21–26 of 26 posts
I think Amazon is an end unto itself, I LOVE buying goods from Amazon, and anything that lets me do it easier is fantastic. Everyone understands Amazon is a marketplace, no deception here. Google is a slightly different story.
So in summary, there are different business models which benefit (and penalise) the consumer in different ways. I'm shocked I tell you, shocked. The real issue here is whether people understand what they're buying in to when they buy the various products. * Do they understand that Apple are going to restrict you in certain ways? Do you understand what those ways are and what the consequences are? * Do they understand…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But then it is the fault of the user and not really the car dealership. Car dealership do not (cannot?) restrict you from using duplicate/fake/not-their parts, AFAIR. I do not think that anyone would hold the dealership responsible (legally and morally) for, say a mishap that happened because of a faulty fake tire.
Windows as a brand suffered greatly at the hands of OEMs and their crappy software, regardless of whose fault it was.
So in summary, there are different business models which benefit (and penalise) the consumer in different ways. I'm shocked I tell you, shocked. The real issue here is whether people understand what they're buying in to when they buy the various products. * Do they understand that Apple are going to restrict you in certain ways? Do you understand what those ways are and what the consequences are? * Do they understand…
So, is it fair to say that you agree with everything except that Apple's way is better for the consumer?
My point is that the issue is that in many cases individuals don't understand the nature of the relationship that they're entering in to and therefore are restricted in their ability to make a good decision on their own behalf.
Contrast this with what you're saying which is that they don't understand and therefore are making a mistake in choosing Goole or Amazon.
With respect you don't know me and you have no idea what is ideal for me. You don't know my wife or what's ideal for her. You don't know my dad and what's ideal for him. It would be very, very odd if the same of many diverse and well made products was right for all of us.
Being an end in itself isn't better, it's just simpler to understand.
I might be on board with this if the author even began to discuss why what Google and Amazon are doing is less than ideal for the consumer, but the main point he's trying to make remains totally unexplained, and in addition I don't agree with his argument about Apple at all. Why is a kindle fire less than ideal - because they sell books on it? You could make the same argument about every video game system - it's less…
I buy a video game console to play games. Most of the people I know bought a Fire to get a tablet. Look, everyone, naturally, caters to the one who's paying the bills. Advertisers are paying the bill. They make money on the ads/books/goods not the device. Therefore the device is secondary.
Of course everyone caters to who's paying the bills, if not you're out of business. I figure this is more or less common knowledge.
But you have to realize that deciding who pays the bills is hardly ever only your company. In Apple's case especially, there are often 3rd parties paying their bills. Like I mentioned, cell providers pay a huge chunk of their revenue to get the iphone, app developers pay them to create apps on their devices, etc. They do not pay all the bills without third parties.
And even though this is the case, I don't think there's anything wrong with 3rd parties being involved. And if you did (which it seems you do), you should have mentioned this in your post - not just that you generically think there's something wrong with it, but what exactly is wrong with it. Then talk about how consumers would be totally ok with massive price increases on these products and what benefits that would be traded for.