EPCOTCenterLover
Well-Known Member
Aw, just almost brought a tear to my eye - the Sooper Dooper Looper was my first "upside down" coaster.
Yeah, that's the crux of the Apple/Android issue. On one hand, Apple and it's super-controlling Walled Garden and one-OS-to-Rule-Them-All make development easier and most things come out first for iOS vs. Android (and are lucky to ever make it to Windows Phone), and each Android OS update has to be done by each manufacturer for each model of phone, and often they abandon them and you are stuck on whatever OS you started with. As a consumer it's nice to be able to know you will have compatibility with Apple, on the other hand, you pretty much are forced as an Apple user to upgrade to a new OS as your existing apps won't be able to be updated unless you update the OS, and if you update the OS, eventually you pretty much have to update your phone because new iOS versions run terribly on prior generations.
Basically, Apple pretty much forces you into an endless upgrade cycle if you want to keep a fully-functional phone, even if you just want to keep using the apps you already have.
Well, real local support are places that are popping up all over to service iPhones of folks who refuse to upgrade their phone every 18-24 months because Apple and the carriers want them to. They are the natural development that was going to happen when Apple insists on not letting you replace your own battery, etc. easily. I've cracked open an iPhone for a DIY job before, but it's far easier to pay these guys to do it, and they charge 1/3 of what the Apple store charges. Apple devices, particularly iPhone, have such incredible planned obsolescence in them that it's astounding we own so many of them and gladly keep buying.
You know, I've heard that same argument before from folks - and what it misses is - yes, we can judge. These folks are taking our money. So we have every right to our opinions on it.
I'm a pretty liberal guy, and I believe in social programs, etc., but when I see folks per above, it does boil my blood. Because I was raised right - if I lost my job, etc., I wouldn't expect to maintain my same level of lifestyle. You make sacrifices. Not only does that person have an iPhone, but they are likely paying quite a bit for service (or someone is) as well. No one needs an iPhone. You can get a standard "feature phone" for $20 a month. Even on a family plan, with the data an iPhone costs double to triple that minimum monthly (and often more). On top of all that, a lot of these folks were living outside of their means in the first place.
See, when I say "raised right" - I mean that I would never, ever accept public assistance unless I had exhausted all my own resources. I would be ashamed and humiliated if someone thought that I would ask for a handout with one hand while I had an iPhone in another hand.
If someone has no food and is hungry, I have no issue giving them food stamps to buy food. But I dang well don't expect them to still be driving their $50K vehicle and flashing their iPhone around - you downsize. Or at the very least if you cannot (ETF, etc.) you dang well don't go flashing it around while standing in line with the other folks in the store who just paid for your groceries.
It's rampant, but it's not even that new. There is one overpriced grocery store in the next town over from me (a regional chain that was rated the worst in America not long ago, actually), and every time I go there out of necessity (they do have good hours, and if you are in that area, it's really the only choice for a full grocery store), I see this. And I have always seen it. About a dozen years ago when I was getting out of college I was flat broke and between jobs - I did occasional freelance work that took care of the bare necessities but that was infrequent and unreliable.
I could have easily gotten assistance, but I was raised that getting assistance was a last resort, not a way of life or the first thing you go to. But since I was perfectly capable of getting a minimum wage job and chose not to, I just lived frugally. I remember going into that store with $15 in my pocket (now that I think, it was probably more like $12) to buy food for a good few days. I had a large bag of $2 store-brand rice, a few cans of beans, etc. I was making that $12 stretch. I ended up in line behind two young working guys (they were either mechanics or construction just off the job), who were paying cash for beer and then using food stamps to get lobster (it's fresh meat, it's allowed) and the fixin's, with a bunch of expensive football-day junk food. These guys had jobs - yet they or their girlfriends still qualified for food stamps, so they used them to splurge and spent a week's allotment to get a luxury meal and party snacks.
It's sick, and it's not new. And it's why social programs get the bad rap they do - because we are a nation brimming with folks who feel entitled to live at a certain level of lifestyle no matter what the circumstances in their life are. They are "owed" a minimum lifestyle if they earn it or not.
To bring it back to Disney, interestingly enough, what got me out of that period in my life was remembering my childhood love of Disney parks and realizing "hey, I'm an adult now - I could go to Disney whenever I wanted - if only I had the $". Had a job within a week and was at Disney within 3 months.
It is sad, totally - because like AK, there were inherent problems in the original idea that caused the less-than-expected performance, which was then interpreted as market absolutes by bean counters who didn't know any better or didn't want to acknowledge the truth.
With AK, it was the confusing theme and lack of "theme parkness" - which it's fans applaud, but the general public just thought Disney created a really pretty petting zoo, like it was a minor attraction such as the waterparks or mini-golf. As Potter proved in spades, there was new audience out there - they just didn't respond to AK.
With DLP, it was the absurd idea to sit a Disney theme park in the middle of what is largely considered the birthplace of high culture in the Western world. It's also one of the most expensive areas to visit in Europe. We really offended the entire continent with that - I cannot tell you how many folks from Europe, especially UK, who almost literally spit in the ground when they talk about it. And you know where I've talked to many of those folks? At WDW! So they even love Disney, but the hatred for that park - and the prices to travel and stay there - are just overwhelming. I have had folks from the UK tell me it's cheaper for them to spend 2 weeks in Orlando than 4-5 days at DLP resort, but that's just part of it - they say the crowds are terribly managed, the people rude, etc. I've wasn't kidding about almost literally seeing people spit about it - I've seen more than one actually look down and make the "pthu!" noise when it's brought up.
In this case, even the super-quality attractions couldn't beat the cultural black eye in the choice of it's location to begin with.
I don't think it was lack of faith, really. It was facing reality. When you come down to it, Disney has never really relied on internally created/sourced stories to begin with - they did not invent Cinderella, or Aladdin, etc. They did give a new take which took hold, but when it comes to source material, I'd never really use the term "original" to describe WDC, from the beginning.
Pixar was just a natural choice - and to the public, Pixar already = Disney anyway. With Marvel and Lucasfilm, he quite handily saved Disney live action feature films and turned them back into a player. They also make perfect sense in terms of what Disney is about - IP - they added two of the most massive stables of characters in modern franchise. It was just a given that someday Lucas would sell to Disney, and that Disney would be interested - Lucas himself said that had Walt still been around, and Disney not being in the state it was in the late-70's, he believed that Star Wars would have been most at home at Disney from the start when he was getting kicked to the curb from studio after studio (and he has been saying this since the 1980's, it's not a recent revisionist thing as he is so fond of).
Agree with your post in general, just want to point out with this one it's a bit more complex - because of the franchise nature of most fast food, the battle against the "dollar menu" has been raging since it began as many fast food outlets were actually taking losses on the food to begin with. The problem is, it worked as a loss leader in terms of getting folks in - hoping they also buy higher margin items like sodas and french fries - the problem is, the college kids who come in and buy 10 double cheeseburgers for $10 and buy nothing else, etc., balance that out.
It is pretty much impossible to serve a double cheeseburger for $1 in 2014 - when you account for paying for the ingredients (meat, cheese, bread, condiments, etc.) and the overhead/employees that prepare it. And it wasn't much better a proposition ten years or so ago when they began in the first place to offer this stuff. It always was forced from corporate, who also in most cases is your sole contractually obligated supplier.
(Hint/Random info: Out of all of them, BK has the most locally/regionally sourced stuff - buns for instance, are generally delivered by 3rd parties - in New England, for example, they are Country Kitchen - who also make really the only true split "Frankfurter" roll that you find most New Englanders use for hot dogs and lobster rolls as opposed to those mini-submarine type things they call hot dog rolls elsewhere, LOL.)
I never got it, either. Even when I had an AP and was down there 20-30 days a year, I didn't go between May and at least late September, if not October. The crowds, the heat - no thank you, nothing magical about that!
That's because "Club Level" and "Concierge" at Disney mean far, far different things in the real world. Disney simply doesn't offer what is commonly accepted as Concierge service - at Disney, it's a person who calls CRO for you, and gets the same results that you could on your own. "Club Level" at Disney means there is a small lounge with bottled water, coffee, and cookies.
The people that do pay those prices in the real world expect to get the services they are used to, and I'm sure they don't leave with a high opinion when they pay more at Disney for service that just isn't what it's advertised to be, at least under the common understanding of what those words mean.
Someone in another thread that was essentially "you get what you pay for" said, "Look at the difference in what price gets you between a value and deluxe concierge!" And the truth is...not much. A prettier shell, for sure (though sometimes maint at the values gets more attention, ironically). If you stay at a monorail resort, easy access to MK (but longer rides to everywhere else), and if you pay a real lot you can go to bed looking at the castle. That last part is unbelievably cool, but it's more of a "one night" splurge when you can get a deal - since most of the time you'd have to enjoy the view you'd be sleeping.
But other than that...the level of service really isn't that much greater, commensurate to the price differential. I mean, Values are way overpriced these days anyway (for about what you pay for a "suite" you could get a private condo off site with a private pool), but even so - in virtually every other location, there is a massive difference between a $125 a night room and a $600 a night room. At WDW, not so much - just outer shell, and easier access to the MK - which, wonderful as it is, is difficult to say is worth $4000 for just the lodging alone on a week's vacation.
Re: DLP, the three times I have visited it was apparent to me that Europe at large, and especially the French, have embraced the park. It's always packed with people regardless of the season.
