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

Groups > comp.mobile.android > #55306 > unrolled thread

Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy

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

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-31 12:45 +0000
    Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-31 09:05 -0700
    Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-08-31 14:18 -0400
      Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-31 12:12 -0700
        Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-31 15:49 -0400
        Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-31 21:19 +0000
        Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2018-09-03 23:16 +0000
          Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-09-04 01:14 +0000
      Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2018-09-01 05:42 +1000
        Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-31 15:27 -0700
          Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-31 18:32 -0400
            Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-31 23:32 +0000
              Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-31 19:40 -0400
                Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-09-01 00:44 +0000
                  Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-31 21:11 -0400
                    Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-09-01 15:22 +0000
                  Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2018-09-01 14:10 +1000
                    Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-09-01 06:52 -0700
                      Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-01 10:40 -0400
                        Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-09-01 19:50 +0000
                      Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2018-09-02 05:08 +1000
                        Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-09-01 19:55 +0000
                          Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2018-09-03 05:27 +1000
                            Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-09-03 05:44 +0000
                              Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy 123456789 <123456@123456.com> - 2018-09-03 08:21 -0700
                                Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-09-03 23:04 +0000
                              Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2018-09-04 05:23 +1000
                                Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-09-03 22:52 +0000
                                  Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2018-09-04 10:32 +1000
                                    Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-09-04 01:27 +0000
                                      Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2018-09-04 11:41 +1000
                                        Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-09-04 01:49 +0000
                      Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-09-01 19:37 +0000
                    Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-09-01 15:28 +0000
                      Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-09-01 15:33 +0000
              Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-31 18:06 -0700
                Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-09-01 20:27 +0000
          Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2018-09-01 10:37 +1000
          Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2018-09-03 23:20 +0000
            Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-09-04 01:35 +0000
      Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-31 19:49 +0000
        Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-31 15:08 -0700
          Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-31 18:25 -0400
            Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-31 23:32 +0000
          Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-31 23:32 +0000
            Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-31 16:58 -0700
              Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-31 20:03 -0400
                Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-09-01 00:44 +0000
              Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-09-01 00:44 +0000

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#55306 — Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy

On 30 Aug 2018 20:15:27 GMT, JF Mezei wrote:

> Apple has plenty of in house expertise on batteries as well as how much
> power is needed by components such as CPU it designs itself and others
> such as camera where it sets the specs.

It's nice to find that there are actual *adults* on this newsgroup.

Yup. Nobody said that Apple didn't have experts.
Nobody also said that they don't make mistakes.

What's important is that they never caught their mistakes before release.
That's clearly because they didn't test their phones in the real world.

Remember, the problems surfaced relatively recently after launch.
And those problems surfaced in the real world.

And that originally, Apple was flummoxed.
Then, as I recall, they declared a "fix" (which was, as I recall, bogus).

Finally, they *secretly* found a workaround to the flawed design.
That worked fine until people found their CPUs were cut in half.

Then unsatisfied loyal owners took those slow phones to the genius bar.
The genius bar told them nothing was wrong.

Except that was a lie.

> I am pretty sure that internally, engineering warned  marketing that
> they were pushing the limits of thin case vs speed and that batteries a
> year from nwo woudl start causing problems. 

I actually agree with you - where I appreciate that you put that sentence
in words that show you're not proclaiming a fact like nospam does.

I agree that the engineers *must* have been worried about the design.
They couldn't possibly have been oblivious to the potential flaws.

Certainly they *should* have *tested* the phones better (duh). 

However, there's this little problem that Apple themselves said they didn't
recognize the problem initially when the first phones started coming in.

That kind of indicates that Apple engineers did *not* think, at first,
about the real problem (or if they did - Apple didn't report that
publicly).

Since Apple subsequently *secretly* halved people's CPUs, we won't know
unless the lawyers eke it out of Apple, whether Apple knew up front about
the huge design flaws though.

Maybe - just maybe - they knew all along - and hence their subterfuge plan
was to imply that they "fixed" the problem publicly all the while planning
to implement the *secret* "real fix" by throttling people's CPUs?

> But marketing decided it was
> more important to aunch a thin iPhone with amazing CPU/graphics speed
> and if problems started to arise to people in cold climates, they woudl
> be ignoreed for one winter, after which most would upgrade on the 2nd
> year cycle.

I do agree with you that all Apple has to do is push the time out that
people use the phones until the problem doesn't matter anymore. It's sort
of like nobody is worrying about a Corvair being unsafe at any speed today.

It's likely, but I'm only supposing, that what you say is true, but if we
put it together, that's even worse for Apple since they screwed their loyal
customers royally. (Facts below don't end with question marks.)
1. Apple engineers warned marketing?
2. Marketing ignored the warnings?
3. Apple released (what is now known clearly to be a highly flawed design)
4. Apple Marketing came up with their insidious subterfuge (this is a fact)
5. Apple Marketing proclaimed the battery problems solved (?)
6. Meanwhile, in iOS 11 variants, Apple *secretly* chopped the CPU

Notice that the only fact above that I don't know the timing of is #4.

If you're right (that the engineers knew all along), then #4 happened
sooner rather than later. If Apple is right (that this flummoxed them
originally), then #4 may have happened later.

What's not in any doubt (by adults) is that #4 happened at some point.
I'm sure the lawsuits will be all about finding out when and by whom.

> Turns out that the 6s also happened to be when people stopped
> automatically upgrading every 2 years, so the problem started to happen
> again on the secon winter and this time enough people got it that the
> media got wind of it and Apple was forced to deal with it.

I agree again with you that Apple was forced to deal with it when the media
took hold. 

However, they were forced a *second* time to deal with it when it was found
that they *secretly* throttled people's CPUs.

What I find shocking is how loyal the customer base is, even after being
screwed by Apple (who clearly doesn't give a shit about the customer).

What Apple *should* have done, IMHO, is simply eat their mistake.
a. Design a new phone
b. Provide that new phone to any customer who has the flawed phone

That would have shown they *care* about their loyal customer.
*The fact Apple _secretly screwed_ the loyal customer is very telling.*

> What is not known about the 8 and later models is whether Apple is
> providing a band aid to stop complaints for 2 years, or whether the
> problem is fixed in a way that allows 3-5 years of operation without
> problems.   (aka: marketing fix vs engineering fix).

This is a good point. 
Apple has proven that they can not be trusted.
Apple has proven they don't care about the customer.
Those are facts.

In addition, Tim Cook publicly lied (which we published earlier this year).

Nothing Apple says can be trusted.
Nothing Apple does can be trusted.

Apple has proven that with their own actions.

You may be correct that they put duct tape inside of the iPhone 8, and I
may be correct that I would expect Apple to drop *all* the flawed designs,
but we can only wait for the truth to eventually come out (most likely in
the lawsuits).

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#55319

On 8/31/2018 5:45 AM, Arlen Holder wrote:

<snip>

> You may be correct that they put duct tape inside of the iPhone 8,

Kapton tape is widely used in phone assembly, but I highly doubt if 
anyone uses duct tape. It's way too thick. Kapton tape is a very thin, 
static resistant, tape. The first time I saw it used I was kind of 
shocked and thought it was tacky (no pun intended), but it holds pieces 
in place during assembly and is very useful. On a device that isn't 
intended to be opened up for anything other than to change a battery, 
it's just fine to use. I use it a lot in prototypes that I assemble.

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

#55328

On 2018-08-31 08:45, Arlen Holder wrote:

> Yup. Nobody said that Apple didn't have experts.
> Nobody also said that they don't make mistakes.
> 
> What's important is that they never caught their mistakes before release.
> That's clearly because they didn't test their phones in the real world.


I disagree. It is perfectly possible (and likely) that the engineers
were aware of it, but marketing pushed to ignopre this problem, thinking
it woudl happen far into future at a time when focus woudl be on later
models.

I also suspect that at that time, they agreed to the composise on
battery/power thinking 6s would last one year, not realizing that it
would become a "permanent" model and thius its problem would surface
enough to get media attention and force Apple to do recalls.

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

#55331

On 8/31/2018 11:18 AM, JF Mezei wrote:

<snip>

> I disagree. It is perfectly possible (and likely) that the engineers
> were aware of it, but marketing pushed to ignore this problem, thinking
> it would happen far into future at a time when focus would be on later
> models.

It's possible that they were aware of it, but it's unlikely.

I have a lot of experience with Li-Ion batteries and DC-DC converters. I 
design in a lot of headroom so even a degraded battery would not cause 
an unexpected shutdown under peak load, but it never would have occurred 
to me to find some two year old batteries to test my design with, though 
now I would probably do this.

On the devices I design they are charged out in the field by solar 
arrays, and operate at night on the batteries. The maximum load under 
stress is determined by adding up the fairly conservative specs of each 
sub-system, that load is derated by an additional 50%, then I decide 
which battery pack and which DC-DC converter to use, with additional 
margin built in. Then I empirically measure the maximum current, trying 
to stress it as much as possible, with all the radios turned on and 
running a power virus. The unexpected shutdowns that I have to deal with 
are those based on temperature since these are IP68 designs with no 
vents so everything needs to be heat-sinked to the steel case.

> I also suspect that at that time, they agreed to the composise on
> battery/power thinking 6s would last one year, not realizing that it
> would become a "permanent" model and thius its problem would surface
> enough to get media attention and force Apple to do recalls.

No way. Marketing would always take into account the cost of warranty 
service and the bad publicity that it would generate. The whole design 
of the iPhone is to minimize points of failure, which is why they 
removed the headphone jack, and why they have never had a memory card 
slot or a removable battery, and why they moved to the Lightning 
connector from the 30 pin connector, rather than moving to the less 
reliable Micro-USB. There is no way that they would ever knowingly allow 
such a product onto the market if they knew about this issue in advance.

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

#55340

In article <pmc3vk$ufp$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> > I disagree. It is perfectly possible (and likely) that the engineers
> > were aware of it,
> 
> It's possible that they were aware of it, but it's unlikely.

unlike you, apple's engineers are well aware of the issues.

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

#55358

On 31 Aug 2018 12:12:51 GMT, sms wrote:

>  There is no way that they would ever knowingly allow 
> such a product onto the market if they knew about this issue in advance.

You bring up a good point about warranty, where, in Europe, isn't the
typical warranty period at least 2 years?

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

#55508

In message <pmc3vk$ufp$1@dont-email.me> sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 8/31/2018 11:18 AM, JF Mezei wrote:

> <snip>

>> I disagree. It is perfectly possible (and likely) that the engineers
>> were aware of it, but marketing pushed to ignore this problem, thinking
>> it would happen far into future at a time when focus would be on later
>> models.

> It's possible that they were aware of it, but it's unlikely.

> I have a lot of experience with Li-Ion batteries and DC-DC converters.

So, 1% the experience of the newest Apple engineer working on batteries?
0.01%?

Unlike SOME companies, Apple's never designed a battery to explode.

-- 
Mos Eisley spaceport. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum
and villainy. We must be cautious.

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

#55512

On 3 Sep 2018 23:16:09 GMT, Lewis wrote:

> Unlike SOME companies, Apple's never designed a battery to explode.

*This child-like mentality of Apple Apologists is quite consistent.*

The Apple Apologists are so childish that they consistently love to blame
Android for all Apple's faults.

According to Lewis, apparently it's Android's fault that Apple *secretly*,
*drastically*, and *permanently* throttled CPUs to less than half the
original speeds after about a year (and it just gets worse from there).

To an Apple Apologist like Lewis, who is so dumb that it's awe inspiring
that he can even think this way, the fact that Samsung designed flawed
batteries somehow - in Lewis' clearly mentally stunted child-like mind, is,
somehow, a rationale that explains why Apple *secretly*, *drastically*, and
*permanently* throttled CPUs to less than half the original speeds after
about a year.

*This child-like mentality of Apple Apologists is amazingly consistent.*

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

#55337

JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote
> Arlen Holder wrote

>> Yup. Nobody said that Apple didn't have experts.
>> Nobody also said that they don't make mistakes.

>> What's important is that they never caught their mistakes before release.
>> That's clearly because they didn't test their phones in the real world.

> I disagree. It is perfectly possible (and likely) that the engineers
> were aware of it, but marketing pushed to ignopre this problem,
> thinking it woudl happen far into future at a time when focus
> woudl be on later models.

I can't see anyone choosing to have a major problem show up as the
phone ages when that can be avoided by a better DC-DC converter design.

> I also suspect that at that time, they agreed to the composise on
> battery/power thinking 6s would last one year, not realizing that it
> would become a "permanent" model and thius its problem would
> surface enough to get media attention and force Apple to do recalls.

Don’t buy that either given that so many keep their phones much longer than 
that. 

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

#55368

On 8/31/2018 12:42 PM, Rod Speed wrote:

<snip>

> I can't see anyone choosing to have a major problem show up as the
> phone ages when that can be avoided by a better DC-DC converter design.

Absolutely. But I don't know what they were thinking when they decided 
that the appropriate solution was to throttle the CPU. Did anyone think 
for a second that this would go unnoticed?

> Don’t buy that either given that so many keep their phones much longer 
> than that.

The 6s is a phone people wanted to keep longer because it was the last 
one (other than the SE) with a headphone jack.

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

#55370

In article <pmcfd6$80n$2@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> But I don't know what they were thinking when they decided 
> that the appropriate solution was to throttle the CPU. Did anyone think 
> for a second that this would go unnoticed?

it did for nearly a year.

it only clips peak demands, not all the time.



> 
> The 6s is a phone people wanted to keep longer because it was the last 
> one (other than the SE) with a headphone jack.

except that the 7, 8 and x sell *much* better than the 6s and se
combined, so no.

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

#55373

On 31 Aug 2018 15:32:16 GMT, nospam wrote:

> it only clips peak demands, not all the time.

The *secret* throttling was *permanent*.
Once it kicked in (due to battery "chemical ageing") it never came back.

Unless you believe in the battery fairy.
(Or, if you replace the battery.)

For years, Apple has been making decisions for its loyal customers.

So it's nice that now Apple finally allows the users two choices
a. Loyal customers can choose *unacceptable phone stability*, or, 
b. Loyal customers can choose *unacceptable CPU performance*.
*Pick one.*

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

#55374

In article <pmcj5t$euh$4@news.mixmin.net>, Arlen Holder
<arlenholder@nospam.net> wrote:

> The *secret* throttling was *permanent*.

it's dynamic, based on momentary power demands and the ability of the 
battery to provide it.

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

#55383

On 31 Aug 2018 16:40:27 GMT, nospam wrote:

>> The *secret* throttling was *permanent*.
> 
> it's dynamic, based on momentary power demands and the ability of the 
> battery to provide it.

The battery is never going to get better without replacing it.

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

#55385

In article <pmcncu$li6$3@news.mixmin.net>, Arlen Holder
<arlenholder@nospam.net> wrote:

> 
> The battery is never going to get better without replacing it.

nor will your ability to have a normal conversation.

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

#55407

On 31 Aug 2018 18:11:08 GMT, nospam wrote:

> nor will your ability to have a normal conversation.

You play silly childish word games sans any proof nospam.

It's good that you parrot me though as you are not an adult (yet).

That means the messages I provide to you are slowly sinking in.

Finally.

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

#55388

Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> wrote 
> nospam wrote
 
>>> The *secret* throttling was *permanent*.
 
>> it's dynamic, based on momentary power demands 
>> and the ability of the battery to provide it.

> The battery is never going to get better without replacing it.

But slowing the cpu at the time of peak demand for power
from the battery does avoid the phone shutting down.  

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

#55396

On 8/31/2018 9:10 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
> Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> wrote
>> nospam wrote
> 
>>>> The *secret* throttling was *permanent*.
> 
>>> it's dynamic, based on momentary power demands and the ability of the 
>>> battery to provide it.
> 
>> The battery is never going to get better without replacing it.
> 
> But slowing the cpu at the time of peak demand for power
> from the battery does avoid the phone shutting down.

The throttling was the best option to stop the unexpected shutdowns 
(until battery replacement).

Only apps that need a lot of CPU cycles will experience a performance 
hit. Once a need for throttling is established, due to an aging battery, 
the throttling doesn't go away until battery replacement.

I don't think many customers would have been upset if their phone simply 
displayed a message, "Battery needs replacement to restore peak 
performance," as long as it was at least two years from the date of 
purchase.

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

#55403

In article <pme5ii$ntl$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> >>>> The *secret* throttling was *permanent*.
> > 
> >>> it's dynamic, based on momentary power demands and the ability of the 
> >>> battery to provide it.
> > 
> >> The battery is never going to get better without replacing it.
> > 
> > But slowing the cpu at the time of peak demand for power
> > from the battery does avoid the phone shutting down.
> 
> The throttling was the best option to stop the unexpected shutdowns 
> (until battery replacement).

not only best, but the only option. attempting to draw more power than
the battery can supply is not going to work. 

> Only apps that need a lot of CPU cycles will experience a performance 
> hit. Once a need for throttling is established, due to an aging battery, 
> the throttling doesn't go away until battery replacement.

the throttling only occurs during peak demands. otherwise, there is no
throttling. most people don't notice anything because they aren't
running the cpu at the limit all the time.

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

#55426

On 1 Sep 2018 07:40:33 GMT, nospam wrote:

> not only best, but the only option. attempting to draw more power than
> the battery can supply is not going to work. 

While I understand what you mean by the *only* option, certainly Apple
didn't have to throttle *secretly*, so they certainly had options on *how*
they implemented the throttling. 

Apple decided to screw the loyal customer instead of publicly admitting
that they made a bad design choice.

In addition, there are *plenty* of ethical options Apple could have chosen
to make the loyal consumer whole, such as buying back the phone and
replacing the phone and giving them discounts toward a new phone.

Oh, and what about the option to replace the battery for free?

My point is that you might say that Apple had only one option, but
intelligent logical adults would easily find not only more options, but
every one is more *ethical* than the one option that Apple chose.

HINT: Apple *proved* they don't care one whit about the loyal customer. 

>> Only apps that need a lot of CPU cycles will experience a performance 
>> hit. Once a need for throttling is established, due to an aging battery, 
>> the throttling doesn't go away until battery replacement.
> 
> the throttling only occurs during peak demands. otherwise, there is no
> throttling. most people don't notice anything because they aren't
> running the cpu at the limit all the time.

The throttling is based on the perceived "battery age". 
That battery chemical aging process never reverses.
Hence, the throttling is *permanent* since the battery aging is permanent.

Actually, the battery aging just gets worse and worse and worse over time.
Hence, *the throttling just gets worse and worse and worse over time*.

Those are facts. 

You may wish to dance around those facts. 
But the fact you dance around facts doesn't make them not facts.

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

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

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

csiph-web