Is the smartphone industry realistically a lacklustre game
of which company can add the smallest ‘feature’ which may have been disabled
from a few years back, turned on in a new package in order to extrude a few
hundred bucks from the unsuspecting consumer?
Or is it a bit more deceptive where in some regions consumer
law should be woken up to pull these corporations in for false advertising?
Even though Samsung currently is one of the world’s largest
smartphone manufacturers is it really the ‘best’ or even a company the consumer
can trust?
Let’s take a quick simple analogy with regards to Australia’s
automotive industry, and the Aussie iconic brand of Holden, which is now in the
stage of being buried 6ft under.
Just because it was the most popular vehicle on Australian
roads does not make it the best vehicle on the road.
With smartphones manufacturers are not so much innovating
with technology into their devices but rather with terminology to lure
consumers to purchase their high end products are more expensive yielding greater
profits for the corporations.
With the release of Samsung’s new Galaxy S20 Ultra comes the
focus on its 100x (zoom) photography, which is ‘advertised’ in a nice large font.
When camera or rather lens zoom capability is mentioned, the
number that is referred to is the optical capability of the lens, period.
Samsung have made up a term called ‘space zoom’ where at
this level of ‘100x’ the subject is realistically unusable in real life tests.
In today’s world apparently the next best newest portable communications
device to have is determined by its photographic quality rather than its
communication capabilities.
Samsung is not that honest when it comes to its new foldable
phone the Galaxy Z Flip either, where it’s not a glass foldable phone but rather a
plastic screen with some glass like substance in between.
With the emergence of many new smartphone players over the
last few years, which Australian
consumers may have not heard of or even see over the shores of this colony, it’s
very competitive out there especially in the large Chinese and Indian mid range
consumer market, where desperate times call for desperate measures, like ‘false’
(?) advertising for some companies.
Just because this month’s new phone model has a wacky named
tinge of bluish green aqua mauve matt finish compared to the glossy back of the
previous model, does the really necessitate you to spend the overinflated price
asked for it?
Too many models with no (real) innovation to offer.
As an example Huawei, despite the US ‘ban’ in 2019 announced
32 new smartphones (excluding tablets & watches) to the world, where that's an average of over two and a half phones per month.
Imagine if China was a ‘capitalistic’ régime, lol.
See also:
No comments:
Post a Comment