Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #120335 > unrolled thread

Tim Cook just literally said his customer is unfathomably stupid!

Started by	arlen holder <arlen@arlen.com>
First post	2019-01-09 23:24 +0000
Last post	2019-10-31 01:29 -0700
Articles	20 on this page of 164 — 15 participants

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Page 4 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →

#120472

From	nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Date	2019-01-12 19:31 -0500
Message-ID	<120120191931225039%nospam@nospam.invalid>
In reply to	#120468

In article <Fbv_D.37404$gz4.27938@fx05.iad>, JF Mezei
<jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> 
> > there are rumours of an iphone se replacement, which historically has
> > been updated in the spring.
> 
> Except Apple widthdrew the still current SE last fall despite IOS still
> supporting it.

one has nothing to do with the other.

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

#120474

From	sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
Date	2019-01-12 17:53 -0800
Message-ID	<q1e5mn$98d$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#120468

On 1/12/2019 3:59 PM, JF Mezei wrote:

> I think the idea would be to market a phone with a speed it can
> maintain, as opposed to marketing it with a super duper speed that gets
> throttled back and people complaining it isn't delivering on promised
> performance.

As long as customers are aware that the speed may be reduced I think 
it's okay. In the tear-downs, it was shown that the 8 and the X had 
hardware changes that allow even a degraded battery to supply sufficient 
current.

Throttling due to thermal issues is also a possibility, and you see that 
on a great many devices where the thermal solution is not sufficient to 
permit continuous operation at maximum processor load.

They can market the same phone with a lower processor speed that will 
not throttle and that will increase time between charging, they just 
have to make that a choice in the settings. Android finally introduced 
extensive battery optimization choices in Android 9 (Pie). You can also 
choose to do throttling at as high as 75% battery capacity or as low as 
5% battery capacity. iOS has always had a very different philosophy when 
it comes to users having the ability to do such extensive configuration 
of such settings because users shouldn't be bothered with all those 
choices, it should all happen automatically.

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

#120657

From	arlen holder <arlen@arlen.com>
Date	2019-01-16 02:51 +0000
Message-ID	<q1m684$s0o$1@news.mixmin.net>
In reply to	#120474

On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 17:53:27 -0800, sms wrote:

> As long as customers are aware that the speed may be reduced I think 
> it's okay. In the tear-downs, it was shown that the 8 and the X had 
> hardware changes that allow even a degraded battery to supply sufficient 
> current.

Hi sms,
Are you aware that _all_ the iPhones from the past few years are throttled?
Apple essentially lied to Congress way back in February.

Clearly, they were simply stalling for time by telling Congress that the
throttling wasn't "as necessary" (note the clever word "as") on the iPhone
8 series and the iPhone X.

Now, EVERYONE gets this wonderful "performance enhancement" feature!
o You must choose either unacceptably degraded stability...
o Or, choose unacceptably degraded CPU speeds.
(You MUST pick one!)

> Throttling due to thermal issues is also a possibility, and you see that 
> on a great many devices where the thermal solution is not sufficient to 
> permit continuous operation at maximum processor load.

After sufficient time had passed from that little lie, Apple quietly added
the "throttling feature" to the iPhone X & 8 series on or about Halloween
last year.

Now, even iPhone 8 and iPhone X model users have the wonderful choice:
o You can opt for grossly degraded CPU speeds, or, 
o You can opt for grossly degraded stability.
(You MUST pick one.)

> They can market the same phone with a lower processor speed that will 
> not throttle and that will increase time between charging, they just 
> have to make that a choice in the settings. Android finally introduced 
> extensive battery optimization choices in Android 9 (Pie). You can also 
> choose to do throttling at as high as 75% battery capacity or as low as 
> 5% battery capacity. iOS has always had a very different philosophy when 
> it comes to users having the ability to do such extensive configuration 
> of such settings because users shouldn't be bothered with all those 
> choices, it should all happen automatically.

But wait. It gets better.
All evidence shows that this same "throttling feature" will be on the
iPhone XR and XS phones. Woo hoo.

Now you too can spend from $1000 to $1500 for an expensive iPhone 
that has _this_ wonderful "performance enhancement feature!!!!!!"
o Please choose unacceptable stability, or, 
o Please choose unacceptable CPU speeds.
(You MUST pick one.)

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

#120658

From	Alan Baker <nunya@ness.biz>
Date	2019-01-15 19:00 -0800
Message-ID	<q1m6o5$13mj$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#120657

On 2019-01-15 6:51 p.m., arlen holder wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 17:53:27 -0800, sms wrote:
> 
>> As long as customers are aware that the speed may be reduced I think
>> it's okay. In the tear-downs, it was shown that the 8 and the X had
>> hardware changes that allow even a degraded battery to supply sufficient
>> current.
> 
> Hi sms,
> Are you aware that _all_ the iPhones from the past few years are throttled?

You state that as a fact... ...but provide no proof.

> Apple essentially lied to Congress way back in February.
> 
> Clearly, they were simply stalling for time by telling Congress that the
> throttling wasn't "as necessary" (note the clever word "as") on the iPhone
> 8 series and the iPhone X.

Since you've started with an unproven assertion, none of your 
assumptions based on your assertion are worth anything.

> 
> Now, EVERYONE gets this wonderful "performance enhancement" feature!
> o You must choose either unacceptably degraded stability...
> o Or, choose unacceptably degraded CPU speeds.
> (You MUST pick one!)

Supra.

> 
>> Throttling due to thermal issues is also a possibility, and you see that
>> on a great many devices where the thermal solution is not sufficient to
>> permit continuous operation at maximum processor load.
> 
> After sufficient time had passed from that little lie, Apple quietly added
> the "throttling feature" to the iPhone X & 8 series on or about Halloween
> last year.

You state that as a fact... ...but provide no proof.

> 
> Now, even iPhone 8 and iPhone X model users have the wonderful choice:
> o You can opt for grossly degraded CPU speeds, or,
> o You can opt for grossly degraded stability.
> (You MUST pick one.)
> 
>> They can market the same phone with a lower processor speed that will
>> not throttle and that will increase time between charging, they just
>> have to make that a choice in the settings. Android finally introduced
>> extensive battery optimization choices in Android 9 (Pie). You can also
>> choose to do throttling at as high as 75% battery capacity or as low as
>> 5% battery capacity. iOS has always had a very different philosophy when
>> it comes to users having the ability to do such extensive configuration
>> of such settings because users shouldn't be bothered with all those
>> choices, it should all happen automatically.
> 
> But wait. It gets better.
> All evidence shows that this same "throttling feature" will be on the
> iPhone XR and XS phones. Woo hoo.

And now you go on to making predictions based on unproven assertions...

> 
> Now you too can spend from $1000 to $1500 for an expensive iPhone
> that has _this_ wonderful "performance enhancement feature!!!!!!"
> o Please choose unacceptable stability, or,
> o Please choose unacceptable CPU speeds.
> (You MUST pick one.)
>

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

#120659

From	arlen holder <arlen@arlen.com>
Date	2019-01-16 03:24 +0000
Message-ID	<q1m854$v14$1@news.mixmin.net>
In reply to	#120657

On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 02:51:49 -0000 (UTC), arlen holder wrote:

> Are you aware that _all_ the iPhones from the past few years are throttled?
> Apple essentially lied to Congress way back in February.

Hi sms,

In case you're unaware of what nospam & Jolly Roger & Alan Baker
and Elden are _clearly_ unaware of ... here is a detailed reference
containing the facts that underlie my belief system ... since I only speak
fact.
o Every indication is that the new line of astronomically-priced Apple iPhones are just as flawed as the iPhone 6 to 7 to 8 to X are
 <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/1RiqBADD-vE>
NOTE: That reference covers all the new iPhones for three years' time.

I don't include you in that set of Apologist ignorati, sms, but what is
supremely shocking is not so much how _unfathomably_ ignorant
the Apple Apologist ignorati are, but how they claim with such religious
conviction that facts are lies, or that facts are trolls ... when... 

When.... facts are merely facts.
Facts, to adults, are nothing more than facts.

But, to Apple Apologist ignorati - facts are downright scary!
o I've studied that Apologists for years.
o Facts are their biggest weakness.

Their Apologist ignorati religious belief system leaves no room for facts.
Hence, I supply the facts for my claim (which comes from the facts).

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

#120660

From	Alan Baker <nunya@ness.biz>
Date	2019-01-15 19:47 -0800
Message-ID	<q1m9hb$1fih$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#120659

On 2019-01-15 7:24 p.m., arlen holder wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 02:51:49 -0000 (UTC), arlen holder wrote:
> 
>> Are you aware that _all_ the iPhones from the past few years are throttled?
>> Apple essentially lied to Congress way back in February.
> 
> Hi sms,
> 
> In case you're unaware of what nospam & Jolly Roger & Alan Baker
> and Elden are _clearly_ unaware of ... here is a detailed reference
> containing the facts that underlie my belief system ... since I only speak
> fact.
> o Every indication is that the new line of astronomically-priced Apple iPhones are just as flawed as the iPhone 6 to 7 to 8 to X are
>   <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/1RiqBADD-vE>
> NOTE: That reference covers all the new iPhones for three years' time.

That is not a "detailed reference": that is a post made by you.

Or do you just not know the difference?

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

#120460

From	JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca>
Date	2019-01-12 14:05 -0500
Message-ID	<gUq_D.52166$Z45.18325@fx44.iad>
In reply to	#120453

On 2019-01-12 11:09, sms wrote:

> The cameras on the Xs are much better than those on the Xr, so just 
> think of the price difference as eliminating the need to purchase (and 
> carry) a separate camera.

Technically, the XR has the same wide angle camera and lens as the XS.

But the XS has the 2x optical zoom as a separate camera and software to
make use of both cameras. In situations when you don't want wide angle,
the XS gives you full resolution images whereas the XR gives you half
resolution images (since software zoom only uses a portion of the full
resolution wide angle sensor)

The difference in image quality is very substantial for outdoor
landscape shots where wide angle is undesirable.

Having the 2 cameras with different focal lengths also allows fancy
tricks like faking depth of field in portrait shots. (I do not use this
but it is still a feature).

So the XS gives you much better resolution display as well as the zoom
camera and added photographic features. It is also significantly
physically smaller despite its screen being as big as the XR.

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

#120465

From	arlen holder <arlen@arlen.com>
Date	2019-01-12 21:10 +0000
Message-ID	<q1dl3m$hrn$1@news.mixmin.net>
In reply to	#120453

On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 08:09:33 -0800, sms wrote:

> The cameras on the Xs are much better than those on the Xr, so just 
> think of the price difference as eliminating the need to purchase (and 
> carry) a separate camera.

Hi sms,
I disagree with nothing you said, where I just want to mention "logic".
(An iPhone purchase can rarely be based on logic.)

FACT:
o You can get a good phone & a good camera for *less* than the iPhone XS!

Logically, if you're going to use these three words together:
o Phone
o Camera
o Price

Logically, I would suggest that other choices works out better.
As just one of almost infinite examples...

o Buy a $143 Android phone (includes tax) 
o Which gives you a "decent" (13 MP, 1/3", 1.12痠, AF) emergency camera 
o <https://www.gsmarena.com/lg_stylo_3_plus-8694.php>

o That leaves very well over a thousand bucks on the table for a camera.
 <https://techcrunch.com/2018/09/12/here-are-the-prices-of-the-iphone-xs-xs-max-and-xr/>

HINT:  Any well-chosen camera over $1000 will have a far better lens.

In summary, whenever someone "claims" an iPhone is 'for the camera', it's
sort of like when I hear politicians say it's 'for the kids'. In general,
the logic is such that buying an iPhone 'for the camera' defies logic.

FACT:
o You can get a good phone & a good camera for *less* than the iPhone XS!

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

#120467

From	Alan Baker <nunya@ness.biz>
Date	2019-01-12 15:15 -0800
Message-ID	<q1ds6j$1uld$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#120465

On 2019-01-12 1:10 p.m., arlen holder wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 08:09:33 -0800, sms wrote:
> 
>> The cameras on the Xs are much better than those on the Xr, so just
>> think of the price difference as eliminating the need to purchase (and
>> carry) a separate camera.
> 
> Hi sms,
> I disagree with nothing you said, where I just want to mention "logic".
> (An iPhone purchase can rarely be based on logic.)
> 
> FACT:
> o You can get a good phone & a good camera for *less* than the iPhone XS!

Indeed you can.

There are several iPhones you can buy that qualify.

> 
> Logically, if you're going to use these three words together:
> o Phone
> o Camera
> o Price
> 
> Logically, I would suggest that other choices works out better.
> As just one of almost infinite examples...
> 
> o Buy a $143 Android phone (includes tax)
> o Which gives you a "decent" (13 MP, 1/3", 1.12µm, AF) emergency camera
> o <https://www.gsmarena.com/lg_stylo_3_plus-8694.php>

You put "decent" in quotes...

...but that term doesn't appear in the link you provided.

> 
> o That leaves very well over a thousand bucks on the table for a camera.
>   <https://techcrunch.com/2018/09/12/here-are-the-prices-of-the-iphone-xs-xs-max-and-xr/>
> 
> HINT:  Any well-chosen camera over $1000 will have a far better lens.

Hint: the least expensive iPhone Xs starts at $999, so subtracting $143 
leaves only $856 for the camera.

Hint: your own source told you that, so what you just did either reveals 
you as a liar or a fool.

I leave it to you to choose.

> 
> In summary, whenever someone "claims" an iPhone is 'for the camera', it's
> sort of like when I hear politicians say it's 'for the kids'. In general,
> the logic is such that buying an iPhone 'for the camera' defies logic.
> 
> FACT:
> o You can get a good phone & a good camera for *less* than the iPhone XS!

And have to carry around two devices all the time...

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

#120438

From	"dkol" <dkol@gmail.com>
Date	2019-01-12 14:19 +1100
Message-ID	<g9t4msFsj0uU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#120420


"Tim Streater" <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote in message 
news:110120191123422909%timstreater@greenbee.net...
> In article <g9q2msF832jU1@mid.individual.net>, dkol <dkol@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>"Tim Streater" <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote in message 
>>news:100120192227097645%timstreater@greenbee.net...
>>> In article <2L-dnbJT1IJkIqrBnZ2dnUU7-ROdnZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
>>> <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 2019-01-10 11:18, Tim Streater wrote:
>>>>> In article <100120191009424362%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam
>>>>> <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article <q17ecl$4vq$1@dont-email.me>, sms
>>>>>> <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When my sister-in-law recently switched from her old Samsung Galaxy 
>>>>>>> S3 to an iPhone 7, she asked me for help. When I could not figure 
>>>>>>> out how to do what she wanted on the iPhone she went to the Genius 
>>>>>>> Bar at a local Apple store. Unfortunately, the Genius Bar employee 
>>>>>>> explained to her what I had also learned by Googling it, the feature 
>>>>>>> she used every work day on her Galaxy S3 was not available on the 
>>>>>>> iPhone.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> meanwhile, there were shitloads of things the iphone did that the
>>>>>> samsung did not, especially an old galaxy s3.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> no device does everything.
>>>>>
>>>>> And it's unclear that smart phones do very much of anything that's of
>>>>> use anyway, whoever makes them. I took email off mine since it's not
>>>>> secure; I don't use the camera. Apart from phoning, about the only
>>>>> thing that's of any actual use to me might be the Google Calendar app.
>>>>
>>>>SSL much?  ie: no less secure that a properly setup personal computer's 
>>>>e-mail.
>>>
>>> SSL is neither here nor there in this context, unless the mail client
>>> uses some smarts about not letting URLs and <img> downloads effectively
>>> phone home to the spammer.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>As to "much of anything that's of use"?  Very long list beginning with 
>>>>messages, web access, e-mail, navigation, contacts, and too much more to 
>>>>list...
>>>>
>>>>The camera is useful for countless things beyond snapshots.
>>>
>>> Ah, you mean for those bank robberies, plane crashes, tsunamis,
>>> earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions that occur on a daily basis where
>>> you are?
>>
>>Nope, for taking a photo of the shelf price when shopping
>>around, taking a photo of the model plate when looking
>>for a part for it when it had died
>
> For that I'll just take the old 6Mpx Sony I bought in 2003 or whenever,
> for the very few occasions when I wanted to do that.

The difference is that the smartphone is always close
and always with you when out of the house so you
don’t need to plan that, just do it when you need to.

>>taking a photo of something
>>like a sim which has printing on it too small and feint to read
>>so you can read the number from the photo, taking a photo
>>of the other car that has just run into you, and the driver etc.
>
> Last time anyone ran into me was in 1985. I'd say a dashcam at £30
> would be a much better buy.

Doesn’t work in plenty of situations like the last time
that happened to me, stupid cow charged out of the
parking place in one of those big supermarket car
parks without even looking, as I was backing out
of mine, and proceeded to demolish her plastic
front bumper on my tow bar. She had a massive
great gouge down the side of her car as well.
Handy to have a photo of that if she had been
stupid enough to try to claim that the accident
wasn’t her fault.

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

#120409

From	Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com>
Date	2019-01-10 18:31 -0500
Message-ID	<be-dndvliPhaSKrBnZ2dnUU7-KvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to	#120406

On 2019-01-10 17:27, Tim Streater wrote:
> In article <2L-dnbJT1IJkIqrBnZ2dnUU7-ROdnZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
> <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 2019-01-10 11:18, Tim Streater wrote:
>>> In article <100120191009424362%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam
>>> <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <q17ecl$4vq$1@dont-email.me>, sms
>>>> <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> When my sister-in-law recently switched from her old Samsung Galaxy 
>>>>> S3 to an iPhone 7, she asked me for help. When I could not figure 
>>>>> out how to do what she wanted on the iPhone she went to the Genius 
>>>>> Bar at a local Apple store. Unfortunately, the Genius Bar employee 
>>>>> explained to her what I had also learned by Googling it, the 
>>>>> feature she used every work day on her Galaxy S3 was not available 
>>>>> on the iPhone.
>>>>
>>>> meanwhile, there were shitloads of things the iphone did that the
>>>> samsung did not, especially an old galaxy s3.
>>>>
>>>> no device does everything.
>>>
>>> And it's unclear that smart phones do very much of anything that's of
>>> use anyway, whoever makes them. I took email off mine since it's not
>>> secure; I don't use the camera. Apart from phoning, about the only
>>> thing that's of any actual use to me might be the Google Calendar app.
>>
>> SSL much?  ie: no less secure that a properly setup personal 
>> computer's e-mail.
> 
> SSL is neither here nor there in this context, unless the mail client
> uses some smarts about not letting URLs and <img> downloads effectively
> phone home to the spammer.

Turn off "load images" in Mail settings.  Even you could do it with a 
little coaching.

Not hitting URL's might be your responsibility, alas.

> 
>>
>> As to "much of anything that's of use"?  Very long list beginning with 
>> messages, web access, e-mail, navigation, contacts, and too much more 
>> to list...
>>
>> The camera is useful for countless things beyond snapshots.
> 
> Ah, you mean for those bank robberies, plane crashes, tsunamis,
> earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions that occur on a daily basis where
> you are? Life is quieter here.

I didn't mean any of those at all ... if you have no imagination then 
that's ... well, not surprising.


-- 
"2/3 of Donald Trump's wives were immigrants.  Proof that we
  need immigrants to do jobs that most Americans wouldn't do."
                                           - unknown protester

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

#120421

From	Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net>
Date	2019-01-11 11:26 +0000
Message-ID	<110120191126393553%timstreater@greenbee.net>
In reply to	#120409

In article <be-dndvliPhaSKrBnZ2dnUU7-KvNnZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
<bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:

>On 2019-01-10 17:27, Tim Streater wrote:
>> In article <2L-dnbJT1IJkIqrBnZ2dnUU7-ROdnZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
>> <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 2019-01-10 11:18, Tim Streater wrote:
>>>> In article <100120191009424362%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam
>>>> <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <q17ecl$4vq$1@dont-email.me>, sms
>>>>> <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> When my sister-in-law recently switched from her old Samsung Galaxy 
>>>>>> S3 to an iPhone 7, she asked me for help. When I could not figure 
>>>>>> out how to do what she wanted on the iPhone she went to the Genius 
>>>>>> Bar at a local Apple store. Unfortunately, the Genius Bar employee 
>>>>>> explained to her what I had also learned by Googling it, the 
>>>>>> feature she used every work day on her Galaxy S3 was not available 
>>>>>> on the iPhone.
>>>>>
>>>>> meanwhile, there were shitloads of things the iphone did that the
>>>>> samsung did not, especially an old galaxy s3.
>>>>>
>>>>> no device does everything.
>>>>
>>>> And it's unclear that smart phones do very much of anything that's of
>>>> use anyway, whoever makes them. I took email off mine since it's not
>>>> secure; I don't use the camera. Apart from phoning, about the only
>>>> thing that's of any actual use to me might be the Google Calendar app.
>>>
>>> SSL much?  ie: no less secure that a properly setup personal 
>>> computer's e-mail.
>> 
>> SSL is neither here nor there in this context, unless the mail client
>> uses some smarts about not letting URLs and <img> downloads effectively
>> phone home to the spammer.
>
>Turn off "load images" in Mail settings.  Even you could do it with a 
>little coaching.

Much better to do what I did with my email client. Implement it such
that mails in the Inbox don't load images until you open them (you can
see enough in the preview area to decide whether to open them or mark
them as spam) or until you explicitly move them into another mailbox.

Much more user friendly.

-- 
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an
endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

HL Mencken

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

#120427

From	Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com>
Date	2019-01-11 12:28 -0500
Message-ID	<rfKdnfl0wLC2T6XBnZ2dnUU7-cGdnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to	#120421

On 2019-01-11 06:26, Tim Streater wrote:
> In article <be-dndvliPhaSKrBnZ2dnUU7-KvNnZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
> <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 2019-01-10 17:27, Tim Streater wrote:
>>> In article <2L-dnbJT1IJkIqrBnZ2dnUU7-ROdnZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
>>> <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2019-01-10 11:18, Tim Streater wrote:
>>>>> In article <100120191009424362%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam
>>>>> <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article <q17ecl$4vq$1@dont-email.me>, sms
>>>>>> <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When my sister-in-law recently switched from her old Samsung 
>>>>>>> Galaxy S3 to an iPhone 7, she asked me for help. When I could not 
>>>>>>> figure out how to do what she wanted on the iPhone she went to 
>>>>>>> the Genius Bar at a local Apple store. Unfortunately, the Genius 
>>>>>>> Bar employee explained to her what I had also learned by Googling 
>>>>>>> it, the feature she used every work day on her Galaxy S3 was not 
>>>>>>> available on the iPhone.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> meanwhile, there were shitloads of things the iphone did that the
>>>>>> samsung did not, especially an old galaxy s3.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> no device does everything.
>>>>>
>>>>> And it's unclear that smart phones do very much of anything that's of
>>>>> use anyway, whoever makes them. I took email off mine since it's not
>>>>> secure; I don't use the camera. Apart from phoning, about the only
>>>>> thing that's of any actual use to me might be the Google Calendar app.
>>>>
>>>> SSL much?  ie: no less secure that a properly setup personal 
>>>> computer's e-mail.
>>>
>>> SSL is neither here nor there in this context, unless the mail client
>>> uses some smarts about not letting URLs and <img> downloads effectively
>>> phone home to the spammer.
>>
>> Turn off "load images" in Mail settings.  Even you could do it with a 
>> little coaching.
> 
> Much better to do what I did with my email client. Implement it such
> that mails in the Inbox don't load images until you open them (you can
> see enough in the preview area to decide whether to open them or mark
> them as spam) or until you explicitly move them into another mailbox.
> 
> Much more user friendly.

1. But not portable as a phone - which is what is being discussed.
2. What I mentioned works fine - get a mail you don't trust, ignore it 
and of course the images were never loaded.

You're pedaling hard against a device you don't seem to understand at all...


-- 
"2/3 of Donald Trump's wives were immigrants.  Proof that we
  need immigrants to do jobs that most Americans wouldn't do."
                                           - unknown protester

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

#120487

From	arlen holder <arlen@arlen.com>
Date	2019-01-13 14:45 +0000
Message-ID	<q1fits$5mk$1@news.mixmin.net>
In reply to	#120384

On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 16:18:49 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

> And it's unclear that smart phones do very much of anything that's of
> use anyway,

According to Tim Cook, they're indispensable - so - people will pay
astronomical prices for Apple-branded iPhones!

Further proof that Tim Cook lied... (he thinks his customer is an idiot)
is in this September report - which negates any "surprise" that Tim Cook
can claim...
o Apple Defends iPhone Pricing. Again.
o CEO Tim Cook finds ways to justify the iPhone XS & XS Max's hefty cost.
<https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/09/18/apple-defends-iphone-pricing-again.aspx>

"Pricing was the only real surprise this year, as many analysts expected
Apple to reduce the flagship price in order to sell more units."

"Responding to the inevitable question on pricing, Cook again pointed to
installment plans where many people pay $30 per month, or "about $1 a day."
Note that an installment plan for a fully loaded iPhone XS Max that has a
$30 monthly payment still requires a $730 payment up front -- or about the
full cost of another, less expensive iPhone. "

Ahem ... please add the sales tax, which, where I live is over a hundred
additional up-front bucks (so that's about $850 up front - and THEN you can
BEGIN your "dollar a day" installments!).

Notice that September article says what Tim Cook lied about being a
"surprise", since it's not a surprise to anyone (but Tim Cook), that...

  "The real reason why iPhone prices are going up: iPhone unit volumes have
plateaued, and iPhone price increases have driven essentially all iPhone
revenue growth over the past year. Additionally, phone upgrade cycles have
been getting steadily longer for years, as most years' improvements are
increasingly incremental. Much like what investors are seeing play out in
other sectors like movie theaters and restaurants, when unit volumes are
stagnant, companies often turn to price increases to compensate."

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

#120391

From	arlen holder <arlen@arlen.com>
Date	2019-01-10 18:23 +0000
Message-ID	<q182iq$qi3$1@news.mixmin.net>
In reply to	#120383

On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 10:09:42 -0500, nospam wrote:

> meanwhile, there were shitloads of things the iphone did that the
> samsung did not, especially an old galaxy s3.
> 
> no device does everything.

Name just one, nospam.

(Other than the API I noted about a week ago from a Christmas party.)
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/8pwhejHrm-k/AQTnOevcEwAJ>

Name just one.

No silly semantic games, nospam. 

You know the rules...
o App functionality (not branding or trademarks - but actual functionality)
o All by its itty bitty self (not iTunes abominations requiring a PC)
o Non jailbroken (you love to play that game, now don't you nospam)

*Name just one.*

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

#120394

From	nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Date	2019-01-10 14:05 -0500
Message-ID	<100120191405403832%nospam@nospam.invalid>
In reply to	#120391

In article <q182iq$qi3$1@news.mixmin.net>, arlen holder
<arlen@arlen.com> wrote:

> 
> > meanwhile, there were shitloads of things the iphone did that the
> > samsung did not, especially an old galaxy s3.
> > 
> > no device does everything.
> 
> Name just one, nospam.

been there, done that. you ignore anything that proves you wrong, such
as:

> (Other than the API I noted about a week ago from a Christmas party.)

that counts.

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

#120396

From	arlen holder <arlen@arlen.com>
Date	2019-01-10 20:19 +0000
Message-ID	<q189d4$4fv$1@news.mixmin.net>
In reply to	#120394

On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 14:05:40 -0500, nospam wrote:

> been there, done that. you ignore anything that proves you wrong, such
> as:
> 
>> (Other than the API I noted about a week ago from a Christmas party.)
> 
> that counts.

I love it nospam.
You've got nothing. 
The only thing you've got is one minor API that I found out about.

What's amazing about you, nospam, is that I think you're actually not
stupid.

Everything (and I mean everything) you write indicates you're stupid.

But I think you're just ill educated.

For example, I know nothing about iOS, and yet, I _always_ seem to know far
more than you do.

Why is that almost always the case, nospam?
I think it's because you completely lack any formal education.

So, to you, it's quite "normal" to just spout your "nonsense" bullshit.
You have never been challenged to back up your statements.

If you were even slightly formally educated, you'd have been challenged.
Nobody can go through even an undergraduate education with your attitude.

You'd fail any class you took.
You wouldn't even make it to the second semester with the way you act.

So it's not really with malice that I put you in a different category from
the other blatant Apple Apologists like Alan Baker & Jolly Roger.

They prove to be truly stupid in everything they post.
You? 

You are just not used to dealing with intelligent people.
People who challenge the bullshit you spew sans a shred of facts.

I shouldn't blame you for being ill educated.
I should simply advise you that your credibility is worthless, nospam.

Your credibility is worthless because you're almost always wrong.
The monkey has a far better track record on facts, than you do.

It's not because you're stupid nospam.
It's because facts, to you, are utterly meaningless.

I blame that not on your lack of intelligence, but on your ill education.
You've never been called to account to back up your statements.

Any well educated person would ALWAYS back up what they say.
Or they wouldn't say it.

You haven't learned that lesson yet.
And, likely, you never will.

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

#120397

From	nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Date	2019-01-10 15:27 -0500
Message-ID	<100120191527569931%nospam@nospam.invalid>
In reply to	#120396

In article <q189d4$4fv$1@news.mixmin.net>, arlen holder
<arlen@arlen.com> wrote:

> 
> > been there, done that. you ignore anything that proves you wrong, such
> > as:
> > 
> >> (Other than the API I noted about a week ago from a Christmas party.)
> > 
> > that counts.
> 
> I love it nospam.
> You've got nothing. 
> The only thing you've got is one minor API that I found out about.

you asked for one item, and even provided it yourself.

however, there are shitloads more, most of which have been explained to
you numerous times.

as i said, you ignore them when it proves you wrong and try to weasel
out of it when you proved yourself wrong.

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

#120404

From	arlen holder <arlen@arlen.com>
Date	2019-01-10 22:14 +0000
Message-ID	<q18g49$cvd$1@news.mixmin.net>
In reply to	#120397

On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 15:27:56 -0500, nospam wrote:

> there are shitloads more, 
> most of which have been explained to you numerous times.

And yet, nospam, you can't even name a single app functionality 
that you claim is on iOS, all by its itty bitty self, that isn't _already_
on Android. 

Not a single one.
How you can make such brazen claims, with zero evidence, is odd.

It's clear you're not formally educated, as you wouldn't last a semester.
You're not dumb like Tim Streater is dumb. 
You're just not educated.

Hence, you're not used to discussing facts.
You simply make brazen claims that have no basis in fact.

You're highly "religious", in fact, in your thought process.
Your brain is wired for 'religion' (for religious type thought).

We can easily show that your factual record is worse than the monkey.
So all you have going for you, are two things:
o I don't think you're actually as dumb as you appear to be, and, 
o I think you're of a "religious-type" mindset - which requires no facts.

Even so, you _defend_ your religiously held convictions with the following
7 traits, where, unfortunately for you, that's all you've got:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/18ARDsEOPzM/VObNMvHqDAAJ>
=========================================================================== 
Common traits of Apple Apologists such as nospam clearly proves to be:

. They brazenly & repeatedly fabricate wholly imaginary app functionality 
. They then exclaim that it's been told to us many times how to do it! 
... 
. They almost never back up statements with actual referenced facts 
. They incessantly play childish semantic games when faced with those facts 
... 
. They consistently fabricate quoted content that never happened 
. They then wittily respond to that imaginary quoted content as if it did! 
... 
. They're never purposefully helpful by helping the OP answer the question 
. They post worthless retorts, all of which lack any added technical value 
... 
. They consistently blame Android for most of Apple's app & hardware faults 
. They consistently find the absolute worst price:performance comparisons 
... 
. They actually believe that a well-documented process is too complex! 
. They literally believe elapsed time is proof of actual resolution time. 
... 
. They deny facts a priori - without even reading the referenced facts! 
. And then they complain about quote snipping of their silly semantic games 
===========================================================================

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

#120424

From	Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com>
Date	2019-01-11 16:46 +0000
Message-ID	<g9rvjaFko1lU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#120397

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <q189d4$4fv$1@news.mixmin.net>, arlen holder
> <arlen@arlen.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>>> been there, done that. you ignore anything that proves you wrong, such
>>> as:
>>> 
>>>> (Other than the API I noted about a week ago from a Christmas party.)
>>> 
>>> that counts.
>> 
>> I love it nospam.
>> You've got nothing. 
>> The only thing you've got is one minor API that I found out about.
> 
> you asked for one item, and even provided it yourself.
> 
> however, there are shitloads more, most of which have been explained to
> you numerous times.
> 
> as i said, you ignore them when it proves you wrong and try to weasel
> out of it when you proved yourself wrong.

“arlen holder”, everyone: proving his complete ineptitude one post at a
time.

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

JR

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

Page 4 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →

csiph-web

Tim Cook just literally said his customer is unfathomably stupid!

Contents

#120472

#120474

#120657

#120658

#120659

#120660

#120460

#120465

#120467

#120438

#120409

#120421

#120427

#120487

#120391

#120394

#120396

#120397

#120404

#120424