Re: People ask if the overpriced underpowered iPhone SE can compete with Android

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.