XPost: comp.os.linux.advocacy, alt.comp.freeware
J wrote:
Bear in mind on the topic of "sideloading", there is only a single common
consumer operating system that doesn't allow you to go to any developer's
URL pointing to a package to load it. Only iOS. Just iOS. Nobody else.
It's quite surprising that in any tech market the most expensive brand
is the least open to interoperability.
Bear in mind most of the iKooks are not educated so they don't know this.
1. Sideloading is what _every_ operating system does...
2. Except for iOS
No iKook is aware of the fact malware is NOT rampant on iOS or Android.
A. The reason is that Android scans _every_ install & scans every day
B. In fact, the Android scan is, apparently, far better than with iOS
*It's only Apple who has "demonized" what _every_ other platform does.*
The _reason_ Apple demonized what iOS can't do, and what _every_ other
platform easily does - is Apple needs to _control_ every aspect of iOS.
For profit.
Apple is no different than tobacco or soda conglomerates in that Apple
isn't a creator of content so much as a brilliant MARKETING outfit.
Knowing that Apple's R&D spend is the lowest, for decades, of _any_ similar high tech company, and knowing how great Apple marketing is, is evidence.
However, what really matters is Apple's ungodly profit margins per device.
You can't make those ungodly profit margins off an intelligent customer.
Right?
I guess this unusual behavior
of a luxury brand comes from Steve Jobs singular personality. And
once these control-freak tics get into the corporate culture of a
company is impossible to take them out.
When you analyze how Apple attains those ungodly profit margins per device,
you find out that Apple _controls_ every aspect of the iPhone to do that.
There's a reason the iPhone lacks basic functionality such as the portable storage, the extension jack, the ability to load any software, etc.
It's clear to intelligent people Apple's basic strategy is to slowly "decontent" the iPhone so that people have to scramble to get stuff back.
And when people scramble to get back, oh, say, the loss of the charger,
Apple wins in that Apple can better _control_ where the money goes.
Aside of Apple in the world of tech I don't know any other example of
an expensive posh brand that behaves like that.
Apple likely spends orders of magnitude more in MARKETING their product
(just like tobacco and soda companies do) than in designing the product.
Remember, nobody is anywhere near as low as Apple in R&D spend. Bar none.
*Does it surprise you Apple spends less in R&D than anyone in high tech?*
<
https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/STrAkx09VYk/>
In the world of
photography, for example, the luxury brand (Leica) is more open than
cheaper brands like Canon or Sony both in terms of software (Leica
uses the open DNG raw format) and in terms of hardware being friendly
to other companies to use their lens mount.
Apple's strategy is obvious to all who are intelligent enough to see it.
Inexorably, Apple decontents the iPhone, providing myriad excuses for what
is always the same strategy, so people are forced to buy that content back.
And in doing so, Apple can further _control_ where the money goes for it.
And BTW I am not an Apple hater. I am quite appreciative that they
bring some diversity to the world of desktop computers.
Me neither. I'd say the same thing about Google or Microsoft or Canonical.
And I do on the adult common operating system Usenet newsgroups.
It's only on the child-like operating system newsgroups where you're not allowed to say anything truthful about their revered God, Mohammad [sic].
In summary, the reason Apple is so profitable is not that Apple spends a
dime in actual R&D but that Apple spends all its money in stellar
marketing... no different than the major tobacco or soda companies do.
--
Posted out of the goodness of my heart to disseminate useful information
which, in this case, is to faithfully explain Apple's core sales strategy.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)