Thank you for compiling this so neatly. It’s nice to have this all together.

My reading comprehension apparently isn’t what it used to be. Thank you for highlighting that.

Tax credits are nice, but are least likely to help people in poverty. A lot of them can’t wait to claim the credit and if it’s not refundable it may not help them at all.

I have a kobo as well and I I did a lot of research before selecting it. Imho it’s the best on the market for my personal needs and that definitely changed how often I use it vs an alternative. Some of the things I like about it are direct integration with the library and the ability to do audiobooks. I also like that it is only an ereader and I can’t play games or surf the web on it. I think knowing what’s gonna help you as an individual is the most important thing. If you’re more likely to take a fully fledged tablet with you somewhere because of the versatility, and would otherwise leave a plain ereader at home, then a tablet is better because if you decide to read at least you have it with you. Like a lot of tech, I think it really depends on the user.

I don’t know how I overlooked possible App Store purchase increases. Good point!

That’s fair, but it might also just be that they think taking a small loss on providing the watch will boost sales of the phone for people who wouldn’t have gotten it otherwise, will also increase market share, and look better in reporting. If you weren’t going to get a pixel watch, but one came for free and you use it, now you become a watch user for their stats. Additionally, it further entrenches you in the Google ecosystem and familiarizes you with the product so you might end up purchasing the next generation. Also, it helps normalize this product amongst your peers. Completely understandable for Google to possibly take a loss, not that they definitely are. I have no idea what the actual cost versus price looks like.

It seems like we just have a difference of opinions, so I’m happy to agree to disagree, but just so that you don’t think I ghosted, I’ll at least reply.

The word hate in this context was meant more in the sense of “haters”, like unnecessary disparagement for the sake of disparagement, which seems in line with your use of the word ridicule.

I’m not sure what you personally would have preferred, but I do not think that this is particularly vague, given the context and the market. If someone’s parent or grandparent walks into an Apple store and is confronted with the base model, and then a pro, a pro max, and a mini, I feel like they will get an overall sense of how those differ. You’ll likely get people saying, well, I don’t need anything too fancy, I just use it to take calls and maybe look some stuff up, so I probably don’t need a pro, but I definitely don’t want the mini version, so maybe I’ll check out the base model, and if that is still too small, I’ll check out the pro max, even though I might not need the Pro aspect, I might like the Max aspect. Mini and Max makes sense in this context as part of an overall spectrum that a layperson could understand. I guess the argument could be that they could give the screen size specifically, but then it would need a different name depending on local usage of the metric system or not. Also, a lot of people don’t understand that some electronics are measured on the diagonal, so that might also be confusing. S/SE Is probably The worst bit of their naming conventions, and they worked on that.

I think it’s pretty evident that the reason they did not choose pretzel rectangle was because those words are not very information dense, or relevant to the product. I feel like this is kind of proving my point?

Considering the market, I don’t think that most people need the general name of the device to have every single specification included. So long as each iteration is distinct, and understandable, people who actually care about what chip is in it can find the information readily. I don’t think most consumers care about a17 or M2, or bionic, or whatever else, and if anything that kind of technical jargon would be more obfuscating.

I get that this is mostly just a meme at this point, but it’s really not a bad naming system. The switch from plus to max was a little weird but it kept things from being iPhone pro plus. It goes

1. Item
2. Iteration
3. Tech specs
4. size

Which is more informative than a lot of other options. Not a diehard fan or anything, but the hate for this particular issue seems overblown.