On 2023-05-19, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>
> That it pisses Apple and Apple "fan-atics" is a bonus that makes us
> happy :-P

True colors.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On 2023-05-19, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> On 2023-05-18 22:22, Bob Campbell wrote:
>> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>>> On 2023-05-18, Umberto <canaliumberto@impresatrecolli.com> wrote:
>>>> On May 18, 2023, Jolly Roger wrote
>>>> (in article<news:kcmmavFcekjU1@mid.individual.net>):
>>
>> Proving - ONCE AGAIN - that Arlen never posts a link that supports
>> his absurd claims. He has a 100% record on this.
>>
>> Remember a few months ago when Arlen INSISTED that “Apple pleaded
>> guilty in France” to whatever the horrible offense was, and settled
>> with France. I can’t even remember now what the supposed “guilty
>> plea” was for. But he posted several links, ALL of which stated that
>> FRANCE OFFERED TO SETTLE WITH APPLE. Apple OF COURSE settled AND
>> admitted to nothing.
>>
>> When you “settle”, the charges are dropped and no one “pleads
>> guilty”. That’s why its called a “settlement”. Pleading guilty and
>> paying a fine is NOT a “settlement”.
>
> Not correct.
>
> A settling means accepting the claim and paying a fine for it, albeit
> smaller, saving time and layer fees.
>
> If the claims were false, they would continue the proceedings and win
> them.

And with that you've just shown the world you know nothing about
lawsuits and the actual motivations of settlements. 🤣

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On 2023-05-19, Umberto <canaliumberto@impresatrecolli.com> wrote:
> On 19/05/2023 14:29, nospam wrote:
>
>> unfortunately, some lawyers take advantage of that by filing
>> frivolous lawsuits and then offer to 'go away' for a small settlement
>> amount. what's worse is they claim they 'won' when in fact, they did
>> nothing of the sort. it's simply blackmail.
>
> Poor Apple. All that money paid to settle all those lawsuits Apple
> loses.

You sound really smart. Apple didn't lose the cases it settled. In each
of them they admitted no wrongdoing (and rightfully so).

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On 2023-05-19 18:24, Jolly Roger wrote:
> On 2023-05-19, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2023-05-18 22:22, Bob Campbell wrote:
>>> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2023-05-18, Umberto <canaliumberto@impresatrecolli.com> wrote:
>>>>> On May 18, 2023, Jolly Roger wrote
>>>>> (in article<news:kcmmavFcekjU1@mid.individual.net>):
>>>
>>> Proving - ONCE AGAIN - that Arlen never posts a link that supports
>>> his absurd claims. He has a 100% record on this.
>>>
>>> Remember a few months ago when Arlen INSISTED that “Apple pleaded
>>> guilty in France” to whatever the horrible offense was, and settled
>>> with France. I can’t even remember now what the supposed “guilty
>>> plea” was for. But he posted several links, ALL of which stated that
>>> FRANCE OFFERED TO SETTLE WITH APPLE. Apple OF COURSE settled AND
>>> admitted to nothing.
>>>
>>> When you “settle”, the charges are dropped and no one “pleads
>>> guilty”. That’s why its called a “settlement”. Pleading guilty and
>>> paying a fine is NOT a “settlement”.
>>
>> Not correct.
>>
>> A settling means accepting the claim and paying a fine for it, albeit
>> smaller, saving time and layer fees.
>>
>> If the claims were false, they would continue the proceedings and win
>> them.
>
> And with that you've just shown the world you know nothing about
> lawsuits and the actual motivations of settlements. 🤣
>

Oh, I saw a group of lawyers assert precisely what I said. IANAL.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
> Am 18.05.23 um 15:28 schrieb Frank Slootweg:
> > Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> >> On 2023-05-18 13:33, Newyana2 wrote:
> >>> "Michael" <michael@spamcop.com> wrote
> >>>
> >>> | Why did you lie?
> >>> |
> >>>
> >>> Nospam is not a liar. He's a compulsive arguer and extreme
> >>> devotee of Apple. If you fall for his endless arguments you'll
> >>> have only yourself to blame.
> >>>
> >>> But nospam does have an uncanny
> >>> knack for sounding like he knows what he's talking about.
> >>> He speaks with authority, avoids details, and switches topics
> >>> in a way that makes him seem believable. I've seen bickering
> >>> threads go on with over 100 posts in the photo group, all
> >>> because people can't resist arguing with nospam. :)
> >>
> >> Aye.
> >>
> >> And then, we don't know where is Arlen, so anybody is at risk of being
> >> accused of being Arlen!
> >>
> >> X-D
> >
> > Well, "Michael <michael@spamcop.com>" is in the 'suspect' part of my
> > list of AH-nyms, so there you go! :-)
>
> You have no clue.

When composing a post, you should use a screen, not a mirror.

In article <utnkjjxep1.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

> >>> When you ³settle², the charges are dropped and no one ³pleads
> >>> guilty². That¹s why its called a ³settlement². Pleading guilty and
> >>> paying a fine is NOT a ³settlement².
> >>
> >> Not correct.
> >>
> >> A settling means accepting the claim and paying a fine for it, albeit
> >> smaller, saving time and layer fees.
> >>
> >> If the claims were false, they would continue the proceedings and win
> >> them.
> >
> > And with that you've just shown the world you know nothing about
> > lawsuits and the actual motivations of settlements. ?
> >
>
> Oh, I saw a group of lawyers assert precisely what I said. IANAL.

you are likely confusing accepting a plea deal (for a lesser sentence)
versus a settlement.

On 2023-05-18 19:56, Frank wrote:
> On 19 May 2023 02:31:58 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>>> Apple shaped the customer's possible reactions by removing the jack so
>>> that the customer is forced to make only the few choices Apple allowed
>>> them.
>>
>> Nah, it was just to piss off perpetually butthurt trolls, and it looks
>> like it worked. You guys are so mad... : )
>
> If you think I'm mad because I explained to you the reason Apple removed
> the jack, then that's OK with me as it tells me how you think about Apple.
>
> I don't care what Apple did just like I don't care how any general
> shapes their battlefield to constrain the enemy into walking into their
> minefield.
>
> Apple shapes the iPhone to limit your choices like any good general would.
>
> By removing the jack, Apple shaped your available choices to only what
> Apple wanted. That doesn't make me mad at all. I appreciate Apple's genius.
>
> So do you apparently.

Apple makes products.

They make them in ways that they believe will encourage customers to buy
those products.

Customers then buy those products.

In huge numbers.

On 2023-05-19 03:40, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2023-05-18 22:22, Bob Campbell wrote:
>> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>>> On 2023-05-18, Umberto <canaliumberto@impresatrecolli.com> wrote:
>>>> On May 18, 2023, Jolly Roger wrote
>>>> (in article<news:kcmmavFcekjU1@mid.individual.net>):
>
>
>> Proving - ONCE AGAIN - that Arlen never posts a link that supports his
>> absurd claims.   He has a 100% record on this.
>>
>> Remember a few months ago when Arlen INSISTED that “Apple pleaded  guilty
>> in France” to whatever the horrible offense was, and settled with France.
>> I can’t even remember now what the supposed “guilty plea” was for.
>> But he
>> posted several links, ALL of which stated that FRANCE OFFERED TO SETTLE
>> WITH APPLE.   Apple OF COURSE settled AND admitted to nothing.
>>
>> When you “settle”, the charges are dropped and no one “pleads guilty”.
>> That’s why its called a “settlement”.   Pleading guilty and paying a fine
>> is NOT a “settlement”.
>
> Not correct.
>
> A settling means accepting the claim and paying a fine for it, albeit
> smaller, saving time and layer fees.

No. A settlement does NOT mean accepting the claim.

>
> If the claims were false, they would continue the proceedings and win them.

Also false.

nospam wrote:

>> Oh, I saw a group of lawyers assert precisely what I said. IANAL.
>
> you are likely confusing accepting a plea deal (for a lesser sentence)
> versus a settlement.

Paying a half a billion dollars is not a win. It's the best outcome Apple
lawyers could have hoped for given how guilty Apple obviously was when they
lied about everything so publicly and therefore Apple's highly paid lawyers
knew that's the best possible deal they could get without admitting guilt.

On 2023-05-19 06:38, Umberto wrote:
> On 19/05/2023 14:29, nospam wrote:
>
>> unfortunately, some lawyers take advantage of that by filing frivolous
>> lawsuits and then offer to 'go away' for a small settlement amount.
>> what's worse is they claim they 'won' when in fact, they did nothing of
>> the sort. it's simply blackmail.
>
> Poor Apple. All that money paid to settle all those lawsuits Apple loses.

A settlement is not a loss.

On 2023-05-19 10:23, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2023-05-19 18:24, Jolly Roger wrote:
>> On 2023-05-19, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 2023-05-18 22:22, Bob Campbell wrote:
>>>> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 2023-05-18, Umberto <canaliumberto@impresatrecolli.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On May 18, 2023, Jolly Roger wrote
>>>>>> (in article<news:kcmmavFcekjU1@mid.individual.net>):
>>>>
>>>> Proving - ONCE AGAIN - that Arlen never posts a link that supports
>>>> his absurd claims.   He has a 100% record on this.
>>>>
>>>> Remember a few months ago when Arlen INSISTED that “Apple pleaded
>>>> guilty in France” to whatever the horrible offense was, and settled
>>>> with France.  I can’t even remember now what the supposed “guilty
>>>> plea” was for.  But he posted several links, ALL of which stated that
>>>> FRANCE OFFERED TO SETTLE WITH APPLE.   Apple OF COURSE settled AND
>>>> admitted to nothing.
>>>>
>>>> When you “settle”, the charges are dropped and no one “pleads
>>>> guilty”.  That’s why its called a “settlement”.   Pleading guilty and
>>>> paying a fine is NOT a “settlement”.
>>>
>>> Not correct.
>>>
>>> A settling means accepting the claim and paying a fine for it, albeit
>>> smaller, saving time and layer fees.
>>>
>>> If the claims were false, they would continue the proceedings and win
>>> them.
>>
>> And with that you've just shown the world you know nothing about
>> lawsuits and the actual motivations of settlements. 🤣
>>
>
> Oh, I saw a group of lawyers assert precisely what I said. IANAL.
>
>

You're lying?

You "SAW" this group, did you?

Where?

On 2023-05-19, Gronk <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> nospam wrote:
>
>>> Oh, I saw a group of lawyers assert precisely what I said. IANAL.
>>
>> you are likely confusing accepting a plea deal (for a lesser
>> sentence) versus a settlement.
>
> Paying a half a billion dollars is not a win.

Admitting *no* *wrongdoing* is a win. And if you think a few hundred
million dollars is anything but a virtual shrug from Apple, a
two-trillion-dollar company, you’re extremely naive or stupid. Do you
have any idea how much a trillion dollars is? Now multiply that by two.

> how guilty Apple obviously wasi

The settlements say differently. That really burns your ass, huh?

> they lied about everything

Nope, they notified users of the feature in the release notes and never
lied about the feature. You lose, again.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <u45o9c$ba11$1@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>> Thing is we'll never know if Apple changed their mind following the
>>>> response to the rumours.
>>>
>>> the iphone product cycle is *long* (3-4 years),
>>
>> You regularly say. How do you know seeing as you always say no one knows
>> anything about Apple other than Apple.
>
> there is a *lot* of evidence, including statements from apple.
>
> here's some of it:
>
> for more than a decade, iphones have had major changes every 4 years:
>
> they can be grouped as follows:
> - 4/4s/5/5s (the 5/5s is essentially a stretched 4 without the glass
> back, a relatively minor difference)
> - 6/6s/7/8
> - x/xs/xr/11 (3 year)
> - 12/13/14 and soon to be 15.
>
> back in the iphone 4/4s days, phil schiller stated that they were aware
> of demand for a larger iphone, but were limited in what they could do
> beyond stretching the 4/4s to the 5/5s, which was already in progress.
> the soonest they could address that demand was with the 6 and 6+.

Right the 3-4 year cycle is for a new design not a new model.

> apple sells ~250 million iphones per year (~700k per *day*, or ~10 per
> *second*), and at that volume, a long cycle is the only option.

Those numbers are simply astonishing.

>>> which means the
>>> decision for iphones to move to usb-c was made well before the eu
>>> decided to mandate it and before any rumours of a custom version of the
>>> spec surfaced, most likely in 2020.
>>
>> It doesn't mean a single design is taken throughout the full cycle (however
>> long that may be). They have to build in contingency for
>> design/manufacturing failures, market dynamics and regulation. They will be
>> able to make some changes easily and without affecting the process.
>
> iphone designs are locked in roughly a year before release

As I said. The 3-4 year cycle claim is somewhat misleading.

>> It's fair to bet that they've had a USB version designed and tested for the
>> last couple cycles.
>
> exactly, and long before the mandate was proposed, let alone finalized.
>
> the transition to usb was *not* a last minute decision, nor could it
> be.

Indeed. Not sure anyone is saying that.

> keep in mind that apple must secure 250 million usb-c ports and an
> additional 250 million usb-c plugs (for the bundled cable), along with
> associated other parts, and that's just for the phone package.
>
> alongside a usb-c iphone will undoubtedly be usb-c airpods, so add in
> another roughly 100 million usb ports & plugs.

That's Apple's problem to solve, not the regulator's.

In article <u4a3ce$11f21$1@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
wrote:

> >>>> Thing is we'll never know if Apple changed their mind following the
> >>>> response to the rumours.
> >>>
> >>> the iphone product cycle is *long* (3-4 years),
> >>
> >> You regularly say. How do you know seeing as you always say no one knows
> >> anything about Apple other than Apple.
> >
> > there is a *lot* of evidence, including statements from apple.
> >
> > here's some of it:
> >
> > for more than a decade, iphones have had major changes every 4 years:
> >
> > they can be grouped as follows:
> > - 4/4s/5/5s (the 5/5s is essentially a stretched 4 without the glass
> > back, a relatively minor difference)
> > - 6/6s/7/8
> > - x/xs/xr/11 (3 year)
> > - 12/13/14 and soon to be 15.
> >
> > back in the iphone 4/4s days, phil schiller stated that they were aware
> > of demand for a larger iphone, but were limited in what they could do
> > beyond stretching the 4/4s to the 5/5s, which was already in progress.
> > the soonest they could address that demand was with the 6 and 6+.
>
> Right the 3-4 year cycle is for a new design not a new model.

it's both.

> > apple sells ~250 million iphones per year (~700k per *day*, or ~10 per
> > *second*), and at that volume, a long cycle is the only option.
>
> Those numbers are simply astonishing.

it is, and as i said, it's something that requires a long cycle and
long supply chain.

On 2023-05-19 20:11, nospam wrote:
> In article <utnkjjxep1.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.
> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>>> When you ³settle², the charges are dropped and no one ³pleads
>>>>> guilty². That¹s why its called a ³settlement². Pleading guilty and
>>>>> paying a fine is NOT a ³settlement².
>>>>
>>>> Not correct.
>>>>
>>>> A settling means accepting the claim and paying a fine for it, albeit
>>>> smaller, saving time and layer fees.
>>>>
>>>> If the claims were false, they would continue the proceedings and win
>>>> them.
>>>
>>> And with that you've just shown the world you know nothing about
>>> lawsuits and the actual motivations of settlements. ?
>>>
>>
>> Oh, I saw a group of lawyers assert precisely what I said. IANAL.
>
> you are likely confusing accepting a plea deal (for a lesser sentence)
> versus a settlement.

Nope. The lawyers were talking of Fox vs Dominion.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 2023-05-20 05:02, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2023-05-19 20:11, nospam wrote:
>> In article <utnkjjxep1.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.
>> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> When you ³settle², the charges are dropped and no one ³pleads
>>>>>> guilty².  That¹s why its called a ³settlement².   Pleading guilty and
>>>>>> paying a fine is NOT a ³settlement².
>>>>>
>>>>> Not correct.
>>>>>
>>>>> A settling means accepting the claim and paying a fine for it, albeit
>>>>> smaller, saving time and layer fees.
>>>>>
>>>>> If the claims were false, they would continue the proceedings and win
>>>>> them.
>>>>
>>>> And with that you've just shown the world you know nothing about
>>>> lawsuits and the actual motivations of settlements. ?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Oh, I saw a group of lawyers assert precisely what I said. IANAL.
>>
>> you are likely confusing accepting a plea deal (for a lesser sentence)
>> versus a settlement.
>
> Nope. The lawyers were talking of Fox vs Dominion.
>

As a part of a settlement, the parties can agree to an admission of
wrongdoing.

Here is the News <news@here.anon> wrote:
> https://dailystormer.in/france-wants-to-sue-apple-for-planned-obsolescence/
>
> France Wants to Sue Apple for Planned Obsolescence
>
> Andrew Anglin
> May 16, 2023
>
> If France has laws against planned obsolescence, they should just ban all
> consumer electronics and go back to the 1980s.
>
> Apple is possibly the worst offender, but every company is doing this. There
> is no real reason an iPhone from 2015 shouldn't be fine today, and yet no
> one, not even the most thrifty, are walking around with 2015 iPhones.
>
> RT:
>
> https://www.rt.com/news/576343-apple-planned-obsolescence-france/
>
>> The Paris Prosecutor's Office has opened an investigation into Apple's
>> alleged efforts to render its own devices obsolete in order to force users
>> to upgrade. The complaint follows successful judgments against the
>> California tech giant in France and Italy.
>>
>> "Following a complaint, an investigation was opened in December 2022 into
>> deceptive marketing practices and programmed obsolescence," the office
>> said in a statement on Monday, adding that the complaint was filed by an
>> activist group called 'Halte a L'Obsolescence Programmee' (HOP).
>>
>> The group's complaint centers around the practice of 'serialization',
>> whereby spare parts like microchips or speakers are matched with serial
>> numbers to a specific generation of iPhone. This prevents third-party
>> repairers from using generic parts, and as models are phased out by Apple,
>> so too are the associated spares, forcing customers to shell out for a
>> newer model.
>>
>> Apple, HOP claims, can detect when a phone has been repaired with
>> unauthorized parts and can remotely "degrade" its performance.
>
> Apple could have been the single best American company.
>
> Steve Jobs was hardcore. He's demonized now, like, "he was evil for having a
> strong work ethic and expecting his extraordinarily well-paid employees to
> perform well."
>
> The reality is, he was a lot more of a serious person than any of these
> other assholes in Silicon Valley.
>
> He did some things people might consider shady, with tricks to get people
> into the Apple "ecosystem." But he wouldn't have run these stupid scams that
> Rim Cook is running. He would have actually innovated, and expanded the
> company, rather than leaving it as a cellphone company that maybe also sells
> a couple of laptops.
>
> Rim Cock designs these phones to break when they drop, then refuses to allow
> you to repair them. It's a criminal conspiracy. There is no reason you would
> design a phone to break easily, and there is no reason you would refuse to
> allow it to be repaired - unless you were a homosexual criminal.
>
> Apple is not even doing AI. Siri is still at the level she was at in 2016.
> The bitch is always confused. ChatGPT isn't confused, is he?
>
> It's absurd.
>
> The French are a group of people who would probably prefer to go back to the
> 1980s. If their government was even remotely serious, they would just ban
> all consumer electronics.
>

To me the most shocking thing that modern post-Jobs Apple is doing is
trying to get into the 3D headset game long after the consumer has rejected
it. What the hell are they thinking?

On 2023-07-01 11:49, Oregonian Haruspex wrote:

> To me the most shocking thing that modern post-Jobs Apple is doing is
> trying to get into the 3D headset game long after the consumer has rejected
> it. What the hell are they thinking?

As to "the consumer has rejected it", phones with integrated computers
of some sort existed before the iPhone and were largely rejected by
consumers are large.

It took Apple to "do it right" and define the category. And others
followed.

Likewise Apple Watch. There were watches ahead of Apple that were
lacklustre. It took Apple to do it right and others followed.

Having seen the product demonstrated, it is clear that Apple are
actually thinking about it where others are in "let's see what sticks to
the wall" mode.

The first v. that Apple put out is extreme. Tons of cameras (mainly as
sensors), 2 processors. Battery weight removed from the headset and
great integration with its OS (which is naturally based on their rock
solid OS base that drives all of their products).

Per Gurman (who seems to get good inside info), Apple are already far
along towards the next version which should be cheaper.

The current version will mostly be sold to developers. Very few
ordinary users will want one - price.

How this pans out in the longer term remains to be seen - I'm not in the
market for it at all - but then I wasn't for the iPhone until it got to
the iPhone 4 "level" of "good".

--
“If you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything."
-Ronald Coase

In comp.misc Oregonian Haruspex <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> To me the most shocking thing that modern post-Jobs Apple is doing is
> trying to get into the 3D headset game long after the consumer has rejected
> it. What the hell are they thinking?

Possibly that they have enough fanboi's that no matter what they put
out, the fanboi's will line up around the block to buy it, and
therefore it will be a profitable item for them.

On 2023-07-01, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
> In comp.misc Oregonian Haruspex <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> To me the most shocking thing that modern post-Jobs Apple is doing is
>> trying to get into the 3D headset game long after the consumer has
>> rejected it. What the hell are they thinking?
>
> Possibly that they have enough fanboi's that no matter what they put
> out, the fanboi's will line up around the block to buy it, and
> therefore it will be a profitable item for them.

The fact that you're actually suggesting that the 1+ billion iPhone
users on the planet are all supposedly "fanboi's" (sp) says way more
about you than anyone else. Your bias has you babbling anti-intellectual
foolishness. Back here in the real world, people buy Apple products
because they are of excellent build quality, have good privacy and
security protections, and provide a far better overall user experience.
And that really triggers haters.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

In comp.misc Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> On 2023-07-01, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
>> In comp.misc Oregonian Haruspex <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> To me the most shocking thing that modern post-Jobs Apple is doing is
>>> trying to get into the 3D headset game long after the consumer has
>>> rejected it. What the hell are they thinking?
>>
>> Possibly that they have enough fanboi's that no matter what they put
>> out, the fanboi's will line up around the block to buy it, and
>> therefore it will be a profitable item for them.
>
> The fact that you're actually suggesting that the 1+ billion iPhone
> users on the planet are all supposedly "fanboi's" (sp) says way more
> about you than anyone else. Your bias has you babbling anti-intellectual
> foolishness. Back here in the real world, people buy Apple products
> because they are of excellent build quality, have good privacy and
> security protections, and provide a far better overall user experience.
> And that really triggers haters.

The fact that you are hallucinating "enough" to mean "all" says lots
about your reading comprehension and art student binary thinking.

The "fanboi's" line up, for days before a release, around the block for
whatever Apple's latest offering is. And there are "enough" of those
to make any Apple product a reasonable selling item.

The rest of the customer base (the remainder not included in "enough")
don't line up around the block in the cold/rain/etc. waiting to be
"first to get" the latest release, and are not in the set of "enough"
fanboi's.

On 2023-07-01, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
> In comp.misc Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>> On 2023-07-01, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
>>> In comp.misc Oregonian Haruspex <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> To me the most shocking thing that modern post-Jobs Apple is doing
>>>> is trying to get into the 3D headset game long after the consumer
>>>> has rejected it. What the hell are they thinking?
>>>
>>> Possibly that they have enough fanboi's that no matter what they put
>>> out, the fanboi's will line up around the block to buy it, and
>>> therefore it will be a profitable item for them.
>>
>> The fact that you're actually suggesting that the 1+ billion iPhone
>> users on the planet are all supposedly "fanboi's" (sp) says way more
>> about you than anyone else. Your bias has you babbling
>> anti-intellectual foolishness. Back here in the real world, people
>> buy Apple products because they are of excellent build quality, have
>> good privacy and security protections, and provide a far better
>> overall user experience. And that really triggers haters.
>
> The fact that you are hallucinating "enough" to mean "all"

"Enough" iPhones have sold (literal billions) that it's a successful
product, and plenty of haters like you claimed it would fail when it was
first announced - just like you are doing now with the Vision. 🤡

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

In comp.misc Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> On 2023-07-01, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
>> In comp.misc Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>>> On 2023-07-01, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
>>>> In comp.misc Oregonian Haruspex <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> To me the most shocking thing that modern post-Jobs Apple is doing
>>>>> is trying to get into the 3D headset game long after the consumer
>>>>> has rejected it. What the hell are they thinking?
>>>>
>>>> Possibly that they have enough fanboi's that no matter what they put
>>>> out, the fanboi's will line up around the block to buy it, and
>>>> therefore it will be a profitable item for them.
>>>
>>> The fact that you're actually suggesting that the 1+ billion iPhone
>>> users on the planet are all supposedly "fanboi's" (sp) says way more
>>> about you than anyone else. Your bias has you babbling
>>> anti-intellectual foolishness. Back here in the real world, people
>>> buy Apple products because they are of excellent build quality, have
>>> good privacy and security protections, and provide a far better
>>> overall user experience. And that really triggers haters.
>>
>> The fact that you are hallucinating "enough" to mean "all"
>
> "Enough" iPhones have sold (literal billions) that it's a successful
> product, and plenty of haters like you claimed it would fail when it was
> first announced - just like you are doing now with the Vision. 🤡

Again with the lack of reading comprehension and art student binary
thinking. And hallucinating something else that is not present due to
both of those mental handicaps.

No where did I say it would fail. In fact, I said it would succeed,
because there are "enough" fanboi's who will buy it that it will
succeed just because of that simple fact.

The only one here claiming anything about it failing is you.

On 2023-07-01, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
> In comp.misc Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>> On 2023-07-01, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
>>> In comp.misc Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The fact that you're actually suggesting that the 1+ billion iPhone
>>>> users on the planet are all supposedly "fanboi's" (sp) says way
>>>> more about you than anyone else. Your bias has you babbling
>>>> anti-intellectual foolishness. Back here in the real world, people
>>>> buy Apple products because they are of excellent build quality,
>>>> have good privacy and security protections, and provide a far
>>>> better overall user experience. And that really triggers haters.
>>>
>>> The fact that you are hallucinating "enough" to mean "all"
>>
>> "Enough" iPhones have sold (literal billions) that it's a successful
>> product, and plenty of haters like you claimed it would fail when it
>> was first announced - just like you are doing now with the Vision. 🤡
>
> because there are "enough" fanboi's who will buy it

There's no evidence that "fanboi's" (sp) are primarily responsible for
the success of any of Apple's other products, nor is there any evidence
that would be the case with any new products Apple will release in the
future. And the fact that you are making that claim without evidence
says a lot.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

In comp.misc Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> On 2023-07-01, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
>> In comp.misc Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>>> On 2023-07-01, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
>>>> In comp.misc Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The fact that you're actually suggesting that the 1+ billion iPhone
>>>>> users on the planet are all supposedly "fanboi's" (sp) says way
>>>>> more about you than anyone else. Your bias has you babbling
>>>>> anti-intellectual foolishness. Back here in the real world, people
>>>>> buy Apple products because they are of excellent build quality,
>>>>> have good privacy and security protections, and provide a far
>>>>> better overall user experience. And that really triggers haters.
>>>>
>>>> The fact that you are hallucinating "enough" to mean "all"
>>>
>>> "Enough" iPhones have sold (literal billions) that it's a successful
>>> product, and plenty of haters like you claimed it would fail when it
>>> was first announced - just like you are doing now with the Vision. 🤡
>>
>> because there are "enough" fanboi's who will buy it
>
> There's no evidence that "fanboi's" (sp) are primarily responsible for
> the success of any of Apple's other products, nor is there any evidence
> that would be the case with any new products Apple will release in the
> future. And the fact that you are making that claim without evidence
> says a lot.

Third try -- and still a severe lack of reading comprehension and a
severe case of art-student binary thinking hallucinations.

I never said fanboi's were "primarily" responsible for success of any
of Apple's products, you hallucinated that thought yourself with your
lack of reading comprehension. Someone asked why Apple would be
jumping into building the Vision. I remarked that one reason might be
that they expect with high probability due to past product releases
that at least their fanboi base [1] will buy one, so they are all but
guaranteed those sales. And the number of fanboi's that line up for
every release means a lot of units sold on release day.

As for the future, none of us can know with any certainty what will
happen. But the long lines for every past Apple release day means that
predicting long lines of fanboi's lined up waiting to purchase the
Vision on its release day is likely to be the most probable outcome.

[1] Evidence: The long lines of folks sitting outside Apple stores
for every new product release -- for which Google can find you ample
news coverage. All of those fanboi's that sit for days waiting for
release day are there to buy whatever it is that is the new thing for
that release day.