So, basically i didn't call you an idiot at all like you implied :rolleyes:
I knew you'd say that.
So you didn't use that word, but you did make reference to bullshit I fall for, my being the problem, that I needed to get a grip, that I would say and do anything to defend Apple, that I was pathetic, that I was like a child, ridiculously wrong, that my argument was daft and I was talking nonsense.
But no, you didn't use the word idiot.
And I might be the problem, stupid, childish, talk nonsense, but at least I'm civil.
That you take things so literally to argue you haven't said something, or that someone else has said something, combined with how quickly you and swordman become just plain rude, is the problem with these discussions in a nutshell.
And again, all of that just for saying that I thought an article was about design generally, and didn't just apply to the iPhone?
I am an iPhone 5 user.
I am an Apple fan.
The article is about the iPhone 5.
The article is bollocks!
Arrrgggghhhhhhh!!!!!
Stiggs... stop posting goddamit man... it's not worth it!
You probably have a life and everything. it's Saturday as well, surly you aren't working tonight??
That you take things so literally to argue you haven't said something, or that someone else has said something, combined with how quickly you and swordman become just plain rude, is the problem with these discussions in a nutshell.
Perhaps you should think about why they feel the need to resort to more "direct" methods of communication.
So you didn't use that word, but you did make reference to bullshit I fall for, my being the problem, that I needed to get a grip, that I would say and do anything to defend Apple, that I was pathetic, that I was like a child, ridiculously wrong, that my argument was daft and I was talking nonsense.
But no, you didn't use the word idiot.
And I might be the problem, stupid, childish, talk nonsense, but at least I'm civil.
That you take things so literally to argue you haven't said something, or that someone else has said something, combined with how quickly you and swordman become just plain rude, is the problem with these discussions in a nutshell.
And again, all of that just for saying that I thought an article was about design generally, and didn't just apply to the iPhone?
I am an iPhone 5 user.
I am an Apple fan.
The article is about the iPhone 5.
The article is bollocks!
Arrrgggghhhhhhh!!!!!
Stiggs... stop posting goddamit man... it's not worth it!
You probably have a life and everything. it's Saturday as well, surly you aren't working tonight??
I am an iPhone 5 user.
I am an Apple fan.
The article is about the iPhone 5.
The article is bollocks!
Arrrgggghhhhhhh!!!!!
Stiggs... stop posting goddamit man... it's not worth it!
You probably have a life and everything. it's Saturday as well, surly you aren't working tonight??
LOL. I haven't a damn clue what the thread is about anymore. It's gone round and around in circles so many times, I doubt anyone even cares! Time for a stiff drink methinks
Perhaps you should think about why they feel the need to resort to more "direct" methods of communication.
As far s I can tell its because they are determined to argue the toss over something completely obvious, just because it doesn't fit in with some irrational anti Apple mindset.
FFS - all I said was that an article about the iPhone was about design generally.
That is hardly "talking crap".
That you and a few others got your knickers in such a twist about that beggars belief.
And therein lies the problem. Not one poster has fully agreed with what you have been trying to put across, yet you are still adamant that every other poster must be at fault, rather than yourself. And then you claim to be exasperated when the discussion hits a dead end.
Whatever point you were trying to argue has long since been lost within pages and pages of petty squabbling over insignificant minutia, and to be frank, I can't see what relevance it ever had to the actual thread title, "Samsung doubles market share while Apple declines & analysts worry about cheap iPhone".
To be honest, I'm inclined to believe that it was all just a deflecting tactic to curb discussion of the fact that Samsung have long since displaced Apple, and that even analysts aren't convinced about Apple's strategy with the "cheap" iPhone. I actually feel sorry for those who wanted to discuss the actual topic of the thread, because the whole thing has been utterly derailed by this irrelevant argument.
I am an iPhone 5 user.
I am an Apple fan.
The article is about the iPhone 5.
The article is bollocks!
Arrrgggghhhhhhh!!!!!
Stiggs... stop posting goddamit man... it's not worth it!
You probably have a life and everything. it's Saturday as well, surly you aren't working tonight??
Just finished work! Nightshift later so bed time now
If there is to be a cheap iphone whats the opinion on how brave apple will be with pricing?
There was a report the other day that it'll cost £230-£300 and will replace the iPhone 5, leaving the 4S as a truly budget offering. Not sure how reliable that sounds though.
And therein lies the problem. Not one poster has fully agreed with what you have been trying to put across, yet you are still adamant that every other poster must be at fault, rather than yourself. And then you claim to be exasperated when the discussion hits a dead end.
Whatever point you were trying to argue has long since been lost within pages and pages of petty squabbling over insignificant minutia, and to be frank, I can't see what relevance it ever had to the actual thread title, "Samsung doubles market share while Apple declines & analysts worry about cheap iPhone".
To be honest, I'm inclined to believe that it was all just a deflecting tactic to curb discussion of the fact that Samsung have long since displaced Apple, and that even analysts aren't convinced about Apple's strategy with the "cheap" iPhone. I actually feel sorry for those who wanted to discuss the actual topic of the thread, because the whole thing has been utterly derailed by this irrelevant argument.
Couple of things.
Firstly, the article clearly is about design generally - it says as much in the opening paragraph. People might not be able to see it, or might want to get hung up on the fact that it subsequently only refers to the iPhone, or whatever, I don't know. But its certainly not wrong to say that it is. If anything dragged this discussion out, it was people arguing that black was white. And to be frank, the fact that they were so rude while they were at it didn't help.
Secondly, its not as though the discussion, up until that point, had remained on the specific and narrow fact about Samsung. Like most discussions, it had gone on to cover all sorts of things about both companies. Its not as though that post took it wildly off topic. In fact, IIRC it followed a previous post referring to design and innovation.
The discussion had been about why Samsung was doing well, and why Apple was slipping > about was Apple innovating enough > about the design being indicative of a lack of innovation. I wouldn't have thought it was that complicated to follow.
Spin the whole thing on its head - are we supposed to believe that the change in design between the S3 and S4 represents innovation?
I would argue that everything the author said about the iPhone could equally apply to the Galaxy. If anyone argued that the fact that the design hadn't changed much demonstrated a lack of innovation on Samsung's part, they'd be wrong.
And that in a nutshell highlights why the article is about design generally, and not specific to Apple.
Firstly, the article clearly is about design generally - it says as much in the opening paragraph. People might not be able to see it, or might want to get hung up on the fact that it subsequently only refers to the iPhone, or whatever, I don't know. But its certainly not wrong to say that it is.
This is your problem not just here but in several threads, no-one sees it this way yet you are so arrogant that everyone else is wrong because you are right simply right.
Has it occured to you that you may possibly be wrong, just maybe?
The article does not (and does not set out to) do any of the things you are claiming above I think you now need to let this go as it is becoming crazy.
This is your problem not just here but in several threads, no-one sees it this way yet you are so arrogant that everyone else is wrong because you are right simply right.
Indeed. If one person doesn't understand the point someone is making, perhaps it's a problem with their comprehension. If lots of people don't understand the point someone is making, perhaps that person is failing to express themselves clearly.
This is your problem not just here but in several threads, no-one sees it this way yet you are so arrogant that everyone else is wrong because you are right simply right.
Has it occured to you that you may possibly be wrong, just maybe?
The article does not (and does not set out to) do any of the things you are claiming above I think you now need to let this go as it is becoming crazy.
Indeed. If one person doesn't understand the point someone is making, perhaps it's a problem with their comprehension. If lots of people don't understand the point someone is making, perhaps that person is failing to express themselves clearly.
Trust me, no-one knows how boring this has become more than me, but I genuinely don't get why this has proved so contentious.
Its right there in black and white at the start of the article:
"Good design is inevitable. It's determined. It's relentless. Each iteration builds on the one before, becoming better and better each time."
That sets out the general subject as design.
"The iPhone 5 is an example of this."
That identifies the iPhone as the example used in the article.
To say then that the article is about design generally, using the iPhone as an example, is not wrong at all. Its right there in black and white, and could hardly be clearer.
Nor should it have proved this difficult to understand. If anyone has a problem with comprehension, its not me.
icle. To say then that the article is about design generally, using the iPhone as an example, is not wrong at all. Its right there in black and white, and could hardly be clearer.
Nor should it have proved this difficult to understand. If anyone has a problem with comprehension, its not me.
On the contrary. Throughout the entire article, the author ONLY talks about the iPhone. No other example is given, and that to me is indicative of the fact that the article is about the iPhone and its design and not design in general.
If it were, as you are trying to suggest, about design in general, I fail to see why using only one example throughout the entire article is sufficient to justify the points made.
I don't know anywhere where a respectable piece is written about a subject and only one example is given in the entire body of work....unless, the piece was about that one particular subject itself.
You can't argue that the article about design in general, because it never discusses design in general, but solely the design of the iPhone. The article is about the iPhone and can't be transferred to another device such as a Galaxy S device as the article is not about design.
You may have had a case, had the author used other examples. I don't know anywhere where it is reasonable to use just one justification in a written piece to get a point across. Does this happen with historians? No. Multiple sources are usually cited. Does this happen with lawyers? No. Multiple cases are usually cited. Does this happen with linguists? No. Multiple examples are usually given to justify points made in a piece. And that is the point here. The article ONLY mentions the iPhone and only infers the concept of design in the context of the iPhone, therefore it does not make sense to claim the article is about design in general, because that isn't the case.
Comments
How come the article just states..
Back in 2005 Apple had a phone prototype called Purple.
waffle new model released.
waffle.
waffle more models released.
then states
Now we have the iPhone 5. Another step closer to Purple
So all those years of inovation, just brings them back to the 1st idea.
Thats like ford going back to the model t ford
....
So, basically i didn't call you an idiot at all like you implied :rolleyes:
I knew you'd say that.
So you didn't use that word, but you did make reference to bullshit I fall for, my being the problem, that I needed to get a grip, that I would say and do anything to defend Apple, that I was pathetic, that I was like a child, ridiculously wrong, that my argument was daft and I was talking nonsense.
But no, you didn't use the word idiot.
And I might be the problem, stupid, childish, talk nonsense, but at least I'm civil.
That you take things so literally to argue you haven't said something, or that someone else has said something, combined with how quickly you and swordman become just plain rude, is the problem with these discussions in a nutshell.
And again, all of that just for saying that I thought an article was about design generally, and didn't just apply to the iPhone?
That seems reasonable to you?
:rolleyes:
I am an iPhone 5 user.
I am an Apple fan.
The article is about the iPhone 5.
The article is bollocks!
Arrrgggghhhhhhh!!!!!
Stiggs... stop posting goddamit man... it's not worth it!
You probably have a life and everything. it's Saturday as well, surly you aren't working tonight??
Perhaps you should think about why they feel the need to resort to more "direct" methods of communication.
God, talk about a dog with a bone, let it go.
LOL.
Earlier you said:
"I just asked 2 people who are here just now in my house and the answer i got was, "wtf is he on about?"..."
So you asked them:
"what do you think this article was about?"
And they replied:
"wtf is he on about?"
As far s I can tell its because they are determined to argue the toss over something completely obvious, just because it doesn't fit in with some irrational anti Apple mindset.
That is hardly "talking crap".
That you and a few others got your knickers in such a twist about that beggars belief.
And therein lies the problem. Not one poster has fully agreed with what you have been trying to put across, yet you are still adamant that every other poster must be at fault, rather than yourself. And then you claim to be exasperated when the discussion hits a dead end.
Whatever point you were trying to argue has long since been lost within pages and pages of petty squabbling over insignificant minutia, and to be frank, I can't see what relevance it ever had to the actual thread title, "Samsung doubles market share while Apple declines & analysts worry about cheap iPhone".
To be honest, I'm inclined to believe that it was all just a deflecting tactic to curb discussion of the fact that Samsung have long since displaced Apple, and that even analysts aren't convinced about Apple's strategy with the "cheap" iPhone. I actually feel sorry for those who wanted to discuss the actual topic of the thread, because the whole thing has been utterly derailed by this irrelevant argument.
urgh...
Just finished work! Nightshift later so bed time now
There was a report the other day that it'll cost £230-£300 and will replace the iPhone 5, leaving the 4S as a truly budget offering. Not sure how reliable that sounds though.
I think has to be £250 max for this to be viable and worthwhile
That's what I thought too - I'd be surprised if it replaced the 5.
Couple of things.
Firstly, the article clearly is about design generally - it says as much in the opening paragraph. People might not be able to see it, or might want to get hung up on the fact that it subsequently only refers to the iPhone, or whatever, I don't know. But its certainly not wrong to say that it is. If anything dragged this discussion out, it was people arguing that black was white. And to be frank, the fact that they were so rude while they were at it didn't help.
Secondly, its not as though the discussion, up until that point, had remained on the specific and narrow fact about Samsung. Like most discussions, it had gone on to cover all sorts of things about both companies. Its not as though that post took it wildly off topic. In fact, IIRC it followed a previous post referring to design and innovation.
The discussion had been about why Samsung was doing well, and why Apple was slipping > about was Apple innovating enough > about the design being indicative of a lack of innovation. I wouldn't have thought it was that complicated to follow.
Spin the whole thing on its head - are we supposed to believe that the change in design between the S3 and S4 represents innovation?
I would argue that everything the author said about the iPhone could equally apply to the Galaxy. If anyone argued that the fact that the design hadn't changed much demonstrated a lack of innovation on Samsung's part, they'd be wrong.
And that in a nutshell highlights why the article is about design generally, and not specific to Apple.
If you can't get that, then fine.
This is your problem not just here but in several threads, no-one sees it this way yet you are so arrogant that everyone else is wrong because you are right simply right.
Has it occured to you that you may possibly be wrong, just maybe?
The article does not (and does not set out to) do any of the things you are claiming above I think you now need to let this go as it is becoming crazy.
Indeed. If one person doesn't understand the point someone is making, perhaps it's a problem with their comprehension. If lots of people don't understand the point someone is making, perhaps that person is failing to express themselves clearly.
Trust me, no-one knows how boring this has become more than me, but I genuinely don't get why this has proved so contentious.
Its right there in black and white at the start of the article:
"Good design is inevitable. It's determined. It's relentless. Each iteration builds on the one before, becoming better and better each time."
That sets out the general subject as design.
"The iPhone 5 is an example of this."
That identifies the iPhone as the example used in the article.
To say then that the article is about design generally, using the iPhone as an example, is not wrong at all. Its right there in black and white, and could hardly be clearer.
Nor should it have proved this difficult to understand. If anyone has a problem with comprehension, its not me.
On the contrary. Throughout the entire article, the author ONLY talks about the iPhone. No other example is given, and that to me is indicative of the fact that the article is about the iPhone and its design and not design in general.
If it were, as you are trying to suggest, about design in general, I fail to see why using only one example throughout the entire article is sufficient to justify the points made.
I don't know anywhere where a respectable piece is written about a subject and only one example is given in the entire body of work....unless, the piece was about that one particular subject itself.
You can't argue that the article about design in general, because it never discusses design in general, but solely the design of the iPhone. The article is about the iPhone and can't be transferred to another device such as a Galaxy S device as the article is not about design.
You may have had a case, had the author used other examples. I don't know anywhere where it is reasonable to use just one justification in a written piece to get a point across. Does this happen with historians? No. Multiple sources are usually cited. Does this happen with lawyers? No. Multiple cases are usually cited. Does this happen with linguists? No. Multiple examples are usually given to justify points made in a piece. And that is the point here. The article ONLY mentions the iPhone and only infers the concept of design in the context of the iPhone, therefore it does not make sense to claim the article is about design in general, because that isn't the case.