posted
Does that mean that twinky is NOT being paid by Apple for anything?
Poly, I'm sorry if you're offended, but the fact remains that you and twinky -- and not fugu so much, which is why I didn't name him -- are reacting to this on a very personal level, and I find that rather intriguing.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom -- its worth pointing out that Dagonee is taking the situation pretty personally on the anti-Apple side.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I don't know Dagonee all that well yet, I'm not going to sweat his motivations. He IS the only guy arguing with three devoted Apple-heads, though, so he probably gets at least a little slack, anyway. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
I knew it was only a matter of time before someone -- knowing that I'm a Mac user -- decided to see this as a "whiny Mac user sticking up for Apple" thing. I'm not sure why you think I'm somehow "taking this personally" because I'm expressing my disdain for a sensationalist method of presenting a point. I've already said that I feel exactly the same way about Bowling for Columbine. I get annoyed when people make unsubstantiated claims. Ironically, you yourself do just that:
>> whereas the price you pay for being an iPod owner is, well, $99 for a new battery every two years. << (Tom)
For one user. This is true for one user, as presented in the video. That's a pretty substantial logical leap you're making there, Tom.
Not to mention that I find the iPod's marketing itself to be irksome:
>> I find the spray-painting about as annoying as I find the posters themselves. << (me, in this very thread)
So I think you're reading far too much into my posts, Tom. As I've already said in multiple posts to this thread, what irritates me is the manner in which they make their point, not the point they're trying to make. I dislike most advertising -- including Apple's, as I've alread said -- for the same reason.
posted
The main reason that mac-users have been the ones to respond with information about the iPod and battery problems both past-and-present is because most iPod users are Mac users. And many Mac users keep up to date with Apple's hardware/customer service issues. You can read of MANY hardware/service problems in the macrumors forums. Some of these are right, and some are uncalled for. Some are addressed properly by apple, and some fall through the cracks.
It has been said several times in a matter-of-fact way that yes, Apple had the $250 ridiculous price. They no longer do. There are current proper battery choices. The ad posted was a bit sensationalist and seems like they're holding a grudge after Apple and 3rd party companies have tried to make amends.
This whole ipod-battery-is-overpriced-at-$50 is a bit silly. Laptop batteries are at least $150-$200 online (you can research this, but it's absolutely true). They're LiIon, though of higher capacity than the iPod's battery. I've looked for the iPod's LiIon battery at distributors' sites, and it's hard to find. It's somewhat of a niche product.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
<----- whiney Mac user about to stick up for Apple
I think the issues here are all centered around the fact that this is a specialty item just now debuting onto the market. The reason that only Apple can sell you a battery and the reason it costs so much is because this is emerging technology. Early VCRs cost upwards of $500, and there wasn't anyone in your town who could service them.
As with any new technology, we're going to see this get more and more competitive and service and parts will be a lot more readily available.
I've been an Apple owner for a meager 6 months, but so far, I've had no problems with the company, and I love the updates and advice so readily available. Graphics friends of mine who have broken their computers - by crashing their bikes and throwing pens at the screen - have had nothing but helpful service in getting repairs done quickly and efficiently. This is a corporation that, apart from being disgustingly capitalistic like any corporation, is very user friendly and service oriented and I seriously doubt that they designed the iPod to be useless in 18 months.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey Tom, for someone who "doesn't want to turn this into an Apple vs. PC thing".... you seem more than eager to provoke people to do exactly that.
Posts: 2220 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Seriously, Poly, don't play naive. The first mention of a PC on this thread was YOUR little help desk bit, remember? Which was ultimately about the Windows Update process? Which, after all, was the point of my rejoinder? *grin*
posted
Seriously, Tom, don't be ridiculous. I was responding in kind to your sarcastic insinuation that twinky was defending Apple because he was paid to.
If you don't want to turn this into a stupid pissing contest, then check the snide comments at the door. People like me can't help but take your bait.
Posts: 2220 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, that battery cost is high, even at $100. That would explain why Apple just now started offering Applecare for the iPod. Sneaky little suckers.
Posts: 5422 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, it seriously wasn't meant to be a snide comment. I honestly wondered whether twinky -- who seemed really personally committed to Apple's defense -- was in fact working for Apple. It wasn't outside the realm of possibility, and would explain his tone and dedication. You'll notice I haven't even mentioned it since.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to ask if you read all of my posts to the thread, then, given that I was not in fact defending Apple.
Attacking the people who made the video is not the same thing as defending Apple. I believe I made that point on the last page of this thread when I noted that Apple's own advertising is equally hyperbolic and ludicrous, particularly their hardware ads.
To reiterate my point:
This manner of presenting a point doesn't achieve anything constructive. It is, IMO, a waste of time.
Again, from my very second post to this thread:
>> It's not that message that I take issue with, it's the presentation. <<
So I'm not sure where people are getting the idea that I'm sticking up for Apple.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom I have to say I think you were bringing your own biases into this conversation. I didn't see them "sticking up" for Apple that much myself, until they started having to defend themselves from your comments. And I had no idea they were all mac users either.
posted
If I had to guess, I'd say Tom read those overtones in my posts because he knows I'm a Mac user and iPod owner. I don't know for sure, though. To be honest, I found his remark pretty confusing.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Twinky has been pretty fair-minded, in my opinion. We both agree that it's hyperbole, just not on the intrinsic "wrongness" of it. It looks to me like something common among many electric appliances, and probably not going to have much impact on iPod sales, if any. The reason I brought up the Apple lying campaign was because that was a case where the misinformation most likely did affect sales, but was generally viewed as okay by the public because it was just another day in cut-throat advertising. This seems to be the same kind of half-truth-and-dated-info campaign, but will probably get very little attention, unless Apple decides to make a show of good will and offer the guy a new iPod to "show how much they care about customers." I don't see how this is a big deal, except to look at it as an example of how extreme some disgruntled customers can act despite the much different average.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
