On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 20:07:54 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

Did you note the large "9" score they gave the iPhone, "Arlen"?

Hi Alan Baker,

I'm going to attempt to reason with you as an adult would.
o By using a well known very similar example to Apple camera QOR

Example:
o Exxon markets "premium" fuel & Chevron markets "techron", right?
o They "claim" all sorts of "performance" benefits, right?

And yet, they're completely imaginary.
o They lied (essentially)

Fact is, there are ZERO reliable cites that back up what people think
o Premium fuel can't possibly benefit a normal car in working order
o Polyetheramines (aka, Techron) are in all top tier fuel (e.g, Costco)

Notice the dynamic I'm attempting to explain to you:
o Exxon & Chevron spend millions of dollars to cleverly market to fools
o Who pay more - for what turns out to be wholly imaginary functionality

There's not a single reliable cite on this planet
o Who could claim that premium is "better" for normal cars in working order
o Who could claim Techron is anything other than normal polyetheramines

I observe that this same concept of marketing to fools
o Is what Apple does with respect to camera quality of output

There's not a single reliable comprehensive test site on this planet
o Which consistently puts Apple at the top of camera quality of results

Not a single one.
o I know that - and nospam knows that - but do YOU know that?

--
I hope I didn't waste my energy trying to reason with you as an adult.