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

Groups > comp.mobile.android > #31548 > unrolled thread

Question for Apple apologists & Android enthusiasts alike

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

Contents

  Question for Apple apologists & Android enthusiasts alike Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-07-12 21:46 +0000
    Re: Question for Apple apologists & Android enthusiasts alike Elias <elias@nowherenohow.com> - 2016-07-12 17:34 -0500
      Re: Question for Apple apologists & Android enthusiasts alike Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2016-07-13 13:45 +1200
        Re: Question for Apple apologists & Android enthusiasts alike Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2016-07-13 09:00 +0100
          Re: Question for Apple apologists & Android enthusiasts alike Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2016-07-14 10:05 +1200
        Re: Question for Apple apologists & Android enthusiasts alike David Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> - 2016-07-13 09:15 +0100
          Re: Question for Apple apologists & Android enthusiasts alike nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-13 04:51 -0400
            Re: Question for Apple apologists & Android enthusiasts alike Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-07-13 18:52 +0000
              Re: Question for Apple apologists & Android enthusiasts alike nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-13 15:08 -0400
                Re: Question for Apple apologists & Android enthusiasts alike "Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2016-07-13 20:28 +0100
                Re: Question for Apple apologists & Android enthusiasts alike Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-07-13 22:29 +0000
              Re: Question for Apple apologists & Android enthusiasts alike Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-07-14 21:18 +0000
                Re: Question for Apple apologists & Android enthusiasts alike nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-14 18:16 -0400
                  Re: Question for Apple apologists & Android enthusiasts alike Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-07-15 02:06 +0000
                    Re: Question for Apple apologists & Android enthusiasts alike Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-07-16 04:21 +0000
                      Re: Question for Apple apologists & Android enthusiasts alike Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-07-16 04:26 +0000
                      Re: Question for Apple apologists & Android enthusiasts alike The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 23:05 -0700
                        Re: Question for Apple apologists & Android enthusiasts alike David Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> - 2016-07-16 10:06 +0100
                        Re: Question for Apple apologists & Android enthusiasts alike nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-16 08:11 -0400
                        Re: Question for Apple apologists & Android enthusiasts alike Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-07-16 18:31 +0000
                  Re: Question for Apple apologists & Android enthusiasts alike PAS <abc@doremi.net> - 2016-07-15 09:38 -0400
                    Re: Question for Apple apologists & Android enthusiasts alike nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-15 09:59 -0400
                      Re: Question for Apple apologists & Android enthusiasts alike Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-07-15 18:14 +0000
                      Re: Question for Apple apologists & Android enthusiasts alike Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-07-15 18:14 +0000
                    Re: Question for Apple apologists & Android enthusiasts alike Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-07-15 18:10 +0000
                  Re: Question for Apple apologists & Android enthusiasts alike Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-07-16 04:09 +0000
                Re: Question for Apple apologists & Android enthusiasts alike Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2016-07-15 10:39 +0200
                  Re: Question for Apple apologists & Android enthusiasts alike Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-07-15 18:18 +0000
                    Re: Question for Apple apologists & Android enthusiasts alike nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-15 15:25 -0400
                      Re: Question for Apple apologists & Android enthusiasts alike Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-07-16 04:35 +0000
    Re: Question for Apple apologists & Android enthusiasts alike FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 01:55 -0400
      Re: Question for Apple apologists & Android enthusiasts alike Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-07-13 06:38 +0000
        Re: Question for Apple apologists & Android enthusiasts alike Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-07-13 06:46 +0000
          Re: Question for Apple apologists & Android enthusiasts alike FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 04:33 -0400
            Re: Question for Apple apologists & Android enthusiasts alike Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-07-13 18:24 +0000
              Re: Question for Apple apologists & Android enthusiasts alike nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-13 14:41 -0400
          Re: Question for Apple apologists & Android enthusiasts alike nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-13 04:51 -0400
            Re: Question for Apple apologists & Android enthusiasts alike Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-07-13 18:54 +0000
        Re: Question for Apple apologists & Android enthusiasts alike FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 04:31 -0400
          Re: Question for Apple apologists & Android enthusiasts alike Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-07-13 18:17 +0000
      Re: Question for Apple apologists & Android enthusiasts alike PAS <abc@doremi.net> - 2016-07-13 10:33 -0400
    Re: Question for Apple apologists & Android enthusiasts alike Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2016-07-13 08:58 +0100
      Re: Question for Apple apologists & Android enthusiasts alike Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-07-13 18:10 +0000
    Re: Question for Apple apologists & Android enthusiasts alike Gordon Levi <gordon@address.invalid> - 2016-07-13 18:22 +1000
    Re: Question for Apple apologists & Android enthusiasts alike "Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2016-07-13 11:35 +0100
    Re: Question for Apple apologists & Android enthusiasts alike Joe W DiDomenico <email@domain.com> - 2016-07-13 08:22 -0400
    Re: Question for Apple apologists & Android enthusiasts alike Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2016-07-13 14:41 +0200
      Re: Question for Apple apologists & Android enthusiasts alike Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-07-13 22:20 +0000
        Re: Question for Apple apologists & Android enthusiasts alike nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-13 18:30 -0400
    Re: Question for Apple apologists & Android enthusiasts alike BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2016-07-13 17:35 -0500

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#31786

On 7/14/2016 6:16 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <nm8vib$oi1$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Aardvarks
> <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> wrote:
>
>>>> I can't name anything useful that you can do on iOS that is *outside* the
>>>> walled garden that you can't do (usually easier or better) on Android
>>>> though.
>>> One thing comes to mind very fast: I can get system updates for iOS.
>>> Even for devices that are several years old.
>> While it's clear that Apple updates its users' devices for a far longer
>> time period than do the various Android device manufacturers, that, in and
>> of itself, is not meaningful in terms of "doing anything useful".
>>
>> It's just window dressing, in that the old iOS couldn't do all the
>> functions previously listed, and neither can the new iOS version.
>>
>> So the ability to update for longer periods of time, while definitely
>> admirable, adds very little functionality that Android doesn't already
>> supply without the ability to update the OS.
> nonsense.
>
> you're only trying to rationalize not getting as many software updates,
> if any.
>
> a 4-5 year old ios device is *still* supported, while a 2-3 year old
> android device is typically orphaned.
>
> put another way, you'd need to buy two android devices in a given time
> period, versus one ios device.
>
> now which is the better 'value' ?

This probably is the result of each Android phone maker's modifications 
to Android.  I'm a long-time Android user and this is the only thing 
that kind of irks me.  I wish each manufacturer would use "pure Android" 
like the Nexus devices.  If they did, then they wouldn't have to tweak 
an Android OS update to their device.  Every Android would get upgraded 
sooner and the handsets will be supported longer.

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

#31787

In article <nmap0s$lcu$2@dont-email.me>, PAS <abc@doremi.net> wrote:

> > a 4-5 year old ios device is *still* supported, while a 2-3 year old
> > android device is typically orphaned.
> >
> > put another way, you'd need to buy two android devices in a given time
> > period, versus one ios device.
> >
> > now which is the better 'value' ?
> 
> This probably is the result of each Android phone maker's modifications 
> to Android. 

it is.

google releases a version, then the manufacturers have to update that
version specifically for their devices.

the problem is that the phone makers and carriers would rather sell you
a new phone than update android for 2 year old devices, nevermind the
older ones.

> I'm a long-time Android user and this is the only thing 
> that kind of irks me.  I wish each manufacturer would use "pure Android" 
> like the Nexus devices.  If they did, then they wouldn't have to tweak 
> an Android OS update to their device.  Every Android would get upgraded 
> sooner and the handsets will be supported longer.

then get a nexus.

they do that to differentiate themselves. samsung, for instance, added
s-pen to the note, offering a feature not found in a typical android
device.

however, google is trying to change that.

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

#31806

On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 09:59:12 -0400, nospam wrote:
 
> google releases a version, then the manufacturers have to update that
> version specifically for their devices.
> 
> the problem is that the phone makers and carriers would rather sell you
> a new phone than update android for 2 year old devices, nevermind the
> older ones.

This is a valid drawback of Android.
For example, I'm on an S3 stuck, essentially, on Android 4.3 forever.
It's not as easy to root either, as folks intimate.
Too many variables for a novice to overcome easily.

> then get a nexus.
> 
> they do that to differentiate themselves. samsung, for instance, added
> s-pen to the note, offering a feature not found in a typical android
> device.
> 
> however, google is trying to change that.

Both operating systems (iOS & Android) are a royal mess.
Apple maintains far more control, while Google treats Android like the Wild
West. 

The fact that iOS is more easily upgraded for a longer period of time is
definitely a plus for Apple over Android.

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

#31808

On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 09:59:12 -0400, nospam wrote:
 
> google releases a version, then the manufacturers have to update that
> version specifically for their devices.
> 
> the problem is that the phone makers and carriers would rather sell you
> a new phone than update android for 2 year old devices, nevermind the
> older ones.

This is a valid drawback of Android.
For example, I'm on an S3 stuck, essentially, on Android 4.3 forever.
It's not as easy to root either, as folks intimate.
Too many variables for a novice to overcome easily.

> then get a nexus.
> 
> they do that to differentiate themselves. samsung, for instance, added
> s-pen to the note, offering a feature not found in a typical android
> device.
> 
> however, google is trying to change that.

Both operating systems (iOS & Android) are a royal mess.
Apple maintains far more control, while Google treats Android like the Wild 
West. 

The fact that iOS is more easily upgraded for a longer period of time is 
definitely a plus for Apple over Android.

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

#31805

On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 09:38:36 -0400, PAS wrote:

> This probably is the result of each Android phone maker's modifications 
> to Android.  I'm a long-time Android user and this is the only thing 
> that kind of irks me.  I wish each manufacturer would use "pure Android" 
> like the Nexus devices.  If they did, then they wouldn't have to tweak 
> an Android OS update to their device.  Every Android would get upgraded 
> sooner and the handsets will be supported longer.

Yup. It's a pain that it's so hard to update an Android device that is just
a bit old. 

That's one advantage the Apple people have in spades over Android.

It doesn't buy them much - but they do get the latest OS out of the deal,
while the Android users are essentially frozen in time.

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

#31876

On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 18:16:37 -0400, nospam wrote:

> nonsense.
> 
> you're only trying to rationalize not getting as many software updates,
> if any.
> 
> a 4-5 year old ios device is *still* supported, while a 2-3 year old
> android device is typically orphaned.
> 
> put another way, you'd need to buy two android devices in a given time
> period, versus one ios device.
> 
> now which is the better 'value' ?

Nobody disputes that the typical iOS devices are updated to the *latest*
operating system for far longer in the life of the device than are Android
devices.

However, you well know that I'm perfectly fine on iOS 7.1.1, and only
updated recently, but not for the value of the new operating system (it was
actually negative value for me, as you know, due to the spotlight crap).

There was ZERO value (to me) to the new iOS 9 OS (actually negative value).

The only reason I updated the OS was because the kids were complaining some
*games* needed it. Notice this is *games*, which, on the scheme of things,
are used as *toys*.

You *know* these statements are true - so you clearly know that "I" see no
value in updating the operating system (because it breaks the
non-Apple-ecosystem like you can't believe).

So don't give me this crap that the mere fact that you can update to the
latest os gives you inherent value over Android.

I easily say outright that Android SUCKS when it comes to updating the
operating system (for devices not coming out from Google anyway). That's
one reason I only buy Google devices lately. 

So I agree with you that Android's ability to update is TERRIBLE (overall).

But, I also tell you outright that there is far more you can *do* on
Android (yes, even the *older* versions) than on iOS when you're not
totally imprisoned inside the walled garden. Period.

So, on a comparable device from a comparable time period, the lack of
ability to update the Android compared to the ability to update the Apple
device is not a major issue in *functionality*.

It's nice to have. 
It probably helps with security.

But, you can still *do more* on the older Android than you can do on iOS,
period (simply because there's so much you just can't do with iOS).

Why you refute that is beyond my comprehension.
I am balanced.
You are not.

I think you Apple Apologists bought on pure *image*, so you can't stand it
when that frail image is tarnished.

We Android Enthusiasts bought on price performance - so we can easily say
when Android sucks and when it's good.

You can't.
I think that's because you bought an image - where an image is a frail
thing indeed - and since you know it's a frail thing - you resort to
subterfuge and lies and misstatement simply to support that frail image.

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

#31755

Am 14.07.2016 um 23:18 schrieb Aardvarks:
> On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 08:50:04 +0200, Bernd Fröhlich wrote:
>
>>> I can't name anything useful that you can do on iOS that is *outside* the
>>> walled garden that you can't do (usually easier or better) on Android
>>> though.
>>
>> One thing comes to mind very fast: I can get system updates for iOS.
>> Even for devices that are several years old.
>
> While it's clear that Apple updates its users' devices for a far longer
> time period than do the various Android device manufacturers, that, in and
> of itself, is not meaningful in terms of "doing anything useful".
>
> It's just window dressing, in that the old iOS couldn't do all the
> functions previously listed, and neither can the new iOS version.
>
> So the ability to update for longer periods of time, while definitely
> admirable, adds very little functionality that Android doesn't already
> supply without the ability to update the OS.

You're obviously obsessed with 'featurism'. But the updates are not 
important because they bring new features (very few do outside the major 
new iOS versions), they're important as they bring security patches, 
preventing iOS devices from being attacked as easily as Android devices 
(which are mostly on releases with well-known security holes, for which 
attacks are known out there in the wild).

Michael

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

#31810

On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 10:39:08 +0200, Michael Eyd wrote:

> You're obviously obsessed with 'featurism'. But the updates are not 
> important because they bring new features (very few do outside the major 
> new iOS versions), they're important as they bring security patches, 
> preventing iOS devices from being attacked as easily as Android devices 
> (which are mostly on releases with well-known security holes, for which 
> attacks are known out there in the wild).

I am Aspergers, so I put things in neat boxes.
I can handle more detail than most people, as I'm sure you can and I'm,
positive nospam can. 

However, unlike you and nospam, I don't operate with foregone conclusions.
And I don't apologize for the software.

What I don't understand is people, like you and nospam, who feel they have
to apologize for the flaws in the software.

To me, there is no more emotional attachment to Android as there is to iOS. 
I have both.

There are flaws in Android, each of which I openly admit.
There are flaws in iOS, again, each of which I openly admit.

To me, these are non-emotional items.
To you, it's *all* about emotion.

That's why you can't possibly weigh the differences meaningfully.

The mere fact that nospam lies constantly, means that he's trying to
"protect" Apple's image (for what reason, I can't imagine).

To me - both Apple and Android have great things and terrible things.
I don't lie to cover them up.

For example, you said iOS could do the things I said it couldn't, even
though you KNOW it can't.

Why?
What's your emotional attachment that clouds the truth?

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

#31829

In article <nmb9dn$1vqf$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Aardvarks
<aardvarks@a.b.c.com> wrote:

> There are flaws in Android, each of which I openly admit.
> There are flaws in iOS, again, each of which I openly admit.

no you don't.

you only focus on the flaws of ios, including ones you fabricate or
ones that have been repeatedly shown to be false.

you just want to rant.

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

#31881

On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 15:25:06 -0400, nospam wrote:

>> There are flaws in Android, each of which I openly admit.
>> There are flaws in iOS, again, each of which I openly admit.
> 
> no you don't.
> 
> you only focus on the flaws of ios, including ones you fabricate or
> ones that have been repeatedly shown to be false.
> 
> you just want to rant.

I openly admit what I love and hate about both systems.

I buy on price:performance and I'm not a herd animal.
You buy only on image, and you're an inherent herd animal.

That's why I can handle any and all criticisms about Android, while you
can't handle any criticisms about Apple products.

Since you're a herd animal, there's safety to you in numbers, which is why
you always try to "sell" the number of iphones out there, and the number of
apps, and you ridicule "non-supported" solutions, simply because you feel
safety in the herd, and you can't imagine anyone outside the walled garden.

Likewise, since you bought on pure image and not on price:performance,
anytime someone mentions how the Android OS is inherently superior in what
the user can do, you take that as a threat to your "image".

Meanwhile, the Android user didn't buy on image, and he's not a herd
animal, so, he reacts normally to criticism of his product selection.

I've finally figured out, I think, why you act the way you act (and Jolly
Roger and a host of the other herd animals who buy purely on image and who
find safety in numbers inside the walled garden). 

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

#31561

On 2016-07-12 21:46:05 +0000, Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> said:

> The Apple apologists were extolling the virtues of living in the walled
> garden in another thread, so, I snapped this picture moments ago of my
> camera and spare equipment...
> http://i.cubeupload.com/PYm9y5.jpg
> 
> Regarding that equipment ask here two questions:
> 1. What else did you add to your Android equipment?
> 2. How would the Apple apologists do the same thing?
> 
> The photo shows:
> a. Samsung Galaxy S3
> b. A spare back for each battery (3 backs in total)
> c. Two normal-sized replacement batteries (2,300 mAh with NFC)
> d. One large-sized replacement battery (7,000 mAh with NFC)
> d. A spare charger for those batteries (with a spare USB output)
> e. A waterproof USB tube camera with lights and on a 3-foot cable with a
> switch
> 
> I forget what the spare equipment and camera cost, but it was under $50 in
> total as I recall.
> 
> The question for Apple apologists is:
> Q: How do you do that & how much does it cost you to do that?

Answer:  we use our iPhones, we don't take pictures of them.

Sorry if you need to modify your phone to get what you want... but feel 
free to spend as much as you want.
-- 
Be yourself.  Everyone else is already taken. - Oscar Wilde

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

#31563

On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 01:55:27 -0400, FPP wrote:

> Sorry if you need to modify your phone to get what you want... but feel 
> free to spend as much as you want.

The cable camera was about $10.
http://www.gearbest.com/microscopes-endoscope/pp_229387.html

All three batteries, together, with the USB cable and the back covers was
something like $20 or $30 dollars.

So, we're spending on extra Android equipment about as much as you pay for
an Apple chargers and cables. 

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

#31564

On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 06:38:35 +0000 (UTC), Aardvarks wrote:

> All three batteries, together, with the USB cable and the back covers was
> something like $20 or $30 dollars.

I forget what I paid, but it was around the price of this $6.35 2100maH
battery for the Samsung Galaxy S3. 

The reason it was so expensive is that it has the NFC antenna embedded in
the battery; otherwise it would be far cheaper.
https://www.amazon.com/Samsung-Replacement-T-Mobile-Discontinued-Manufacturer/dp/B0089VO7OM

How much do you pay for your iPhone replacement batteries?
Is it more than about $6.35 each?

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

#31573

On 2016-07-13 06:46:06 +0000, Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> said:

> On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 06:38:35 +0000 (UTC), Aardvarks wrote:
> 
>> All three batteries, together, with the USB cable and the back covers was
>> something like $20 or $30 dollars.
> 
> I forget what I paid, but it was around the price of this $6.35 2100maH
> battery for the Samsung Galaxy S3.
> 
> The reason it was so expensive is that it has the NFC antenna embedded in
> the battery; otherwise it would be far cheaper.
> https://www.amazon.com/Samsung-Replacement-T-Mobile-Discontinued-Manufacturer/dp/B0089VO7OM

How 
> 
> much do you pay for your iPhone replacement batteries?
> Is it more than about $6.35 each?

Never needed to replace my battery...  how many have you needed to replace?
-- 
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite 
you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."  -Twain

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

#31591

On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 04:33:03 -0400, FPP wrote:

>> The reason it was so expensive is that it has the NFC antenna embedded in
>> the battery; otherwise it would be far cheaper.
>> https://www.amazon.com/Samsung-Replacement-T-Mobile-Discontinued-Manufacturer/dp/B0089VO7OM
> 
> How 


I don't know how or why they put the NFC antenna in the battery.

Samsung doesn't say why:
http://www.samsung.com/hk_en/octopuspayment/

Here is a guy who opines why Samsung put the NFC antenna in the battery:
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-Samsung-mobile-phone-batteries-comes-with-a-chip-like-paper-are-they-spying-us

This guy says pretty much the same thing:
http://pocketnow.com/android/android-guy-weekly-nfc-and-spare-batteries-how-does-it-work

It's funny that I bought an NFC battery because it was a buck or two more
expensive than the non-NFC equivalent - but I figured - what the heck - I
would be a big spender to pay to ameliorate risk just like most people do.

Most people buy scared, so, why not me too!

>> much do you pay for your iPhone replacement batteries?
>> Is it more than about $6.35 each?
> 
> Never needed to replace my battery...  
> how many have you needed to replace?

I don't think I had the Samsung Galaxy SIII (bought new from T-Mobile) for
more than a year and a half before the battery started giving me trouble
near the middle of the day, where by two years it wouldn't last an hour.

I think I've had a total (counting the original) of about 5 batteries since
I've owned the phone. 

It's kind of handy to have 3 charged up at once because if I forget to
charge overnight, I have spares on hand. The only problem is that I have to
swap backs to put in the really big 7,000 mAH battery in the picture
previously shown, so I have to have backs on hand also.

That's why I have three batteries and three backs (I have more backs but I
only need 3 because I save them in different locations so as to be handy).

The rubber backs are GREAT and are an improvement over the original thin
plastic back. Plus, they only cost $1 each.

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

#31594

In article <nm610k$ga0$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Aardvarks
<aardvarks@a.b.c.com> wrote:

> I don't know how or why they put the NFC antenna in the battery.

antenna placement and to cut down on crappy aftermarket batteries.

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

#31575

In article <nm4o3d$btg$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Aardvarks
<aardvarks@a.b.c.com> wrote:

> 
> How much do you pay for your iPhone replacement batteries?
> Is it more than about $6.35 each?

iphones rarely need replacement batteries. the batteries are rated for
5 *years* at 80% capacity, which is still quite usable. 

in 5 years, people will be wanting a new phone (likely much sooner),
not to replace a battery and keep a 5 year old phone working. 

nevertheless, here's some prices:

$10 for an iphone 4
<http://www.directfix.com/product/IP-2414.html>
$11 for an iphone 5
<http://www.directfix.com/product/IP-2674.html>
$14 with tools for an iphone 5
<https://www.amazon.com/iPhone-5s-5c-Battery-Replacement/dp/B00T8WETF8/>

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

#31596

On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 04:51:48 -0400, nospam wrote:

> iphones rarely need replacement batteries. the batteries are rated for
> 5 *years* at 80% capacity, which is still quite usable. 
> 
> in 5 years, people will be wanting a new phone (likely much sooner),
> not to replace a battery and keep a 5 year old phone working. 
> 
> nevertheless, here's some prices:
> 
> $10 for an iphone 4
> <http://www.directfix.com/product/IP-2414.html>
> $11 for an iphone 5
> <http://www.directfix.com/product/IP-2674.html>
> $14 with tools for an iphone 5
> <https://www.amazon.com/iPhone-5s-5c-Battery-Replacement/dp/B00T8WETF8/>

Thank you for that information, because it shows that the Apple ecosystem
also has enough competition to drive the price down to reasonable levels of
around ten to twenty bucks for replacement batteries!

That's WONDERFUL to know!

Especially as I know some family members with old iPads which are driving
them nuts because they can't be updated and they die far too soon in the
day under constant use.

Maybe I'll pick up a few batteries for them!

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

#31572

On 2016-07-13 06:38:35 +0000, Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> said:

> On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 01:55:27 -0400, FPP wrote:
> 
>> Sorry if you need to modify your phone to get what you want... but feel
>> free to spend as much as you want.
> 
> The cable camera was about $10.
> http://www.gearbest.com/microscopes-endoscope/pp_229387.html
> 
> All three batteries, together, with the USB cable and the back covers was
> something like $20 or $30 dollars.
> 
> So, we're spending on extra Android equipment about as much as you pay for
> an Apple chargers and cables.

My phone came with a charger and cable.  I haven't bought anything for it.

I might buy a USB micro to lightning adapter so that I can use my USB 
charger with my iPhone... but that's be a few bucks at most.  Right 
now, I just use the charger and cables that came with my iPad, if I 
need a 2nd charger.
-- 
Half of the American people have never read a newspaper. 
Half never voted for a President. 
One hopes it is the same half. -Gore Vidal

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

#31590

On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 04:31:54 -0400, FPP wrote:

> My phone came with a charger and cable.  I haven't bought anything for it.
> 
> I might buy a USB micro to lightning adapter so that I can use my USB 
> charger with my iPhone... but that's be a few bucks at most.  Right 
> now, I just use the charger and cables that came with my iPad, if I 
> need a 2nd charger.

I pretty much just buy 2 and 3 port USB wall chargers, where the large USB
port (USB B?) is compatible across both the iOS and Android devices (and
everything else too).

The caveat is to ensure they're all at least 2.1 Amps *simultaneously* as
if it doesn't *say* that, it isn't usually the case.

You can even get 2.4Amp USB nowadays (and maybe even more), so, they're
compatible (AFAIK) with all devices, whether iOS or Android.

And they would work with all the cables. 
I even have mine attached to a 10 foot USB extension cable.

The Android phone works perfectly fine on that 10-foot extension, but the
iPad complains (even though there is still 5VDC and 2.1 Amps coming out,
so, the iPad *should* be happy).

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

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

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

csiph-web