The Pepsi P1 Smartphone Takes Consumer Lock-In Beyond the App (thestack.com) 166
An anonymous reader writes: On the 20th of October Pepsi will launch its own smartphone in China. The P1 is not just a cowling brand, but a custom-made device running Android 5.1 and costing approximately $205. At that price it's almost a burner, but even so it represents new possibilities for a brand to truly control the digital space for its eager consumers in a period where mobile content-blocking is becoming a marketing obstruction, and where there is increasing resistance on Google's part to allow publishers to push web-users from the internet to 'the app'.
"At that price it's almost a burner" (Score:5, Insightful)
You either have no children, or are in the 1% (or, naturally, both).
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's also full of unfounded speculation:
At the moment, it seems likely that if Pepsi ever made a phone, it would possibly be something that attracts young people, perhaps something sporty or equipped with a special camera. We are well-convinced that the phone would definitely have the Pepsi logo, maybe on the back, and probably come in a dark blue color.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You know that not all 1.3 Billion Chinese are poor farmers right?
You are aware that the average yearly income in 2012 in China is about $2,100 per family right? In places like Shanghai, it goes up to $4,700. A $210 phone is not a "burner" phone for the average person in China.
Despite having plenty of poor people, they also have plenty of rich people.
Yes but you would think that if Pepsi wants to sell a lot of these phones, they would target the median income, not the upper income market.
China has the 2nd most number of millionaires in the world behind the US, so I'm sure there some market there for this device.
Yes just like there's a market for $1 million dollar Ferraris in the US, but that market is not the average person in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
You are aware that the average yearly income in 2012 in China is...
Apple has sold 13 Million iPhone6's in China. Clearly Apple and Pepsi know something you don't.
Yes but you would think that if Pepsi wants to sell a lot of these phones, they would target the median income, not the upper income market.
How much is a lot? Based on the numbers above they could be targeting sales of 10 million units and piss it in easily.
Yes just like there's a market for $1 million dollar Ferraris in the US, but that market is not the average person in the US.
Where does it say Pepsi are targeting only people on exactly the average wage?
People often make the mistake of using averages when dealing with the Chinese. Take away the bottom 1 billion people, and you have a market nearly the same size and wealth of the US. Why wouldn't any business want to tap
Re: (Score:2)
Apple has sold 13 Million iPhone6's in China. Clearly Apple and Pepsi know something you don't.
You do know what the term "burner" phone means, right? It means "disposable"phone typically used with prepaid services. As such they are cheap and bought with cash and hard to trace. These make them preferred by criminals. The fact that Apple has sold 13M iPhones in China does not mean that they were used as "burner" phones.
How much is a lot? Based on the numbers above they could be targeting sales of 10 million units and piss it in easily.
If you are going to sell a phone in China, do you want to sell to less than 1% of the population based on your numbers or to the average person? Apple has made no secret that they wil
Re: (Score:2)
You do know what the term "burner" phone means, right?
The term burner was added by the incompetent editors of this site, not Pepsi.
If you are going to sell a phone in China, do you want to sell to less than 1% of the population based on your numbers or to the average person?
1% is 13 million units. Even Apple would be happy with that....
We are talking about the soft-drink maker Pepsi, right? I wasn't not aware that Pepsi became a luxury brand in any market.
The same people who can afford Pepsi regularly can also afford a Pepsi phone. Do you get that now?
Again, the initial point was that at $210, this phone would be a "burner" phone.
By a lame Slashdot editor, not Pepsi. Your critical thinking skills need some improvement.
Re: (Score:2)
The term burner was added by the incompetent editors of this site, not Pepsi.
The submission [slashdot.org] clearly shows the term "burner". In the context of the conversation, I said " I'm not sure the .submitter knows what he's talking about" and did not imply that it was Pepsi.
1% is 13 million units. Even Apple would be happy with that....
Apple would be fine with 1%; would Pepsi?
By a lame Slashdot editor, not Pepsi. Your critical thinking skills need some improvement.
Your reading comprehension needs improvement. At no point did I imply that Pepsi called it a burner. My only point was that Pepsi would probably like to sell as many as these and would not market it as a luxury brand like Apple does because Apple is unwilling to drop the price of
Re: (Score:2)
Apple would be fine with 1%; would Pepsi?
Is that a serious qeustion? I can only assume you have zero experience in business, because the answer FUCK YES! Any company anywhere from mom and pop up to Apple, the most profitable company in history, would all be happy with unit sales of 13 million.
My only point was that Pepsi would probably like to sell as many as these
Yes and marketing 101 will teach you that simply aiming at Joe Average will get you nowhere, every successful business targets a specific market segment. Pepsi, and I'm guessing here, probably have studied the market, realise that Samsung and Apple have the t
Re: (Score:2)
Is that a serious qeustion? I can only assume you have zero experience in business, because the answer FUCK YES! Any company anywhere from mom and pop up to Apple, the most profitable company in history, would all be happy with unit sales of 13 million.
Really? So what you are saying is that Pepsi, a company that makes the entirety of its revenue on selling to as many people as possible, would be okay with pursuing 1% of a market? Since when has Pepsi ever pursued the high end but small percentage of any market? Almost never.
Yes and marketing 101 will teach you that simply aiming at Joe Average will get you nowhere,
When has Marketing 101 ever said that? Marketing 101 is knowing how to target a specific segment in a market to reach them. It does not dictate which segment to target.
every successful business targets a specific market segment. Pepsi, and I'm guessing here, probably have studied the market, realise that Samsung and Apple have the top end sown up, Chinese knock-offs have the bottom end, so they are targetting the younger, above average aspirational types who want something better than a feature phone, but can't quite afford Apple/Samsung.
You've just contradicted yourself and you don't even know it. Consi
Re: (Score:2)
You've just contradicted yourself and you don't even know it. Considering that you've been wrong about basic facts of what was said and what was submitted, this does not surprise me.
Just saying I'm wrong doesn't really qualify as an argument, but then at least you've been consistent...
Re: (Score:2)
Just saying I'm wrong doesn't really qualify as an argument, but then at least you've been consistent...
Your exact words: "The term burner was added by the incompetent editors of this site, not Pepsi." This is factually wrong. The term was already in the submission. It is somewhat puzzling why you would even make such a bold claim when it is easily fact checked. I can only assume that you don't know that it can be fact checked. I can also assume that you intended to be deceitful in making such a claim as it was not remotely true.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But Pepsi never made the claim did they, which was your entire argument?
This is also factually incorrect. Scroll up. My claim about whether the "submitter knows what he's talking about." Again, you can scroll up.
And now you're trying to squirm out of it on a technicality?
You keep claiming things that are said which are not true but easily verified and then complain it's a technicality when you are caught being less than honest.
Go find some children to play with elsewhere...
Projection?
Re:"At that price it's almost a burner" (Score:5, Informative)
A $40 Walmart feature phone or a sub-$20 off Craigslist could be a "burner". $200 isn't even notably cheap by general smart phone standards.
Re:"At that price it's almost a burner" (Score:5, Informative)
The 16GB version of the ASUS zenfone2 is $199.99 carrier-free and is considered to be a reasonably good mid-grade phone.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00VW... [amazon.com]
Re:"At that price it's almost a burner" (Score:5, Informative)
I bought my phone new for $80 a year ago, and I didn't even have to look hard for it. 2013 Moto G. This year's model (just came out) is $180; the Moto E is even cheaper, $120. You can save more money by buying it from a carrier (still unlocked, no obligation to use with that carrier). They aren't the only company making cheap Android phones, either.
There's also a whole bunch of cheap Windows phones out there.
Re: (Score:2)
I bought my brand new (as in, not used) Windows smart phone for $30 on Amazon for myself last year and I still use it. It is a fast, full featured smart phone.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just about the entire smart phone lines available on any pre-paid plan like Straight Talk or the like is less than that.
Heck my Galaxy Core Prime brand new from Verizon off-contract was $175.
There's no need to spend over $200 for a pretty decent smartphone, and if you're not looking for the latest and greatest you can find them for significantly less.
LG Optimus Fuel on Straight Talk for $30:
http://specials.straighttalk.c... [straighttalk.com]
My sister actually uses that same phone and has no complaints.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, there are a hundred or more on Amazon for under $200
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=sr... [amazon.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Depends what you mean by smart. I've got a pair of 3.5" android handsets by (LG?) - one I got for $20 and includes FreedomPop service for free, and one is a $10 Tracfone branded of essentially the same type. I've used them as temporary phones for family on vacation where we knew we'd be separated. Kept in touch via voice/text/hangouts, played music, took pictures, checked email, looked up times/maps on the internet.
It's every bit a smart phone, for $20.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I was just discussing this last night. I found a smartphone for $29.99 on Virgin Mobile's site. Sure, it's an old, low-spec 3G phone but it's still a smartphone. They have an LTE phone for $49.99.
That's two smartphones for under $50 in less than a minute of searching.
Re: (Score:2)
I bought a smartphone in Amsterdam for around 80 Euros, it had a physical keyboard and a screen half the size of the device (so kind of square) - but it ran Android and I could load apps on it, it also had the stock Android apps and I could tether from it... that counts as a smartphone to me.
Re: (Score:2)
I paid 80 bucks new from Amazon for this now discontinued phone.
http://smile.amazon.com/gp/pro... [amazon.com]
Quite respectable, and a few months ago, was my best pick under 100 bucks. My girlfriend uses it, and she didn't want anything expensive, just basic Android apps, internet, etc. By anyone's standard, this is a smart phone.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"In the 1%" means you make $32,400 a year.
Source: globalrichlist.com
I personally sit in the top 0.38%.
Re: (Score:3)
Wow, what's the weather like down there, in the 99.62nd percentile?
Re:"At that price it's almost a burner" (Score:5, Informative)
"In the 1%" means you make $32,400 a year.
Source: globalrichlist.com
I personally sit in the top 0.38%.
Now you're just being pedantic. "The 1%" was a phrase popularized by the Occupy Wall Street movement, and refers almost exclusively to wealth inequity in America. The median income for the cohort to which the phrase "The 1%" refers is $400,000. Global wealth has no seriously meaningful value when considered on the scale of the individual. By your metric, the average homeless person in the US will be in the top 15 - 20%.
Re: (Score:2)
"The 1%" was a phrase popularized by the Occupy Wall Street movement, and refers almost exclusively to wealth inequity in America.
So an article about a product in China means I'm supposed to automatically assume this is in America? And are we talking about both Americas or just North America?
The median income for the cohort to which the phrase "The 1%" refers is $400,000.
The top 1% in New Mexico make about $214,000. But...doesn't it seem kind of arbitrary? Why does it have to be the 1%, and furthermore, why just the US? Why not the 3.14156%? Why are the other 2.14156% exempt from OWS's rage?
How is that wrong??? (Score:2)
By your metric, the average homeless person in the US will be in the top 15 - 20%.
Ask me how I can tell you've never travelled outside the U.S. to any even moderately poor country.
The homeless in the U.S. are in FACT better off than many people in Africa or South America or heck, even rural China (all of which I have seen in person). They absolutely have better access to food and healthcare. They have access to libraries during the day to study anything they like, or simply to read if they wish...
Re: (Score:2)
It really hammers home just how well off we are in America, eh? Our homeless - at the bottom of our society, are still in the top quintile globally. Wow, we really should take some time and give thanks for what we've got, shouldn't we?
Nah, America sucks. Sanders for President!
Re: "At that price it's almost a burner" (Score:2)
Only if you pretend that the cost of living is the same everywhere. 32k will buy a lot more in Delhi than London.
Re: (Score:2)
Umm...where does the US come into play here? This article is about a product in China.
Re: (Score:2)
Source: http://jamesfallows.theatlanti... [theatlantic.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I separately searched that article for the words "running" and "water" to no avail. Could you help a bloke checking your citation??
and of course, there's the Uncle Ben's smartphone. (Score:2)
really! saw it on The Onion! it has issues, though... only thing its music app will play is "rice, rice baby."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You either have no children, or are in the 1% (or, naturally, both).
And aren't Scottish either.
I dont have kids but I wouldn't even consider a $50 phone to be a "burner". $200 is a big enough decision that I'd need to sleep on it. If I can dissuade myself from buying it in 24 hours, I don't really need it.
Amazon Fire Phone all over again (Score:4, Interesting)
They seemed not to have learned from Amazon's failure. The only buyers of this device are probably those who will replace the adware with a custom rom.
Re: (Score:3)
Amazon made the mistake of charging a high price ($700) for a phone that was adware.
At least this phone is low cost.
Still not enthusiastic about it.
discared computronium scattered everywhere (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
...except that in Amazon's case it made some kind of sense. You know,having a bunch of apps that integrate with their website that you could sell product with. What possible benefit could there be for Pepsi? It's just soda for goddsake!
Call me clueless (Score:5, Interesting)
I saw this over the weekend and simply shook my head thinking "what is the goal here Pepsi?"
And looking at the specs, it isn't anything that hasn't already been done before (and better) for less. Unless they are going to be giving these away as some weird promotion I don't get it (right now).
Here is the one real question I have, how is a Pepsi phone going to make people drink more Pepsi?
Re: (Score:2)
how is a Pepsi phone going to make people drink more Pepsi?
That's exactly what this guy [highsnobiety.com] wants you to be asking...
Re: (Score:2)
Funny thing is, this isn't their first foray into telecommunications.
I had a Mt. Dew pager for quite a while when that was a cool thing to have (mid '90s).
Re: (Score:2)
A pager was cool to have then? I would have thought that you would have needed a Motorola MicroTAC to be at least halfway cool.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but those are the one or two things they make that aren't intended for human consumption.
Just under the worldwide median monthly income... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you can think of a $200 phone as a "burner", then you are the 1%. Congratulations! But can you try not to be such a dick about it?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
$200 phones get given away when you sign up for service, no one actually pays for a $200 phone, they get them for free.
You pay $200 for an $800 iPhone. You don't pay shit for a $200 POS that no one wants.
Too sweet for my tastes (Score:2)
Good luck with that (Score:2)
They'll be competing with the successor to the Xiaomi mi 4i at that price, somehow I'm thinking they'll lose.
Burner Phones for Robber Barons (Score:5, Insightful)
"I light my cigars with $100 bills, so a $200 phone is almost a burner! BULLY!"
Re: (Score:2)
I just spent the last 20 minutes trying to set one on fire. Not worth the effort. Get an iPhone, those things light up good.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll just hire someone to do it for me.
Re: (Score:2)
Eeew, how pedestrian.
I have a person that does the hiring of people for me. Actually interacting with the staff? Are you that hard off?
Re: (Score:2)
I like to get my hands dirty from time to time. This should be enough for this year, but your suggestion is not without merit.
Junk Food (Score:3)
People dumb enough to eat and drink junk food probably aren't going to use the phone the way you would like them. Using an app to find your products is way too much executive function and effort.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well I admit to being a coward.
$200 is "almost a burner"? (Score:2, Informative)
Submitter must be a privileged Silly Valley cocksucker who has never experienced a minute of hardship in his life.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's a mark you apply to baby cattle so you know who owns them.
Motorola Moto E is a bit cheaper (Score:2)
A very solid phone, will run android 5, and no Pepsi tie-ins.
And XiaoMi will eat them for lunch everywhere but the US. Well, until XiaoMi sells here.
Mobile has ruined the web (Score:2)
and browsing experience. Its all catering to the inept generation which only wants quick media fix and nothing more.
When did they rebrand months? (Score:5, Funny)
On the 20th of October Pepsi
How much did that pay to rename that?
That reminds me, though, not long until Thanksgiving in November-Facebook. Then I'll have to start thinking about buying Christmas gifts before the 25th of December-Coca-Cola...
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, Thanksgiving is in October.
Where are the cross-branded phones? (Score:2)
Although I think the Pepsi thing is dumb you could see a market for something like [your favorite football] team pre-configured with apps that aggregates tweets, stats and news about the team. Logo on case, background etc....
It runs on Pepsi (Score:3)
lol (Score:2)
I guess a $200 Android phone really is amazing to someone who has never seen a Windows phone for +/- $100. [microsoftstore.com] Like $49 for a 530 on T-Mobile or $129 for an unlocked 635. No contract on either.
MS or Pepsi: tough choice.
Re:New truthful slogan (Score:5, Funny)
I'm going to wait for the BRAWNDO phone.
BRAWNDO! The thirst mutilator!
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re:New truthful slogan (Score:5, Funny)
I'm going to wait for the BRAWNDO phone.
BRAWNDO! The thirst mutilator!
its what plants crave
Re:New truthful slogan (Score:4, Funny)
The translated page for the first link is awesome:
Pepsi also do phone 5.5 inch screen priced at 1299
At 09:33 on October 11, 2015 Lei Feng network
Since soy sauce king also do hand ring, do any cross-border trade products have become rare. Recently, news that a beverage company to do a mobile phone. Recently, certification account named Pepsi phones coming microblogging Authentication information is "Science and Technology Co., Ltd. Shenzhen play crazy." Yesterday, the official micro news release said:. "Recently, a lot of information about PepsiCo phones on the network, thank you for your attention, through communication and cooperation within the company, next Tuesday we will bring more surprises for everyone."
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't know Pepsi made soy sauce.
Re: (Score:2)
More disturbing is that people are going to pay to be subjected to ads. That's why I don't have a television! Why the hell would I want a phone that's going to try to make me do things I wouldn't normally do? That makes no sense to me.
On the other hand... If the stats are right and the device is rootable...
WTF? I've enough of the damned things already and don't use them. I've bought a half dozen tablets and hate every one of them. I've probably bought more. I don't even like my phone and the feeling is mutu
Re: (Score:2)
More disturbing is that people are going to pay to be subjected to ads.
Even worse than paying to see ads, is paying to BE an ad. I'm talking about all those millions of people who buy and wear clothing that is prominently branded with the manufacturer's name and logo. If clothing makers want me to be a walking advert for them, they can bloody well pay me for the privilege, just as they pay the owners of billboards.
Re: (Score:2)
Playboy would do well for women as well, since they like the bunny icon.
I've seen this on the street, but never understood it. Why would women embrace the playboy bunny?
Re: (Score:2)
I am with you on this one. I won't try to guess if it is good or bad for women... but what does it mean?
Re: (Score:2)
...women embrace the playboy bunny
I think this activity is reserved for the subculture called "furries". There may be videos devoted to it as well, Google at your own discretion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
There is a difference between freedom of sexual expression and freedom to be sexually exploited.
The "Feminatzi"s you deride are generally in favor of the former, while opposed to the latter.
Re: (Score:2)
The freedom of sexual expression implies the freedom to be sexually exploited.
They're not mutually exclusive.
Re: (Score:2)
The freedom of sexual expression implies the freedom to be sexually exploited.
They're not mutually exclusive.
I'm not sure that it's possible to be both exploited and be free. If the woman acted on her own free choices, then it isn't exploitation. If it's exploitation, then the choices weren't made freely.
Re: (Score:2)
The definition of exploitation has changed.
It now means anything the feminists don't want other females to have the right to do.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure it's possible. If you're free, you have the freedom to make and act on dumb decisions. If you can't have sex with someone you aren't married to, you can't become a prostitute. It's much more difficult to get strung along by a guy who is only in it for the sex. If you can't get undressed in front of random other people, you can't become a porn star. (Note: I have no objection in principle to prostitution or porn, but both are fields where people can get exploited easily.)
Re: (Score:2)
Making a free choice that gets you into a situation where you are being coerced does not mean that you are not being coerced, or that you are continuing to make free choices.
Gatorade, water, tea, snacks. Soda only 25% of Pep (Score:2)
As you said, Coca-Cola has doubled down on advertising full-sugar soda, as soda consumption has been falling. Pepsi instead followed demand, marketing bottled water, tea, Gatorade, nutrition bars, etc.
Coke sells more soda, but that's a declining market. Pepsi is ahead in the healthier options which have seen increasing sales.
Re: (Score:2)
As you said, Coca-Cola has doubled down on advertising full-sugar soda, as soda consumption has been falling. Pepsi instead followed demand, marketing bottled water, tea, Gatorade, nutrition bars, etc.
Coke sells more soda, but that's a declining market. Pepsi is ahead in the healthier options which have seen increasing sales.
Hate to be the one to break this to you but bottled tea, Gatorade, so-called nutrition bars often have as much sugar in them as soda. Bottled tea is particularly bad (and tastes terrible to a decent pot of tea).
These drinks are advertised as "healthy" because there's no laws against deceptive advertising in the US.
if 80% less is the same amount (Score:2)
> Gatorade, so-called nutrition bars often have as much sugar in them as soda.
12 ounces of Coke has 150 calories, all sugar
12 ounces of Gatorade G2 has 30 calories, mostly sugar
So Coke has more than FIVE TIMES as much sugar.
Count your teeth. 30 calories vs 150 (Score:2)
> What healthier options do they market?
I> t's all high fructose-corn/sugar-laced products and/or grain-based/soy-infused poison.
Coke has 150 calories in a 12-ounce serving.
Gatorade's current product, G2, has 30 calories.
So 80% less than Coke. If you think sugar is bad, Gatorade is 80% healthier than Coke. (Water is probably better - and Pepsi sells water under it's Aquafina brand).
Regarding "grain based", look in your mouth to see what kind of food your body was designed for. You have 8 incisors for
Re: (Score:2)
thank goodness early hominids (we're talking in the same time-frame as lucy) invented agriculture so we could evolve to survive on a year-round diet of fruit, vegetables, and grains -- right? Also, thanks for reminding me that you shouldn't chew meat with your molars, as they are reserved exclusively for grinding vegetable matter.
(This being Slashdot, it's necessary to point out that the previous statement was absolutely sarcastic. Any explanation for what humans should eat needs to take into account what
apes don't actually spend their time hunting (Score:2)
If you want to get a general idea of what prehistoric human ancestors may have eaten prior to agriculture, you can easily look at the other great apes - who have human-like teeth and don't have agriculture .
You'll see they spend their time eating plants, and if a lizard or other morsel of meat happens by, they'll eat it. They. Don't hunt like lions (or have teeth like lions). Meat is a very small portion of their diet.
Re: (Score:2)
Comparing the diet of an ape in equatorial africa to early humans might be a bit off though. There was a significant period of time between pre-humans migrating out of africa, and the invention of agriculture (really; food preservation methods).
Besides, hasn't it been reasoned that part of the development of our big ole noggins was a direct result of a higher quality diet -- more meat?
quick look at lion, horse, human teeth (Score:2)
Take 30 seconds sometime to look at pictures of teeth from a carnivore such as a dog or cat, an herbivore such as a horse, and a human. You'll see for yourself which is more similar.
I think you'll see that our teeth are much more like horse teeth than lion or wolf teeth (or house cat). Unlike horses, we DO have a pair of canines. 85% of our teeth are the same types that horses have, not the types that carnivores have. Look and see.
Re: (Score:2)
We didn't really evolve to do *anything* so much as we evolved and by sheer shit luck and the process of elimination we've managed to not go extinct.
Re:Count your teeth. 30 calories vs 150 (Score:4, Informative)
Pasteurizing milk literally kills it. Whole, raw milk is shelf-stable, and perfectly safe to consume. Left too long it simply turns into cheese. Once processed however, after a mere few days it grows highly toxic mold and fungus at a rate in direct proportion to the amount of processing (whole vs 2% vs skim). Interesting, no?
Pasteurizing milk wasn't done to piss goofball foodies off. It was done as a public health measure. Look up Listeria and see if it's 'perfectly safe'.
TL;DR - read the quote from the Wikipedia article:
The US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) says improperly handled raw milk is responsible for nearly three times more hospitalizations than any other food-borne disease outbreak, making it one of the world's most dangerous food products.[15][16] Diseases prevented by pasteurization can include tuberculosis, brucellosis, diphtheria, scarlet fever, and Q-fever; it also kills the harmful bacteria Salmonella, Listeria, Yersinia, Campylobacter, Staphylococcus aureus, and Escherichia coli O157:H7,[17][18] among others.
So you think Coke is healthy is grain is bad. Okay (Score:2)
So I pointed out that Coke has 150 calories of sugar, while Gatorade has 30.
You argued that I'm wrong because "A calorie is not a calorie". So you think Coca-Cola calories (high fructose corn syrup) are healthy calories. Uhm, okay.
You then say butter and lard are healthier than vegetables.
And you think grains are bad.
Fyi, you just provided evidence that grains are good. See if you can figure out why.