would argue that carrier locks don't reduce theft), and the other causes no harm to the consumer while providing a huge benefit by reducing theft.
Ok?
The only theft it is preventing is other carriers stealing customers from one another.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If that was how these things shook out you two wouldn’t have anything to debate.
Honestly, I’m not even seeing the point of the debate. Even their argument implies they’re well away of it.
The profit margin approaches infinity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honestly, I’m not even seeing the point of the debate. Even their argument implies they’re well away of it.
The point is that the cost of stolen goods is zero or near zero in this case. The profit margin approaches infinity.
Most criminals clear less than they would working minimum wage.
It only appears to approach infinity if you ignore reality and consequences, which is often how criminals think. But it is not the actual truth, eh?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok?
So we have a measure that is, at best, “marginally effective” as a theft deterrent by your phrasing and actively harms consumers while actively benefitting the entities that artificially impose it. The only theft it is preventing is other carriers stealing customers from one another.