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?

>
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.