1. warcraftWidow's Avatar
    So you are saying you would have bought a low cost iPhone if it was offered to you first?



    True, but a landlord would never put two very different price areas in one building. And the low cost spot would be have a lower quality feel to it, and the extras would be less and be less cared for. But the fact there is an option for low cost housing will draw tenants.
    In certain areas landlords do "try" to put low income and market rates rents in the same building. But only because zoning and other laws that force them to. They don't want to and try hard as hell to get around these regulations because they know it cheapens the brand of their high-end building. And just having the low income apartments in the same building makes it harder to sell/rent the nicer units. Call it elitist or whatever, but no one who can afford the penthouse overlooking Central Park in NYC wants their building to have low income units in it.

    So right/wrong or whatever, if Apple were to sell a cheap inferior iPhone, some segment of their current market would no longer purchase an iPhone because the brand had been cheapened. Could Apple make up the difference of losing some high-end customers with a high volume of low-end customers? Maybe, maybe not but look at Samsung. They are the volume leader worldwide in smartphones but their profit has taken a huge hit because they've sold far fewer of their Galaxy S5 and Notes than expected and they couldn't make up the difference despite selling boatloads of cheap low-end Android phones. I bet if you talked to the executives at Samsung right now, they'd much rather be in Apple's position right now. And I'm sure Apple has also looked at this and decided they could not maintain their revenues and profit (over the long or short term) by pursuing the strategy you are suggesting. And they have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders to pursue strategies that maintain their position and value.
    Speedygi likes this.
    12-08-2014 08:24 PM
  2. SeanHRCC's Avatar
    You are too lazy to cite your source where it is required. You have to back your own claim, I shouldn't have to prove your own argument.

    I cited them...several times, and provided links. You either didn't see them or ignored them, and to me, providing it once was beyond what I needed to do in the first place. Like I said, you're the only one who missed them...that should tell you something.
    12-08-2014 08:25 PM
  3. A895's Avatar
    Exactly what acquire means...BY DEFINITION (LOL!)...you said people had no access, which is BS. People have access all day...what they lack is the means to acquire the service or product.
    I said not all low income people have access to water of electricity. Which is true. So how would someone acquire something they can't afford?
    12-08-2014 08:25 PM
  4. warcraftWidow's Avatar
    Wouldn't it be great if you could create another version of yourself in real life that's like able and have people actually enjoy being around you.


    Sent from my Glamorous Gold iPhone 6+ using Tapatalk
    I like Sean just the way he is!! Brutally honest and not putting up with bullsh*t.
    Speedygi and the_tech_eater like this.
    12-08-2014 08:27 PM
  5. A895's Avatar
    In certain areas landlords do "try" to put low income and market rates rents in the same building. But only because zoning and other laws that force them to. They don't want to and try hard as hell to get around these regulations because they know it cheapens the brand of their high-end building. And just having the low income apartments in the same building makes it harder to sell/rent the nicer units. Call it elitist or whatever, but no one who can afford the penthouse overlooking Central Park in NYC wants their building to have low income units in it.

    So right/wrong or whatever, if Apple were to sell a cheap inferior iPhone, some segment of their current market would no longer purchase an iPhone because the brand had been cheapened. Could Apple make up the difference of losing some high-end customers with a high volume of low-end customers? Maybe, maybe not but look at Samsung. They are the volume leader worldwide in smartphones but their profit has taken a huge hit because they've sold far fewer of their Galaxy S5 and Notes than expected and they couldn't make up the difference despite selling boatloads of cheap low-end Android phones. I bet if you talked to the executives at Samsung right now, they'd much rather be in Apple's position right now. And I'm sure Apple has also looked at this and decided they could not maintain their revenues and profit (over the long or short term) by pursuing the strategy you are suggesting. And they have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders to pursue strategies that maintain their position and value.
    Why would someone leave a brand because there is a cheaper option? That is just an eltisit attitude to do something like that. If something works as is, why does something else devalue what you have? That is a weird state of mind.
    12-08-2014 08:27 PM
  6. A895's Avatar
    I cited them...several times, and provided links. You either didn't see them or ignored them, and to me, providing it once was beyond what I needed to do in the first place. Like I said, you're the only one who missed them...that should tell you something.
    12-08-2014 08:27 PM
  7. warcraftWidow's Avatar
    I'm down! We'll get beer and food and talk about iMore trolls.
    Makes me want to pay Georgia a visit!
    the_tech_eater likes this.
    12-08-2014 08:28 PM
  8. SeanHRCC's Avatar
    In certain areas landlords do "try" to put low income and market rates rents in the same building. But only because zoning and other laws that force them to. They don't want to and try hard as hell to get around these regulations because they know it cheapens the brand of their high-end building. And just having the low income apartments in the same building makes it harder to sell/rent the nicer units. Call it elitist or whatever, but no one who can afford the penthouse overlooking Central Park in NYC wants their building to have low income units in it.
    In Atlanta, and I'm assuming most metropolitan areas, there are laws that prevent landlords from reducing pricing on rent that would cause a certain % of equity to drop in the owned units (our building is like this). The % in our building is 20% under what mortgage cost is in owned properties. Low income housing would drop it well under 50%, which I don't think any law allows (at least here).
    12-08-2014 08:29 PM
  9. the_tech_eater's Avatar
    Makes me want to pay Georgia a visit!
    Come on down!


    Sent from my iPhone 6 using Tapatalk
    12-08-2014 08:29 PM
  10. BreakingKayfabe's Avatar
    You are, you are assuming if they can't afford it they stole it. A broad statement in itself.
    Do not even attempt to take this conversation to another level by insinuating anything that wasn't even meant to be said like you have in other threads. DO NOT EVEN.
    12-08-2014 08:30 PM
  11. SeanHRCC's Avatar
    I said not all low income people have access to water of electricity. Which is true. So how would someone acquire something they can't afford?
    Access and ability to afford are two very different situations...again, you have a lack of understanding in what access means. Go look it up since you don't believe me when I give you definitions taken directly from the dictionary.
    12-08-2014 08:31 PM
  12. BreakingKayfabe's Avatar
    Access and ability to afford are two very different situations...again, you have a lack of understanding in what access means. Go look it up since you don't believe me when I give you definitions taken directly from the dictionary.
    He doesn't know what working hard means, apparently.
    12-08-2014 08:31 PM
  13. SeanHRCC's Avatar
    He doesn't know what working hard means, apparently.
    I think he just assumes access means you can afford something...which it does not, not even remotely.
    12-08-2014 08:32 PM
  14. A895's Avatar
    Makes me want to pay Georgia a visit!
    It's cold right now and the weather is acting bipolar, stay far away. You'll arrive in cool 68 degress but arrive somewhere in the rain at 38 degrees.
    12-08-2014 08:34 PM
  15. A895's Avatar
    Do not even attempt to take this conversation to another level by insinuating anything that wasn't even meant to be said like you have in other threads. DO NOT EVEN.
    Can I Odd?
    12-08-2014 08:34 PM
  16. warcraftWidow's Avatar
    Why would someone leave a brand because there is a cheaper option? That is just an eltisit attitude to do something like that. If something works as is, why does something else devalue what you have? That is a weird state of mind.
    No that's just the real world. Having a brand means having an image.
    Porsche doesn't make cheap cars.
    Chanel doesn't make cheap handbags.
    Versace isn't going to be selling designer ball gowns in Walmart any time soon.
    Rolex isn't going to make a cheap watch.

    Doing those things cheapens their brand. The same as Apple selling a cheap iPhone would cheapen their brand.

    Call it elitist. Call it snobbish. Doesn't alter the fact that that is how the world works regardless of your opinion.
    Speedygi and HAWK like this.
    12-08-2014 08:35 PM
  17. A895's Avatar
    Access and ability to afford are two very different situations...again, you have a lack of understanding in what access means. Go look it up since you don't believe me when I give you definitions taken directly from the dictionary.
    I understand the difference, but immediate access was the original topic, now it is being changed.
    12-08-2014 08:35 PM
  18. MaciLicous's Avatar
    I like Sean just the way he is!! Brutally honest and not putting up with bullsh*t.

    That's great for you. Speaking to others in a condescending ways, being so rude and so nasty, prejudice and bias. That's not my cup of tea.


    Sent from my Glamorous Gold iPhone 6+ using Tapatalk
    12-08-2014 08:35 PM
  19. HAWK's Avatar



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Speedygi and the_tech_eater like this.
    12-08-2014 08:36 PM
  20. A895's Avatar
    He doesn't know what working hard means, apparently.
    That is ignorant statement. I am not 21 yet and held 5 different jobs in my life and I am a honors graduate from my high school and attend college on a scholarship. I know what working hard means, but thanks for showing again how rude you are.
    12-08-2014 08:36 PM
  21. the_tech_eater's Avatar
    That's great for you. Speaking to others in a condescending ways, being so rude and so nasty, prejudice and bias. That's not my cup of tea.


    Sent from my Glamorous Gold iPhone 6+ using Tapatalk
    Well don't act like an i-diot and he'll leave you alone. Every forum has to have someone that kicks idiots butts!


    Sent from my iPhone 6 using Tapatalk
    12-08-2014 08:37 PM
  22. A895's Avatar
    I think he just assumes access means you can afford something...which it does not, not even remotely.
    I didn't assume that, YOU assumed what I knew.
    12-08-2014 08:37 PM
  23. warcraftWidow's Avatar
    In Atlanta, and I'm assuming most metropolitan areas, there are laws that prevent landlords from reducing pricing on rent that would cause a certain % of equity to drop in the owned units (our building is like this). The % in our building is 20% under what mortgage cost is in owned properties. Low income housing would drop it well under 50%, which I don't think any law allows (at least here).
    I don't doubt that at all. But I see reports in the news all the time of such-and-such builder being forced to create X number of "affordable" units in return for getting zoning approval to build new buildings. Usually, unless they can't get around it, they try to put those "affordable" units in a different building. I don't remember the exact circumstances, but earlier this year there was a big brouhaha in NYC because a developer who was forced to include "affordable" units filed plans with the city that the low income units had a different building entrance than the market rate units.
    12-08-2014 08:40 PM
  24. A895's Avatar
    No that's just the real world. Having a brand means having an image.
    Porsche doesn't make cheap cars.
    Chanel doesn't make cheap handbags.
    Versace isn't going to be selling designer ball gowns in Walmart any time soon.
    Rolex isn't going to make a cheap watch.

    Doing those things cheapens their brand. The same as Apple selling a cheap iPhone would cheapen their brand.

    Call it elitist. Call it snobbish. Doesn't alter the fact that that is how the world works regardless of your opinion.
    Yeah, the real world where image matters most. I understand the concept. But again, we are talking about phones. A low cost device does not alter your image when you have a high end device. That is my point.
    12-08-2014 08:41 PM
  25. SeanHRCC's Avatar
    That's great for you. Speaking to others in a condescending ways, being so rude and so nasty, prejudice and bias. That's not my cup of tea.


    Sent from my Glamorous Gold iPhone 6+ using Tapatalk
    lol...next you'll be labeling me a racist too, haha! Come have beer and lunch with us, we'll discuss entitlement issues.
    12-08-2014 08:41 PM
431 ... 89101112 ...

Similar Threads

  1. How to transfer photos from my iPhone 4S to my pc?
    By iMore Question in forum Ask a Question
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-07-2014, 08:14 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-07-2014, 08:12 AM
  3. Why can't I change the iTune's account in my App Store?
    By iMore Question in forum Ask a Question
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-07-2014, 07:33 AM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-07-2014, 06:49 AM
  5. Why can't I access my iPad - it is not responding at all?
    By iMore Question in forum Ask a Question
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-07-2014, 05:56 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD