to the person making the comment, and probably others. there's no reason to be obstinate about it.

The point was that there is a point of view issue here. A person familiar with the issues of sourcing Apple's SoCs and less worried about their own costs in purchasing the device might view this as a "fair trade-off." A person unfamiliar with those issues, or merely a person highly concerned with value for money, might view it as a lame product feature segmentation. And I suppose there's the point of view of tech journalists to be contended with as well.

> there's no reason to be obstinate about it.

Strange comment. You're projecting or something.

you make a pithy simple comment with "to whom?" because it's something you feel the opposite about. it's quite clear the very person you replied is one of the "whom" you're inquiring. to even challenge that is just gaslighting the situation after the fact.

> gaslighting the situation after the fact

You’ve obviously discovered step #1 of a plan for which step #3 is Profit! There must be a lot of excitement that goes along with something like that.

everyone knows that it is cheaper for a company to mass produce the same hardware at scale then lock/unlock features via software based on the model the vendor wants to make. in order to make different lower price models, some features are disabled. why this is hard to accept is beyond me. well, actually it's not. it's clear that some people just have issues with retail and companies making things they don't agree with and just come to the internet to argue, and here i am falling for it.

> everyone knows that it is cheaper for a company to mass produce the same hardware at scale then lock/unlock features via software based on the model the vendor wants to make. in order to make different lower price models, some features are disabled.

If the OP is correct, this is exactly not what Apple has done. They've equipped the lesser models with last year's SoC. The question of whether this is the kind of feature that ought to be gimped, ever, in 2023 remains.

> it's clear that some people just have issues with retail and companies making things they don't agree with and just come to the internet to argue, and here i am falling for it.

Perhaps you would have had a happier time if you hadn't attributed intentions to me which I did not possess, a couple of times. But if you enjoy doing that, well... enjoy!

I agree with the parent, practically every passing HN reader will understand that one of the 'whom' is the user your replying to. So it seems like a lame response.

It would be different if they wrote it in a way that suggested no personal belief.

Thank you for sharing this important insight!

You do realize doubling down on snark can only decrease your account's credibility?

It can only bring you down, there's no way it could make anyone like you more.

> your account's credibility

> like you more

This is all incredibly sad. You should look for affirmation in other, more meaningful places.

> This is all incredibly sad. You should look for affirmation in other, more meaningful places.

Huh? If you don't think this HN post or comment chain is meaningful, why are you spending your time commenting here in the first place?