On 1/13/2023 8:05 AM, sms wrote:

<snip>

> Remember, new iPhones come with a USB-C to USB-C cable.

Oops, I meant to say "new iPhones come with a USB-C to Lightning cable."

sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> writes:
>There’s often a debate about the total cost of ownership (TCO) of
>Android versus iOS phones. There are many things to consider when trying
>to evaluate TCO. Some people want to compare a $200 mid-range Android
>device to a $1500 flagship iPhone but of course such comparisons are
>ludicrous.

The idea of TCO dates back to at least Thoreau:

|The cost of a thing is the amount of what I will call life
|which is required to be exchanged for it, immediately or in
|the long run.
| Henry David Thoreau

On 1/17/2023 7:13 AM, Stefan Ram wrote:
> sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> writes:
>> There’s often a debate about the total cost of ownership (TCO) of
>> Android versus iOS phones. There are many things to consider when trying
>> to evaluate TCO. Some people want to compare a $200 mid-range Android
>> device to a $1500 flagship iPhone but of course such comparisons are
>> ludicrous.
>
> The idea of TCO dates back to at least Thoreau:
>
> |The cost of a thing is the amount of what I will call life
> |which is required to be exchanged for it, immediately or in
> |the long run.
> |
> Henry David Thoreau

Yes, Henry had it right. Distinguishing between "immediately" and "in
the long run" is what is difficult for many to understand. But that
inability helps keep companies like Land Rover, Jaguar, Alfa Romeo, and
Tesla in business.

On 17/01/2023 16:47, sms wrote:
> Yes, Henry had it right. Distinguishing between "immediately" and "in
> the long run" is what is difficult for many to understand. But that
> inability helps keep companies like Land Rover, Jaguar, Alfa Romeo, and
> Tesla in business.

Your fundamental argument hinges on you comparing a Jaguar to a Toyota.

First you limit the comparison to only the most expensive Toyota.
Then you fiddle with all the costs to make the Jaguar seem less expensive.
And lastly, you ignore all the maintenance costs of that Jaguar.

There are so many flaws that it's hard to state which is most fundamental.
Perhaps the fundamental flaw is you assume there is only one Toyota.

That is, you ignore all the Toyotas that people buy that have low TCO.
You only choose the one most expensive Toyota that has the highest TCO.

Your approach is to prove the Jaguar always has lower TCO than the most
expensive Toyota mainly using the insane argument that because when you
sell the Jaguar and yet you junk the Toyota, you get a greater percentage
of your initial cost (let's say 50% for the Jaguar and 0% for the Toyota).

You ignore that most people who care about TCO actually buy not the most
expensive Toyota because by ignoring what people who care about TCO buy,
that allows you to compare TCO only for people who least care about TCO.

Once you've chosen the one target market that cares least about TCO,
not only is the resale value of the Jaguar against that of a junked Toyota
proof in your mind the Jaguar is always of lower total costs to operate,
but you then go on to say the Jaguar lasts 10 years while the Toyota only
lasts five years and that maintenance support for the Jaguar is better.

That allows you to come up with a monthly TCO that is lower for Jaguar.