Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.mobile.android > #56877 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-10-28 16:37 +0000 |
| Last post | 2018-11-05 18:52 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 118 — 14 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.mobile.android
No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-10-28 16:37 +0000
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-10-28 09:57 -0700
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-10-28 18:03 +0000
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-10-28 11:44 -0700
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. micky <NONONOmisc07@bigfoot.com> - 2018-10-30 07:41 -0400
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2018-10-28 17:46 +0000
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-10-28 18:09 +0000
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2018-10-28 18:33 +0000
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-10-28 18:44 +0000
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. Ed Cryer <ed@somewhere.in.the.uk> - 2018-10-28 19:12 +0000
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-10-28 20:48 +0000
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. Ed Cryer <ed@somewhere.in.the.uk> - 2018-10-29 22:21 +0000
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-10-30 01:02 +0000
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. Ed Cryer <ed@somewhere.in.the.uk> - 2018-10-30 12:22 +0000
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-10-30 15:41 +0000
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. Ed Cryer <ed@somewhere.in.the.uk> - 2018-10-30 18:02 +0000
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-10-30 18:37 +0000
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2018-10-30 18:46 +0000
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-10-30 19:00 +0000
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2018-10-30 19:07 +0000
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-10-31 10:19 +0000
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2018-10-31 10:29 +0000
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-10-31 10:39 +0000
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2018-10-31 10:43 +0000
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-10-31 11:11 +0000
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2018-10-31 11:27 +0000
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-10-31 11:40 +0000
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. Ed Cryer <ed@somewhere.in.the.uk> - 2018-10-30 18:25 +0000
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-10-30 19:45 +0000
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. 123456789 <123456@123456.com> - 2018-10-30 14:17 -0700
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-10-31 10:36 +0000
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. 123456789 <123456@123456.com> - 2018-10-31 08:42 -0700
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-10-31 16:55 +0000
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-10-31 13:40 -0400
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. 123456789 <123456@123456.com> - 2018-10-31 11:11 -0700
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-10-31 21:13 +0000
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-10-31 15:26 -0700
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-10-31 10:31 +0000
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2018-10-31 10:36 +0000
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-10-31 10:45 +0000
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2018-10-31 10:52 +0000
general 'phone chat (was: Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere.) "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-10-31 11:14 +0000
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-10-31 09:09 -0400
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-10-31 19:00 +0000
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-10-31 15:11 -0400
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-10-31 21:18 +0000
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. Joe Beanfish <joebeanfish@nospam.duh> - 2018-10-31 13:37 +0000
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-10-31 14:49 +0000
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. 123456789 <123456@123456.com> - 2018-10-31 08:42 -0700
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. M.L. <me@privacy.invalid> - 2018-11-06 07:07 -0600
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-06 10:33 -0700
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2018-10-31 15:57 +0000
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-10-31 18:55 +0000
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-10-31 15:11 -0400
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-10-31 21:27 +0000
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-10-31 17:58 -0400
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-10-31 22:11 +0000
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-10-31 18:25 -0400
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2018-11-01 07:26 +0000
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2018-11-01 07:19 +0000
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-10-31 21:21 +0000
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-10-31 14:11 -0700
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-10-31 21:32 +0000
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2018-10-31 15:48 +0000
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2018-10-28 20:37 +0000
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-10-28 21:16 +0000
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2018-10-28 21:27 +0000
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-10-28 22:26 +0000
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-10-29 08:19 -0700
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2018-10-29 15:43 +0000
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-10-29 12:04 -0400
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-10-29 21:44 +0000
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2018-10-30 07:18 +0000
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. Mark Blain <mblain2@yahoo.com> - 2018-10-28 19:59 +0000
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2018-10-28 20:39 +0000
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. Mark Blain <mblain2@yahoo.com> - 2018-10-29 14:04 +0000
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-10-29 21:45 +0000
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. Joe Beanfish <joebeanfish@nospam.duh> - 2018-10-29 13:28 +0000
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-10-29 21:50 +0000
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2018-10-30 07:25 +0000
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-10-30 17:21 +0000
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-10-30 18:44 +0000
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-10-30 19:16 +0000
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-10-31 11:35 +0000
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. Bill <Billaboard@gmail.com> - 2018-10-30 23:54 +0000
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-10-31 11:51 +0000
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. Bill <Billaboard@gmail.com> - 2018-10-31 16:59 +0000
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-10-31 21:37 +0000
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-03 09:10 +0000
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2018-11-03 09:21 +0000
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-03 09:28 +0000
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-03 15:38 +0000
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. Bill <Billaboard@gmail.com> - 2018-11-03 19:23 +0000
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-03 20:04 +0000
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-03 22:39 +0000
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-04 14:31 +0000
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-04 20:13 +0000
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-04 14:31 -0700
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2018-11-04 14:12 -0800
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-04 16:45 -0700
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-05 01:57 +0000
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-04 20:02 -0700
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-05 10:05 +0000
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2018-11-05 08:10 +0000
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-05 10:07 +0000
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-05 01:53 +0000
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-04 21:06 -0400
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-05 02:14 +0000
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-05 15:57 +0000
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-05 11:04 -0400
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-05 18:11 +0000
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-05 14:14 -0400
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-05 19:29 +0000
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2018-11-05 16:54 +0000
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-05 18:11 +0000
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2018-11-05 19:14 +0000
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-05 19:23 +0000
Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere. "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-05 18:52 +0000
Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-31 10:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <g3tfrmFps7aU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #56962 |
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: > Andy Burns wrote: > >> Up to £1449 for the biggest, baddest iPhone! >> > No, that's the retail price. (Although I didn't know it was _that_ much; > I thought the 999 was ridiculous. [I've just bought a new-looking _car_ > for 1850!]) I said the _underlying_ cost - by which I meant what it cost > to _make_ it, various sites say the bill of materials cost to apple is about 35% of retail, but I don't see that's very relevant, the user has no way to pay that price ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-31 11:14 +0000 |
| Subject | general 'phone chat (was: Re: No keyboard. At all. Anywhere.) |
| Message-ID | <hN540toK6Y2bFwjy@255soft.uk> |
| In reply to | #56963 |
In message <g3tfrmFps7aU1@mid.individual.net>, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> writes: >J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: > >> Andy Burns wrote: >> >>> Up to £1449 for the biggest, baddest iPhone! >>> >> No, that's the retail price. (Although I didn't know it was _that_ >>much; I thought the 999 was ridiculous. [I've just bought a >>new-looking _car_ for 1850!]) I said the _underlying_ cost - by which >>I meant what it cost to _make_ it, > >various sites say the bill of materials cost to apple is about 35% of >retail, but I don't see that's very relevant, the user has no way to >pay that price ... I'm surprised it's as high as that. The way the user gets _closer_ to that price is to not buy Apple of course! That's what this branch of the thread was going at. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf science is not intended to be foolproof. Science is about crawling toward the truth over time. - Scott Adams, 2015-2-2
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-31 09:09 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <311020180909295530%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #56958 |
In article <g3teucFplh0U1@mid.individual.net>, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote: > > > I've seen iDevices [...] I don't know the underlying cost of the > > hardware the underlying cost is irrelevant. > Up to £1449 for the biggest, baddest iPhone! one which has 512 gig of storage, far more than most people need, and it can be found for less. the biggest baddest red hydrogen android phone is $1595, which is even *more* than that iphone: <https://www.cnet.com/g00/reviews/red-hydrogen-one-preview/> The phone costs $1,295 (which converts to about £985 or AU$1,800) for an aluminum version or $1,595 for a titanium version -- at least that's how much preorders cost. To put that in perspective, a brand-new iPhone XS Max costs $1,099 for a 64GB model or $1,449 for the 512GB version. Yep, the Red costs more than the most expensive iPhone ($1,160 at Amazon Marketplace).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-31 19:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <prd1k0.pj8.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #56957 |
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> wrote: > In message <prafq6.ahg.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg > <this@ddress.is.invalid> writes: > >"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> wrote: > >> In message <pra6bf$3b5$1@dont-email.me>, Ed Cryer > [] > >> At what annual cost (I'm talking about the hardware), though? And what > >> do I do with the superseded 'phones (which still do what they did when I > >> bought them)? > > > > If you don't want/need the latest-and-greatest - especially no > >expensive cameras, etc. -, the annual cost can be quite reasonable. > > > > For me, cost over the last five years, for two phones, excluding the > >cost of two 32GB MicroSD cards, was 160 Euro. So with the cards and some > >paid apps thrown in, that would be some 50 Euro per year. > > While still feeling high, that's a lot better than what some of the > other posters in this thread have been quoting as acceptable! Note that that cost was for *two* phones, both of which are still working/used, so the cost per year will still drop. > > That low cost is why I tried Android - instead of iDevices - in the > >first place and why I'm sticking to Android, despite its quirks. > > > > No way an iDevice could come even remotely close to that low cost. > > Indeed not. I've seen iDevices - my blind friends have them; they're > nice and work well (though I think either OS it's largely a matter of > familiarity), but the cost is indeed phenomenal. I don't know the > underlying cost of the hardware, but for PCs, I know Apple gear is about > 3-4 times the cost of the equivalent on Windows, so I assume the 'phones > are similar (though look to be even more). Oops! I'm afraid you've just triggered another of nospam's rants. > > What to do with the superseded phones? Because that's becoming a > >common problem (also I dislike throwing stuff away), you'll see > >information/recommendations on that very subject, in the mainstream > >media. > > > > Some examples are: > > > >- Portable WiFi hotspot > > That's out unless you have a suitable tariff. (I have a 3-2-1 SIM, on > which I put ten pounds when I bought it several years ago; last time I > checked, it had about 7 pounds left on it ...) A lot of the PAYG tariffs > specifically exclude tethering, though I can't see why (as you'd be > paying for what you use - and how can they even tell anyway?): is that > just a UK thing, or is it common in other countries too? I use the WiFi hotspot functionality mainly when traveling. On pre-paid, the cost is most of the time 1ct/MB or less, which - for me - is quite acceptable as I normally use only 1-2GB/month at most. > >- 'GPS' (navigation device) > >- Music player > >- eReader (for eBooks) > >- Podcasts > >- RSS reader > > All sound good ideas, thanks. But unless you're in the habit of using > multiple devices at once, why wouldn't you just use your latest 'phone > for all of those? It's mainly/also for use by *other* people than 'you' (who has a new(er) smartphone).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-31 15:11 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <311020181511077470%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #56993 |
In article <prd1k0.pj8.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote: > > > That low cost is why I tried Android - instead of iDevices - in the > > >first place and why I'm sticking to Android, despite its quirks. > > > > > > No way an iDevice could come even remotely close to that low cost. > > > > Indeed not. I've seen iDevices - my blind friends have them; they're > > nice and work well (though I think either OS it's largely a matter of > > familiarity), but the cost is indeed phenomenal. I don't know the > > underlying cost of the hardware, but for PCs, I know Apple gear is about > > 3-4 times the cost of the equivalent on Windows, so I assume the 'phones > > are similar (though look to be even more). > > Oops! I'm afraid you've just triggered another of nospam's rants. no rants, just a simple declaration that it's complete nonsense.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-31 21:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <+fBfw7Fowh2bFwwJ@255soft.uk> |
| In reply to | #56993 |
In message <prd1k0.pj8.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> writes: [] > I use the WiFi hotspot functionality mainly when traveling. On >pre-paid, the cost is most of the time 1ct/MB or less, which - for me - >is quite acceptable as I normally use only 1-2GB/month at most. There's one similar here (called 3-2-1), which is 3p/minute, 2p/text, 1p/megabyte, or vice versa, I can never remember; it's also a prepaid one. Unfortunately, they say it's not to be used for tethering (I don't know why), which seems mainly to mean use as a hotspot. > >> >- 'GPS' (navigation device) >> >- Music player >> >- eReader (for eBooks) >> >- Podcasts >> >- RSS reader >> >> All sound good ideas, thanks. But unless you're in the habit of using >> multiple devices at once, why wouldn't you just use your latest 'phone >> for all of those? > > It's mainly/also for use by *other* people than 'you' (who has a >new(er) smartphone). Ah, I live alone. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf "I do not feel obliged to believe that the God who endowed me with sense, reason, and intellect intends me to forego their use". - Gallileo Gallilei
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joe Beanfish <joebeanfish@nospam.duh> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-31 13:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <prcb6v$a1q$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #56929 |
On Tue, 30 Oct 2018 15:41:02 +0000, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: > (In the absence of getting it back, the Swiftkey one seems acceptable. I > must make clear: I'm not a keen smartphone user, and wasn't when I > bought it: I initially bought it because it seemed that a smartphone was > something everyone should have. But the initial learning curve was/is > too great - and the rapid development [and thus, more or less, > _obligation_ to replace the 'phone every two or three years at most] has > put me off considerably. Compared to my laptops, the upgrade cycle is > too fast - not just cost, though I resent that too, but the constant > learning. I probably shouldn't _be_ in this 'group (-:.) I use swiftkey and am pretty happy with it. I keep my phone for 3-4 years and always buy a generation or 2 behind when I do get a new one. Android hasn't changed drastically in all the years I've been using it. Mostly little changes here and there.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-31 14:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <aOIGk50OEc2bFwlA@255soft.uk> |
| In reply to | #56978 |
In message <prcb6v$a1q$1@dont-email.me>, Joe Beanfish
<joebeanfish@nospam.duh> writes:
>On Tue, 30 Oct 2018 15:41:02 +0000, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>> (In the absence of getting it back, the Swiftkey one seems acceptable. I
>> must make clear: I'm not a keen smartphone user, and wasn't when I
>> bought it: I initially bought it because it seemed that a smartphone was
>> something everyone should have. But the initial learning curve was/is
>> too great - and the rapid development [and thus, more or less,
>> _obligation_ to replace the 'phone every two or three years at most] has
>> put me off considerably. Compared to my laptops, the upgrade cycle is
>> too fast - not just cost, though I resent that too, but the constant
>> learning. I probably shouldn't _be_ in this 'group (-:.)
>
>I use swiftkey and am pretty happy with it.
>
>I keep my phone for 3-4 years and always buy a generation or 2 behind
>when I do get a new one. Android hasn't changed drastically in all the
>years I've been using it. Mostly little changes here and there.
That's not the impression I get in this thread: when I say my 'phone has
Android 4.2.2, most of the respondents have been rather sneering about
my chance of getting anywhere with "such an old version". (_I_didn't
think it had changed much either.)
I'm unlikely to replace it - it seems yet another bandwagon I don't want
to get on at the moment - but what version _would_ you buy, if buying
now? I just looked at ebay, specifying _new_ 'phones only, and they
seemed to range (at the bottom end anyway) from 5.1 to 8.1. Which seems
a big range to me. I'd have expected a narrower spread, with maybe a
_few_ of the older version, but there seem to be quite a _lot_ of the
5.1 ones, and _very_ many 7.0.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
"He who will not reason is a bigot;
he who cannot is a fool;
he who dares not is a slave."
- Sir William Drummond
Above all things, use your mind.
Don't be that bigot, fool, or slave.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | 123456789 <123456@123456.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-31 08:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <prcigq$3nm$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #56979 |
On 10/31/2018 7:49 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: > when I say my 'phone has Android 4.2.2, most of the respondents have > been rather sneering about my chance of getting anywhere with "such > an old version". I have an Amazon Fire HD 10 tablet that runs the "Fire OS" which is actually about Android version 5.x. I have installed the Google Play Store on it. There are very few apps that I've found won't work, and so far I've found acceptable workarounds for those. IMO older Android OS versions are still quite usable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | M.L. <me@privacy.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-06 07:07 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <ob43udlld79jipak31tgcvmokul5dkf7qn@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #56980 |
>> when I say my 'phone has Android 4.2.2, most of the respondents have >> been rather sneering about my chance of getting anywhere with "such >> an old version". > >I have an Amazon Fire HD 10 tablet that runs the "Fire OS" which is >actually about Android version 5.x. I have installed the Google Play >Store on it. There are very few apps that I've found won't work, and so >far I've found acceptable workarounds for those. IMO older Android OS >versions are still quite usable. There's a lot more app compatibility support for Android 5.x than Android 4.x.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | 123456789 <12345@12345.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-06 10:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <prsja5$1q47$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #57250 |
On 11/6/2018 6:07 AM, M.L. wrote: 123456789 wrote: >>> when I say my 'phone has Android 4.2.2, most of the respondents >>> have been rather sneering about my chance of getting anywhere >>> with "such an old version". >> I have an Amazon Fire HD 10 tablet that runs the "Fire OS" which is >> actually about Android version 5.x. I have installed the Google >> Play Store on it. There are very few apps that I've found won't >> work, and so far I've found acceptable workarounds for those. IMO >> older Android OS versions are still quite usable. > There's a lot more app compatibility support for Android 5.x than > Android 4.x. I'm not sure how much 'more' compatibility there is between OS versions. It depends on the app you're trying to install whether it works or not. Bottom line is to just try it. Just recently the Google store refused to download an app to my Fire OS tablet. Said it wouldn't work. So I downloaded it to one of my later version Android 7.0 tablets and then sideloaded it back to the Fire Tablet. Worked fine. Nothing ventured, nothing gained...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-31 15:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <g3u1mrF1q0gU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #56979 |
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: > when I say my 'phone has > Android 4.2.2, most of the respondents have been rather sneering about > my chance of getting anywhere with "such an old version". Well it *is* an ancient version in the timeline of phones, I'd say it's on the verge of being declared "too old" to run various apps, 4.2 is "hidden in the noise" with only 1.5% of all devices running it. <https://developer.android.com/about/dashboards> My initial comments were mainly along the lines that I can't remember what the differences are for early versions, and potentially manufacturer customised versions, so it becomes harder to help people with old phones.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-31 18:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <prd1bu.pho.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #56979 |
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> wrote: [...] > That's not the impression I get in this thread: when I say my 'phone has > Android 4.2.2, most of the respondents have been rather sneering about > my chance of getting anywhere with "such an old version". (_I_didn't > think it had changed much either.) As I mentioned, my old phone has 4.1.1 and sofar there's been only *one* app which does no longer get updates unless you're on 6.0. And that app is a rather bad one. That has been my typical experience: If an app is no longer supported on an old(er) Android version, it's probably a crappy one anyway. I've had some rather heated 'discussions' with some (Android) app 'developers' who insisted that the new version of their app could only be developed for rather new Android versions. In all cases it was BS, because similar apps do exist, which *do* run on old(er) Android versions. I.e. the limitation is the developer, not the Android version. > I'm unlikely to replace it - it seems yet another bandwagon I don't want > to get on at the moment - but what version _would_ you buy, if buying > now? I just looked at ebay, specifying _new_ 'phones only, and they > seemed to range (at the bottom end anyway) from 5.1 to 8.1. Which seems > a big range to me. I'd have expected a narrower spread, with maybe a > _few_ of the older version, but there seem to be quite a _lot_ of the > 5.1 ones, and _very_ many 7.0. For a new smartphone, you should go with 8.0/8.1 and a manafacturer which has a good track record for providing updates/upgrades for a longer period of time (several years). IMO, there's no point for going for pre-8.0 for a new smartphone. There should be enough choices, also in the 'lower' price range.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-31 15:11 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <311020181511077514%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #56991 |
In article <prd1bu.pho.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote: > > I've had some rather heated 'discussions' with some (Android) app > 'developers' who insisted that the new version of their app could only > be developed for rather new Android versions. In all cases it was BS, > because similar apps do exist, which *do* run on old(er) Android > versions. I.e. the limitation is the developer, not the Android version. it's a choice, not a limitation. developers choose to not support older versions of android (or other os) because they want to use newer apis that are in newer versions, plus it's additional testing and support, which is already a daunting task given the number of devices and os versions. the number of users using older systems isn't worth the effort. > > I'm unlikely to replace it - it seems yet another bandwagon I don't want > > to get on at the moment - but what version _would_ you buy, if buying > > now? I just looked at ebay, specifying _new_ 'phones only, and they > > seemed to range (at the bottom end anyway) from 5.1 to 8.1. Which seems > > a big range to me. I'd have expected a narrower spread, with maybe a > > _few_ of the older version, but there seem to be quite a _lot_ of the > > 5.1 ones, and _very_ many 7.0. > > For a new smartphone, you should go with 8.0/8.1 and a manafacturer > which has a good track record for providing updates/upgrades for a > longer period of time (several years). yep. > IMO, there's no point for going for pre-8.0 for a new smartphone. > There should be enough choices, also in the 'lower' price range. there are, but they probably won't get updates as long as a higher tier product, if they do at all. there's very little motivation for a device maker to update android for a $50 phone versus a $500 phone. the google pixel and samsung galaxy series are likely to get the longest support, but they're not a low price tier.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-31 21:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <a$BW4LHq4h2bFw2b@255soft.uk> |
| In reply to | #56996 |
In message <311020181511077514%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> writes: >In article <prd1bu.pho.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg ><this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote: [] >> IMO, there's no point for going for pre-8.0 for a new smartphone. >> There should be enough choices, also in the 'lower' price range. > >there are, but they probably won't get updates as long as a higher tier >product, if they do at all. > >there's very little motivation for a device maker to update android for >a $50 phone versus a $500 phone. But, once you've bought it, what's the incentive for the maker to update it even for the $500 one? > >the google pixel and samsung galaxy series are likely to get the >longest support, but they're not a low price tier. I don't think I've ever seen a manufacture (of cheap or expensive units, well-known or not) guarantee updates. Though maybe some do. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf "I do not feel obliged to believe that the God who endowed me with sense, reason, and intellect intends me to forego their use". - Gallileo Gallilei
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-31 17:58 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <311020181758370500%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #57006 |
In article <a$BW4LHq4h2bFw2b@255soft.uk>, J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> wrote: > >> IMO, there's no point for going for pre-8.0 for a new smartphone. > >> There should be enough choices, also in the 'lower' price range. > > > >there are, but they probably won't get updates as long as a higher tier > >product, if they do at all. > > > >there's very little motivation for a device maker to update android for > >a $50 phone versus a $500 phone. > > But, once you've bought it, what's the incentive for the maker to update > it even for the $500 one? customer satisfaction, making it more likely someone will choose the same brand for their next device as well as recommend it to others. unhappy customers are more likely to switch to a competitor. > >the google pixel and samsung galaxy series are likely to get the > >longest support, but they're not a low price tier. > > I don't think I've ever seen a manufacture (of cheap or expensive units, > well-known or not) guarantee updates. Though maybe some do. google guarantees 3 years of updates for the pixel (and 2 years for the first version): <https://support.google.com/pixelphone/answer/4457705?hl=en> € Pixel 3 (2018) and Pixel 2 (2017) phones get Android version updates for at least 3 years from when the device first became available on the Google Store. After 3 years, we can't guarantee more updates. € Pixel (2016) phones get Android version updates for at least 2 years from when the device first became available on the Google Store. After 2 years, we can't guarantee more updates. oreo (and later) split off the device dependent parts, making it easier for google to push updates without involving the device maker, so theoretically, android updates should improve, but the device must be running oreo (or later). as of right now, that's roughly 25% of devices. microsoft also has timelines for support: <https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/13853/windows-lifecycle-fact-s heet>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-31 22:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <Y$vWYoKSii2bFwH4@255soft.uk> |
| In reply to | #57010 |
In message <311020181758370500%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> writes: [] >customer satisfaction, making it more likely someone will choose the >same brand for their next device as well as recommend it to others. > >unhappy customers are more likely to switch to a competitor. (So you're just _hoping_ the company will behave in the future as they have in the past. Apart from the guarantees below.) [] >google guarantees 3 years of updates for the pixel (and 2 years for the >first version): > ><https://support.google.com/pixelphone/answer/4457705?hl=en> > € Pixel 3 (2018) and Pixel 2 (2017) phones get Android version > updates for at least 3 years from when the device first became > available on the Google Store. After 3 years, we can't guarantee > more updates. > € Pixel (2016) phones get Android version updates for at least 2 > years from when the device first became available on the Google > Store. After 2 years, we can't guarantee more updates. Thanks for that information. (Out of curiosity, are we past the point in 2018 when 2016 ones have been out for two years - and _are_ they still getting updates?) > >oreo (and later) split off the device dependent parts, making it easier >for google to push updates without involving the device maker, so >theoretically, android updates should improve, but the device must be >running oreo (or later). as of right now, that's roughly 25% of >devices. What number is oreo - eight point something? > >microsoft also has timelines for support: ><https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/13853/windows-lifecycle-fact-s >heet> Indeed. (Though a lot of software is still made that works with even XP, and certainly 7.) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind. - Mahatma Gandhi (according to the film Gandhi [1982])
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-31 18:25 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <311020181825166414%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #57013 |
In article <Y$vWYoKSii2bFwH4@255soft.uk>, J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> wrote: > >google guarantees 3 years of updates for the pixel (and 2 years for the > >first version): > > > ><https://support.google.com/pixelphone/answer/4457705?hl=en> > > ¤ Pixel 3 (2018) and Pixel 2 (2017) phones get Android version > > updates for at least 3 years from when the device first became > > available on the Google Store. After 3 years, we can't guarantee > > more updates. > > ¤ Pixel (2016) phones get Android version updates for at least 2 > > years from when the device first became available on the Google > > Store. After 2 years, we can't guarantee more updates. > > Thanks for that information. (Out of curiosity, are we past the point in > 2018 when 2016 ones have been out for two years - and _are_ they still > getting updates?) october 2018 for system updates, october 2019 for security updates. it's possible there may be additional updates, but it's not guaranteed. > >oreo (and later) split off the device dependent parts, making it easier > >for google to push updates without involving the device maker, so > >theoretically, android updates should improve, but the device must be > >running oreo (or later). as of right now, that's roughly 25% of > >devices. > > What number is oreo - eight point something? yep. 8.x <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_version_history> > >microsoft also has timelines for support: > ><https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/13853/windows-lifecycle-fact-s > >heet> > Indeed. (Though a lot of software is still made that works with even XP, > and certainly 7.) recent software generally cuts off at 7, sometimes even 8. there's a huge difference between xp & 7.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-01 07:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <g3vo60Fcf7lU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #57013 |
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: > Out of curiosity, are we past the point in > 2018 when 2016 ones have been out for two years - and _are_ they still > getting updates? I bought my 5X in september 2015, it came with 6.0, got upgrades to 7.0, 7.1, 8.0 and 8.1 but will not receive 9.0, it received a monthly fix in October, it remains to be seen if it will get one more this month, but barring some easy to fix gaping security hole I doubt it'll get any more after that ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-01 07:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <g3vno7Fcbg1U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #57006 |
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: > I don't think I've ever seen a manufacture (of cheap or expensive units, > well-known or not) guarantee updates. Though maybe some do. Google guarantee major upgrades for at least 2 years, and monthly security fixes for at least 3 years. Recent developments include Project Treble and Android One (silly name) that make it easier for manufacturers to release updates, indeed Nokia released an Android Pie phone before Google released the Pixel3 (though google upgraded the Pixel2 before that)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android
csiph-web