On 12/28/2017 9:50 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <p249kd$lh1$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Mayayana
><mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:
> 
>> | more nonsense. the iphone x (not 10)
>>
>>     Do you know what x stands for? (Hint: Roman.)
> 
> the name of the device is iphone x, not iphone 10.
> 
>> | is selling *very* well.
>>
>> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-25/analysts-cut-ipho...
>> ent-forecasts-citing-lukewarm-demand
> 
> that's nothing more than the usual analysts talking out their ass in an
> attempt to manipulate the stock price for personal gain and that of
> their clients.
> 
> last october, the same idiot analysts were saying the iphone 8/8+ were
> a flop, that lines were short and no backlog of orders, it's not enough
> of a jump over the 7 so people were opting for the 7 instead, little to
> no customer excitement, blah blah blah.
> 
> at the earnings call in early november, apple stated the iphone 8/8+
> were the two most popular models sold. the iphone x had not yet shipped
> at that point.
> 
> it happens every quarter.
> 
> apple's next earnings call is in mid-february, where *actual* numbers
> will be announced.
> 
>>    But don't worry. Once it gets down to $40 I'll buy one
>> to use as a camera...
> 
> you wouldn't use one if it was given to you for free.
> 
>> if they can demonstrate to me
>> that the camera is usable without activating the phone.
> 
> there is *no* need to activate an iphone with cellular service.
> 
> you'll just need wifi for any connectivity (and you can also turn that
> off if you prefer).
> 
> older iphones are commonly given to kids for exactly that purpose,
> since the parents don't want to sign them up for their own cellphone
> plan.
> 

I do not disagree with much of what you say. but, back up what you say 
with authenticated facts, and logic.
You really ought to distinguish fact from opinion. You would gain a lot 
of respect, if you did.

-- 
PeterN