Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Talys wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 Bull0 wrote:
It was definitely a rush job, and buying it was a bad idea. People who bought it because, Ok, it's a crap book, but it's my way of playing Knights, are the ones who are disappointed by the news. So really my advice is not to buy crap books. If it was a good book, you wouldn't be disappointed, because it's still a good book. The rules don't evaporate when newer ones come out; I'm sure outside of tournaments you're fine to continue using them for a while yet.

You are just trolling at this point, right?

Either way: the lesson is, don't buy a book unless you see value in it (or don't care, and want it anyhow), because no matter how long it takes to replace it, or how short, a crap book is a crap book. Frankly, the ideal situation would have been if nobody bought the original crap book, and they quickly came out with a replacement better book. OTOH, none of my friends, who all own most of the books, bought IK (they left it to me, yay). The solution is not to complain about the replacement better book, it's not to buy a crap book in the first place.

The logic here is making my head spin.

Certainly the people who bought the IK codex saw value in being able to use their Knight models in games and tournaments. The value in the IK codex, and really in any gaming book, is the acceptance of that iteration of the rules among the larger gaming community. The fluff and pictures are secondary to the rules that allow you to play your games. Arguing that people should have known better and avoided buying the IK codex just comes across as pure smugness granted through the magic of hindsight.

People absolutely are entitled to be upset by the obsolescence of the IK codex because a 1-year life-span for a codex is a new thing. Going forward yours and Bullo's arguments might have a bit of merit because a precedent will have been set with the IK codex's short span, but to act like buyers of the first IK codex are in any way responsible for GW pulling a dickish move is ridiculous.

If there is any lesson here it isn't to avoid "crap books" (whatever the hell that means) but rather to expect all products released by GW to have aggressive planned obsolescence.

yeah,
Looking at the dates on the old and new Knight sprues. It looks like there is years difference.

Main sprues 2013 and the new upgrade sprue is 2014.

So it is likely that GW had no idea they would create the extra Knights versions until after the Knights were a success.
It makes sense that they needed a new book.

I just feel they should offer something to the early adopters who made the knights a success rather than punish them by invalidating their book 1 year later.
How much would it harm sales to have something like trade in your old book for a upgrade sprue to keep 'old' knight players happy!?

Should we all wait one year before we buy into any new ranges.
Will Skitarii and Harlequins get HQs in 12 months time and a new codex?
Will Admech get a tank in 8 month and a new codex?

Should we ignore all new ranges for two years till they settle down?

Early adopters should be rewarded not punished.

Panic...

 Samurai_Eduh wrote:
Anyone else buy the 5 Knight bundle with the special rules?

Me

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

The logic here is making my head spin.

Certainly the people who bought the IK codex saw value in being able to use their Knight models in games and tournaments. The value in the IK codex, and really in any gaming book, is the acceptance of that iteration of the rules among the larger gaming community. The fluff and pictures are secondary to the rules that allow you to play your games. Arguing that people should have known better and avoided buying the IK codex just comes across as pure smugness granted through the magic of hindsight.

People absolutely are entitled to be upset by the obsolescence of the IK codex because a 1-year life-span for a codex is a new thing. Going forward yours and Bullo's arguments might have a bit of merit because a precedent will have been set with the IK codex's short span, but to act like buyers of the first IK codex are in any way responsible for GW pulling a dickish move is ridiculous.

If there is any lesson here it isn't to avoid "crap books" (whatever the hell that means) but rather to expect all products released by GW to have aggressive planned obsolescence.

You misunderstand me. The dickish move by GW is in the FIRST IK book being junk, not in replacing the it with a second book (which might also be junk -- we don't know yet). It's not the buyer's "fault" in either case, but there is a lesson to be learned in not buying something that has no value in it (like a book devoid of rules), because it will probably be replaced with something that is actually useful, later on. I'm actually happy that a junk book is being replaced, although of course I would be happier if it were simply supplemented with something in GW. Or, put another way, GW could have waited another 5 years, and the value of the first book would still have been close to nil.

The number of times that our group has collectively opened my IK book (the only copy that any of us have, though everyone has photocopies of the few pages of actual content) in the last 10 months can be measured on the fingers of my hands.

So if the first book had rules for the yet to be released knights and they replaced it with just a tweaked book with nothing new one year later that, in your opinion, isn't a dick move?

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 Talys wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 Bull0 wrote:
It was definitely a rush job, and buying it was a bad idea. People who bought it because, Ok, it's a crap book, but it's my way of playing Knights, are the ones who are disappointed by the news. So really my advice is not to buy crap books. If it was a good book, you wouldn't be disappointed, because it's still a good book. The rules don't evaporate when newer ones come out; I'm sure outside of tournaments you're fine to continue using them for a while yet.

You are just trolling at this point, right?

Either way: the lesson is, don't buy a book unless you see value in it (or don't care, and want it anyhow), because no matter how long it takes to replace it, or how short, a crap book is a crap book. Frankly, the ideal situation would have been if nobody bought the original crap book, and they quickly came out with a replacement better book. OTOH, none of my friends, who all own most of the books, bought IK (they left it to me, yay). The solution is not to complain about the replacement better book, it's not to buy a crap book in the first place.

The logic here is making my head spin.

Certainly the people who bought the IK codex saw value in being able to use their Knight models in games and tournaments. The value in the IK codex, and really in any gaming book, is the acceptance of that iteration of the rules among the larger gaming community. The fluff and pictures are secondary to the rules that allow you to play your games. Arguing that people should have known better and avoided buying the IK codex just comes across as pure smugness granted through the magic of hindsight.

People absolutely are entitled to be upset by the obsolescence of the IK codex because a 1-year life-span for a codex is a new thing. Going forward yours and Bullo's arguments might have a bit of merit because a precedent will have been set with the IK codex's short span, but to act like buyers of the first IK codex are in any way responsible for GW pulling a dickish move is ridiculous.

If there is any lesson here it isn't to avoid "crap books" (whatever the hell that means) but rather to expect all products released by GW to have aggressive planned obsolescence.

Not trolling and resent the accusation thanks - just trying to share the (apparently mindblowing) idea that it isn't worth buying GW books as an investment, you should only buy them if you like the content of that book objectively as it stands. Nobody's acting like it's the buyers' fault, but IK is hardly the first book to have been superceded disappointingly quickly nor the first one to be very poor value (look at most of the recent 40k codices that are the previous book, minus all the flavour, with warlord traits and a couple of formations chucked in. Yay).

As for whatever the hell avoiding crap books means - well, if a book has two unit profiles in it, it's a load of crap, don't buy it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talys wrote:
Either way: the lesson is, don't buy a book unless you see value in it (or don't care, and want it anyhow), because no matter how long it takes to replace it, or how short, a crap book is a crap book. Frankly, the ideal situation would have been if nobody bought the original crap book, and they quickly came out with a replacement better book. OTOH, none of my friends, who all own most of the books, bought IK (they left it to me, yay). The solution is not to complain about the replacement better book, it's not to buy a crap book in the first place.

Yeah, exactly - that's the point I was trying to make. You're a lot more expressive than I.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Panic wrote:
I just feel they should offer something to the early adopters who made the knights a success rather than punish them by invalidating their book 1 year later.
How much would it harm sales to have something like trade in your old book for a upgrade sprue to keep 'old' knight players happy!?

Should we all wait one year before we buy into any new ranges.
Will Skitarii and Harlequins get HQs in 12 months time and a new codex?
Will Admech get a tank in 8 month and a new codex?

Should we ignore all new ranges for two years till they settle down?

Early adopters should be rewarded not punished.

Panic...

I agree with all of this - they shouldn't be doing it, and they should be throwing the early adopters a bone - *ALL* I'm trying to say and getting a ton of unneccessary heat for is that since we know what GW's MO is by now it doesn't make sense to treat their books as investments and you should only get them if you like the content of that book and are happy with it. Apparently acting rational when people have an axe to grind is enough to get you called a troll, etc. Nice.

I didn't see the link anywhere so sorry if I'm duplicating it. Here are the stat sheets for each of the new knights; the sheets come with the new kit:

http://boards.4chan.org/tg/thread/39766555/so-i-dont-have-the-imperial-knight-codex-which-is

@Vallonzek pls share the special rules when you have them

@Warboss - The first book was a crappy book, and that's a dick move. If the second book is good, and comes soon after, I guess, I'm happy they obsoleted a crappy book and will go ahead and purchase it. If it sucks, too, then it's just a double-dickish move, and I won't buy it And the next time GW releases a book with $50 book with 7 useful pages, I'll pass.

 Talys wrote:
I didn't see the link anywhere so sorry if I'm duplicating it. Here are the stat sheets for each of the new knights; the sheets come with the new kit:

http://boards.4chan.org/tg/thread/39766555/so-i-dont-have-the-imperial-knight-codex-which-is

awesome! now can someone please update battlescribe

so if the first book had the let's say 14 (double the knights, double the pages?) useful pages last year and they just replaced it this year with some tweaks like most codex releases, you'd be OK with rebuying the same quality product largely unchanged a year later? That was the hypothetical question. I guess it boils down to if you're OK with buying a book you like and think is worth it knowing that it will only be valid for a year.

yeah,

 warboss wrote:
so if the first book had the let's say 14 (double the knights, double the pages?) useful pages last year and they just replaced it this year with some tweaks like most codex releases, you'd be OK with rebuying the same quality product largely unchanged a year later? That was the hypothetical question. I guess it boils down to if you're OK with buying a book you like and think is worth it knowing that it will only be valid for a year.

This is a good point.

Would we accept a Space Marine book in 2015 and another in 2016 ?
I don't think even dakkas swear filters could handle that gak storm!

GW will ride this one out because the first book had only 2 units, it needed more, it needed updating.

But the fear is that they will do this and think 'got away with that!!!'

Which is why people should email them.
even if it's just a single line.

uk.custserv@gwplc.com
'Not happy with you invalidating my new codex after 1 year.'

Panic...

 Talys wrote:
I didn't see the link anywhere so sorry if I'm duplicating it. Here are the stat sheets for each of the new knights; the sheets come with the new kit:

http://boards.4chan.org/tg/thread/39766555/so-i-dont-have-the-imperial-knight-codex-which-is

@Vallonzek pls share the special rules when you have them

@Warboss - The first book was a crappy book, and that's a dick move. If the second book is good, and comes soon after, I guess, I'm happy they obsoleted a crappy book and will go ahead and purchase it. If it sucks, too, then it's just a double-dickish move, and I won't buy it And the next time GW releases a book with $50 book with 7 useful pages, I'll pass.

Can someone post these up on a work-friendly host (not imgur, either... sigh)? It would be appreciated.

 warboss wrote:
So if the first book had rules for the yet to be released knights and they replaced it with just a tweaked book with nothing new one year later that, in your opinion, isn't a dick move?

The Knight was one of the single greatest models the year it came out, but even then people took issue with a whole faction and codex being built around a single model with only 2 unit choices. Its not a problem with "could it have been better" or by how much it could have been better... its a problem with how easily it could have been better. Despite the strong design of the basic model and heraldry, the release as a whole is lacking. When a company asks top dollar for its products people expect as much more effort to go into that product. GW half-wayed it with its first go around, and while we're "fortunate" enough to be graced with this second book that is what we should have had the first go around, even with this update there is still a halfassed-ness to this release too.

Admittedly there wasn't the greatest distinction between all the different Knights in Epic, and there was no reason to expect direct translations, but GW's approach has further diminished those distinctions. Although we pay $140 for this knight kit, given its sprue sizes it doesn't take that much more effort than the various other vehicle kits like the Land Raider. If other armies can get releases of 4 or 5 kits than a whole army based around a single model should get at least a second model and not just an add-on sprue.

We're still waiting on the book and maybe we'll be surprised, but I'm doubtful given what I've seen of the Warden's rules. The lack of distinction and half-model release culminate in a book that continues to fail to present Knights as a real army. FW managed to it by giving upgrades that established clear roles and by establishing some resemblance to a FOC. Its not a misguided FW fanboy thing, its only to say GW will hopefully put in as much effort and come up with something that acoomplishes the same.

Yeah,
@Harriticus - lol that's great!

Panic...

 warboss wrote:
so if the first book had the let's say 14 (double the knights, double the pages?) useful pages last year and they just replaced it this year with some tweaks like most codex releases, you'd be OK with rebuying the same quality product largely unchanged a year later? That was the hypothetical question. I guess it boils down to if you're OK with buying a book you like and think is worth it knowing that it will only be valid for a year.

No, not really. I don't really want to buy a yearly refresh unless there's new content or the old book really is broken. In the case of IK, both are true, and I'm a fool for buying the first book (but I knew that going in, so I wasn't fooled... I was just foolish). They should have just included the useful information in the book with the, you know, ONE kit, and sold the book as fluff for anyone who wanted it.

For me -- just my preference -- a 2 year refresh is ok (especially if new stuff has been released in between), and a 3 year refresh is perfect. 4 is really long in the tooth (ok for minor factions or supplements), and any more than that is just way too long and feels ignored. I get that everyone has a different preference.

Also, I would vastly prefer a digital subscription where I could pay the $X and have access to current books, and they'd refresh it as often as they damn well pleased. My friends & I have talked about this at length, and the consensus amongst us is:

- $25 / mo for access to everything including campaign supplements
- $18 / mo for access to core rules + all faction rulebooks
- $11 / month to access to core rules +3 faction rulebooks
- $8 / month to access core rules + 1 faction rulebook

10% discount for prepaying 1 year, 15% discount for prepaying 2 years, 20% discount for prepaying 3 years.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
It's a "new sheet" but it appears to have the exact same decals as the old ones, just the bottom section is laid out slightly different.

Yep, that scores a "meh" from me. No Griffith.

I only have two of the old "extra" sheet, so I can make a household of...2. Bleah.

At least I can make a wide variety of the named Freeblades. I quite like some of their color schemes.

 Harriticus wrote:

 warboss wrote:
So if the first book had rules for the yet to be released knights and they replaced it with just a tweaked book with nothing new one year later that, in your opinion, isn't a dick move?

EXALTED !!

You sir deserver an interenet cookie.

Ug.....460pts for a decently equipped Crusader....No bueno.

 Talys wrote:

 warboss wrote:
so if the first book had the let's say 14 (double the knights, double the pages?) useful pages last year and they just replaced it this year with some tweaks like most codex releases, you'd be OK with rebuying the same quality product largely unchanged a year later? That was the hypothetical question. I guess it boils down to if you're OK with buying a book you like and think is worth it knowing that it will only be valid for a year.

No, not really. I don't really want to buy a yearly refresh unless there's new content or the old book really is broken. In the case of IK, both are true, and I'm a fool for buying the first book (but I knew that going in, so I wasn't fooled... I was just foolish). They should have just included the useful information in the book with the, you know, ONE kit, and sold the book as fluff for anyone who wanted it.

For me -- just my preference -- a 2 year refresh is ok (especially if new stuff has been released in between), and a 3 year refresh is perfect. 4 is really long in the tooth (ok for minor factions or supplements), and any more than that is just way too long and feels ignored. I get that everyone has a different preference.

We're not as far apart as I thought then. For me, 4 years is perfect. Three is grudgingly ok only if there are issues and there is an edition change inbetween that exacerbates it. Five is ok but starting to get as you put it long in the tooth and I'd be itching for new stuff. Under no circumstances do I accept as a consumer that a 1-2 year life cycle is fair. If they fethed up so badly that they absolutely need to come out with something in that time period, they should publish ALL of the additional or corrected material for free as a PDF download as a mea culpa for fething up so badly and not simply charge their player base for their own mistake. If they as a hundred million dollar corporatation can't plan their flagship product more than 12 months in advance, that added cost of incompetence should be shouldered by them, not us.

So I own a store and just placed my GW orders for the week. Did my knight orders and brought up the whole knight codex only being around for one year and a lot of people are mad about it. According to my GW rep they didn't really sell any knight codexs and didn't even have to do a reprinting. So the numbers were more in their favor to make a new codex. I brought up how my business is only 4 months old and only one customer has bought a knight codex. Since that sale was in the last 3 months my GW rep sent me a free copy of the Knight codex to replace that customer's old one. Pretty nice of him. I suggest to any players who just recently got Knights to talk to their FLGS to see if they can get a free replacement. With that said. Please don't abuse the system if you really bought the codex a year ago but are claiming you just recently got it. There is always that one guy who ruins it for the rest of us.

Now the argument of the codex being one year old and you have to buy it to play the game with knights. I told my rep that and he had a strong counterpoint. Apple and phone companies upgrade their devices every year and people buy it. Yes those companies will do some kind of program for you turning in your old phone, but what about videogames. Sports videogames like Madden come out with a new one every year and you have to buy it to play the latest game. I think us GW players have been lucky that we expect a book to last 4 years. What GW is doing is nothing new in the business industry, they are just finally doing it. Now a subscription would be a great thing or return your old book or something. I would like to find some middle ground that GW could meet us players half way. (like lowering the damn price)

Also on the being an owner side of all these new releases. I hate it. So many things are coming out every week that my customers can't keep up with it or save money for it. And as a business owner I have to spend more money on my weekly orders of GW product for brand new stuff than what I sale a week. Sure I don't have order it but then I run risk. Customer comes in, doesn't see the hot new item they wanted and walks out, don't place my orders and GW is out of stock for months (tomb blades) and as a brand new store in the DFW area I can't afford to have those mistakes with so much competition (some who do more of an insane discount) all within an hour drive from my store.

 FSWG wrote:
Now the argument of the codex being one year old and you have to buy it to play the game with knights. I told my rep that and he had a strong counterpoint. Apple and phone companies upgrade their devices every year and people buy it. Yes those companies will do some kind of program for you turning in your old phone, but what about videogames. Sports videogames like Madden come out with a new one every year and you have to buy it to play the latest game. I think us GW players have been lucky that we expect a book to last 4 years. What GW is doing is nothing new in the business industry, they are just finally doing it. Now a subscription would be a great thing or return your old book or something. I would like to find some middle ground that GW could meet us players half way. (like lowering the damn price)

With apple, your phone doesn't magically stop working when the next model comes out and you can use it just fine with folks who have the new version. With a codex or edition rulebook, it effectively does as the vast majority of gamers only play against the current release with the current rules. As for videogames, they get plenty of flak for yearly rinse-lather-repeat releases but I do admit there are enough folks out their to make it profitable. I don't see that iterative yearly schedule as something to look forward to. In any case, that isn't the standard in THIS industry and is almost as appropriate as using produce as an example (you have to keep rebuying your fruit after each use! It's ridiculous and such a scam!).

Yeah,
I love how people keep trying to excuse this break to custom and practice by pointing out flawed examples of other industries practices.
Cars, Videogames and now GW pointing the blame at Apple!

Why not point at library cards??
its Free and you can have 3 of your local GW store's codexs at home at once?

panic....

 warboss wrote:

 FSWG wrote:
Now the argument of the codex being one year old and you have to buy it to play the game with knights. I told my rep that and he had a strong counterpoint. Apple and phone companies upgrade their devices every year and people buy it. Yes those companies will do some kind of program for you turning in your old phone, but what about videogames. Sports videogames like Madden come out with a new one every year and you have to buy it to play the latest game. I think us GW players have been lucky that we expect a book to last 4 years. What GW is doing is nothing new in the business industry, they are just finally doing it. Now a subscription would be a great thing or return your old book or something. I would like to find some middle ground that GW could meet us players half way. (like lowering the damn price)

With apple, your phone doesn't magically stop working when the next model comes out and you can use it just fine with folks who have the new version. With a codex or edition rulebook, it effectively does as the vast majority of gamers only play against the current release with the current rules. As for videogames, they get plenty of flak for yearly rinse-lather-repeat releases but I do admit there are enough folks out their to make it profitable. I don't see that iterative yearly schedule as something to look forward to. In any case, that isn't the standard in THIS industry and is almost as appropriate as using produce as an example (you have to keep rebuying your fruit after each use! It's ridiculous and such a scam!).

Is this really true? I'm being sincere. I can see tournaments requiring you to use the latest version of any given army list, but outside of tournaments, unless you were obviously doing it because a previous book was more powerful (had some cheesy WAAC list in it, let's say) do people really refuse to play with someone using an older army book? Do we have some research that proves that the vast majority of gamers play that way? I'm assuming not, and that's purely anecdotal.

A lot of the upset here is dependent on this idea that when a new book comes out the old book vanishes in a puff of smoke, but personally I don't really buy it outside of the tournament scene. If I went into a local game club with my old edition DE book and said "yeah, I'm still using this one, they didn't add anything with the new one they just took away characters I liked so I didn't buy it" are you really saying you're sure I'd be met with an awkward silence until I grudgingly left?

With the case of the Knights book, isn't the main difference going to be that the new book has more options in it? So if you turned up with your old book, with the 2 existing unit profiles in it, who'd be able to call you a powergamer with a straight face?

I just think this whole premise is *very* flawed

How do I use a Knight Crusader with the old book?

 Azreal13 wrote:
How do I use a Knight Crusader with the old book?

You wait for it to appear on kickass, download and print off the pages you want in A4. Should fit perfectly into your knight codex.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, wasnt the last knight codex a 7th ed release? Or was it just before?

Oh silly me, I should have, of course, specified legally because this is the internet.

Tell me, would your response to "how do I get a Ferrari" be "break into a Ferrari owners house and steal their keys?"

 Bull0 wrote:
Is this really true? I'm being sincere. I can see tournaments requiring you to use the latest version of any given army list, but outside of tournaments, unless you were obviously doing it because a previous book was more powerful (had some cheesy WAAC list in it, let's say) do people really refuse to play with someone using an older army book? Do we have some research that proves that the vast majority of gamers play that way? I'm assuming not, and that's purely anecdotal.

A lot of the upset here is dependent on this idea that when a new book comes out the old book vanishes in a puff of smoke, but personally I don't really buy it outside of the tournament scene. If I went into a local game club with my old edition DE book and said "yeah, I'm still using this one, they didn't add anything with the new one they just took away characters I liked so I didn't buy it" are you really saying you're sure I'd be met with an awkward silence until I grudgingly left?

With the case of the Knights book, isn't the main difference going to be that the new book has more options in it? So if you turned up with your old book, with the 2 existing unit profiles in it, who'd be able to call you a powergamer with a straight face?

I just think this whole premise is *very* flawed

I agree with that last part but I think we're talking about two different things. And, yes, it's sincere. Is there some leeway? Absolutely. Alot of gamers (but not all) would accept the use of the "old" codex in the couple weeks to maybe a month post release but once you start getting more than a month out then you're pretty much SOL for pickup games with strangers. Tournies and sponsored leagues are the same generally. Once you get more than a couple months out, I suspect you'll get a fair amount of comments about your cheapness and "no thanks" in return for offers of games. Have I both used and allowed old codex books in games personally? Yes, but I ask ahead and only do so with friends that know ahead of time. This isn't only the case with GW games either. The standard is that you play with the most current version of the rules both for the game and army and, until GW decided to adopt the iterative yearly rinse lather repeat and microtransaction DLC till you bleed pattern of the videogame industry, it was a reasonable standard to adopt and still is for everyone but the extra special GW.

 Hulksmash wrote:
Ug.....460pts for a decently equipped Crusader....No bueno.

Yeah, not happy about that.
I'm also not happy that tournaments are banning 50% of my armies because wraithknights happen to be undercosted.

So based on the leaks it looks like everyone can take carapace mounted weapons, even paladins and errants which is neat.

I'm thinking the base warden with stormspear missile launcher could be the perfect anti-eldar weapon with all that AP3.

 warboss wrote:

 FSWG wrote:
Now the argument of the codex being one year old and you have to buy it to play the game with knights. I told my rep that and he had a strong counterpoint. Apple and phone companies upgrade their devices every year and people buy it. Yes those companies will do some kind of program for you turning in your old phone, but what about videogames. Sports videogames like Madden come out with a new one every year and you have to buy it to play the latest game. I think us GW players have been lucky that we expect a book to last 4 years. What GW is doing is nothing new in the business industry, they are just finally doing it. Now a subscription would be a great thing or return your old book or something. I would like to find some middle ground that GW could meet us players half way. (like lowering the damn price)

Reminds me of that old Meme on 9gag about the Apple user conditions and stuff where it says" Do not try to eat Apple products" and the caption said "Apple users, are special, veeeerry special, the kind that take a special bus to go to a special school", could'nt help but chuckle when i saw your post and remember this...

Also, if someone wants an Iphuck 7s, it is his choice to give 2000$ for it, he has no obligation for this, someone else very well still continue to use his 100$ samsung galaxy phone for another year, GW its like " you either buy it, or you quite, your call pal", you don't have a choice.