Why so much hate?

[racedog]

You may be new to the phone game; so, let me tell you. The phone ranks right up there with p.enis size and battle scars.



Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2

Hardly new, been using cell phones since the days of the large bag phones. I really just don't get all the bashing that goes on with choices that others make. Are people actually that insecure with themselves that they have to invent some phony exterior reason to establish superiority over someone else? That says a lot more about them than it does for anything else.

 

[TBolt]

Hardly new, been using cell phones since the days of the large bag phones. I really just don't get all the bashing that goes on with choices that others make. Are people actually that insecure with themselves that they have to invent some phony exterior reason to establish superiority over someone else? That says a lot more about them than it does for anything else.

wet blanket alert

Is this jpullins' shade account?

Regardless, if you don't see the humor in many of the posts in this thread, you're missing out. As for everyone's state of security, we really could care less.

 

[racedog]

wet blanket alert



Is this jpullins' shade account?

Regardless, if you don't see the humor in many of the posts in this thread, you're missing out. As for everyone's state of security, we really could care less.

LOL, you're right, missed the humor part here, mea culpa! In my own defense, I'm sitting here on a Saturday and can't do anything because we're supposed to get hit with a major snowstorm within the next hour. Not what I like to plan for the weekend. Guess my sense of humor went somewhere south with the sun. My apologies!

 

[TBolt]

LOL, you're right, missed the humor part here, mea culpa! In my own defense, I'm sitting here on a Saturday and can't do anything because we're supposed to get hit with a major snowstorm within the next hour. Not what I like to plan for the weekend. Guess my sense of humor went somewhere south with the sun. My apologies!

lol. No worries. Be safe during the storm! I wish I could see snow here once in a while. I'm not in the right climate.

 

[MikeLip]

Hardly new, been using cell phones since the days of the large bag phones. I really just don't get all the bashing that goes on with choices that others make. Are people actually that insecure with themselves that they have to invent some phony exterior reason to establish superiority over someone else? That says a lot more about them than it does for anything else.

I miss my old bag phone! OK,not really.

 

[racedog]

I miss my old bag phone! OK,not really.

Damn, was hoping it was true. I still have a couple of them sitting I n the closet, thought I might have a sucker, er I meant buyer.

 

[MikeLip]

Damn, was hoping it was true. I still have a couple of them sitting I n the closet, thought I might have a sucker, er I meant buyer.

Nope. Sorry. But I still have mine too. Somehow I don't think Verizon will welcome it on their network

 

[toujours_frais]

I was really expecting a phone redesign... The current design is too ugly for my liking to be honest

 

[SenseMonkey]

No, HTC is trying to be the Apple of the Android world. Every flaw the Apple phones have, HTC copies. Locked battery. No SD card slot.

Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2

Woah there, why so much hate on htc? Htc IS innovating were as apple, not so much..

Courtesy of My LT3VO

 

[Russ Smith]

Why can't people buy the phone that suit them best and stop ripping others?

The GS4 is an awesome phone by the look of it, just in my opinion not as good as the HTC One. So I bought the HTC One.

Sent from my HTC One using Android Central Forums

 

[xlDeMoNiClx]

Why can't people buy the phone that suit them best and stop ripping others?
Sent from my HTC One using Android Central Forums

Most people apparently lack that ability still.

 

[Ry]

Why can't people buy the phone that suit them best and stop ripping others?

Because we're all supposed to hate the competitors of the products we love. Duh.

I love company X. Because I love company X, company Y sucks. Company Y doesn't innovate. Company Y just steals everything. I can't stand how company Y calls their stuff the best thing ever invented because company X made the best thing ever invented!

Hate for hates sake. Blind love.

 

[Suda]

Why can't people buy the phone that suit them best and stop ripping others?

The GS4 is an awesome phone by the look of it, just in my opinion not as good as the HTC One. So I bought the HTC One.

Sent from my HTC One using Android Central Forums

People are insecure and want to feel comfortable about their purchases, confirmation bias.

Can't go wrong with either phone.

 

[TBolt]

Woah there, why so much hate on htc? Htc IS innovating were as apple, not so much..

Courtesy of My LT3VO

It's not hate. I, personally, feel omission of said features is a flaw. However, as has been mentioned here, I accept that these omissions are not a flaw to others.

Fragmentation within Android also has my boxers all twisted up. I may buy an iPhone 6, swap my Android tablet for an iPad, trade in my SUV for a VW bug cuz it'll be easier to convert into a red Apple on wheels, tattoo "JOBS WAS RIGHT" onto my forehead, date a trendy hippy chick, trade in my Doberman for a poodle, move into a high-rise apartment, bake quiche, give up porn, ...

 

[xtn]

Oh, you don't mean the multi tasking itself; you mean the UI for handling it.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

 

[ThisTechBoi]

I think that the reason why there is so much hate directed to the S4 (and also the HTC One) is because people had their expectations too high, and then were disappointed when they obviously weren't met. I think that people expected "the perfect phone", one that suits every single need of every single person, as they often expect when any high-end flagship phone is announced. But the reality is; this is impossible in our economy. I think this calls for:

Economics 101

---

NOTE

The intent of the market system, the system in which we live, is, in fact, the exact opposite of what a real economy is supposed to do, which is to efficiently and conservatively orient the materials for production and distribution of life supporting goods. There is an old saying that the competitive market model seeks to ?create the best possible goods at the lowest possible prices?. This statement is essentially the incentive concept which justifies market competition, based on the assumption that the result is the production of higher quality goods. If I was going to build myself a table from scratch, I would naturally build it out of the best most durable materials possible, right? With the intent for it to last as long as possible. Why would I want to make something poor knowing I would have to eventually do it again and expend more materials and more energy? Well, as rational as that may seem in the physical world, when it comes to the market world, it is not only explicitly irrational, it is not even an option. It is technically impossible to produce the best of anything if a company is to maintain a competitive edge and hence remain affordable to the consumer. Literally everything created and set for sale in the global economy is immediately inferior the moment it is produced, for it is a mathematical impossibility to make the most scientifically advanced, efficient and strategically sustainable products. This is due to the fact that the market system requires that ?cost efficiency?or the need to reduce expenses exists at every stage of production. From the cost of labour, to the cost of materials and packaging and so on. This competitive strategy, of course, is to make sure the public buys their goods rather than from a competing producer, which is doing the exact same thing to also make their goods both competitive and affordable.This immutably wasteful consequence of the system could be termed "Intrinsic Obsolescence". Now, here's where I want you to pay attention; this is only one part of a larger problem. A fundamental governing principle of market economics, one you will not find in any textbook by the way, is the following: ?Nothing produced can be allowed to maintain a lifespan longer than what can be endured in order to continue cyclical consumption.? In other words, it is critical that stuff break down,fail and expire within a certain amount of time.This is termed ?Planned obsolescence?. Planned obsolescence is the backbone of the underlying market strategy of every goods producing corporation in existence. While very few, of course would admit to such a strategy outright what they do is mask it within the Intrinsic Obsolescence phenomenon just discussed, while often ignoring, or even suppressing new advents in technology which might create a more sustainable, durable good. So, if it wasn't wasteful enough that the system inherently cannot allow the most durable and efficient goods to be produced, Planned Obsolescence deliberately recognizes that the longer any good is in operation the worse it is for sustaining cyclical consumption and hence the market system itself. In other words, product sustainability is actually inverse to economic growth and hence there is a direct, reinforced incentive to make sure life spans are short of any given good produced. To put it into a phrase: ?Efficiency, Sustainability, and Preservation are the enemies of our economic system.? Source: Zeitgeist: Moving Forward ​

NOTE

I realize that this may have gone off topic, but really, it makes sense. It is impossible to create the best product, so we have to do with what products we do have and not hate on any other products because, really, every product is imperfect.

 

[Aquila]

I think that the reason why there is so much hate directed to the S4 (and also the HTC One) is because people had their expectations too high, and then were disappointed when they obviously weren't met. I think that people expected "the perfect phone", one that suits every single need of every single person, as they often expect when any high-end flagship phone is announced. But the reality is; this is impossible in our economy. I think this calls for:

Economics 101

---

The intent of the market system, the system in which we live, is, in fact, the exact opposite of what a real economy is supposed to do, which is to efficiently and conservatively orient the materials for production and distribution of life supporting goods.

There is an old saying that the competitive market model seeks to ?create the best possible goods at the lowest possible prices?. This statement is essentially the incentive concept
which justifies market competition, based on the assumption that the result is the production of higher quality goods. If I was going to build myself a table from scratch, I would naturally build it out of the best most durable materials possible, right? With the intent for it to last as long as possible. Why would I want to make something poor knowing I would have to eventually do it again and expend more materials and more energy? Well, as rational as that may seem in the physical world, when it comes to the market world, it is not only explicitly irrational, it is not even an option.

It is technically impossible to produce the best of anything if a company is to maintain a competitive edge and hence remain affordable to the consumer. Literally everything created and set for sale in the global economy is immediately inferior the moment it is produced, for it is a mathematical impossibility to make the most scientifically advanced, efficient and strategically sustainable products. This is due to the fact that the market system requires that ?cost efficiency?or the need to reduce expenses exists at every stage of production. From the cost of labour, to the cost of materials and packaging and so on. This competitive strategy, of course, is to make sure the public buys their goods rather than from a competing producer, which is doing the exact same thing to also make their goods both competitive and affordable.This immutably wasteful consequence of the system could be termed "Intrinsic Obsolescence".

Now, here's where I want you to pay attention; this is only one part of a larger problem. A fundamental governing principle of market economics, one you will not find in any textbook by the way, is the following: ?Nothing produced can be allowed to maintain a lifespan longer than what can be endured in order to continue cyclical consumption.? In other words, it is critical that stuff break down,fail and expire within a certain amount of time.This is termed ?Planned obsolescence?. Planned obsolescence is the backbone of the underlying market strategy of every goods producing corporation in existence. While very few, of course would admit to such a strategy outright what they do is mask it within the Intrinsic Obsolescence phenomenon just discussed, while often ignoring, or even suppressing new advents in technology which might create a more sustainable, durable good.

So, if it wasn't wasteful enough that the system inherently cannot allow the most durable and efficient goods to be produced, Planned Obsolescence deliberately recognizes that the longer any good is in operation the worse it is for sustaining cyclical consumption and hence the market system itself. In other words, product sustainability is actually inverse to economic growth and hence there is a direct, reinforced incentive to make sure life spans are short of any given good produced.

To put it into a phrase: ?Efficiency, Sustainability, and Preservation are the enemies of our economic system.?​

I realize that this may have gone off topic, but really, it makes sense. It is impossible to create the best product, so we have to do with what products we do have and not hate on any other products because, really, every product is imperfect.

Is this from zeitgeist?

 

[ThisTechBoi]

Is this from zeitgeist?

Yes, sorry, hadn't finished editing the post.

 

[Aquila]

Yes, sorry, hadn't finished editing the post.

Oh no worries, I was actually about to go look for this for something else and then saw it, so it was super ironic. This is a GREAT explanation of obsolescence and the "shoot for the middle = shoot to the bottom" strategy that causes so much damage to innovation.

 

[toujours_frais]

The poor stage presentation... Ugh...