Here DeBord seems to state as fact that the iPhone 4S was "behind-the-curve," which might come as news to all the people who bought one and quite like it, thank you very much. If everyone bought iPhones based on a list of "features," no one would buy iPhones.
But as Henry Blodget points out at Business Insider...
...Samsung will have a new smartphone in the market by February and it will surely trump the iPhone 5 in numerous ways.
Not until February? What, are its engineers and designers on vacation? Samsung released a flagship product a couple of months ago. What's taking it so long?
Again, a list of features slapped into a case does not an enjoyable smartphone user experience make. What good is having an NFC-capable phone if you can't use it anywhere? The Macalope fondly remembers (because it was so funny) being told how the Motorola Xoom would kill the iPad because it had 4G. Well, technically, it didn't have 4G, it had the capability to one day have 4G. But ... check!
If you can stand four-letter words that start with "f," read this (tip o' the antlers to Daring Fireball) to understand how this works and isn't just marketing. Getting something right is better than getting it first.
The iPhone 5 will succeed wildly and make Apple even more totally dependent on it.
So, now you have a piece that says both "the iPhone 5 will fail," "the iPhone 5 could fail," and "the iPhone 5 will succeed wildly." Just to keep score on the intellectual integrity of your argument.
Of course, the Macalope gets the sense that, based on his quick retort and favorable linking to Henry Blodget, DeBord is more interested in just having an argument than it being logically consistent.
Here, he switches to a different argument, which is how the iPhone 5 will fail Apple, because the company is now locked into feeding the beast in the hope it will grow ever fatter.
The iPod is killable. The iPhone, clearly, is not.
Actually, no! You've missed another key point in how Apple does business compared to everyone else. The iPhone is not only killable, it one day demands to be killed. As long as Apple kills it itself. Which, by the way, is exactly what it did with the iPod.
If you want, you can argue that only Steve Jobs could kill products that Apple made. That is at least an idea you can bet on, but it means you have to think that while Jobs believed in that philosophy, he only hired people to work for him who believe in milking cash cows in perpetuity. That seems an odd blind spot to project on the man, though.
Sign up for Computerworld eNewsletters.