I haven’t forgotten that. You may have forgotten that all phones came with swappable batteries, small screens, and headphone jacks and they sold millions of them for decades. That proves these are important features because they sold well, right?
Also all those examples you gave apply to all phones, not just small one
What does that even mean? All phones come with old hardware and are poorly built outside of a couple key features?
Apple sold a 13 Mini, which was nearly identical to the 13, as much as is physically possible, and it was a dud.
So identical that they were nearly the same price which could put a lot of buyers off if they feel like they’re getting less value for their money. Consumers also think that 1/4lb burgers are better than 1/3lb burgers because they’re bigger as A&W found out in the 1980s when trying to compete against McDonalds. “The market deciding” doesn’t mean anything rational happened or that it reflects reality. You’re simply cherrypicking the result you want and shaping it to fit your argument.
You may have forgotten that all phones came with swappable batteries, small screens, and headphone jacks and they sold millions of them for decades. That proves these are important features because they sold well, right?
Important to consumers, yes. Important to OEMs? No, quite the opposite. I don’t think that applies to screen size.
What does that even mean?
What did you even mean if not to imply that people weren’t buying specifically large phones because they didn’t include these anti-features?
So identical that they were nearly the same price which could put a lot of buyers off if they feel like they’re getting less value for their money
Why would they feel like they were getting lass value when it was the size they wanted, and had everything else also?
Consumers also think that 1/4lb burgers are better than 1/3lb burgers because they’re bigger
So then you agree consumers want bigger phones?
You’re simply cherrypicking the result you want and shaping it to fit your argument.
I had a 13 mini until a month ago. It’s one hell of a phone, and honestly, I’d still be using it if iPhones didn’t keep their value so well and Apple weren’t such a shit company.
My point is I assume they didn’t lose money on them. They feel the scale of profit needs to be higher, else it’s not worth their time. And I think it’s a bummer that they run things this way.
That 3% would be a lot of customers to other reasonably sized companies. Right?
You forget that all phones used to be small.
Also all those examples you gave apply to all phones, not just small ones.
Apple sold a 13 Mini, which was nearly identical to the 13, as much as is physically possible, and it was a dud.
I haven’t forgotten that. You may have forgotten that all phones came with swappable batteries, small screens, and headphone jacks and they sold millions of them for decades. That proves these are important features because they sold well, right?
What does that even mean? All phones come with old hardware and are poorly built outside of a couple key features?
So identical that they were nearly the same price which could put a lot of buyers off if they feel like they’re getting less value for their money. Consumers also think that 1/4lb burgers are better than 1/3lb burgers because they’re bigger as A&W found out in the 1980s when trying to compete against McDonalds. “The market deciding” doesn’t mean anything rational happened or that it reflects reality. You’re simply cherrypicking the result you want and shaping it to fit your argument.
Important to consumers, yes. Important to OEMs? No, quite the opposite. I don’t think that applies to screen size.
What did you even mean if not to imply that people weren’t buying specifically large phones because they didn’t include these anti-features?
Why would they feel like they were getting lass value when it was the size they wanted, and had everything else also?
So then you agree consumers want bigger phones?
Pot meet kettle.
I had a 13 mini until a month ago. It’s one hell of a phone, and honestly, I’d still be using it if iPhones didn’t keep their value so well and Apple weren’t such a shit company.
Cool.
“Dud” is really strong language. These companies have distorted metrics for what is a successful product.
Google has a reputation for killing products because of similar wild expectations for ROI.
Is it “strong language” when they made up 3% of iphone sales?
Well, Um. There are 3% of us!
My point is I assume they didn’t lose money on them. They feel the scale of profit needs to be higher, else it’s not worth their time. And I think it’s a bummer that they run things this way.
That 3% would be a lot of customers to other reasonably sized companies. Right?