[Stiggles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by KieranDS

This trend of "buying for the brand" is not mutually exclusive to Apple products. It happens with every major and successful company in existence.

I never once said it was did i??

I was trying to convey the fact to CP is that some people buy apple products because they are made by apple.

[alan1302]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stiggles

I was trying to convey the fact to CP is that some people buy apple products because they are made by apple.

But why are you trying to convey that to him? You know he will never understand it and add multiple choice questions to everything...just give up on him...he may move on to some other forum!

[Stiggles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by alan1302

But why are you trying to convey that to him? You know he will never understand it and add multiple choice questions to everything...just give up on him...he may move on to some other forum!

Very good point

[thebtman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stiggles

I never once said it was did i??

I was trying to convey the fact to CP is that some people buy apple products because they are made by apple.

I think, as has been suggested, you can apply that to every brand in history.

It's a point without a point really.

I will agree that Apple are expensive, and some would say overpriced, but then since when did putative value have any bearing on price? Examples from every phone manufacturer in existence for everyone to see!

Any if Apple are guilty of "over pricing", so is every single over phone manufacturer.

I think things are over priced when they stop selling.....

[alanwarwic]

Quote:

Originally Posted by thebtman

...Any if Apple are guilty of "over pricing", so is every single over phone manufacturer.I think things are over priced when they stop selling.....

Other manufacturers use quad core chipsets, double sized batteries and screens with nearly 3 times the pixels.


If you have to use those words "There is over charging and there is over charging!"

[KieranDS]

delete

[dearmrman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by thebtman

I think, as has been suggested, you can apply that to every brand in history.

It's a point without a point really.

I will agree that Apple are expensive, and some would say overpriced, but then since when did putative value have any bearing on price? Examples from every phone manufacturer in existence for everyone to see!

Any if Apple are guilty of "over pricing", so is every single over phone manufacturer.

I think things are over priced when they stop selling.....

True to some extent, but other phone manufacturers such as Samsung, LG, HTC, Sony are competing against each other so their prices will be similar.

Apple really doesn't have competition it does something different (but really not that different), hence why you pay more for less in Apple's case, more style over substance.

[alanwarwic]

A link that came from the 4K TV discussion seems pertinent.
http://techradar.com/news/television...-4k-tv-1194486

"4K does justice to your digital photography
We all take digital snaps at a higher resolution than we see them onscreen. Watching your holiday JPEGs on the TV is fun and convenient, but you're only seeing a fraction of what's present in the image; a 4K TV with Ultra High Definition JPEG playback will reveal four times the picture information. It's like seeing your photographs again for the first time."

Obviously, a jump to any top end smartphone with their near or more than 3 times the pixels has very much the same effect. You don't need to see your photos or videos on the 2 Mega Pixels smartphone screens but its certainly what some pay for.

[calico_pie]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stiggles

Yeah. I forgot. As always, everyone else is wrong and you are correct again....

I do apologise.....

Is it really not possible to disagree with you, without you trotting out crap like that every time.

And what do you even mean when you say "everyone else is wrong"? The way you feel your view somehow represents everyone is unbelievably arrogant.

If you are saying that when people say "I bought Product X because its made by Company Z" you literally take that to mean their purchase is based on the logo, and intended to be some sort of fashion statement, without any consideration of the product's quality, then yes - I think you are wrong to do so.

I believe that in most cases people would usually back that up with a belief and understanding of the reputation the company has for its products.

For example, if someone says "I bought my car because its made by BMW" they almost certainly don't mean they bought it because they like the logo.

They almost certainly mean that they bought it because they understand BMW cars to be good quality, well made, well designed cars.

Are you saying you don't agree with that?

[calico_pie]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stiggles

Yet they are not any better quality wise at all.

Better quality wise than what? I'd say that the iPhone is a better quality product than a lot of phones. Which phones that cost £2-300 less than an iPhone would you say were as good quality?

[psionic]

Quote:

Originally Posted by alanwarwic

A link that came from the 4K TV discussion seems pertinent.
http://techradar.com/news/television...-4k-tv-1194486

"4K does justice to your digital photography
We all take digital snaps at a higher resolution than we see them onscreen. Watching your holiday JPEGs on the TV is fun and convenient, but you're only seeing a fraction of what's present in the image; a 4K TV with Ultra High Definition JPEG playback will reveal four times the picture information. It's like seeing your photographs again for the first time."

Obviously, a jump to any top end smartphone with their near or more than 3 times the pixels has very much the same effect. You don't need to see your photos or videos on the 2 Mega Pixels smartphone screens but its certainly what some pay for.

Not sure how 4k TVs have any relevence. Its all about DPI as we all know here and has been discussed countless times. Bigger screen areas need higher resolutions to achieve a decent enough DPI to make pixels indiscernible at typical viewing distances. Normal HDTVs have very low DPIs which is very noticeable on the larger models especially at closer distances - This is where 4K screens offer an advantage. Also in the case of TV's, higher refresh rates also make a big difference, especially on larger screens.

[alanwarwic]

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionic

...Its all about DPI as we all know here ...

So shrinking the screen we get to see more detail with less pixels?
So DPI is not about marketing bull where less is the new more.
Oh really?

[psionic]

Quote:

Originally Posted by alanwarwic

So shrinking the screen we get to see more detail with less pixels?
So DPI is not about marketing bull where less is the new more.
Oh really?

Shrinking what screen? Why would you want to do that? If you shrink it you'd have exactly the same amount of pixels. Translation please.

[Mark in Essex]

Quote:

Originally Posted by KieranDS

This trend of "buying for the brand" is not mutually exclusive to Apple products. It happens with every major and successful company in existence.

I know - some people are Muppets and just buy the same brand every time.

Like with Sony they use to be the leaders in TV's in the CRT days but nowadays they have fallen back and I believe not at the top.

I always look into every brand if they are classed as a market leading brand or not.

When I use to be into my home HiFi sometimes the more expensive did not sound as good to me when I listened to it in the shop before buying it (bought a Marantz amp for £400 over another one costing nearly £1000 before as I preferred the sound even though I had the money for the other one). The more expensive amp was more highly regarded (forget the name now but think it was something like a Cambridge Audio).

[alanwarwic]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark in Essex

...Like with Sony they use to be the leaders in TV's in the CRT days but nowadays they have fallen back and I believe not at the top. ..

There are lots of partnerships and mergers now.

They have a part share in Japan Display which currently produce those high end tablet displays but are also expanding into TV displays to better compete against Korea.

[alanwarwic]

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionic

..Translation please.

No one in their right mind would buy a TV based on DPI.
The Apple fashion is to use the term instead of telling us the real resolution. So DPI (PPI) is more about marketing/obfuscation.

The screen on the highest resolution iPhone only has 720,000 pixels (640 × 1,136) whilst all those high end phones have over 2 million.

[Stiggles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by calico_pie

Better quality wise than what? I'd say that the iPhone is a better quality product than a lot of phones. Which phones that cost £2-300 less than an iPhone would you say were as good quality?

Ok then...Its not better quality than my Nexus 5 for instance. Price difference? Nearly £300!

[tdenson]

Quote:

Originally Posted by alanwarwic

Other manufacturers use quad core chipsets

So how come the 5S leaves other phones in the dust on benchmarks. You are hung up on specs yet again.

[Zack06]

I would say the Nexus 5 is probably the best phone in terms of balancing quality and price. The iPhone cannot compete with it in that aspect.

iPhone suits those that want an Apple product or to use iOS, however other than that, is there really a tangible benefit of choosing it over the Nexus 5 or others save for personal preference, as the iPhone actually delivers less for a higher price than nearly every Android flagship.

[alanwarwic]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tdenson

...the 5S leaves other phones in the dust on benchmarks. You are hung up on specs yet again.

Really?


I was also talking about stuff I could actually see with my own eyes, not benchmark specs.

And we know well that benchmarks can be quite unrealistic.

[tdenson]

Quote:

Originally Posted by alanwarwic

Really?


I was also talking about stuff I could actually see with my own eyes, not benchmark specs.

And we know well that benchmarks can be quite unrealistic.

So you can actually see 4 cores with your own eyes then, you must have great vision

As far as real world is concerned, I have a 5S and an HTC One and subjectively the 5S is heaps faster.

[psionic]

Quote:

Originally Posted by alanwarwic

No one in their right mind would buy a TV based on DPI.
The Apple fashion is to use the term instead of telling us the real resolution. So DPI (PPI) is more about marketing/obfuscation.

The screen on the highest resolution iPhone only has 720,000 pixels (640 × 1,136) whilst all those high end phones have over 2 million.

This argument has been done to death on 50 page plus threads on here.

DPI is far more useful figure then resolution. When you get to much higher definition such as printing, resolution uses massive numbers and is dependant on overall size. Print and scan quality has always been measured in DPI. You wouldn't want to gauge print quality depending on paper size. Megapixels if anything are far more about marketing, just look at the camera market, where higher megapixels often don't mean better pictures.

You brought up 4K TVs. As for the iPhone resolution it is no secret. The only marketing/obfuscation is the use of a vague term like 'retina'. DPI however is very easy to understand.

Larger screen sizes need larger resolutions or the image quality suffers. It's as simple as that.

[tdenson]

Quote:

Originally Posted by alanwarwic

And we know well that benchmarks can be quite unrealistic.

Particularly when Samsung rig them

[calico_pie]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stiggles

Ok then...Its not better quality than my Nexus 5 for instance. Price difference? Nearly £300!

I don't know - it could probably be argued that the metal / glass contraction is better than polycarbonate. If it has to be a contest, the iPhone's processor has done better in benchmarks. The iPhone has the fingerprint sensor (to save time, you'll say its a pointless gimmick, and I'll say that as its something that's used all the time, I'd say it was more than a gimmick. Something like the OS is subjective, but its entirely possible that some people would think that iOS is better.

It doesn't really matter if you don't think the iPhone is worth the price - its enough that plenty of people clearly do think that.

And they should be free to think that without people who disagree labelling them as morons.

[tdenson]

Quote:

Originally Posted by calico_pie

The iPhone has the fingerprint sensor (to save time, you'll say its a pointless gimmick, and I'll say that as its something that's used all the time, I'd say it was more than a gimmick.

Must agree. I use my fingerprint sensor probably 30 or 40 times a day. It means I now use security on my phone when I didn't before. It you want a pointless gimmick then take NFC. I have had it on my Android phones for the past year and have never used it once.