Why does the beast have to be killed? There's opportunity for new companies to create new products and markets. Apple just followed the prototypical progression of many small companies that grew to gargantuan size and power. Sequoia Trees start from small seeds and then get ridiculously large, but they do serve a purpose.

To be honest, I don't really want a phone like that, Vitaliy. I don't want a phone with memory slots which get dirty and clogged, with cheap screens from who-knows-who manufacturer, and I absolutely hate removable batteries which fall out at the worst time and have battery doors which are either bulky/clumsy or break easily. I've owned Motorolas, Nokias, Blackberries of various kinds, and Palm phones, and used Samsungs and HTCs. I hated every single one of them for these and many other reasons, but the end result is their failings caused me to waste time dealing with them, choosing them, sorting through them, and worst of all handling broken components. The fewer moving parts, the better, is my experience.

The thing I dislike the most about the Android devices is that they aren't predictable in components, quality, or feature set. The fragmentation of both software and hardware is, in my opinion, exactly what is to be avoided. I'm not a fan of choice, if my choices are between a dizzying array of crap which I must sort through. Cheap, in my opinion, is not desirable. A reasonable value is, but if that mean the product is expensive because quality components went into it, and I got a consistent and useful experience out of using it -- and experience that didn't waste my time with research, component-getting, etc. -- then I am absolutely receiving value for the cost. I agree that there should be commodity options for those who don't have this luxury, and that those options should be equally valuable and high quality for their level of price and effort. But I don't agree that simply because something is expensive that it has no place. Your argument should be against Samsung pricing their phones as high as they do, not against Apple doing so. Samsung's phones offset far more of their costs against the environment and people, and they profit perfectly well from them.

Anything technological of any nature, these days, has immense supply chains, massive global environmental and social impact, and tremendous energy investment. Your vaunted S5 is worse on the environment and other people than an iPhone 6 is, as far as I'm able to determine, as Samsung has no environmental policies in place, no fair trade on rare earths, no particular effort to be responsible with their manufacturing. You may deride Apple, but you cannot glorify anybody else, by the same metric.

So, I can't see why you rant about cost or Apple when you mention Samsung without the same vilification. It makes no sense at all. Cheap is not good. Good is not cheap. Cheap just means more costs get pushed to poor people, the environment, etc. If Russia were to begin making a decent phone, I'd give it the same consideration I give the Apple and Samsung products today - that is to say, I judge them on their utility, their environmental efforts, and the overall value in terms of time I get to spend doing other things and not fiddling with the products trying to get them to work.

Around here, Apple and Samsung cost about the same. I'm not a fan of the off brand Chinese phones Vitaliy likes, but I split the difference and have a $200 Asus Zenphone. More RAM, stronger CPU, way cheaper than apples and samsungs. I own Apple products, but think their stuff is way overrated and overpriced.

Some people just don't like very large corporations. Most of them become self-serving and no longer value the things that got the company going when they were small and had to be smart about bringing new ideas to market. Apple are slowing down in the innovation department but make solid hardware. It's not all good, but the alternatives are no better.

Large corporations are NATURAL thing in capitalism. Every sector of economy quickly converge to one or few of them controlling things.

The thing I dislike the most about the Android devices is that they aren't predictable in components, quality, or feature set. The fragmentation of both software and hardware is, in my opinion, exactly what is to be avoided. I'm not a fan of choice, if my choices are between a dizzying array of crap which I must sort through.

It is not Android vs Apple topic :-)

My point was about real sustainability, you can go into nearest service and check that most phones go into another world or into parts after fixed battery become old (or replacement battery no longer available), if screen is broken and replacement cost more than price of this old phone.

So, I can't see why you rant about cost or Apple when you mention Samsung without the same vilification. It makes no sense at all.

Because Apple had presentation. :-) Otherwise Samsung and Apple are quite similar, but Samsung conglomerate is larger in some areas, but much smaller in another (like media and banks affilation).

I also did not rant, I just pointed to the lovers of small business that Apple is killer of such business and they do it with margins. About good is not cheap, as Apple provide reports their approximate margins and amount of money they collect in special funds (non taxable!) is known, so it has nothing to do with actual sell cost.

There has to be a next advancement in tech! There always will be. This is called progress. 8k TV will soon be old- so will cloud computing. Next is quantum computing - then skynet - then we all die.

Of course it has to be. If you apply ruler to exponential curve it point almost to the sky above you :-)

Unfortunately quantum computing turned out to be one big scam (in practice), but it not important, isn't it?

Maybe not quantum but something will make our tech now look like joke in 20 years or sooner. Our big problem is how to use it.

And what if not? What if 20 from now you will see current day as unreachable hallmark?

What if biggest problem will be finding something to eat? Adds this view more perspective for you?

Personally, I would prefer to see the private sector market create products, wealth and job opportunities than a centrally-controlled government body that has poor knowledge of markets, consumer demand and technological innovation. If the government controlled the cell phone industry, we would likely still be using clamshells with technology from 15 years ago. Companies in the private sector are forced to be smart and innovative or the resources move to other competitors/industries. Government doesn't have to be smart or innovative. Ever-growing governments enjoy the heavy hand of coerced participation which has a chilling effect on the opportunities for individuals to attain wealth and independence. To me, private sector opportunities equal freedom. The freedom to succeed or fail. The private sector is where innovation and progress flourish. Not beneath the collective thumbs of ignorant, power-hungry, politically-driven bureaucrats.

"How it happens that most people on this earth fail, are the stupid or work not hard enough? And ones who succeed do this at the expense of others?"

Well, if consumer markets don't want the products created by the "successful," guess what? They don't buy them! If the "unsuccessful" fail from an entrepreneurial perspective, they can always work for those who are successful and push to improve themselves and climb the socio-economic ladder. People don't need to remain static. The wheels of private sector progress can and should continue to turn provided the governments allow them to turn.

Well, if consumer markets don't want the products created by the "successful," guess what?

Well, it is not explanation in any form, just lots of words. I asked what makes most people fail even if they try hard.

They have no incentive to be smart or innovative. The can, and do, force-feed their "products" onto the private sector.

It is also ill logic. Why they have no incentive? Suppose I will get private "innovative" firm and make it fully state owned subsidiary, with same people and everything else. They stopped being innovative the moment it happened?

I was just reading an interesting article by Dmitry Orlov regarding the former Soviet Union's response to collapse and of course we are having a similar kind of economic / energy collapse on the horizon in the west.

I'll tell you a secret, talk (and articles) by Dmitry Orlov is almost complete bullshit, and everyone inside know it, so they are intended for outsiders.

Also agreed - but this is not just Apple or Samsung or anybody in specific. The market structure these days is, almost across the board, conspiring as heavily as possible to prevent smaller, local, and niche products which fill real needs from being able to be competitive against the giants with their one-size-fits-all solution.

By definition - monopolies and corporations are main property of imperialism. Sometimes during tech advances or in very fast moving sectors it can seem that many competitors can exist for prolonged periods. But laws of capitalism work and it quickly becomes from one to few giants and all else go into niches.

While I do think that quality has a place and that there are variations of market-based capitalism that, in certain circumstances, do a very good job, we're gone so far off the rails in our society that capitalism is at risk of becoming equally as bad of a word/term/concept as socialism did under the oppressive "communist" regimes.

Read less media and learn more real history :-) It'll help not to write such things. Nothing went off the rails, it is same beast, just due to objective reasons part of curtain moved and mask on the face started to peel off.

Interesting thread. One thing I can't figure out yet though, are we talking like this simply due to our age and bitterness that comes along with it, disappointment in the world aka realization that it isn't like the fairly tales we grew up on...or is it actually something prophetic this time.

I think people were always fascinated by the impending doom that creeps around the corner, but lately, maybe because of the internet and everybody chiming in with their beliefs, it seems like there's a pretty extensive end of times sentiment.

Well, topic is not about rants, doom or such.

It is polite discussion about how system works and that can be done and that can't with it.

Why corporations or capitalists can't make really sustainable system? Well, Marxism already have answer for this - capitalism can not bear complex systems made in the interests of society, can not reach proper socialization level. It is not about bad people, system is designed such.

@jaggillan

You mean that you are rare on PV? :-)

enjoy their fantastic customer service, reliable products and happy to pay a bit more for it. ;-)

Apple reports show that you are paying mostly not for this :-)