-hh wrote on Sun, 21 Jul 2024 10:03:35 -0400 :

> On the contrary, the evidence is in the lack of news/drama when it comes
> to product as deployed - the classical "it just works".

While I'm well aware of the genius of Apple's lies of "It just works",
let's teset that out, shall we?

1. I installed an app on iOS & Android long ago
2. It's no longer in the App Store on either platform
3. Which of the two platforms "just works" when I want to migrate
that previously installed app onto any number of new devices?

Hint: The Apple ecosystem never "just works".

Let's test it again, but with a different set of common conditions:
a. I want to have anonymity when using a web browser
b. So I choose the canonical well-supported respected Tor Browser
c. On which of the two platforms does the Tor browser "just work"?

Hint: The Apple ecosystem almost never "just works".

Do you want me to give you scores of similar examples, from system-wide
firewalls to deleting apps to changing icon names to organizing your
homescreen how YOU want it (e.g., with app icons in multiple folders), to
running non-Google Chrome variants, to running graphical Wi-Fi and cellular
debuggers, etc.

HINT: The Apple ecosystem almost never "just works".

If you think it does, that simply proves how gullible you are to Apple's
admittedly brilliant advertising. Almost nothing "just works" on iOS.

>> It's classic for Dunning-Kruger people far to the left of Mount Stupid to
>> claim a strongly held opinion they can't back up with even a single fact.
>>
>> Q: Name a single thing that the iPhone does that's better than Android?
>> A: (we'll wait)
>
> See: "It just works". The ramifications of this as a developmental
> discipline is to have V&V of new technologies *prior* to them being
> sold, to make sure that they're actually work, reliably, in real world
> fielded applications. A concrete example of this is *not* adopting a
> folding display screen that then subsequently fails/degrades in the
> hands of customers.
>
> And of course, Apple isn't perfectly infallible, for we can cite the
> 'butterfly' keyboard failures as an illustration of a mistake made: the
> key thing is to have a corporate culture which minimizes the risks of
> repeating of prior mistakes - which is indicative of why we've had to
> refer to a failure in design from 2015 .. nearly a full decade ago.

The fact that you believe it just works is proof alone that you know
absolutely nothing of how every other operating system works, hh.

Seriously.
Who is that gullible?

If you turn off the Internet, and if you don't log into Cupertino's servers
every moment of your life, nothing you love about the walled garden works.

Yet, with EVERY other operating system NOT Apple, it still works.
Only Apple operating systems require a login to the mother ship to work.

You really have no business in an adult conversation other than to prove
how fantastically gullible the Apple customer is to brilliant marketing.

On 7/21/24 10:23 AM, Andrew wrote:
> -hh wrote on Sun, 21 Jul 2024 10:03:35 -0400 :
>
>> On the contrary, the evidence is in the lack of news/drama when it comes
>> to product as deployed - the classical "it just works".
>
> While I'm well aware of the genius of Apple's lies of "It just works",
> let's teset that out, shall we?

With your cherrypicked example? That's lame from the outset.

>
> 1. I installed an app on iOS & Android long ago
> 2. It's no longer in the App Store on either platform
> 3. Which of the two platforms "just works" when I want to migrate
> that previously installed app onto any number of new devices?
>
> Hint: The Apple ecosystem never "just works".

That depends on why the App was discontinued.

> Let's test it again, but with a different set of common conditions:
> a. I want to have anonymity when using a web browser
> b. So I choose the canonical well-supported respected Tor Browser
> c. On which of the two platforms does the Tor browser "just work"?
>
> Hint: The Apple ecosystem almost never "just works".

Back when I tinkered with Tor, it worked just fine on a Mac.

> Do you want me to give you scores of similar examples,

No, a few scores is inadequate: your need to demonstrate that the
failures you claim clearly represent the majority of Apps & use cases on
the platform.

> HINT: The Apple ecosystem almost never "just works".
>
> If you think it does, that simply proves how gullible you are to Apple's
> admittedly brilliant advertising. Almost nothing "just works" on iOS.

But if that were true, then Apple would have gone totally out of
business a decade ago, due to non-delivery and Reversion to the Mean.

You need to reconcile with how reality not aligning to your narrative.

-hh

-hh wrote on Sun, 21 Jul 2024 19:06:21 -0400 :

> But if that were true, then Apple would have gone totally out of
> business a decade ago, due to non-delivery and Reversion to the Mean.

What you need to understand is that MARKETING is what Apple does best.
Not innovation.
Marketing.

Just like marketing is what coca cola does. And Marlboro. And Chevron.
You think "Virginia Slims" were innovation?
Or New Coke?

Apple is all marketing and almost no R&D.
It's how Apple makes their money.

None of the big marketing companies make a better product.
But all of them spend way more in marketing than anyone else.

And as a result, all of them are highly profitable companies.
Because they sell their inferior product to gullible clueless people.

Like you are.

Nobody spends more in advertising than Apple & less than Apple in R&D.
It's a strategy that works as Apple is a highly profitable company.

There's a reason the iPhone is always five to ten years behind Android.
And why the iPhone always has far more active exploits than Android too.

On 2024-07-21 19:29, Andrew wrote:
> -hh wrote on Sun, 21 Jul 2024 19:06:21 -0400 :
>
>> But if that were true, then Apple would have gone totally out of
>> business a decade ago, due to non-delivery and Reversion to the Mean.
>
> What you need to understand is that MARKETING is what Apple does best.
> Not innovation.
> Marketing.

Says you.

>
> Just like marketing is what coca cola does. And Marlboro. And Chevron.
> You think "Virginia Slims" were innovation?
> Or New Coke?
>
> Apple is all marketing and almost no R&D.

False.

Apple spends more on R&D than all but three companies.

On 7/21/24 10:32 PM, Alan wrote:
> On 2024-07-21 19:29, Andrew wrote:
>> -hh wrote on Sun, 21 Jul 2024 19:06:21 -0400 :
>>
>>> But if that were true, then Apple would have gone totally out of
>>> business a decade ago, due to non-delivery and Reversion to the Mean.
>>
>> What you need to understand is that MARKETING is what Apple does best.
>> Not innovation.
>> Marketing.
>
> Says you.

The corner that "Andrew" has painted himself into is that if the only
thing that Apple does is have superior marketing, then that is the
answer to his "what innovation does Apple do better?" troll.

>> Just like marketing is what coca cola does. And Marlboro. And Chevron.
>> You think "Virginia Slims" were innovation?
>> Or New Coke?
>>
>> Apple is all marketing and almost no R&D.
>
> False.
>
> Apple spends more on R&D than all but three companies.

Plus Apple clearly does a lot of "Make or Buy" business assessments to
decide on where to prioritize their R&D investments. This leads us back
to his belief that no one company can be successful unless they
personally invent and make every last component totally in-house, which
is totally absurd and followed by literally no one. Likewise, his
apparent belief (also quite absurd) that every S&T project is always and
immediately fully successful as originally envisioned.

Reality for both is quite distant from these beliefs, which is why even
his attempts to worship Android fall far short of this vision, as
illustrated by how Android handset manufacturers *also* have had to
outsource their modem chips to Qualcomm rather than to invent & fab them
in-house like he's trying to ask of Apple. Yeah, hypocritical.

As I said, it shows that "Andrew" has never professionally worked on any
technological development efforts ... except perhaps as their janitor.

-hh

-hh wrote on Mon, 22 Jul 2024 10:46:05 -0400 :

> nds more on R&D than all but three companies.
>
> Plus Apple clearly does a lot of "Make or Buy" business assessments to
> decide on where to prioritize their R&D investments. This leads us back
> to his belief that no one company can be successful unless they
> personally invent and make every last component totally in-house, which
> is totally absurd and followed by literally no one. Likewise, his
> apparent belief (also quite absurd) that every S&T project is always and
> immediately fully successful as originally envisioned.
>
> Reality for both is quite distant from these beliefs, which is why even
> his attempts to worship Android fall far short of this vision, as
> illustrated by how Android handset manufacturers *also* have had to
> outsource their modem chips to Qualcomm rather than to invent & fab them
> in-house like he's trying to ask of Apple. Yeah, hypocritical.
>
> As I said, it shows that "Andrew" has never professionally worked on any
> technological development efforts ... except perhaps as their janitor.

An adult would prove me wrong - but a child acts like hh just did above.

The fact remains that nobody in high tech spends less than Apple on R&D as
a percentage of revenue - and - plenty of phone companies spend more even
though none are anywhere near the size of Apple in terms of total revenue.

Alan Baker cannot dispute that fact because it's a well known fact.

It's that lack of R&D that explains why Apple is five to ten years behind
Android technology - which - if you want to disprove - all you have to do
is list what iPhone technology is better than similar Android technology.

HINT: It's just as absurd to claim that AirTags are exclusively iPhone
technology as it would be to claim that Tiles are exclusively Android.

Name a *single* exclusively iPhone technology that Apple has innovated upon
in the past five or ten years that is better than the equivalent Android.

Hint: You can't.

Why not?
Because Apple doesn't invest in R&D; Apple is all about marketing.

Prove me wrong.
That's what an adult would do.

On 7/22/24 11:06 AM, Andrew wrote:
> -hh wrote on Mon, 22 Jul 2024 10:46:05 -0400 :
>
>> nds more on R&D than all but three companies.
>>
>> Plus Apple clearly does a lot of "Make or Buy" business assessments to
>> decide on where to prioritize their R&D investments. This leads us back
>> to his belief that no one company can be successful unless they
>> personally invent and make every last component totally in-house, which
>> is totally absurd and followed by literally no one. Likewise, his
>> apparent belief (also quite absurd) that every S&T project is always and
>> immediately fully successful as originally envisioned.
>>
>> Reality for both is quite distant from these beliefs, which is why even
>> his attempts to worship Android fall far short of this vision, as
>> illustrated by how Android handset manufacturers *also* have had to
>> outsource their modem chips to Qualcomm rather than to invent & fab them
>> in-house like he's trying to ask of Apple. Yeah, hypocritical.
>>
>> As I said, it shows that "Andrew" has never professionally worked on any
>> technological development efforts ... except perhaps as their janitor.
>
> An adult would prove me wrong - but a child acts like hh just did above.
>
> The fact remains that nobody in high tech spends less than Apple on R&D as
> a percentage of revenue ...

Oh, look, "as a percentage of revenue..": its a goalpost move attempt!

> - and - plenty of phone companies spend more even
> though none are anywhere near the size of Apple in terms of total revenue.

And of course you can clearly explain why that's relevant...right?

> Alan Baker cannot dispute that fact because it's a well known fact.

Really? I was under the impression that the Android fanboys keep on
harping that the total worldwide Android sales is bigger than Apple.
Better go check your revenue numbers again...

....and especially not get them confused with net profits.

> It's that lack of R&D that explains why Apple is five to ten years behind
> Android technology - which - if you want to disprove - all you have to do
> is list what iPhone technology is better than similar Android technology.

*Yawn* others have already done so

>
> HINT: It's just as absurd to claim that AirTags are exclusively iPhone
> technology as it would be to claim that Tiles are exclusively Android.

Because that's invalid because Tile isn't exclusively Android.

> Name a *single* exclusively iPhone technology that Apple has innovated upon
> in the past five or ten years that is better than the equivalent Android.
>
> Hint: You can't.

Well, there is Apple Vision Pro's EyeSight Feature: its innovative
enough that Meta has tried to file a patent clone/derivative of it:

<https://www.patentlyapple.com/2024/07/monkey-see-monkey-do-meta-files-patent-designed-to-mimic-apple-vision-pros-eyesight-feature.html>

>
> Why not?
> Because Apple doesn't invest in R&D; Apple is all about marketing.
>
> Prove me wrong.
> That's what an adult would do.

Already done, repeatedly. Now "adult up" and accept being wrong.

-hh

On 2024-07-22 12:16, -hh wrote:
> On 7/22/24 11:06 AM, Andrew wrote:
>> -hh wrote on Mon, 22 Jul 2024 10:46:05 -0400 :
>>
>>> nds more on R&D than all but three companies.
>>>
>>> Plus Apple clearly does a lot of "Make or Buy" business assessments to
>>> decide on where to prioritize their R&D investments.  This leads us back
>>> to his belief that no one company can be successful unless they
>>> personally invent and make every last component totally in-house, which
>>> is totally absurd and followed by literally no one.  Likewise, his
>>> apparent belief (also quite absurd) that every S&T project is always and
>>> immediately fully successful as originally envisioned.
>>>
>>> Reality for both is quite distant from these beliefs, which is why even
>>> his attempts to worship Android fall far short of this vision, as
>>> illustrated by how Android handset manufacturers *also* have had to
>>> outsource their modem chips to Qualcomm rather than to invent & fab them
>>> in-house like he's trying to ask of Apple.  Yeah, hypocritical.
>>>
>>> As I said, it shows that "Andrew" has never professionally worked on any
>>> technological development efforts ... except perhaps as their janitor.
>>
>> An adult would prove me wrong - but a child acts like hh just did above.
>>
>> The fact remains that nobody in high tech spends less than Apple on
>> R&D as
>> a percentage of revenue ...
>
> Oh, look, "as a percentage of revenue..": its a goalpost move attempt!
>
>
>> - and - plenty of phone companies spend more even
>> though none are anywhere near the size of Apple in terms of total
>> revenue.
>
> And of course you can clearly explain why that's relevant...right?
>
>
>> Alan Baker cannot dispute that fact because it's a well known fact.
>
> Really?  I was under the impression that the Android fanboys keep on
> harping that the total worldwide Android sales is bigger than Apple.
> Better go check your revenue numbers again...
>
> ...and especially not get them confused with net profits.
>
>
>
>> It's that lack of R&D that explains why Apple is five to ten years behind
>> Android technology - which - if you want to disprove - all you have to do
>> is list what iPhone technology is better than similar Android technology.
>
> *Yawn* others have already done so
>
>>
>> HINT: It's just as absurd to claim that AirTags are exclusively iPhone
>> technology as it would be to claim that Tiles are exclusively Android.
>
> Because that's invalid because Tile isn't exclusively Android.
>
>
>
>> Name a *single* exclusively iPhone technology that Apple has innovated
>> upon
>> in the past five or ten years that is better than the equivalent Android.
>>
>> Hint: You can't.
>
> Well, there is Apple Vision Pro's EyeSight Feature:  its innovative
> enough that Meta has tried to file a patent clone/derivative of it:
>
>
> <https://www.patentlyapple.com/2024/07/monkey-see-monkey-do-meta-files-patent-designed-to-mimic-apple-vision-pros-eyesight-feature.html>
>
>>
>> Why not?
>> Because Apple doesn't invest in R&D; Apple is all about marketing.
>>
>> Prove me wrong.
>> That's what an adult would do.
>
> Already done, repeatedly.  Now "adult up" and accept being wrong.

Good luck with that.