Posted on 02/09/2015 9:57:34 AM PST by ctdonath2
Canaccord Genuity’s Mike Walkley this morning ... writes that his assessment of vendor data in smartphones suggests, whose shares he rates a Buy, captured 93% of industry profits in Q4 ... while Samsung Electronics has a minority of profit and all others operate at no profit or at a negative margin
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.barrons.com ...
LOL! We have to release it to improve it. — Nancy Pelosi Samsung.
So far, Tex, you are shooting your arguments in the head and your self in the foot. Keep it up.
Uh, no, you've been using it from first to last replies because you don't have any arguments worth debating.
Post 231
and I quote"BUT THAT IS A COMPARISON OF TOTAL COST OF OWNERSHIP DONE BY AN ECONOMIST!"
Proved wrong yet again.
"Things that are the same for ALL cellular smartphones DO NOT MATTER. IDIOT!"
Nice a twofer, "cherry picking" and ad hominem... You don't get to throw out costs that disprove your premise.
Which begs the question: Did you get your economics degree at Enron?
And you've already admitted to the contract being part of the cost. Here in post:255
"Fine, I'll take you up on that. How are YOU going to handle the balance of the payments?"
hahahah
As a philosopher, you might be a good guitar player. . . I wouldn't know. However your Socratic method sucks.
IDIOT. You still have to pay to have your phone connect to a service, whether it is on contract or not. You pay for voice, messaging, and data. That charge on YOUR carrier will be identical regardless of which smartphone you choose on your carrier. Ergo, the environment on your carrier for smartphone choice is irrelevant to the choice of phone. . . and the economics of that choice. To USE that phone, you have to pay for service. Otherwise, it is the equivalent of a brick as far as using it as a phone. QED.
Nah, I'll give him the 1960s. But what it really is that like all Android users, he seems to want everything for nothing. He is at heart a cheapskate. He's one of those who thinks things should be as close to free as possible. People should not be rewarded for developing new products. . . but he's happy enough to buy them from the used market later, when the originators will not make any money from the sale. That is cheating those who worked hard to make these products. . . and invented them. He'd rather buy from the "me, too" copyists like Samsung who have been adjudicated as copyright and patents thieves, than to buy from the people who actually created the technology in the first place. BAH! I have no respect for that kind of thinking.
You yourself told me your original iPhone is still usable even though you don't use the phone anymore.
See you can't suddenly switch positions to try and back up a premise that has already been disproved.
Besides the first thing one should do is KNOW the definition of words one uses in a premise. You premise was not to do with total cost of "USE" is was to do with total cost of OWNERSHIP.
Bottom line I can own a phone outright with out a contract by paying cash. and that my friend is QED.
Hypocrisy much?
Me: "Hey Tex I got an Idea to make some serious jack. We go and get the new iPhone 6 plus from AT&T for 299 bucks then we sell it to the sparkys brand new in the box never opened for 500 bucks. That way they get a deal and we make cash on the Apple suckers err I mean Lovers!"
You: "Fine, I'll take you up on that. How are YOU going to handle the balance of the payments?"
I repeatedly used the word "carriers". . . but of course you ignored it. I am not responsible for people who have reading comprehension issues. I PAY for services and everybody pays for services. It is a cost that is irrelevant to the cost involved. We were discussing the costs of initially buying a phone then how that cost is ameliorated by the cost of selling it at the end of its service. NOT THE COSTS IN BETWEEN which are irrelevant to that conversation, which YOU added when you stuck your nose into it. Those are irrelevant to the conversation. In addition since they are the SAME for anyone who has a phone on the same carrier, they are irrelevant to the discussion at hand. They become, as I said just NOISE, and can be ignored as a base cost that cannot be avoided on that carrier. If you cannot understand that, you are too ignorant of the market under discussion to be in this level of discussion and need to go back to basic education. Raising it is like asking to explain basic arithmetic. Something are understood in a discussion. I thought I was having this discussion with INTELLIGENT people. I see I was mistaken.
Frankly, I am beginning to realize that having these discussions with you and Mad Dawgg are deleterious to the health of my brain cells. The idiocy is damaging to my mind. Literally the willful ignorance and arrogance BURNS.
Total cost of ownership does not mean you can ignore some of the costs.
Total cost of Ownership means exactly that the "total" of ALL the costs.
Enron type accounting can't get you out of the corner you painted yourself into.
Synthetic benchmark. . . oh, right. You found ONE benchmark out of many in which the Samsung Galaxy S5 was optimized to do well. It lost on all others. AND, you said Samsung Galaxy 5S was "twice as fast in frame rate as the iPhone 6." Let's see. My math makes it 7.3% faster in this one benchmark. Exaggerate much? Obviously you do. Whoop-de-doozie.
That benchmark means that on ONE or TWO games that use that particular routine, it will be marginally faster, but not in frame rates, as you claim, but in making 3D triangles in a 720P off screen buffer. . . it's a purely mathematical calculation in multicore graphic processor benchmark which is then pushed to the native resolution of the screen. . . but NOT at a fast screen frame rate. (By the way, pushing a 720p to the higher res can get blocky looking.)
That 3DMark Ice Storm Unlimited does not take any advantage of Apple's new METAL either. . . so that's one thing that isn't accounted for.
Here's what the article in which that test was made said:
On the synthetic benchmark 3DMark Ice Storm Unlimited, the S5 blew past all of Apple's devices with a score of 18,204. The iPhone 6 Plus scored 16,965, while the 6 scored 16,558, and the 5s notched 14,259.However, other graphics tests painted a different story. On the WebGL Cubes Experiment, which renders 150,000 cubes lit by three sources, the S5 averaged only 18 frames per second, just barely better than the iPhone 5s (17 fps) and less than the 6 (24 fps) and the 6 Plus (23fps).
We saw a similar delta when running GFXBench. On the Manhattan test, which measures OpenGL ES 3.0 performance, the iPhone 6 Plus scored 31.6 frames per second, the 6 hit 30.1 fps, and the iPhone 5s scored 24.3 fps. The S5 came in last, at 11.7 fps.
Conclusion
That's a quick look at how the iPhone 6 and the iPhone 6 Plus compared to the Samsung Galaxy S5 and the iPhone 5s. The S5 displays more of the color gamut, but Apple's smartphones are by and large much brighter. In general, Apple's newest handhelds also outperform the S5 on many tests, making them the more powerful devices. — Source: "iPhone 6 Benchmarks: Here's How Good It Really Is" — By Mike Prospero — September 19, 2014 —Tom's Guide
THAT'S Frame Rate. . . 11.7 FPS. No, you are blowing SMOKE! Sorry, you are wrong again. What you did is called "Cherry picking" TexasGator, and that plus a $5 bill will get you some ice cream and chocolate syrup to make a sundae.
A day ago you were telling me that TOTAL COST OF OWNERSHIP was what you paid for it. . . and now you are trying to tell me what it is. All obviously and deliberately refusing to understand what TOC was.
At no point in any post did I say I was going to do TOTAL COST OF OWNER SHIP analysis. I said that the iPhone had a LOWER TOTAL COST OF OWNERSHIP (and there is an article from an authoritative SOURCE on this thread that makes the same point) and I showed you why without going in to all kind of charts, comparisons, and the kinds of studies I COULD have gone into. That meant I could OMIT those things that were equal for all other phones, and therefore IRRELEVANT, to the topic under discussion. I could list some of the other costs associated with phone ownership. . . but they are also irrelevant. Do I need to DEFINE EVERY TERM I use???? Should I include a dictionary of Economic Terms? How about a text book of basic Economics? Perhaps we should go back even farther and include basic Statistics?
Had I been writing a list of all costs of owning a cellular smartphone, I would have listed it. . . but I was not. I was talking about the SAVINGS and the LOWER COSTS associated with DIFFERENT PHONES, not the costs that are equal in the phone purchasing environment, no matter what phone you buy. I was not writing a dissertation.
I have not painted my self into any corner. YOU just do not understand what you are talking about and want to argue from ignorance. Only in your ignorant mind do these things matter, so GO AWAY, you economic ignoramous.
You are deliberately refusing to acknowledge obvious equal and irrelevant costs. . . obviously just to be irritating and obstinate. The stupid in you is also obvious.
A day ago you were telling me that TOTAL COST OF OWNERSHIP was what you paid for it. . . and now you are trying to tell me what it is. All obviously and deliberately refusing to understand what TOC was.
At no point in any post did I say I was going to do a TOTAL COST OF OWNER SHIP analysis. I said that the iPhone had a LOWER TOTAL COST OF OWNERSHIP (and there is an article from an authoritative SOURCE on this thread that makes the same point) and I showed you why without going in to all kind of charts, comparisons, and the kinds of studies I COULD have gone into. That meant I could OMIT those things that were equal for all other phones, and therefore IRRELEVANT, to the topic under discussion. I could list some of the other costs associated with phone ownership. . . but they are also irrelevant. Do I need to DEFINE EVERY TERM I use???? Should I include a dictionary of Economic Terms? How about a text book of basic Economics? Perhaps we should go back even farther and include basic Statistics?
Had I been writing a list of all costs of owning a cellular smartphone, I would have listed it. . . but I was not. I was talking about the SAVINGS and the LOWER COSTS associated with DIFFERENT PHONES, not the costs that are equal in the phone purchasing environment, no matter what phone you buy. I was not writing a dissertation.
I have not painted my self into any corner. YOU just do not understand what you are talking about and want to argue from ignorance. Only in your ignorant mind do these things matter, so GO AWAY, you economic ignoramous.
You are deliberately refusing to acknowledge obvious equal and irrelevant costs. . . obviously just to be irritating and obstinate. The stupid in you is also obvious.
Oh, now you want a phone that is not a phone. Right. Good one.
Moving the goal posts again. The point is to OWN A PHONE. Not something repurposed. Sorry BZZZZT. If it is not a phone any longer, It does not count in this equation. I have amortized the device out. . . and I don't care about the cost. I gifted it. In this instance, after 8 years, it has ZERO economic value as a phone. Sorry. You lose. Again, you have no clue what you are talking about. . . and you are trying to squish and squeeze things to fit into your bankrupt argument.
You STILL have to pay for CELLULAR SERVICE, to connect it into a carrier's cellular network, to use the device as a cell phone. QUIT DANCING! You don't do it very well. It is a form of avoiding the discussion. Lying. You have to pay for your service. Quit implying you don't.
Sparky if I buy a used phone for cash with no contract I own it. Total cost of ownership is whatever the selling price is PLUS all the costs including contracts and such you must pay. No Contract No cost.
Your problem is you can't even get your definitions straight. Total cost means "total" not "some".
How is that hypocrisy. You made the offer. You will be paying Apple their just due, unless you are also a thief, along with your other failings. I am not responsible for your morality. Apple will be rewarded when you pay off your contract. Since you are talking about buying a $299 iphone, you're getting a 64 GB iPhone which unlocked sells for $849. You'll owe Apple $349 after you give them the $500 I give you for it. I can't help that you made a bad business deal. I already knew you were weak on economic sense, now it's obvious you have a screw loose in common sense too. But that's not my problem. You made the offer, I acceped. Seemed like a great price to me! When do you want to deliver my iPhone?
Yup and ownership is ownership.
If I buy a car and pay cash and put it in the garage and never drive it. I still own it and it is still a car.
If I buy a phone and pay cash and no contract I own it even if I don't take it out of the box.
If you buy from the secondary market being me the originators did not make any money on your sale. Only the one I make.
Thus Hypocrite QED.
It is not secondary if you are merely acting as the middle man between Apple and me. . . sorry. Again you lose. Apple is selling a new unopened product. You said you were delivering a new product. BZZZZT. I will register it as new with Apple. Or are you are going to be selling me an opened box, misrepresenting what you claimed?
Apple receives their reward. No hypocrisy. I have assured they got their profit. YOU provide it.
Ad hominem I will admit to, because you earned every single one of them from insulting everyone you have a discussion on Apple products with. Cherry Picking? Not a chance. Selectively omitting irrelevancies, Yes. Why include data that is irrelevant. It's done all the time. You won't find it in the article referencing Total Cost of Ownership farther up this thread. It merely obfuscates the important information with NOISE with irrelevancies. Just as charts omit previous years, decades, and centuries that are irrelevant to what they are displaying. . . or perhaps omit the zeros in listings of millions or billions. It is part of the background data that is understood by those discussing the important data.
Then you add this lovely INSULT about getting an economics degree from Enron. ASSHAT!
Your links about what I said are just more smoke screens trying to make you look erudite. Again, you had no clue what a Total Cost of Ownership was just one day ago. Did you stay at a Motel 6 last night?
You made a business offer to sell an iPhone 6 for $500. It was accepted. When are you going to follow through?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.