- Joined
- Jul 3, 1997
- Messages
- 66,776
- Real Name
- Ronald Epstein
If you don't see it or feel it, and it doesn't affect use of the phone, it means nothing.Sam Posten said:Even if you don't see it, those are still there.
And that's why it costs more to build the iPhone 5S than the Galaxy S5. Oh, wait...Sam Posten said:Regardless of how you feel about the feel of the materials you can't ignore the actual quality of the materials used. Apple clearly values using high quality components where others do not and that adds to the BOM.
I'm not comparing one supercar to another. I'm saying (and forgive the confusing use of Joe Walsh lyrics above) is that even if you don't use a particular aspect of a product that doesn't make it any less valuable or useful for that purpose to others. It might be useless to YOU but the intrinsic value is still there. Waving them off because you personally don't take advantage of it seems counterproductive to me. As I said, we disagree here. I appreciate fine materials engineering and what it is costing Apple to use state of the art production techniques, others don't but the costs are still what they are.Hanson, good point, I hadn't actually compared the S5s costs, but note that the S5 is behind the HTC in Verge's rankings. What's the cost difference between those two? This is kinda my point tho, the BOM costs aren't the only consideration, the holistic gestalt of a device consists of both objective and subjective features AND costs. What does it cost a vendor to design new materials engineering that nobody else has done before? What are they doing besides just integrating parts from thousands of vendors? Does the whole device match up components that well suited to each other and work together well, or do they put a top of the line engine on cheap wheels... Etc...RobertR said:I have no idea what analogy you're trying to make. If an iphone is a Maserati, then a Galaxy s5 is a Lamborghini. IOW, at least as much a "supercar" under the hood. Comments about the case are analogous to commenting about the looks of the car.
I think you're contradicting yourself, Sam. You say things have "intrinsic value" (actually, they don't. They only have the value that people ascribe to them), but you also talk about how much "others" value them. You also complain about "waving off" things if they have no value to someone, yet you ignore the fact that the Verge writer does exactly the same thing (such as waving off a larger screen size, replaceable battery, etc.).Sam Posten said:even if you don't use a particular aspect of a product that doesn't make it any less valuable or useful for that purpose to others. It might be useless to YOU but the intrinsic value is still there. Waving them off because you personally don't take advantage of it seems counterproductive to me. As I said, we disagree here.
Steel and glass have more value than plastic if people value them more than plastic. There's NOTHING "intrinsic" about it. Steel isn't even necessarily preferable from an objective material standpoint. Quote from the ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers):Sam Posten said:So what you are saying is you don't believe that steel and glass have more intrinsic value than plastic?
This means that you're reduced to saying you like steel because it "looks or feels nicer", which is, of course, a purely subjective statement. As for plastic vs glass, last time I looked, all the high end Android phones use Gorilla glass.Polymer science has advanced to the point where vendors can compound a variety of plastic materials with specific fillers and reinforcements that provide a tremendous amount of structural integrity. Plastic can be as strong as metal with proper material selection paired with design optimization, and weigh far less.
The same comments apply to glass concerning material properties vs. purely subjective preferences.Sam Posten said:Robert: Talking about glass backs here not the fronts.