>People who need to save $200 on a tablet where we live very likely do not need said tablet at all
You essentially said that if you cant afford the 200 dollars more for an arguably better product, you don't actually need it or its substitutes.
I made an analogy with food. Just because I can't afford to eat something expensive doesn't mean I shouldn't eat anything beyond the cheapest basic staples.
I could have just as easily made the analogy in another way, say with tools: i.e. if I can't afford the extra 200 dollars for a better, more powerful drill, I don't need a drill at all.
A tablet is in essence a tool, just like a drill is.
The reason I found this offensive is because you're talking about need as if you're its great arbiter. You don't know if a guy making 500 dollars a week needs a tablet for some reason, but you at least appear to think he doesn't deserve one if he can't afford the apple model.
But electronic gadgets aren't food. One of my points was that they are (to the extent we spend money on) not necessary. It's indicative of an attempt to derail this that you chose an analogy with, of all things, food (which is kinda necessary, don't you agree?).
> You don't know if a guy making 500 dollars a week needs a tablet for some reason, but you at least appear to think he doesn't deserve one if he can't afford the apple model.
If had meant to imply that, I'd have written it that way. I made a broad, general statement because that's exactly what I was trying to communicate: we (that includes me) spend too much on gadgets, the cheaper, the better, without thinking about actual need and quality first (before price). I'm not going to judge individual decisions without looking into them, so don't insinuate that I would.
You're missing the point. Once you have a subsistence diet (i.e. the cabbage, egg and rice), better and/or more food isn't strictly necessary. It's just desirable.
So your tablet argument becomes: "if I can't afford the foie gras, I shouldn't bother with a decent cheese plate either", which is obviously wrong for a variety of reasons (including that some people just don't like foie gras).
>People who need to save $200 on a tablet where we live very likely do not need said tablet at all
You essentially said that if you cant afford the 200 dollars more for an arguably better product, you don't actually need it or its substitutes.
I made an analogy with food. Just because I can't afford to eat something expensive doesn't mean I shouldn't eat anything beyond the cheapest basic staples.
I could have just as easily made the analogy in another way, say with tools: i.e. if I can't afford the extra 200 dollars for a better, more powerful drill, I don't need a drill at all.
A tablet is in essence a tool, just like a drill is.
The reason I found this offensive is because you're talking about need as if you're its great arbiter. You don't know if a guy making 500 dollars a week needs a tablet for some reason, but you at least appear to think he doesn't deserve one if he can't afford the apple model.