I am no native English speaker, but you got the point. Something so successful in business can't be optimal for consumer. It means basically one thing, that if there is analogue for this product, and there is, they are overcharging.

Again, in a free market where there are literally hundreds of alternatives, the consumer -- all 75 million of them -- chose what they felt would be an "optimal" use of their money.
The per capita income in the US is around $50,000. If someone chose to spend about 1.2% of that income on an iPhone -- something they use multiple times per day, that's capitalism working "optimally". Their is market for a product and a producer willing to create it for a price they both feel is fair.

So in other words there is no basis in reality that Apple's customers are a "cult"....

"Words Mean Things". By whose definition is "niche" - half of the relevant population?

So does anyone who buys a product from a company that sells product at a high margin have an "excessive admiration" for that product? What do you think the marginal cost of a copy of Windows is? Does that mean every Windows user belongs to a cult?

That still doesn't answe the questiom, does half of the US constitute a "cult"?

So half of all smart phone buyers in the US constitute a "small niche"?

Guess, how they are most profitable? Obviously nothing to do with overcharging you, NOHOHO, NOT AT ALL.

If they were "overcharging", they wouldn't be selling as many. Amazing how the free market works isn't it?

That is 24%. That means your device could be 20% cheaper and they would STILL make more money then anybody else in percentage per product in the electronics world.
So instead of 500USD for the Ipad2, you could be paying 400USD and they would still make money.
And some people don't think Apple is overpriced.

I am sure some people think software developers are overpriced, but I am not going to walk into my managers office and tell him to give me a pay cut.

So now a "cult" is half of US smart phone buyers?

What does that make Linux users then?

Only if the DoJ continues to look the other way in the face of continuing flagrant Sherman act violations in the form of secret exclusionary agreements with OEMS

You mean the "exclusionary" agreements that don't allow companies like Dell and HP to sell hardware running Android and ChromeOS? Have you been to either of their websites lately?

To make the analogy complete you must include the fact that congress passed a law making them the only ones able to push out an update

Really Congress passed a law not allowing phone manufacturers the right to update their phone? Has Apple been breaking the law for over 7 years?

I'm not aware of ANY other phone manufacturer that has managed that feat before or since

Windows Phones can be updated without the carriers permissions.

Apple abandoned the original iPad in under 2.5 years.

But on the other hand, Apple released a security patch for the iPhone 3GS - released in 2009 -- last February.

The iPad 2 released mid-2011 can still run the latest OS.

The problem is when your carrier prevents you from upgrading. Blame for this issue lies soley at the feet of Verizon, At&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, etc.

Strange, my carrier has never stopped me from updating my iPhone.....

http://www.dailydot.com/politi...

He was asked if Google received detailed information from Chrome users that other browsers do not receive and, if it did, whether there was a danger that federal authorities would track said data.

"If you're concerned, for whatever reason, you do not wish to be tracked by federal and state authorities, my strong recommendation is to use incognito mode, and that's what people do,"