[TexasGunLover]

So, Tex, I think you really do not know what you are talking about.

Try supporting them in a large environment of hundreds of thousands of devices. Until you support hundreds of thousands of them through the life-cycle, it appears you are the one that has no clue.

Failure rates are measurable, and can't be argued. Fact is Apple devices fail far more often than all other devices put together. They require more user support and are a cost burden. They provide little enterprise level security and are responsible for more breaches of security than their far more numerous competitors.

Both Macs and iPhones are small minorities of devices and hold very little market share. There is a reason for this- inferiority.

Stop paying for marketing, and start looking at the underlying technologies. The screen on the iPhone X is a screen other devices have had for 4+ years.

[Swordmaker]

Try supporting them in a large environment of hundreds of thousands of devices. Until you support hundreds of thousands of them through the life-cycle, it appears you are the one that has no clue.

YOU haven't. You didn't bother reading what I wrote. Did you? You haven't supported hundreds of thousands of Macs. EVER. Not even close. You are lying.

But, as I told you and linked to an article siting the fact that prove that IBM HAS supported hundreds of thousands of Macs and other Apple hardware and found what you are claiming is simply NOT FACTUAL. I just told you they are factually doing what you are lying about doing, because you have never, ever tried it.

You are LYING. You are lying when you say "Apple devices fail far more often than all other devices put together."

• That is completely contrary to every statistical report made by organizations that REPAIR computer and phone equipment.
  
• According to the 2017 State of Mobile Device Performance and Health report, the Android device failure rate for the previous quarter reached 25% worldwide, while the iOS device failure rate have shrunk to just 12%. . .
• It's contrary to Consumer Reports listings of consumer reliability reports from their subscribers.
  • In the latest (May 2017) Consumer Reports survey of 83,000 readers, Apple was dubbed the most reliable company when it comes to laptops and desktops, reported in ZDNet.
    CU of the top laptop brands"broken or not working as well" percentage:
    • Apple: 17%.
    • Samsung: 27%.
    • Dell: 29%
    • HP: 30%
    • Lenovo: 31%
    • Asus: 33%.
    CU survey of desktop brands trouble rate:
    • Apple: 15%.
    • Lenovo: 24%
    • Samsung: 25%
    • Dell: 27%
    • HP: 27%
    • Asus: 29%.
    CU customer Satisfaction with Tech Support, Score 80 or above "very satisfied"; 60 to 79 - "fairly well-satisfied"; 40-59 - "somewhat dissatisfied"; 39 or less "unsatisfied":
    • Apple: score 82.
    • Microsoft: 68.
    • Dell: 56.
    • All others less than 40.
• It is contrary to the experience of IBM, INC., experience with INSTALLING a HUGE base or Apple Mac COMPUTERS replacing Windows PCs, which found that the number of TECHNICAL HELP CALLS DECLINED to the point that only 25 IT people could service 30,000 Mac users in their first year of switching over. That's one Tech person per 1,200 Macs, Texas. The following year, IBM found that just one IT guy could easily service 2,000 Mac users, compared one IT guy per 250-300 PC users. That's a HUGE cost savings!
• It's contrary to MY over 35 years experience in the business. Clients that I've convinced to switch to Apple stop calling for problems and only call for new hardware installs, upgrades, or updates. They don't get malware or failures. I don't make as much money from them as I did when they were constantly calling for problems with Windows, Windows connectivity issues, and malware.

So, TexasGunLover you are LYING. You've never probably ever allowed a Mac to ever be installed on your network, have you? I repeat, you really don't know what you are talking about.

Stop paying for marketing, and start looking at the underlying technologies.

IBM is not paying for MARKETING. They are paying for PERFORMANCE and saving over $50 MILLION DOLLARS IN IT COSTS PER YEAR over what they had been paying supporting CRAPPY WINDOWS COMPUTERS.

I see you did not read what I posted to you. Otherwise you'd have read what a qualititative difference means.

The screen on the iPhone X is a screen other devices have had for 4+ years.

More proof you did not bother to read, or you have a reading comprehension problem.

The screen on the iPhone X is NOT the same as the screen Android phones have had for 4+ years. Otherwise why wouldn't Samsung and the others have not been using it? Why would the organization that TESTS screens have said what it did about the PERFECTION and SUPERIORITY of the Apple iPhone X screen? No previous OLED screen has gotten better than a "B" rating due to too intense color saturation problems.

"Displaymate gives iPhone X “HIGHEST EVER” rating with an A+"

The Best Smartphone Display

• The iPhone X is the most innovative and high performance Smartphone display that we have ever tested.
• what makes the iPhone X the Best Smartphone Display is the impressive Precision Display Calibration that Apple developed that transforms the OLED hardware into a superbly accurate, high performance, and gorgeous display!!