Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.mobile.android > #32927 > unrolled thread

WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas

Back to article view | Back to comp.mobile.android

Contents

  WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-07-30 16:18 +0000
    Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2016-07-30 17:49 -0700
      Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-30 21:54 -0400
        Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-07-31 02:16 +0000
        Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2016-07-30 20:44 -0700
          Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-31 13:52 -0400
            Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-07-31 19:19 +0000
            Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2016-07-31 16:41 -0700
              Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-31 20:23 -0400
          Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-07-31 22:26 +0000
            Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-31 18:58 -0400
              Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-08-01 05:54 +0000
                Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-01 02:11 -0400
                Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-01 02:13 -0400
                  Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-08-01 21:44 +0000
                    Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-01 17:52 -0400
                  Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-08-01 21:49 +0000
                    Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-01 17:52 -0400
                      Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-08-01 22:01 +0000
                        Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-01 18:47 -0400
                          Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-08-02 15:04 +0000
                            Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-02 11:05 -0400
                              Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-08-02 18:19 +0000
                                Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-02 15:25 -0400
                                  Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-08-02 19:49 +0000
                                    Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-02 16:32 -0400
                                      Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-08-03 01:35 +0000
                                        Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-02 21:43 -0400
                                          Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-08-03 03:27 +0000
            Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-07-31 23:17 +0000
            Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2016-07-31 17:23 -0700
              Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-31 20:36 -0400
                Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2016-07-31 18:52 -0700
                  Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-31 22:18 -0400
                    Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2016-07-31 20:21 -0700
                      Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-01 17:04 -0400
                        Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2016-08-01 15:43 -0700
                  Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2016-08-01 18:23 +1200
                  Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-08-01 21:51 +0000
      Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-07-31 02:59 +0000
        Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2016-07-30 21:42 -0700
        Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2016-08-01 13:03 +0200
          Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2016-08-02 08:59 +1200
            Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2016-08-01 16:19 -0700
              Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2016-08-02 13:18 +1200
                Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2016-08-01 21:51 -0500
                  Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2016-08-02 18:22 +1200
          Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2016-08-01 16:02 -0700
            Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2016-08-02 09:03 +0200
              Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2016-08-02 09:40 -0700
                Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2016-08-03 10:33 +0200

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#32927 — WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas

In your experience with *both* Android & iOS mobile devices, have you also
found the iOS devices severely lacking in WiFi sensitivity (resulting in
dropped connections when Android devices are still working fine)?

This is a question borne out of experience setting up WiFi for dozens of
local neighbors, some of whom use Apple ipads & iPhones, and others who use
Android mobile equipment.

Almost always, in my own personal experience in my own large home with
multiple iPads and Android phones, and in the large homes of my neighbors,
the Apple iPads and iPhones almost always have *far worse* WiFi reception
than do the Android phones.

Has this been your experience also?
If so, why do you think this is the case?
-------------------------------------------
NOTE: Jeff is honest to a fault, so, his opinion matters greatly.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#32941

On Sat, 30 Jul 2016 16:18:02 -0000 (UTC), Aardvarks
<aardvarks@a.b.c.com> wrote:

>In your experience with *both* Android & iOS mobile devices, have you also
>found the iOS devices severely lacking in WiFi sensitivity (resulting in
>dropped connections when Android devices are still working fine)?

Nope.  About the same range.  At least the same range within some
reasonable tolerance range, such as +/- 10% or so.  Note that I
consider "range" to be somewhat equivalent to your "sensitivity" where
"sensitivity" is limited to receive only and does not involve the
antenna or environmental situations.  Also note that anecdotal
evidence of a problem is not definitive as measurements such as
"range" and "sensitivity" tend to follow a bell curve.

>This is a question borne out of experience setting up WiFi for dozens of
>local neighbors, some of whom use Apple ipads & iPhones, and others who use
>Android mobile equipment.

I'll resist the temptation to offer my opinion of Apple engineering
and RF design.  Well, maybe not totally.  This is my play on the
iPhone 4 antenna grip problem in 2010:
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/cellular/cell-test.htm>
Steve Jobs was right that all phones have the antenna grip problem. He
just didn't mention that the iPhone 4 had it 10 times worse than the
others.

>Almost always, in my own personal experience in my own large home with
>multiple iPads and Android phones, and in the large homes of my neighbors,
>the Apple iPads and iPhones almost always have *far worse* WiFi reception
>than do the Android phones.

How far worse?  How did you measure "reception"?  What were you
measuring?  Using wi-fi receive signal strength from an app or
counting "bars" isn't worth much.  These vary substantially between
devices and is affected by temperature.

>Has this been your experience also?
>If so, why do you think this is the case?

Yes of course.  Since I don't like Apple, every Apple is by definition
far worse than Android.  Or course, for a nominal bribe, I can reverse
the situation.

>NOTE: Jeff is honest to a fault, so, his opinion matters greatly.

Jeff lives on a fault.  Being honest improves my karma, and prevents
earthquakes from ruining my day.

In the past, I've offered you various ways of running a controlled
range (performance) test.  The next time you get your hands on a test
device, try it.  It's quite easy.

1.  You will need a reasonably fast computah running iperf ver 2,
iperf3, or jperf.  This turn the compoutah into an iperf server by
running just:
   iperf -s
The computah should be connected via an ethernet cable to the users
router.  Gigabit ethernet is nice for measuring maximum speeds, but
that's not what we're doing here.

2.  Next, you'll need a iperf client on the phone or tablet.  There
are iperf clients for most OS's.  Note that iperf2 and iperf3 are
quite different and not really compatible.  If the version is not
specified, it's probably iperf2.

Android:
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=net.he.networktools&hl=en>
<http://networktools.he.net/>
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.magicandroidapps.iperf&hl=en>

IOS:
<https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/he.net-network-tools/id858241710?mt=8>
<http://networktools.he.net/>
<https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/iperf-network-bandwidth-measurement/id951598770?mt=8>
<https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/iperf3-network-bandwidth-performance/id986846572?mt=8>

PC, OS/X, Linux, etc:
<https://iperf.fr/iperf-download.php>

Note that most Linux mutations ship with iperf2 and that iperf3 must
be installed.  You can have both iperf and iperf3 installed at the
same time:
<https://iperf.fr/iperf-download.php#more-recent>

JAVA (runs on anything that groks Java and does pretty graphs):
<https://www.rarst.net/software/jperf/>
<https://sourceforge.net/projects/iperf/files/>
JPerf is iperf2 not 3.  Version 3 is for higher speed wireless.  Don't
mix versions.

Tutorials on iperf and jperf:
<http://openmaniak.com/iperf.php>
<https://www.jamescoyle.net/how-to/574-testing-network-speed-with-iperf>
<https://www.jamescoyle.net/cheat-sheets/581-iperf-cheat-sheet>

I recommend the HE (Hurricane Electric) versions which will test
either IPv4 and IPv6.

YouTube video of a typical test:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qdKgHBO_Gc>

Some notes I made from a talk on iperf and jperf:
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/FLUG-talk-2015-03-28/iperf3%20talk.htm>

3.  Connect your test phone or tablet via wi-fi and just run a test to
see if it works.  If you're running Jperf, you should see something
like this:
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/FLUG-talk-2015-02-28/802.11gn%20direct.jpg>
Note that the max speed is about 60 Mbits/sec.

If you insert a wireless repeater in between the wireless router and
the client, you get this mess:
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/FLUG-talk-2015-02-28/802.11gn%20through%20Netgear%20repeater.jpg>
Note the drastic drop in maximum speed.  I'll save my rant against
mesh networks for another day.

4.  Now comes the big trick.  Temporarily change the speed of your
wireless router from "automatic" to a fixed speed and/or protocol. For
802.11g, that would be 54 Mbits/sec.  For faster protocols, it can be
faster.  If you have an 802.11ac wireless router, leave both 2.4 and
5GHz on.  However, if you're testing with a lesser protocol, enable
only one frequency band at a time, so that you know which one you're
testing.  I would initially do the test using 802.11g and 54Mbit/sec
because higher speeds and protocols allow for fallback, which will
produce odd results.

By fixing the speed and protocol, you're eliminating the ability of
the wireless router to slow down the wireless connection speed and
thus improve the range.  As you walk away from the wireless router,
instead of a general slowdown, you'll see an abrupt drop in speed,
possibly followed by a disconnect.  The typical 2.4GHz 802.11g system
will go about 10 meters before the speed drops abruptly.  Measure and
record this distance along with the test conditions (devices,
frequency, protocol, fixed speed, etc).

You'll find indoor testing to vary substantially, mostly depending on
reflections and wireless router antenna positions.  Outdoors works
better, but only if you don't have any interference.  Try to pick an
empty channel (good luck with that).

5.  If you're lazy and don't want to deal with servers and iperf, you
do something similar with just ping.  You still have to set a fixed
speed and protocol, but you don't get the pretty graphs and data. Just
continuously ping the wireless router.  At some point, the latency
will drastically increase, followed by 100% packet loss, and possibly
a disconnect.  This is not as precise as iperf because you're not
saturating the pipe with traffic, but probably good enough.

6.  That's all there is.  The "range" of a device, which is a
measurement of the overall radio design, antenna, internal noise,
packaging, orientation sensitivity, etc quality, should give you a
clue as to relative quality of the various test devices.  If
everything you test craps out at approximately the same range (using
the same speeds and protocols), then as far as I'm concerned, they're
all the same.  However, if you see substantial variations, then you
can legitimately claim that Apple and Android devices are different.

7.  Incidentally, you can also try it pointing iperf to a public
server instead of your own iperf server.  Note that you'll be
measuring the speed of your internet connection, not the speed of the
wireless.  I wouldn't do that for the range test.
Iperf public servers:
<https://iperf.fr/iperf-servers.php>
Also, if you want to be sick, try running iperf over a cellular data
connection.

Just do it.  I didn't spend an hour writing all this so that you lean
back in your chair and deliver your "impressions" or "feelings".  Such
things as range can and should be tested.  If you need help, you know
where you can try to pry me out of my hole.

Good luck...


-- 
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32942

In article <aleqpb932uap89en74ckq9rlbj7lhbipk4@4ax.com>, Jeff
Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:

> 
> >In your experience with *both* Android & iOS mobile devices, have you also
> >found the iOS devices severely lacking in WiFi sensitivity (resulting in
> >dropped connections when Android devices are still working fine)?
> 
> Nope.  About the same range.  At least the same range within some
> reasonable tolerance range, such as +/- 10% or so.  Note that I
> consider "range" to be somewhat equivalent to your "sensitivity" where
> "sensitivity" is limited to receive only and does not involve the
> antenna or environmental situations.  Also note that anecdotal
> evidence of a problem is not definitive as measurements such as
> "range" and "sensitivity" tend to follow a bell curve.
> 
> >This is a question borne out of experience setting up WiFi for dozens of
> >local neighbors, some of whom use Apple ipads & iPhones, and others who use
> >Android mobile equipment.
> 
> I'll resist the temptation to offer my opinion of Apple engineering
> and RF design.  Well, maybe not totally.  This is my play on the
> iPhone 4 antenna grip problem in 2010:
> <http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/cellular/cell-test.htm>
> Steve Jobs was right that all phones have the antenna grip problem. He
> just didn't mention that the iPhone 4 had it 10 times worse than the
> others.

the iphone 4 was not 10x worse. 

it was comparable to other phones and in many cases, those other phones
were substantially worse, even dropping to no service, something the
iphone 4 didn't do.

palm pre drops to no service:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zft3-Lwh2bo>

droid incredible drops to no service:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4zbQ3f7H0U>

droid 2 had serious issues:
<https://techcrunch.com/2010/08/13/uh-oh-early-droid-2-units-having-sign
al-issues/>
  The signal on one of the two units we received is all over the board,
  dipping from full signal down to nearly none whilst sitting in the
  same spot (and no, we¹re not holding it wrong). Engadget¹s review
  says that four out of four of their units show endlessly fluctuating
  bar counts, and our buddy Rich Brome of Phonescoop says he¹s having
  bad luck with his, as well. Thats 6 review units, all showing signs
  of signal woes. Not a good sign.

> Yes of course.  Since I don't like Apple, every Apple is by definition
> far worse than Android.  Or course, for a nominal bribe, I can reverse
> the situation.

that explains everything.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32944

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <aleqpb932uap89en74ckq9rlbj7lhbipk4@4ax.com>, Jeff
> Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:
> 
>> iPhone 4 antenna grip problem in 2010:
>> <http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/cellular/cell-test.htm>
>> Steve Jobs was right that all phones have the antenna grip problem. He
>> just didn't mention that the iPhone 4 had it 10 times worse than the
>> others.
> 
> the iphone 4 was not 10x worse. 
> 
> it was comparable to other phones and in many cases, those other phones
> were substantially worse, even dropping to no service, something the
> iphone 4 didn't do.
> 
> palm pre drops to no service:
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zft3-Lwh2bo>
> 
> droid incredible drops to no service:
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4zbQ3f7H0U>
> 
> droid 2 had serious issues:
> <https://techcrunch.com/2010/08/13/uh-oh-early-droid-2-units-having-sign
> al-issues/>

I remember those findings near the end of the whole Antenna Gate circus. It
was comical seeing comparable phones also drop signal when "held wrong". I
recall the Apple trolls denying that reality back then too - just as they
apparently still are today. : D

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32950

On Sat, 30 Jul 2016 21:54:55 -0400, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>the iphone 4 was not 10x worse. 

Well, you're certainly entitled to an opinion.  Personally, I prefer
opinions based on repeatable tests, measurements, numerical results,
and calculations.  However, I'll accept your assertion for what it's
worth.  However, I did make one mistake.  The iphone wasn't 10 times
worse, but more like 6 to 18 times.  Citing my web page:
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/cellular/cell-test.htm>
  "The worst phone I tested dropped the rx signal 16 times 
  (-12dB). The iPhone 4 rx signal dropped 100 times (-20dB) 
  to 288 times (-24.6dB). That's a 6 to 18 times worse signal 
  drop for the iPhone 4... "

One problem was that I didn't have access to an iphone 4 at the time
of the controversy.  None of my friends would trust me to jailbreak
their phone just so I could get a signal strength reading in dBm
instead of "bars".  So, I had to use the test results from the
Anantech article.  A friend has an iPhone 4 that he's not using, so I
could probably repeat my test given sufficient inspiration.

>it was comparable to other phones and in many cases, those other phones
>were substantially worse, even dropping to no service, something the
>iphone 4 didn't do.

Yeah, that was cute.  Initially, Verizon phones would stay connected
for quite a while after total loss of signal.  I put a VZW iphone 4 in
a shielded box during a call, waited up to about 2 minutes, and was
able to resume the call uninterrupted.  Nicely done by VZW.  However,
AT&T was initially a different story.  I did the same test with an
AT&T phone (not an iPhone) and found that it would disconnect after
only a few seconds.  About a month later, after AT&T announced that
they had "upgraded" their network to match capabilities of the new
iPhone, it would also stay connected after 2 minutes of carrier loss.

>palm pre drops to no service:
><https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zft3-Lwh2bo>

I have an old VZW Palm Pre somewhere in the office.  I'll try it on
Mon or Tues.  

Interesting test.  He's in a weak signal area.  Grabbing the phone
drops the signal level enough to produce a loss of connection.  That's
not surprising.  It would be more interesting if he put the phone in
the Field Test Mode to see how much the signal drops.  If the phone is
right at the bitter edge of disconnecting, and the signal drops a few
dB, I would expect it to umm.... disconnect.  Note that all the phones
used in my test showed about a 9 dB drop in receive signal from a
death grip, which would produce exactly the same results in a weak
signal area as the Palm Pre.

>droid incredible drops to no service:
><https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4zbQ3f7H0U>

This is almost as bad as the Pre test.  Instead of being in a one bar
weak signal area, he's got 2 bars.  I'm not so sure that the HTC Droid
Inedible (VZW only) has the antenna at the bottom.  I tried to find it
on the iFixit teardown at:
<https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/HTC+Droid+Incredible+Teardown/42422>
and couldn't find it.  Other users are also having problems:
"FIX HTC INCREDIBLE S RECEPTION ANTENNA ISSUES"
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHIdl1qrdkc>  (6:42)
Fast forward to 4:35 to see what he's done.
In other words, not the best phone or antenna system.  Of course, the
author doesn't care about potential SAR problem.

>droid 2 had serious issues:
><https://techcrunch.com/2010/08/13/uh-oh-early-droid-2-units-having-sign
>al-issues/>
>  The signal on one of the two units we received is all over the board,
>  dipping from full signal down to nearly none whilst sitting in the
>  same spot (and no, we¹re not holding it wrong). Engadget¹s review
>  says that four out of four of their units show endlessly fluctuating
>  bar counts, and our buddy Rich Brome of Phonescoop says he¹s having
>  bad luck with his, as well. Thats 6 review units, all showing signs
>  of signal woes. Not a good sign.

That's just a crappy phone.  It could be anything from bad design, bad
implementation, bad parts, bad metering, or just having a bad day.  I
assume that this has something to do with your defense of Apple, but I
lack the wisdom to make the connection.

>> Yes of course.  Since I don't like Apple, every Apple is by definition
>> far worse than Android.  Or course, for a nominal bribe, I can reverse
>> the situation.

>that explains everything.

Even honesty has a price tag.

-- 
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32963

In article <sbqqpbhi3udu1fqdhvuhdlv65v80qib9gh@4ax.com>, Jeff
Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:

> 
> >the iphone 4 was not 10x worse. 
> 
> Well, you're certainly entitled to an opinion. Personally, I prefer
> opinions based on repeatable tests, measurements, numerical results,
> and calculations.  However, I'll accept your assertion for what it's
> worth.  However, I did make one mistake.  The iphone wasn't 10 times
> worse, but more like 6 to 18 times.  Citing my web page:
> <http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/cellular/cell-test.htm>
>   "The worst phone I tested dropped the rx signal 16 times 
>   (-12dB). The iPhone 4 rx signal dropped 100 times (-20dB) 
>   to 288 times (-24.6dB). That's a 6 to 18 times worse signal 
>   drop for the iPhone 4... "

if the iphone was 18x worse, it would not have sold anywhere near as
well as it did. people don't buy crappy phones.

there were fewer dropped calls with the iphone 4 than the previous
iphone 3gs.

at the time, the iphone 4 was the best selling iphone to date and sold
quite well for the few years it was offered for sale.

once the whole antennagate bullshit blew over, nobody even thought
about it.

it was yet another manufactured problem which was concocted by gawker
media for the traffic, just like the iphone 6 bendgate and hairgate
nonsense.

what comes around goes around, and now gawker media is bankrupt.

haters gotta hate.

> One problem was that I didn't have access to an iphone 4 at the time
> of the controversy.  None of my friends would trust me to jailbreak
> their phone just so I could get a signal strength reading in dBm
> instead of "bars".  So, I had to use the test results from the
> Anantech article.  A friend has an iPhone 4 that he's not using, so I
> could probably repeat my test given sufficient inspiration.

no need to jailbreak to get dbm



> 
> >> Yes of course.  Since I don't like Apple, every Apple is by definition
> >> far worse than Android.  Or course, for a nominal bribe, I can reverse
> >> the situation.
> 
> >that explains everything.
> 
> Even honesty has a price tag.

you've admitted your anti-apple bias which makes what you say not
honest.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32964

On 2016-07-31, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <sbqqpbhi3udu1fqdhvuhdlv65v80qib9gh@4ax.com>, Jeff
> Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:
>
>> One problem was that I didn't have access to an iphone 4 at the time
>> of the controversy.  None of my friends would trust me to jailbreak
>> their phone just so I could get a signal strength reading in dBm
>> instead of "bars".  So, I had to use the test results from the
>> Anantech article.  A friend has an iPhone 4 that he's not using, so I
>> could probably repeat my test given sufficient inspiration.
>
> no need to jailbreak to get dbm

That's true. All you need to do is enter field test mode to have the dBm
displayed right at the top of the screen:

<http://i.imgur.com/OSlzil0.jpg>
<http://i.imgur.com/DpHaXHt.jpg>

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32975

On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 13:52:14 -0400, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <sbqqpbhi3udu1fqdhvuhdlv65v80qib9gh@4ax.com>, Jeff
>Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:
>> Well, you're certainly entitled to an opinion. Personally, I prefer
>> opinions based on repeatable tests, measurements, numerical results,
>> and calculations.  However, I'll accept your assertion for what it's
>> worth.  However, I did make one mistake.  The iphone wasn't 10 times
>> worse, but more like 6 to 18 times.  Citing my web page:
>> <http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/cellular/cell-test.htm>
>>   "The worst phone I tested dropped the rx signal 16 times 
>>   (-12dB). The iPhone 4 rx signal dropped 100 times (-20dB) 
>>   to 288 times (-24.6dB). That's a 6 to 18 times worse signal 
>>   drop for the iPhone 4... "
>
>if the iphone was 18x worse, it would not have sold anywhere near as
>well as it did. people don't buy crappy phones.

Without the rubber cover, which is now epidemic, the iPhone 4 was 6 to
18 times worse in signal loss compared to various cell phones.  With
the rubber cover, it's about the same as most other smartphones.  At
the time when I ran the test, rubber covers for the newly released
iPhone 4 were not available.  I can repeat the test if I can borrow an
iPhone 4 from a friend.  So can you.  It's quite easy but there are a
few tricks.  Bug me if you want details.

>there were fewer dropped calls with the iphone 4 than the previous
>iphone 3gs.

True for AT&T because, as I previously indicated, AT&T would
disconnect if the carrier was lost for only a few seconds.  That was
later increased which hid any disconnects caused by carrier loss.  You
can test how it works with any cell phone.  Make a call and then put
the phone inside a shielded box (microwave oven will do) for varying
amounts of time.  Last time I did this on VZW, I could disappear for a
bit less than 2 minutes, and continue my call from where I left off.

I just tried it on VZW at home.  I called my house phone from my
ancient LG VX8300 cell phone.  I then put it inside the microwave
oven.  After 2 minutes, I was still connected.  However, I'm not sure
if the signal went to zero.  I could see that the phone showed zero
bars through the oven door, but the VX8300 will still work showing
zero bars.  I'll see if I can find a weaker signal location and a
better shielded box later in the week.  

It's easy enough for you to try the same thing.  Note that it doesn't
matter what phone you use.  You're testing how the cell site responds
to a loss of carrier.  Any phone will suffice.

>at the time, the iphone 4 was the best selling iphone to date and sold
>quite well for the few years it was offered for sale.

Yep, and sales is of paramount importance.  Everything else, including
quality, repairability, product life, and even price are of secondary
importance.  If it sells, it must be good (for the company).

>once the whole antennagate bullshit blew over, nobody even thought
>about it.

I thought about it.  I really hate to agree with you, but the
antennagate thing had nothing to do with Apple.  Apple's only
contribution was designing a phone that highlighted a bad setting by
AT&T in their cell sites.  The problem disappeared when the rubber
bumper made the iPhone 4 act more like other phones of the period, and
when AT&T tweaked their settings.  As an added bonus, Apple also
tweaked the relationship between receive signal level and the number
of bars indicated.  Later, they graciously allowed users to see the
actual numbers in dBm.  Prior to that, jailbreaking was required.  You
can read about how it was necessary to get into the field test mode in
order to see numbers at:
<http://www.anandtech.com/show/3794/the-iphone-4-review/2>

>it was yet another manufactured problem which was concocted by gawker
>media for the traffic, just like the iphone 6 bendgate and hairgate
>nonsense.

Those problems were not concocted or in any way fabricated for the
occasion.  They were quite real.  Whether they were significant or
worth fixing is a very different story.  

These days, product lifetimes are sufficiently short that the next
generation of product is already in the pipeline when the previous
product is introduced.  In some product areas (i.e. disk storage and
SSD's), there can be as many a 3 generations in the pipeline at the
same time.  That means there's absolutely no incentive to fix the
current product when the next generation will be released shortly.  If
there are any real problems, current owners are simply told to wait
for the next generation to be released, which will surely have those
problems solved.  The reality is often quite different.

>what comes around goes around, and now gawker media is bankrupt.

Hardly.  There are plenty of problems still left to solve.  For
example, how about product life and servicability?
<http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fix-out-product-repairs-get-tougher-new-age-obsolescence-n614916>
Did you know that your Apple products are designed for a 5 year
product life?
<https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201624>
Ever wonder what Apple does with cell phones that have been returned
for repair?
<http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-shreds-old-iphones-to-prevent-real-parts-ending-up-in-fakes-2016-2>

>haters gotta hate.

That's only a problem when one hates something specific, like Apple.
It's not considered a problem if one hates everything equally.  Don't
worry.  I have plenty of bad things to say about Google and Android.

>no need to jailbreak to get dbm

At the time (2010), it was necessary to jailbreak an iphone in order
to obtain signal strength numbers.  The field test mode was also
initially disabled in the iphone 4.  Read the Anantech article
mentioned above for a memory refresh.

>you've admitted your anti-apple bias which makes what you say not
>honest.

Excuse me?  Since when does hating something lead to dishonesty?  I
might hate a vendors products, possibly for good reason, and offer my
opinion on the matter if asked, but I certainly would not poison my
position by lying about what's wrong with their products.  I might
also not like a vendor due to political, social, economic, or personal
reasons that have nothing to do with their products.  From what I've
disclosed, you would not be able to determine if it's one of those, or
whether it's a quality, service, price, performance, design, or
usability problem that I might have with Apple.  Assumption really is
the mother of all such screwups.

Taking your statement at face value, are only people that offer
favorable opinions of Apple allowed to comment because they're
presumably the only ones that are honest?  Perhaps you might want to
rephrase your statement.

Drivel:  I found my old iPhone 3G and decided to see if it still
works.  I charged up the battery, turned it on, and it complained that
it could not make a secure connection.  Fine, that's Apple for set the
date and time.  Once I did that, I was deluged with about 4 years of
gmail stored on the Google server.  That was followed by about 200
reminders and appointments, each of which had to be individually
acknowledged.  When I checked for updates, it proclaimed that
everything was up to date.  Not too bad for an old phone.


-- 
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32976

In article <m9vspbp0hvep8nokt8u4n4s02d9mjpupc2@4ax.com>, Jeff
Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:

> >> Well, you're certainly entitled to an opinion. Personally, I prefer
> >> opinions based on repeatable tests, measurements, numerical results,
> >> and calculations.  However, I'll accept your assertion for what it's
> >> worth.  However, I did make one mistake.  The iphone wasn't 10 times
> >> worse, but more like 6 to 18 times.  Citing my web page:
> >> <http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/cellular/cell-test.htm>
> >>   "The worst phone I tested dropped the rx signal 16 times 
> >>   (-12dB). The iPhone 4 rx signal dropped 100 times (-20dB) 
> >>   to 288 times (-24.6dB). That's a 6 to 18 times worse signal 
> >>   drop for the iPhone 4... "
> >
> >if the iphone was 18x worse, it would not have sold anywhere near as
> >well as it did. people don't buy crappy phones.
> 
> Without the rubber cover, which is now epidemic, the iPhone 4 was 6 to
> 18 times worse in signal loss compared to various cell phones. 

nope

> With
> the rubber cover, it's about the same as most other smartphones.  At
> the time when I ran the test, rubber covers for the newly released
> iPhone 4 were not available. 

they were available.

> I can repeat the test if I can borrow an
> iPhone 4 from a friend.  So can you.  It's quite easy but there are a
> few tricks.  Bug me if you want details.

i don't need to borrow one since i still have mine. 

i had *no* problems whatsoever with reception and no tangible
difference between it and the 3gs it replaced.

> >there were fewer dropped calls with the iphone 4 than the previous
> >iphone 3gs.
> 
> True for AT&T because, as I previously indicated, AT&T would
> disconnect if the carrier was lost for only a few seconds.  That was
> later increased which hid any disconnects caused by carrier loss.  You
> can test how it works with any cell phone.  Make a call and then put
> the phone inside a shielded box (microwave oven will do) for varying
> amounts of time.  Last time I did this on VZW, I could disappear for a
> bit less than 2 minutes, and continue my call from where I left off.

bullshit. no cell carrier keeps a call connected that long without any
connection.

> I just tried it on VZW at home.  I called my house phone from my
> ancient LG VX8300 cell phone.  I then put it inside the microwave
> oven.  After 2 minutes, I was still connected.  However, I'm not sure
> if the signal went to zero.  I could see that the phone showed zero
> bars through the oven door, but the VX8300 will still work showing
> zero bars.  I'll see if I can find a weaker signal location and a
> better shielded box later in the week.  

put it on defrost cycle.

> It's easy enough for you to try the same thing.  Note that it doesn't
> matter what phone you use.  You're testing how the cell site responds
> to a loss of carrier.  Any phone will suffice.

i prefer real world tests in normal use.

my iphone 4 was not significantly different than any other phone i
have, whether it's other iphones, android and old school flippers, and
that's in both city and fringe areas. 

> >at the time, the iphone 4 was the best selling iphone to date and sold
> >quite well for the few years it was offered for sale.
> 
> Yep, and sales is of paramount importance.  Everything else, including
> quality, repairability, product life, and even price are of secondary
> importance.  If it sells, it must be good (for the company).

all of those are contributing factors to sales.

if the product was shit quality, unreliable, etc. it would't sell well.
people generally want quality stuff.

the reality is that the iphone 4 was very reliable, other than the home
button for early production runs, something that was easily fixed and
later modified at the factory to be more reliable.

> >once the whole antennagate bullshit blew over, nobody even thought
> >about it.
> 
> I thought about it.  I really hate to agree with you, but the
> antennagate thing had nothing to do with Apple.  Apple's only
> contribution was designing a phone that highlighted a bad setting by
> AT&T in their cell sites.  The problem disappeared when the rubber
> bumper made the iPhone 4 act more like other phones of the period, and
> when AT&T tweaked their settings.  As an added bonus, Apple also
> tweaked the relationship between receive signal level and the number
> of bars indicated.  Later, they graciously allowed users to see the
> actual numbers in dBm.  Prior to that, jailbreaking was required.  You
> can read about how it was necessary to get into the field test mode in
> order to see numbers at:
> <http://www.anandtech.com/show/3794/the-iphone-4-review/2>

jailbreaking was not required to put earlier iphones into field test
mode.

apple removed that in the iphone 4 and then put it *back*.

> >it was yet another manufactured problem which was concocted by gawker
> >media for the traffic, just like the iphone 6 bendgate and hairgate
> >nonsense.
> 
> Those problems were not concocted or in any way fabricated for the
> occasion.  They were quite real.  Whether they were significant or
> worth fixing is a very different story.  

the problem was concocted. 

'holding it wrong' is something that affects every single phone, but
gawker media, who had just had its ass handed to it for buying a stolen
iphone 4, decided to attack apple and get its revenge.

> These days, product lifetimes are sufficiently short that the next
> generation of product is already in the pipeline when the previous
> product is introduced.  In some product areas (i.e. disk storage and
> SSD's), there can be as many a 3 generations in the pipeline at the
> same time.  That means there's absolutely no incentive to fix the
> current product when the next generation will be released shortly.  If
> there are any real problems, current owners are simply told to wait
> for the next generation to be released, which will surely have those
> problems solved.  The reality is often quite different.

apple often makes changes *during* product lifecycles.

> >what comes around goes around, and now gawker media is bankrupt.
> 
> Hardly.  There are plenty of problems still left to solve.  For
> example, how about product life and servicability?
>
> <http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fix-out-product-repairs-get-tougher-new-a
> ge-obsolescence-n614916>
> Did you know that your Apple products are designed for a 5 year
> product life?

they aren't.

in fact, i have a 12 year old mac mini running 24/7 as a low end server
and just put an ssd in it because the hard drive was over 10 years old.


> <https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201624>

that doesn't mean they're designed for 5 year life. 

it means apple stops supporting products after 5 years, or 7 years as
required in california, where you are.

every company cuts off support after a while, often *less* than that.

look at what android phone makers do, who drop support within a year or
two.

> Ever wonder what Apple does with cell phones that have been returned
> for repair?
> <http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-shreds-old-iphones-to-prevent-real-parts-
> ending-up-in-fakes-2016-2>

don't believe everything you read.

apple recycles phones and even designed and built a robot named liam to
do it.

<http://mashable.com/2016/03/21/apple-liam-recycling-robot/>
  Liam is programmed to carefully disassemble the many pieces of
  returned iPhones, such as SIM card trays, screws, batteries and
  cameras, by removing components bit by bit so they¹ll all be easier
  to recycle. Traditional tech recycling methods involve a shredder
  with magnets that makes it hard to separate parts in a pure way
  (you¹ll often get scrap materials commingled with other pieces).

  Liam separates the insides of an iPhone with robotic precision so,
  for example, pieces of glass and plastic won¹t be mixed in with
  copper. Ultimately, these components can be sold to recycling vendors
  that focus on specific materials, such as nickel, aluminum, copper,
  cobalt and tungsten (a conflict mineral), and turn them into
  something else that can be reused, rather than dumped in a landfill.
  Some of these materials take decades to decompose and leak toxic
  materials into the ground along the way.

> >haters gotta hate.
> 
> That's only a problem when one hates something specific, like Apple.
> It's not considered a problem if one hates everything equally.  Don't
> worry.  I have plenty of bad things to say about Google and Android.

yet you don't.

> >no need to jailbreak to get dbm
> 
> At the time (2010), it was necessary to jailbreak an iphone in order
> to obtain signal strength numbers.  The field test mode was also
> initially disabled in the iphone 4.  Read the Anantech article
> mentioned above for a memory refresh.

they removed it in the iphone 4 and then put it back in the next
update, which was a couple of weeks later, if that (i'd have to check
the dates).

prior to the iphone 4 it was there.

> >you've admitted your anti-apple bias which makes what you say not
> >honest.
> 
> Excuse me?  Since when does hating something lead to dishonesty? 

it means what you say is heavily biased.

> I might hate a vendors products, possibly for good reason, and offer my
> opinion on the matter if asked, but I certainly would not poison my
> position by lying about what's wrong with their products.  I might
> also not like a vendor due to political, social, economic, or personal
> reasons that have nothing to do with their products.  From what I've
> disclosed, you would not be able to determine if it's one of those, or
> whether it's a quality, service, price, performance, design, or
> usability problem that I might have with Apple.  Assumption really is
> the mother of all such screwups.

except that you do lie about them, as you did above.

> Taking your statement at face value, are only people that offer
> favorable opinions of Apple allowed to comment because they're
> presumably the only ones that are honest?  Perhaps you might want to
> rephrase your statement.

i never said that at all.

every product has good and bad points. nothing is perfect. pick the
best tool for the job. 

anyone who repeatedly cites the bad things about one company and
ignores when other companies do the very same thing (or worse) is
dishonest.

> Drivel:  I found my old iPhone 3G and decided to see if it still
> works.  I charged up the battery, turned it on, and it complained that
> it could not make a secure connection.  Fine, that's Apple for set the
> date and time.  Once I did that, I was deluged with about 4 years of
> gmail stored on the Google server.  That was followed by about 200
> reminders and appointments, each of which had to be individually
> acknowledged.  When I checked for updates, it proclaimed that
> everything was up to date.  Not too bad for an old phone.

so much for designing for 5 years.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32972

On Sat, 30 Jul 2016 20:44:02 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

> Well, you're certainly entitled to an opinion.  Personally, I prefer
> opinions based on repeatable tests, measurements, numerical results,
> and calculations.  

Jeff,
This nospam guy is actually one of the smarter ones here, along with Rod
Speed and the smartest guy here, who is David Empson. The problem though,
with nospam, is that his only playbook is verbatim what Apple Marketing
feeds him. He has no other repertoire.

> Note that all the phones
> used in my test showed about a 9 dB drop in receive signal from a
> death grip

Where, for others' benefit, 9 decibels is 3db times 3 which is 1/2 times
1/2 times 1/2 the signal strength, which is 0.125 the original signal
strength (or around 1/8th the original signal strength if I did the math
correctly).

> That's just a crappy phone.  It could be anything from bad design, bad
> implementation, bad parts, bad metering, or just having a bad day.  I
> assume that this has something to do with your defense of Apple, but I
> lack the wisdom to make the connection.

Jeff - you have to understand that nospam thinks *exactly* like Apple
Marketing thinks. Thousands of times, he finds the absolute worst example
he can find in Android land, to compare with Apple.

For example, he tries to compare $50 Android phones to $800 Apple phones,
and then says that the Android phones stink. Or, he picks the absolutely
most expensive Android phone he can find on the planet, to compare with the
iPhone, and says conclusively that iPhones cost exactly the same as Android
phones.

In fact, I have a recent thread where I compare PERFORMANCE of a $300
Android phone to the iPhone 6, and he pooh poos that because I didn't use
the absolutely most expensive Android phones on the planet to make my
performance tests.

At first you wonder why he thinks like Apple Marketing, but then you just
get used to it once you understand that:
a. He buys only on cachet (so anything bad about Apple is a threat)
b. He buys based on fear (so anything outside the walled garden is scary)
c. He can only think of the single solution Apple Marketing gives him

Once you realize *everything* he says is imbued by those three tenets, then
you realize why he sounds exactly like Apple Marketing sounds.

> Even honesty has a price tag.

The funny thing about nospam, Jeff, is that you can be honest with him, but
he will *never* be honest with you. 

If you (or I) have a favorable datum about Android versus iOS, we speak it
out, and weigh it proportionately. Nospam is the consummate Apple marketing
guy. He is so afraid of facts, that he will *never* speak anything out
against Apple, even though he surely must be aware of the huge flaws.

At first I couldn't understand his duplicity. I thought it was stupidity.
But he's duplicitous because of the three things I said:
a. He's *protecting* his purchase decision (at all costs!)
b. He's *protecting* against anything *outside* the walled garden
c. He's *protecting* against the one-button-mouse mentality that Apple
Marketing has and always has had.

So nospam will *never* see both sides of the coin.
Never. 
And even if he did - he'd never admit it.

On the other hand, you:
a. Buy by price:performance so performance is just a set of numbers which
is nothing to fear
b. Buy what works for you with the equipment you use, and not necessarily
only one brand of equipment
c. Try every solution that makes sense, and not just the
single-button-mouse solution that one manufacturers' marketing team
specifies

Until you understand these three things, you'll never understand why nospam
writes what he writes (nor most of the other Apple Aficianados).

a. They care only about style
b. They are fearful of anything not told to them by Apple Marketing
c. They can only think of one-button-mouse style solutions proposed by
Apple Marketing (which only work inside the walled garden).

Anything outside those three areas, they "just give up".
In fact, they're so used to "just giving up", that it's not funny in that
is so different than your mental makeup.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32973

In article <nnltv2$7if$1@news.mixmin.net>, Aardvarks
<aardvarks@a.b.c.com> wrote:

> > That's just a crappy phone.  It could be anything from bad design, bad
> > implementation, bad parts, bad metering, or just having a bad day.  I
> > assume that this has something to do with your defense of Apple, but I
> > lack the wisdom to make the connection.
> 
> Jeff - you have to understand that nospam thinks *exactly* like Apple
> Marketing thinks. Thousands of times, he finds the absolute worst example
> he can find in Android land, to compare with Apple.
>
> For example, he tries to compare $50 Android phones to $800 Apple phones,
> and then says that the Android phones stink. Or, he picks the absolutely
> most expensive Android phone he can find on the planet, to compare with the
> iPhone, and says conclusively that iPhones cost exactly the same as Android
> phones.

more of your lies and ignorant trolling.

i've never tried to compare a $50 android phone with an $800 iphone,
ever.

what i said was that similar specs have comparable prices, and they do.

phones with similar specs to an iphone are something like a samsung
galaxy s7 or note 5.

you're also ignoring that apple and google have different business
models, something you refuse to acknowledge, let alone even begin to
understand.

you're also ignoring all of the android phones that are *more*
expensive than the iphone.

the initial price doesn't make matter a whole lot anyway because people
will pay far more than the difference in price in a couple of months of
service fees.

you're a troll, who spews nothing but hate.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32984

On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 18:58:09 -0400, nospam wrote:

> you're also ignoring that apple and google have different business
> models, something you refuse to acknowledge, let alone even begin to
> understand.

Anytime Google wants to subsidize a phone for me, I'm perfectly happy.

In fact, my Android phone doesn't even have a Google ID, and it works just
fine.

I wonder what would happen if I removed the iCloud account from an iOS
device.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32986

In article <nnmo64$3cp$1@news.mixmin.net>, Aardvarks
<aardvarks@a.b.c.com> wrote:

> I wonder what would happen if I removed the iCloud account from an iOS
> device.

nothing. you don't even need one in the first place.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32988

In article <nnmo64$3cp$1@news.mixmin.net>, Aardvarks
<aardvarks@a.b.c.com> wrote:

> Anytime Google wants to subsidize a phone for me, I'm perfectly happy.

and for that subsidy, google gets to track and data mine you, even
though you think you're avoiding it. you're not.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32997

On Mon, 01 Aug 2016 02:13:11 -0400, nospam wrote:

> and for that subsidy, google gets to track and data mine you, even
> though you think you're avoiding it. you're not.

You don't use any Google apps on that iOS device?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33001

In article <nnofsa$4hc$1@news.mixmin.net>, Aardvarks
<aardvarks@a.b.c.com> wrote:

> 
> > and for that subsidy, google gets to track and data mine you, even
> > though you think you're avoiding it. you're not.
> 
> You don't use any Google apps on that iOS device?

don't change the topic.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32998

On Mon, 01 Aug 2016 02:13:11 -0400, nospam wrote:

> and for that subsidy, google gets to track and data mine you, even
> though you think you're avoiding it. you're not.

Without a Google ID, all it has is an advertising ID, which I switch
randomly, and which Google *says* they don't maintain the connection.

I don't log into *any* Google apps, as you know. 

Since my system is well organized, I keep a duplicate folder of *just*
Google Apps, where every one is logged out of (and almost none are used
anyway, except maybe Google Maps). I have the history turned off if I'm
forced to log into an app, but I can't think of any app that you have to
log into other than Gmail, which is a different beast altogether, and,
which has the same issues on iOS anyway.

As you know, I also have my SSID tracking turned off, so that I'm not
spying on my self and my neighbors. 

Likewise, I have all app connection to my location turned off, and no app
is allowed to use my location unless I expressly turn the app location
ability back on with App Ops Starter. And you have that same issue too on
iOS anyway, so, nothing is different there.

So, where, may I ask, is Google spying on me on Android that they're not
also spying on you in iOS? 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33000

In article <nnog5r$55e$1@news.mixmin.net>, Aardvarks
<aardvarks@a.b.c.com> wrote:

> 
> > and for that subsidy, google gets to track and data mine you, even
> > though you think you're avoiding it. you're not.
> 
> Without a Google ID, all it has is an advertising ID, which I switch
> randomly, and which Google *says* they don't maintain the connection.

it has more than that.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33005

On Mon, 01 Aug 2016 17:52:20 -0400, nospam wrote:

>> Without a Google ID, all it has is an advertising ID, which I switch
>> randomly, and which Google *says* they don't maintain the connection.
> 
> it has more than that.

Like what?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33007

In article <nnogs9$6m6$1@news.mixmin.net>, Aardvarks
<aardvarks@a.b.c.com> wrote:

> 
> >> Without a Google ID, all it has is an advertising ID, which I switch
> >> randomly, and which Google *says* they don't maintain the connection.
> > 
> > it has more than that.
> 
> Like what?

you've been told several times before.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android

csiph-web