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
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?