Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 24th Dec 2011 13:00 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless "Earlier today, Samsung revealed that it won't update the Galaxy S, its most successful smartphone to date, to the latest version of Android. You might shrug and dismiss that as just more evidence of Android's inherent fragmentation or the need for buyers to beware, but I take grave issue with it. This is a decision based not on technical constraints, as Samsung would have you believe, but on hubris." This. A gazillion million thousand times this. Also: "It's simple: make a large high-end device, a smaller value device, and a QWERTY device. Maybe one or two other specialty form factors, tops. That's it. Update them once a year, and keep the names the same." It would make updating a hell of a lot easier. We don't need the Samsung Galaxy SII Epic 4G Touch Sensation.
Thread beginning with comment 501280
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Regulate carrier behavior
by WorknMan on Sun 25th Dec 2011 20:29 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Regulate carrier behavior"
WorknMan
Member since:
2005-11-13

Now you are just plain trolling - sorry, I won't play along. Your constant insistence on using fallacies, misrepresentations and straw-man arguments clearly shows that you are not interested in having a meaningful discussion.


Look, it's really simple. The reason why these companies charge so much is because consumers are willing to pay the price; not because they NEED a cell phone, but because they WANT one. Hence, there's noone else to blame but us.

If we were talking about food or water, then yeah... you would have a point, because people have to have these things, and would have no choice but to pay the asking price if two or three companies controlled access to them. But not when we're talking about a damn cell phone.

If we were to all just say, 'Screw it... we're not paying these prices for cell phones', then the prices would come down, or these companies would go out of business. That is an undeniable FACT, and is the way the market is supposed to work. But somewhere along the way, too many people started thinking that these greedy corporations are like schoolyard bullies that we need to government to fight, because we're too f**king scared to stand up to them.

Reply Parent Score: 3

saso Member since:
2007-04-18

Look, it's really simple.

Sadly it isn't - please see below for an example.

The reason why these companies charge so much is because consumers are willing to pay the price; not because they NEED a //CAR//, but because they WANT one. Hence, there's noone else to blame but us.

FTFY - do you see the problem with your reasoning yet?

If we were talking about <<insert any product I deem important>>, then yeah... you would have a point, because people have to have these things, and would have no choice but to pay the asking price if two or three companies controlled access to them. But not when we're talking about a damn <<insert any product I deem unimportant>>.

Your argument is just another instance of the good old "Get of my lawn!" rant. You seem to trivially subdivide the set of all possible items to own into two categories: "stuff you absolutely need" and "stuff you absolutely don't". Reality, though I'm afraid, is a bit more complicated.

If we were to all just say, 'Screw it... we're not paying these prices for cell phones', then the prices would come down, or these companies would go out of business. That is an undeniable FACT, and is the way the market is supposed to work. But somewhere along the way, too many people started thinking that these greedy corporations are like schoolyard bullies that we need to government to fight, because we're too f**king scared to stand up to them.

Your argument fails in the implied premise that people can do without cell phones (or at least "most people"). Sorry, you don't get to decide demographics and usage patterns based on your whim - unless you can actually substantiate this assumption, you're simply trying to generalize your own experiences onto everybody else.

Another important point where your argument fails, is the implicit assumption that consumers think as one entity (like any corporation, or cartel of corps does) - sadly, this is simply not true in the real world.

Reply Parent Score: 1

WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

ou seem to trivially subdivide the set of all possible items to own into two categories: "stuff you absolutely need" and "stuff you absolutely don't". Reality, though I'm afraid, is a bit more complicated.


Why is it more complicated than that? Either you need something, or you don't. Of course, we could probably get into a good philosophical debate over what one truly needs. For example, I would say that unless you live in a third world locale, where having electricity is considered a luxury item, you probably need access to some sort of landline phone, especially if you're hunting for a job and need some way for potential employers to get a hold of you. (Of course, if your neighbor has one and is willing to let you use it, that would suffice.) But I honestly can't think of too many instances where a cell phone is required for one's survival, ESPECIALLY a smartphone. Since cell phones only became really prevalent in the last 10 years or so (at least in the US), I'd consider any claim that people NEED a cell phone to be rather dubious. Hell, if you need somebody to reach you that bad, and you think cell phone rates are too expensive, why not just get a pager? That's what we used in the 80s and 90s.

Edited 2011-12-25 22:43 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2