Given this $200 Android phone has far greater capabilities, power & functionality than any iPhone ever sold, the article realistically asks how
a chronically underpowered less functional overpriced SE can compete.
As Nothing launches its $199 budget Android phone with tons of RAM and a 120Hz display, it's high time Apple's iPhone SE found a way to compete
https://www.imore.com/iphone/as-nothing-launches-its-dollar199-budget-android-phone-with-tons-of-ram-and-a-120hz-display-its-high-time-apples-iphone-se-found-a-way-to-compete
"The iPhone SE is looking older by the day"
"The display is a huge 6.67-inch Super AMOLED offering that has a 2,000-nit peak brightness and a 120Hz adaptive refresh rate. That's iPhone 15
Pro-like buttery-smooth and a huge improvement over anything the iPhone SE could even dream of."
"There's a pretty nondescript Mediatek Dimensity 7300 chip inside, but it's paired with 8GB of RAM plus an "8GB RAM booster," whatever that means. But over at the Apple Store, you'll need to buy an iPhone 15 Pro to get 8GB of RAM."
The 33W fast charging is more than the iPhone too.
"The specs continue with a 50-megapixel Sony camera around the back and a 16-megapixel camera up front while a 5,000mAh battery means you won't run
for the charger too often."
"If Apple really does want to stick to a price point of around $400, it
could at least sell an iPhone that doesn't look like it came from 2016 with similarly outdated features."
https://www.engadget.com/nothings-budget-friendly-brand-cmf-announced-three-new-products-including-a-200-smartphone-100417261.html
8-core MediaTek Dimensity 7300 5G processor, a 6.67-inch Super AMOLED
display with a 120Hz adaptive refresh rate and a 50MP main camera sensor developed by Sony. There's also a 5,000mAh battery and 8GB of RAM.
They didn't give full specs so I looked here. https://www.gsmarena.com/nothing_cmf_phone_1-13122.php
Dual SIM
microSDXC
128GB 6GB RAM, 128GB 8GB RAM, 256GB 8GB RAM
Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote:
Given this $200 Android phone has far greater capabilities, power &
functionality than any iPhone ever sold, the article realistically asks how >> a chronically underpowered less functional overpriced SE can compete.
What the iPhone SE has that the Nothing phone doesn’t is iOS. That alone is worth it to many people.
What the iPhone SE has that the Nothing phone doesn¢t is iOS. That alone is worth it to many people.
Alan wrote:
On 2024-07-09 17:20, Andrew wrote:
badgolferman wrote on Tue, 9 Jul 2024 23:43:37 -0000 (UTC) :
What the iPhone SE has that the Nothing phone doesn�t is iOS.
That alone is worth it to many people.
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.
Note the response you got, BGM....
What specifically in his response do you object to?
badgolferman wrote on Tue, 9 Jul 2024 23:43:37 -0000 (UTC) :
What the iPhone SE has that the Nothing phone doesn�t is iOS. That alone is
worth it to many people.
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.
On 2024-07-10 10:52, badgolferman wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2024-07-09 17:20, Andrew wrote:
badgolferman wrote on Tue, 9 Jul 2024 23:43:37 -0000 (UTC) :
What the iPhone SE has that the Nothing phone doesn�t is iOS.
That alone is worth it to many people.
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.
Note the response you got, BGM....
What specifically in his response do you object to?
All of his utterly baseless claims.
Do you really need them pointed out?
Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
On 2024-07-10, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2024-07-10 10:52, badgolferman wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2024-07-09 17:20, Andrew wrote:
badgolferman wrote on Tue, 9 Jul 2024 23:43:37 -0000 (UTC) :
What the iPhone SE has that the Nothing phone doesn�t is iOS.
That alone is worth it to many people.
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.
Note the response you got, BGM....
What specifically in his response do you object to?
All of his utterly baseless claims.
Do you really need them pointed out?
Nah, he knows they are there and has no problem with them, but is just
afraid to say it. 😉
Afraid of what?
Why are you so wrong all the time? I wanted to know what he found objectionable so those specific items could be addressed.
On 2024-07-10 13:50, badgolferman wrote:
Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
On 2024-07-10, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2024-07-10 10:52, badgolferman wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2024-07-09 17:20, Andrew wrote:
badgolferman wrote on Tue, 9 Jul 2024 23:43:37 -0000 (UTC) :
What the iPhone SE has that the Nothing phone doesn�t is iOS. >>>>>>>> That alone is worth it to many people.
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.
Note the response you got, BGM....
What specifically in his response do you object to?
All of his utterly baseless claims.
Do you really need them pointed out?
Nah, he knows they are there and has no problem with them, but is just
afraid to say it. 😉
Afraid of what?
Why are you so wrong all the time? I wanted to know what he found
objectionable so those specific items could be addressed.
OK... ...play ignorant:
'As you're likely aware, Apple's R&D spend has always been the lowest in
high tech'
That is false.
Currently, Apple spends more on R&D than all but 3 companies: Amazon, Alphabet Inc., and Facebook (Meta).
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_by_research_and_development_spending>
He justifies this falsehood, by looking at R&D as a percentage of
revenue, but that is utterly specious.
'while Apple's marketing spend is one of the highest on earth.'
And suddenly, he switches to absolute values (if he even bothered to
look the figures up at all).
Either way, he's completely bullshitting. In Apple's latest annual
report, they list marketing expenses in with "Other corporate expenses"
and that total comes to $6.672 billion.
<https://s2.q4cdn.com/470004039/files/doc_earnings/2023/q4/filing/_10-K-Q4-2023-As-Filed.pdf>
Compare this with Amazon who breaks out sales and marketing together is,
and the figure is:
$42.238 billion.
<https://s2.q4cdn.com/299287126/files/doc_financials/2024/ar/Amazon-com-Inc-2023-Annual-Report.pdf>
How's that?
:-)
Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
On 2024-07-10, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2024-07-10 10:52, badgolferman wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2024-07-09 17:20, Andrew wrote:
badgolferman wrote on Tue, 9 Jul 2024 23:43:37 -0000 (UTC) :
What the iPhone SE has that the Nothing phone doesn�t is iOS.
That alone is worth it to many people.
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.
Note the response you got, BGM....
What specifically in his response do you object to?
All of his utterly baseless claims.
Do you really need them pointed out?
Nah, he knows they are there and has no problem with them, but is
just afraid to say it. 😉
Afraid of what?
Why are you so wrong all the time?
I wanted to know what he found objectionable so those specific items
could be addressed.
On 2024-07-10, badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
On 2024-07-10, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2024-07-10 10:52, badgolferman wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2024-07-09 17:20, Andrew wrote:
badgolferman wrote on Tue, 9 Jul 2024 23:43:37 -0000 (UTC) :
What the iPhone SE has that the Nothing phone doesn�t is iOS. >>>>>>>> That alone is worth it to many people.
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.
Note the response you got, BGM....
What specifically in his response do you object to?
All of his utterly baseless claims.
Do you really need them pointed out?
Nah, he knows they are there and has no problem with them, but is
just afraid to say it. 😉
Afraid of what?
Afraid of plainly admitting you side with Arlen. Your trolling is even
more cowardly than Arlen's. At least he squarely states his positions.
In contrast, you slink around pretending to be "objective" and "just
asking questions" (sealioning). You're not fooling anyone. 😉
Why are you so wrong all the time?
Projection.
I wanted to know what he found objectionable so those specific items
could be addressed.
Sure you do...
I wanted to know what he found objectionable so those specific items
could be addressed.
Sure you do...
You're clearly doing it wrong.
Jolly Roger wrote on 11 Jul 2024 15:59:31 GMT :
You're clearly doing it wrong.
The point of this thread had nothing per se, to do with Apple being a
purely marketing company with almost no R&D as reported many times and confirmed by Steve Jobs & Tim Cook since they can't lie about financial metrics.
Apple has essentially no R&D for its size.
But Apple is on the Coco-Cola scale for its advertising.
Don't you wonder why Apple is years behind Android in almost everything? Hint: 5G modem...
Back to the point, where badgolferman astutely confirmed that it doesn't matter to most Apple owners that Apple can't compete with Android on functionality or price:performance since Apple advertises otherwise.
Jolly Roger wrote on 11 Jul 2024 15:54:38 GMT :
I wanted to know what he found objectionable so those specific items
could be addressed.
Sure you do...
Hi Jolly Roger,
I've studied you rather strange religious zealots, where most of the time
you whine because you can't dispute the facts - and you hate that fact.
So I won't belabor the issue that Apple's miniscule spend on R&D is widely reported as the lowest percentage in all similar tech companies.
You know so little about math that you don't realize spending is proportionate to revenue in very many financial reports - and what's even more embarrassing - tech companies far smaller than Apple spend far more.
Nonetheless, the point of this thread isn't that Apple can only advertise innovation - not deliver it - as it's widely known Apple can't even design
a simple 5G modem for Christs' sake - they're that incompetent - when companies far smaller than Apple have been selling them for years already.
To badgolferman's question, the original article questioned how Apple could keep up given the iPhone SE is atrociously underpowered at twice the price.
Which of those statements in the original post are you trying to dispute?
1. Jolly Roger: Are you disputing this fact?
Display = 6.67-inch 120Hz Super AMOLED with 2,000-nit peak brightness
Or are you disputing this assessment of that fact?
"making it iPhone 15 Pro-like buttery-smooth which is
"a huge improvement over anything the iPhone SE could even dream of."
2. JR: AR you disputing this fact?
"There's a pretty nondescript Mediatek Dimensity 7300 chip inside,
but it's paired with 8GB of RAM plus an "8GB RAM booster,"
whatever that means. But over at the Apple Store, you'll need
to buy an iPhone 15 Pro to get 8GB of RAM."
3. JR: Or are you disputing this fact in the article?
"The 33W fast charging is more than the iPhone too."
4. JR: Or do you dispute these facts about the camera?
"The specs continue with a 50-megapixel Sony camera around
the back and a 16-megapixel camera up front"
5. JR: Or are you trying to dispute this fact?
"while a 5,000mAh battery means you won't run for the charger"
6. Or is it this assessment of the facts that you simply don't like?
"If Apple really does want to stick to a price point of around $400,
it could at least sell an iPhone that doesn't look like it came
from 2016 with similarly outdated features."
https://www.engadget.com/nothings-budget-friendly-brand-cmf-announced-three-new-products-including-a-200-smartphone-100417261.html
7. JR: Or are you tryign to dispute this fact?
"microSDXC, 128GB 6GB RAM, 128GB 8GB RAM, 256GB 8GB RAM"
While I realize you hate that Apple can't design competitive products,
in this thread we're only comparing this el cheapo Android phone to the iPhone SE (which, from the specs, is highly overpriced & underpowered).
Note to sensible people:
Do not allow mathematically challenged people to lie to you that a 2%
increase in RAM can offset a 100% difference in RAM - it's just absurd.
Likewise with the battery where the mathematically inept zealots claim
a 3% increase in battery efficiency offsets a 304% increase in capacity.
The fact they resort to such absurd arguments (which nospam was infamous
for) shows how much they actually *hate* Apple produces overpriced crap.
On 2024-07-11 08:54, Jolly Roger wrote:
On 2024-07-10, badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
On 2024-07-10, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2024-07-10 10:52, badgolferman wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2024-07-09 17:20, Andrew wrote:
badgolferman wrote on Tue, 9 Jul 2024 23:43:37 -0000 (UTC) :
What the iPhone SE has that the Nothing phone doesn�t is iOS. >>>>>>>>> That alone is worth it to many people.
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.
Note the response you got, BGM....
What specifically in his response do you object to?
All of his utterly baseless claims.
Do you really need them pointed out?
Nah, he knows they are there and has no problem with them, but is
just afraid to say it. 😉
Afraid of what?
Afraid of plainly admitting you side with Arlen. Your trolling is even
more cowardly than Arlen's. At least he squarely states his positions.
In contrast, you slink around pretending to be "objective" and "just
asking questions" (sealioning). You're not fooling anyone. 😉
Why are you so wrong all the time?
Projection.
I wanted to know what he found objectionable so those specific items
could be addressed.
Sure you do...
We'll see how...
...or even if...
...he responds.
I wanted to know what he found
objectionable so those specific items could be addressed.
The silence says it all.
badgolferman wrote on Wed, 10 Jul 2024 20:50:10 -0000 (UTC) :
I wanted to know what he found
objectionable so those specific items could be addressed.
Hi badgolferman,
I didn't respond to your sensible query of the zealots because I wanted to see how they would hang themselves in defending Apple to the death.
Now that they've done that... here are 1:1 specs to compare hardware:
iPhone SE battery capacity 1642 mAh; $200 Nothing CMF1 is 5,000mAh
iPhone SE RAM capacity 4GB; $200 Nothing CMF1 RAM is 8GB
iPhone SE display is a 4.7" LCD IPS; $200 Nothing is 6.67" Super AMOLED
iPhone SE display rate is 60Hz;$200 Nothing CMF1 is 120Hz
iPhone SE portable storage is 0; $200 Nothing CMF1 is 2TB
Jolly Roger wrote on 13 Jul 2024 14:59:10 GMT :
The silence says it all.
The fact you lied
You are a habitual liar
Jolly Roger wrote on 13 Jul 2024 20:20:59 GMT :
You are a habitual liar
And yet you said I did not list the differences, & yet I did.
iPhone SE battery capacity 1642 mAh; $200 Nothing CMF1 is 5,000mAh
iPhone SE RAM capacity 4GB; $200 Nothing CMF1 RAM is 8GB
iPhone SE display is a 4.7" LCD IPS; $200 Nothing is 6.67" Super AMOLED
iPhone SE display rate is 60Hz;$200 Nothing CMF1 is 120Hz
iPhone SE portable storage is 0; $200 Nothing CMF1 is 2TB
Why are you child-like Apple zealots so deathly afraid of well-known facts?
Jolly Roger wrote on 13 Jul 2024 20:20:59 GMT :
You are a habitual liar
And yet you said I did not list the differences
Why are you child-like
The record shows I said no such thing, liar. You literally cannot post without lying. It's sad.
Jolly Roger wrote on 14 Jul 2024 01:17:08 GMT :
The record shows I said no such thing, liar. You literally cannot
post without lying. It's sad.
You don't even remember your own lies
You're just pathetic.
Jolly Roger wrote on 14 Jul 2024 02:25:08 GMT :
You're just pathetic.
I do feel sorry for you, Jolly Roger.
Jolly Roger wrote on 14 Jul 2024 02:25:08 GMT :
You're just pathetic.
I do feel sorry for you
Cite where I said it
On 2024-07-13 20:00, Andrew wrote:
Jolly Roger wrote on 14 Jul 2024 02:25:08 GMT :
You're just pathetic.
I do feel sorry for you, Jolly Roger.
You said:
'And yet you said I did not list the differences, & yet I did.'
So produce the quote.
Jolly Roger wrote on 14 Jul 2024 04:29:26 GMT :
Cite where I said it
ignorant
low-IQ
religious zealots
you're so desperate to deflect the topic
you brazenly lie and then you childishly deny even your own public
lies.
uneducated religious zealots
Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote:
The point of this thread had nothing per se, to do with Apple being a
purely marketing company with almost no R&D as reported many times and
confirmed by Steve Jobs & Tim Cook since they can't lie about financial
metrics.
In my opinion Tesla has Apple beaten when it comes to successful marketing. They single-handedly created a section of the automobile market that hardly any one wants, made it seem like a luxury car, have more electrical
problems than British and German cars, and are about to be overtaken by
cheap Chinese cars. Teslas are pure junk but people want them for the cool factor. Exhibit A: Cybertruck.
At least Apple makes reliable products that work decently despite being overpriced for what you get.
On 2024-07-16 14:56, badgolferman wrote:
Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote:
The point of this thread had nothing per se, to do with Apple being
a purely marketing company with almost no R&D as reported many times
and confirmed by Steve Jobs & Tim Cook since they can't lie about
financial metrics.
In my opinion Tesla has Apple beaten when it comes to successful
marketing. They single-handedly created a section of the automobile
market that hardly any one wants, made it seem like a luxury car,
have more electrical problems than British and German cars, and are
about to be overtaken by cheap Chinese cars. Teslas are pure junk but
people want them for the cool factor. Exhibit A: Cybertruck.
At least Apple makes reliable products that work decently despite
being overpriced for what you get.
And you just can't bring yourself to address the obvious bullshit
Arlen speaks...
In my opinion Tesla has Apple beaten when it comes to successful marketing.
They single-handedly created a section of the automobile market that hardly any one wants, made it seem like a luxury car, have more electrical
problems than British and German cars, and are about to be overtaken by
cheap Chinese cars. Teslas are pure junk but people want them for the cool factor. Exhibit A: Cybertruck.
At least Apple makes reliable products that work decently despite being overpriced for what you get.
So the net is more pollution (actually different pollution) and less
functionality (e.g., range) such that you have to keep both a real car and >> one of these toy cars in order to have the same functionality as today.
No argument with your assessment of electric vehicles. It also looks like
the general public has finally wisened up to the toy aspect as well. These vehicles can only become mainstream with government intervention, not on their own merits.
At least Apple makes reliable products that work decently despite being
overpriced for what you get.
I agree with any sensibly logical statement where more than half of the USA >> loves the Apple product so much that they gift Apple it huge profits.
My main problem with Apple is how much they lie to their consumer, and my
main problem with their consumer is how stupid they are in believing it.
It's like when Virginia Slims was advertised as liberating women from men. >>
But back to the topic, have you noticed I listed key functional & price
differences between the iPhone SE and an el-cheap Android?
What did the strange zealots do?
Did the strange zealots debate the technical merits?
Or did the strange zealots do everything they could to deflect the topic?
They want me to debate you on your claims but I've never claimed to be knowledgeable enough to dispute the technical details related to mobile phones. I'll leave that up to those who have an axe to grind.
Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote:
badgolferman wrote on Tue, 16 Jul 2024 21:56:16 -0000 (UTC) :
In my opinion Tesla has Apple beaten when it comes to successful marketing. >>Hi badgolferman,
You'll never hear me disagree with a sensible argument, nor will I disagree >> with your logic when I don't really know much about Tesla's marketing.
Given how far behind Apple is in almost everything (except profits), I'd
put Apple on the same marketing genius scale as Coca Cola & Virginia Slims. >>
People buy based on what marketing tells them to buy; if Tesla is the same, >> then I'd agree with you on that logic - but I'm not familiar with Tesla's. >>
They single-handedly created a section of the automobile market that hardly >>> any one wants, made it seem like a luxury car, have more electrical
problems than British and German cars, and are about to be overtaken by
cheap Chinese cars. Teslas are pure junk but people want them for the cool >>> factor. Exhibit A: Cybertruck.
Here, in California, Tesla was successful in convincing the wacko
government to mandate electric cars - which - for a huge state like
California is a big deal as they already successfully make it illegal to
purchase a "new" vehicle out of state (based on CARB regulations).
So even if you bought a used vehicle out of state, you can't register it in >> California (where they defined new as fewer than 7,500 miles as I recall). >>
The problem I have with the electric car mandate is that they're basically >> mandating toy cars that pollute (in many ways) far more than ICE vehicles. >>
So the net is more pollution (actually different pollution) and less
functionality (e.g., range) such that you have to keep both a real car and >> one of these toy cars in order to have the same functionality as today.
No argument with your assessment of electric vehicles. It also looks like
the general public has finally wisened up to the toy aspect as well. These vehicles can only become mainstream with government intervention, not on their own merits.
At least Apple makes reliable products that work decently despite being
overpriced for what you get.
I agree with any sensibly logical statement where more than half of the USA >> loves the Apple product so much that they gift Apple it huge profits.
My main problem with Apple is how much they lie to their consumer, and my
main problem with their consumer is how stupid they are in believing it.
It's like when Virginia Slims was advertised as liberating women from men. >>
But back to the topic, have you noticed I listed key functional & price
differences between the iPhone SE and an el-cheap Android?
What did the strange zealots do?
Did the strange zealots debate the technical merits?
Or did the strange zealots do everything they could to deflect the topic?
They want me to debate you on your claims but I’ve never claimed to be knowledgeable enough to dispute the technical details related to mobile phones. I’ll leave that up to those who have an axe to grind.
badgolferman wrote on Wed, 17 Jul 2024 13:49:21 -0000 (UTC) :
So the net is more pollution (actually different pollution) and less
functionality (e.g., range) such that you have to keep both a real car and >>> one of these toy cars in order to have the same functionality as today.
No argument with your assessment of electric vehicles. It also looks like
the general public has finally wisened up to the toy aspect as well. These >> vehicles can only become mainstream with government intervention, not on
their own merits.
My arguments are always backd up by facts as even the EPA says that making
an EV emits MORE greenhouse gases (GHG) than making an ICE vehicle does.
Notice when the EPA is trying to dispel myths, they still have to tell the truth where the GHGs emitted by making an EV is far greater than ICE.
<https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/electric-vehicle-myths>
It's only after driving an unspecified (secret?) number of miles that an EV (which emits no GHGs directly) begins to cause fewer GHGs, but this doesn't take into account the battery barely lasts 10years/100K miles, which means that's three batteries per typical lifetime that has to be disposed of.
They don't count that the mining and waste from three batteries (four if it was in an accident) also causes pollution - it's just different pollution.
And the range. When they have to bullshit that much to claim the range is
the same as ICE vehicles, then you know that they're mandating toy cars.
At least Apple makes reliable products that work decently despite being >>>> overpriced for what you get.
I agree with any sensibly logical statement where more than half of the USA >>> loves the Apple product so much that they gift Apple it huge profits.
My main problem with Apple is how much they lie to their consumer, and my >>> main problem with their consumer is how stupid they are in believing it. >>>
It's like when Virginia Slims was advertised as liberating women from men. >>>
But back to the topic, have you noticed I listed key functional & price
differences between the iPhone SE and an el-cheap Android?
What did the strange zealots do?
Did the strange zealots debate the technical merits?
Or did the strange zealots do everything they could to deflect the topic? >>>
They want me to debate you on your claims but I've never claimed to be
knowledgeable enough to dispute the technical details related to mobile
phones. I'll leave that up to those who have an axe to grind.
I always try to understand why the strange zealots act the way they do.
I gave the specifications to the two phones, which are facts, right?
What did they give in response?
On 2024-07-17 06:49, badgolferman wrote:
They want me to debate you on your claims but I’ve never claimed to
be knowledgeable enough to dispute the technical details related to
mobile phones. I’ll leave that up to those who have an axe to grind.
What is technical about pointing out obvious lies?
What is technical about pointing out obvious lies?
He's trying really hard to play the plausible deniability card, like
most cowards do.
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
Alan wrote:
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?
I think it's easy to find statistics which back up anyone's position.
Often times those very same statistics can be manipulated in a way to suddenly support someone else's position.
Personally I don't care how much or what percentage of sales/market value/bottom line Apple spends on marketing or research & development.
I don't take personally anything Arlen says because he often makes some
good points regardless of my own mobile phone preferences. I have
owned Apple iPhones since the 4 model and Arlen has done nothing to
convince me to drop my phones. Apologists like nospam and Jolly Roger
have done far more to taint Apple's reputation in my eyes than Arlen
has.
Alan wrote:
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?
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?
I think it's easy to find statistics which back up anyone's position.
Often times those very same statistics can be manipulated in a way to suddenly support someone else's position.
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
What don't care about is having the personal integrity to call a lie a lie. >>
Lest you forget, I have confronted Arlen before and he has apologized to
me. At least he had the integrity to admit when he was wrong. Integrity is something people like Jolly Roger don’t have a shred of in their body. Things that matter are worth fighting for, not what someone says about trillion dollars companies.
Alan wrote:
On 2024-07-09 17:20, Andrew wrote:
badgolferman wrote on Tue, 9 Jul 2024 23:43:37 -0000 (UTC) :
What the iPhone SE has that the Nothing phone doesn�t is iOS.
That alone is worth it to many people.
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.
Note the response you got, BGM....
What specifically in his response do you object to?
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
What don't care about is having the personal integrity to call a lie
a lie.
Lest you forget, I have confronted Arlen before and he has apologized
to me.
At least he had the integrity to admit when he was wrong.
Integrity is something people like Jolly Roger don’t have a shred of
in their body.
Things that matter are worth fighting for
Squirm, little worm!
the truth doesn't matter
Jolly Roger wrote on 17 Jul 2024 23:28:58 GMT :
the truth doesn't matter
Despite religious zealots being frantically desperate to make the conversation NOT about differences between the phones, the fact remains
The $200 Nothing CMF1 removable portable storage capability = 2TB
The iPhone SE removable portable storage capability = 0 bytes
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 battery capacity = 5,000mAh
The iPhone SE battery capacity = 1642 mAh.
Jolly Roger wrote on 17 Jul 2024 20:41:56 GMT :
Squirm, little worm!
Despite the ignorant zealots' despreate attempts at deflection...
And given the subject of this thread is clearly a phone comparison,
the only specifications that matter for this thread are those of
a. The iPhone SE
b. The Nothing CMF1
To wit:
The iPhone SE removable portable storage capability = 0 bytes
The $200 Nothing CMF1 removable portable storage capability = 2TB
The iPhone SE RAM capacity = 4GB
The $200 Nothing CMF1 RAM capacity = 8GB
The iPhone SE display = 4.7" LCD IPS
The $200 Nothing CMF1 display = 6.67" Super AMOLED
The iPhone SE display refresh = 60Hz
The $200 Nothing CMF1 display refresh = 120Hz
The iPhone SE battery capacity = 1642 mAh.
The $200 Nothing CMF1 battery capacity = 5,000mAh
It's not surprising that the uneducated low-IQ ignorant religious zealots were & are completely unaware of how crappy the equivalent iPhone is.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 430 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 123:29:10 |
| Calls: | 9,059 |
| Calls today: | 6 |
| Files: | 13,398 |
| Messages: | 6,017,163 |
| Posted today: | 1 |