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 ...
How have you assured anything? All you know is you got a phone for 500 bucks. That is what you can prove once the deal is done. You are assuming they got a profit and you are assuming I provided it. And if you know ANYTHING at all about Socratic Dialog assuming is akin to wiping shit on your own nose. Nope my friend you ARE a hypocrite. QED!
Then how is it a phone? It's a piece of electronics that has the potential to BE a phone. . . but it is not a phone until you sign an agreement, for however how long, to connect your device to a cellular network. There will be a contract associated with that period. . . even a pay as you go card. I still question the degree of "smartness" of those phones. For a number of years MetroPCS was selling Android "smartphones" and not one was a true smartphone. They were "Feature phones" that did what you describe you want your phone to do.
Again don't use terms that mean one thing and assume you can just Enron out all the stuff that disproves your theory.
Total Cost does mean Total. You want to make an argument that doesn't take in the total costs. DON"T USE THE TERM TOTAL COST!
Basic Rules of Socratic Dialog. So yes Cherry Picking is exactly what you were doing.
A car and a cellular phone are not analogous. A car can be run without the cooperation of a third party for its basic function. A cellular phone cannot. Sorry. BZZZT.
A cellular phone in the box is a costly, valueless brick.
Again, you do not understand the concepts in discussion. You again make the failure of understanding the COST of everything and the VALUE of nothing. The cost of the phone is dollars. The VALUE is its utility, quality, and enjoyment. A Phone in a box has no value and you have no clue.
Based on what? Because I asked questions and made statements on what ownership of a used phone without a contract is.
The whole basis of Socratic Dialog is to do just that. It does not mean the one who is asking does not know the answer it means it is a question to the others engaged in the dialog to arrive at a truth. For someone who claims they got skoolin' in the Socratic Method at college it sure seems like you have not a clue about it. I've been in business since I was 17 I know that whatever I pay in total for something is what it costs to own it outright. And that includes any contracts associated with it.
Is a starling with a broken wing not a bird? Birds can fly but the starling with a broken wing can't.
Now you admit you are an untrustworthy person. The hypocrite is you. You stated you would do specific things in this transaction. You now say those things were false. Your premises were therefore falsely presented. That is a hypocritical presentation. You made a false offer of sales. . . now you imply you were offering a criminal transaction? I suspected as much. I even asked you how you were going to handle paying for the rest of your obligation to Apple and you, like the criminal you are, dodged and weaved. So I have been pressing you about the transaction. . . to see where you were going with your intent.
You proved your metal. . . and it is pot metal. However, true to form, you are projecting your dishonesty on me.
Incidentally, how do you know I would not have had the police there when we met to complete this shady transaction?
Then why were you going to buy one from me in a box? You see it had value in fact you set it at 500 bucks when you agreed to buy it.
You are not really good at this are you?
I am not having a "Socratic Dialog" with you, ASSHAT. You give yourself honors you have not earned, except the ass you wear on your head. You are not Socrates, nor are you qualified to teach me anything. You have been posting twaddle and have demonstrated knowledge of nothing except an amazing level of ignorance. If anything I have been teaching you, but you refuse to learn.
I will use the term TOTAL COST as I learned to use it in college. . . and graduate school. I will omit what I determine to be irrelevant to the conversation as I choose, not you. YOU ARE NOT QUALIFIED to set the terms of this discussion as you want. . . not when I had to tell you what "Total Cost of Ownership" even meant over the space of about twenty COMPLETELY TEDIOUS replies, as you continually either mis-characterized what I carefully explained or deliberately feigned mis-understanding. Either way, you do not have the right to define the terms after that abysmal performance.
I am DONE playing your boring game.
Feigning misunderstanding is SOP in Socratic Dialog Sparky.
Its how one gets the other to prove his point for him.
YOU were the one who defined the phone in the box, not I. ASSHAT. We were discussing YOUR non-operational phone in a box. You are again changing the subject to another phone, not the one YOU put in a box you claimed you own and has total Cost of Ownership because you own it and paid for it, but you don't have it connected. YOU DON'T CHANGE TOPICS IN MID STREAM to throw red herrings. . . idiotic ASSHAT.
Your name is appropriate. You did not choose it, it was THRUST upon you by people whom you've offended throughout your life. You are a mad dog who gets pleasure out of insulting people. As I said earlier, a cowardly bully. You hide behind your computer and say things you would never say in person because you would wind up with a black eye and a broken jaw. . . because you are a RUDE, OBNOXIOUS ASS.
You prove NOTHING except by deliberately mischaracterizing what is said. . . Deliberately misunderstanding what the reply is. . . and lying about your opponents position and insulting them with ad hominems, calling them names, denigrating their fields of expertise, and taunting and baiting them with lies. NONE of that is the Socratic Method. Socrates is spinning in his grave because of you taking his name for your vile methods which you think are logical. As I said, all that is designed to enrage and create strife. Socrates method was to avoid that.
YOU are an uncivil boor.
Here is your problem once again. You know exactly two things about Socratic Dialog. Jack and shit.
I made no implications I stated a truth You know you got a phone for 500 bucks. that is all you KNOW. Then you stated "I have assured they got their profit. YOU provide it."
I pointed out that you didn't all you did is buy a phone in a box for 500 bucks. The rest is assumed.
I told you I am not here to play GAMES with you. . . or to have you FEIGN mis-understanding. That makes you a BOOR and an ASSHAT. I am not your PLAYTHING.
You have not proved any points. PERIOD. If you think you have, it just proves your lack of understanding.
And how does it differ from the non operational phone in the box I was offering to sell. (Here is a hint. it doesn't) You stated they have no value. They do have value and you agreed it was worth 500 bucks.
Again you used words you apparently don't know the meaning of.
Value: 1. the regard that something is held to deserve; the importance, worth, or usefulness of something:
I KNOW ABOUT SOCRATIC DIOLOG, IDIOT. . . but I AM NOT PLAYING YOUR GAME, ASSHAT. This is a civil discussion forum, not your personal playhouse for you to play games in. What you were doing was not Socratic Dialog but baiting and taunting and insulting a fellow freeper. YOU ARE A TROLL. You are not interested in a dialog, you are interested in disruption. ASSHAT.
I certainly don't know who taught you about Socrates and Socratic Dialog, but it was not what you were doing, ASSHAT. Socrates would not use the logical fallacies you sprinkle throughout your replies. . . especially your ad hominem attacks which YOU started in your third reply to me. . . when you denigrated my expertise, ignoring the article I politely posted in reply to your question asking for numbers and data. . . and you questioned my background and honesty and my grasp on reality, even though I was citing the authoritative article which proved my point. . . and you again started with the damned "SPARKY" CRAP which you have used in the past!
"Hahaha and you claim you have a degree in economics?Sorry Sparky, but your story doesn’t come close to reality.
That kind of response to a polite post is not intended to generate a dialog but to spark a flame war. . . something prohibited by Jim Robinson on FreeRepublic.
I politely requested you to use my proper Freepname, as I have numerous times before, but you DOUBLED DOWN with your insulting "Sparky" sobriquet, obviously intended to enrage me. . . and others you use it on. IT is intentionally denigrating and meant to be so. That is not by any stretch of the imagination "Socratic" in nature.
You then mischaracterize ctdonath2's polite reply criticizing your comment to me, by mis-stating what HE said, turning it completely upside down. . . lying. . . and insult him by impugning his reading ability in the process:
"So I can buy a two year old iPhone for exactly the same price as a Two year old Android?You just disproved Sparky's entire thesis that iPhones have a higher resale value.
Maybe you should try honing up on your reading skills... hahahah
Then you escalate even more, calling me a "dumbass" and then including all Apple users, throwing insults around freely, in your bile:
""Ah Sparky you still miss the point by a mile. You still do not get it. Why pay premium FOR ANY phone dumbass? You are so enamoured by your gAdgets you’ve actually talked yourself into the delusion that they somehow make better emails and texts and phonecalls etc. They don’t sparky all it adds up to is you are purchasing a status symbol and then you attempt rationalise it daily with how intelligent Applebots are became Apple made a bazillion dollars in profit because Applebots bought over priced phones."
Then you lied outright, claiming you never asked for data about iPhones having better resale values. . . claiming I ASSUMED something you asked specifically for:
"See this is your problem right here. YOU ASSUMED I was making a request to prove your point If I had asked for such I would have stated it this way, PROVE your thesis post the numbers.Instead I said post the numbers and you know why. Because as I stated in the beginning there is no logical reason to pay premium for a smartphone when one is doing the actions listed in the previous posts. Why because they all do the same things. And when YOU post the numbers that CONFIRMS my point beyond a shadow of a doubt it not only is QED for my Premise BUT it drives you insane and that Sparky is the best part. Trading in a phone and still paying premium is not saving money in anyway shape or form ESPECIALLY when it is on a contract. Awhile back I asked a question on another thread about Apple why the article stated that Apple contracts tended to be over 100 bucks a month while Android users were about half. It makes much more sense now. You should know Sparky that when I ask you a question I already know the answer. Its called Socratic Dialog its how one proves a premise!
Thanks for Playing. hahaha
NONE of that is justifiable. It is boorish, bad behavior even for a 13 year old, and certainly not what should be the behavior on FreeRepublic between Conservatives. YOU act like a Liberal Democrat. . . using nasty insults to forward your lack of facts. BAH!
i could go through all of them but basically it start with your first ad homienm attack here in post 91 You are one of those people who know the price of everything but the value of nothing.
I had not even replied to you once on this thread and you started up. Now you are crying about getting the favor returned. That is why you got your Sparky name right there and claiming to be a economist thus proves you right is one of the lamer fallacies to use.
then you whine about this one:
"Then you escalate even more, calling me a "dumbass" and then including all Apple users, throwing insults around freely, in your bile:"
Ok that one is in reply to post 120 in which you said:
Look, idiot. That is not my story but authoritative source with links, proving my points. It compares devices at the same age and their RESALE VALUES, not a BRAND NEW iPhone against two year old Androids. . . the only "new" item there was an Android and it couldn't hold it's value. The ONLY phone that held any value was the iPhone. IDIOT!
So here is the bottom line don't start off with ad hominem then cry when gets sent back to you threefold. And don;t expect to use a fallacy and not get it hammered into the ground.
Moving on: When I asked you to post your numbers I knew your numbers would prove my point. And they did. It never mattered a whit that all that blather about cost of ownership made buying a new Apple cheaper than buying a new Android Remember I never claimed at any time that apples did not have a high resale value. my whole premise was there is no reason to pay premium for a smartphone when they all do the same things like taking pictures phone calls texting etc.
Especially when most of the things people do do not even require the fastest bestest phone. All of those things can be done on phones that are even 4 years old or more. See you make claims that you claim refute the premise but in reality are nothing more than red herrings and false analogy and your favorite Appeal to Authority.
See Sparky you don't get to cry foul when your are the first to do so.
I just got through demonstrating that you started this discussion by throwing insults and slurs because you did not agree, and true to form you again LIE and misrepresent the facts I just laid out for everyone who cares to look to see. . . . That makes you a Liar. You're trying desperately to make me the first one. . . But you repeatedly, after being requested in many prior threads to use my proper Freepname, but in post 112 and 116, as well in your reply to ctdonath2 in his reply in post 114, denigrated me by calling me "Sparky", so because you REFUSE to address me politely, I returned the favor, pointing out that you had justly earned the sobriquet "Idiot" which I quite clearly explained.
"In case your reading comprehension is still failing you, idiot, I am calling you idiot because you cannot get it through your thick skull, despite numerous requests to STOP CALLING ME "SPARKY!" If you cannot comprehend a polite request to use a fellow Freeper's request to use his correct Freeper name YOU ARE AN IDIOT! "
You, instead of apologizing, escalated the insults. . . like the boorish ASSHAT YOU ARE. And proceeded to go on a campaign of asshatery behavior throughout the thread, intending disruption and and to crap all over this discussion. . . insulting all involved. You had no intention of ever having a reasoned discourse, your purpose was to incite rage and a flame war. . . and to belittle any one who disagrees with your exalted opinions.
And YOU DONT GET TO CRY FOUL WHEN YOU ARE THE REPEAT INSULTING OFFENDER IN EVERY SINGLE THREAD YOU ENTER ON THIS TOPIC!
Your mother never taught you how to behave in public.
My statement about you knowing the cost of everything and the value of nothing is not an ad hominem. It is an argument to your statements. . . Not an attack on you, but an observation on all of your previous commentary on every Apple thread you’ve posted in as well. It is hardly an attack worthy of your reposté attacking my expertise or my education, devolving to the “sparky” name calling asshatery which you always use. I know you. . . Or your lying. . . about the questions you asked.
Some people posting here act like they have never heard of “brand loyalty” and the emotional-psychological factors that contribute to it. Why is it some folks only drink Budweiser, smoke Marlboros, or drive Corvettes?
In 1988 I bought my first home computer, a Mac Plus. During the 1990’s, little by little I invested about $16,000 in Apple stock and just held on to it all these years, through thick and thin. Today my $16,000 investment is worth $306,000; a 1,900%+ return on my investment. Apple bin bery, bery good to me!
I reward the company with my loyalty to the brand, even though I also own non-Apple devices and computers as well.
Everything is sunny at Apple
“The company added to its trophy case Tuesday when its value surpassed $700 billion. That wasn’t just a record for Apple, it was a new record for any U.S. company.”
(Apple briefly touched this valuation in November, but Tuesday marked the first time it closed at that level, a far more significant achievement.)
Apple is in a league of its own. The next largest company, Exxon Mobil, is worth $382 billion.
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.