I didn't mean it in that context. It's more about other companies following Apple and their strategy which is not really good for a customer and electronics market.
It was always about releasing a product that was technically attractive if it comes to value/money ratio, even great companies aimed to do it because that's what people were after. If people are willing to pay more for the same thing because of some gimmicks that barely cost anything then let's go that way.
You pay for what they call "experience" now, something that is pretty much a virtual, "artificial quality".
A similar thing in the TV market led to creating some virtual values like "dynamic contrast ratio" or "pixel response time (gray to gray)" which are totally fake variables that have absolutely no relation to image quality, yet it's how most TVs are defined these days which is absurd.
The story is, that LG started that because they used inferior panels with worst real life contrast values and their competition was doing much better for a similar price. But LG had their own LCD panel sub-company, their own technology and used only their own panels for their TVs. These panels were inferior to everything else for TV viewing but they wanted to use them for obvious business reasons. So they came up with "dynamic contrast ratio" instead of "real contrast ratio" and people were fooled into thinking that they are actually better. So people thought that it's better because they were told that it was.
When it really worked and people started going for these virtual parameters instead of things that really mattered and bought inferior TV sets every manufacturer went the LG way and had "dynamic contrast" and "response time gtg" instead of really valuable parameters. Now you can't have any idea about how good a TV is because no valuable parameters are there for you to see. You need to read a review, check out the panel type etc.
So you can buy a much inferior device because you were manipulated into thinking that it's in fact better because some artificial parameters were higher.
The thing in common is, that with Apple people not only pay for what they receive but they also pay a huge extra for artificial qualities that were created by Apple that they add to the price of a product. In this case it's "experience", "awesomeness", "coolness". You pay half for the device itself and another half just because Apple convinced you that you should pay.
Now don't get me wrong, I know that there are people who genuinely enjoy using Apple products and I'm fine with it but majority of people weren't genuinely convinced by Apple's real features and pros, they didn't buy a MacOs because they have real experience and comparison to the competition. In many cases they didn't even use them before. However they somehow thought that they're "awesome".
They paid that extra because of marketing, these words and voices that comfort these people that they're so cool and awesome for paying more and using a "super cool and awesome" product and in case of Apple that is the artificial value that people are paying for. And people pay as much as they feel like it's worth to them but it's easy to manipulate them into putting a virtual price tag to things that aren't physically there, "brainwash" them into feeling specific way about that product and translate that feeling into money.
Then other companies will also try to fool consumers that way, when they see that it works and consumers are after it.
And again, I don't mean feelings sparked by positive direct experience with a product, I'm talking about "brainwash". Because there's probably no electronic device that genuinely deserves as much hype as Apple gets/creates about their products.
And yes, I have a problem with these very people, not people who just calmly enjoy their Macs because they really genuinely like the way they work. And I meet a lot of people who were brainwashed into liking Apple - that's where my problem about Apple fanboys lies and that's one of the reasons why I am negative about people who tend to use Apple products.
It was always about releasing a product that was technically attractive if it comes to value/money ratio, even great companies aimed to do it because that's what people were after. If people are willing to pay more for the same thing because of some gimmicks that barely cost anything then let's go that way.
You pay for what they call "experience" now, something that is pretty much a virtual, "artificial quality".
A similar thing in the TV market led to creating some virtual values like "dynamic contrast ratio" or "pixel response time (gray to gray)" which are totally fake variables that have absolutely no relation to image quality, yet it's how most TVs are defined these days which is absurd.
The story is, that LG started that because they used inferior panels with worst real life contrast values and their competition was doing much better for a similar price. But LG had their own LCD panel sub-company, their own technology and used only their own panels for their TVs. These panels were inferior to everything else for TV viewing but they wanted to use them for obvious business reasons. So they came up with "dynamic contrast ratio" instead of "real contrast ratio" and people were fooled into thinking that they are actually better. So people thought that it's better because they were told that it was.
When it really worked and people started going for these virtual parameters instead of things that really mattered and bought inferior TV sets every manufacturer went the LG way and had "dynamic contrast" and "response time gtg" instead of really valuable parameters. Now you can't have any idea about how good a TV is because no valuable parameters are there for you to see. You need to read a review, check out the panel type etc.
So you can buy a much inferior device because you were manipulated into thinking that it's in fact better because some artificial parameters were higher.
The thing in common is, that with Apple people not only pay for what they receive but they also pay a huge extra for artificial qualities that were created by Apple that they add to the price of a product. In this case it's "experience", "awesomeness", "coolness". You pay half for the device itself and another half just because Apple convinced you that you should pay.
Now don't get me wrong, I know that there are people who genuinely enjoy using Apple products and I'm fine with it but majority of people weren't genuinely convinced by Apple's real features and pros, they didn't buy a MacOs because they have real experience and comparison to the competition. In many cases they didn't even use them before. However they somehow thought that they're "awesome".
They paid that extra because of marketing, these words and voices that comfort these people that they're so cool and awesome for paying more and using a "super cool and awesome" product and in case of Apple that is the artificial value that people are paying for. And people pay as much as they feel like it's worth to them but it's easy to manipulate them into putting a virtual price tag to things that aren't physically there, "brainwash" them into feeling specific way about that product and translate that feeling into money.
Then other companies will also try to fool consumers that way, when they see that it works and consumers are after it.
And again, I don't mean feelings sparked by positive direct experience with a product, I'm talking about "brainwash". Because there's probably no electronic device that genuinely deserves as much hype as Apple gets/creates about their products.
And yes, I have a problem with these very people, not people who just calmly enjoy their Macs because they really genuinely like the way they work. And I meet a lot of people who were brainwashed into liking Apple - that's where my problem about Apple fanboys lies and that's one of the reasons why I am negative about people who tend to use Apple products.
