In message <trojea$2is90$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:53:46 on Sun, 5 Feb
2023, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>On 05/02/2023 15:27, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <trdhhm$aff6$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:13:58 on Wed, 1 Feb
>>2023, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <tr9aet$3eg1n$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:48:29 on Mon, 30 Jan
>>>> 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>
>>>>> Pressing that brings up a screen of apps in alphabetical order. At the
>>>>> top of that screen is a search box).
>>>>
>>>> To get a list of apps, I can press: Settings.. General... Apps.. but
>>>> there's no 'search' and Voi is at the bottom of a very long list
>>>> (mindful that I would want to be searching for something with electric
>>>> scooter functionality, not some irrelevant name dreamed up by a
>>>> marketing person).
>>>
>>> Aren't the majority of business names "some irrelevant name dreamed
>>>up by a
>>> marketing person", or someone's (equally irrelevant to the product) name?
>>>
>>> Examples perhaps being Amstrad, Demon and Virgin.

>> I think Branson has a reasonable explanation for why he called the
>>company "Virgin", and Alan Michael Sugar Trading isn't a product, any
>>more than Thomas Edward Stockwell COhen.

>> By beef is much more with names like Demon's successor "Thus", and
>>as I mentioned earlier apps like "Bolt" and "Bright".
>
>First? One?

A quick scan through the 26 train booking apps on my phone doesn't have
either of those words in any of them.
--
Roland Perry

On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 16:54:58 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
<recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>Somewhat to my surprise, the bizarre O2 brand has been retained after the
>Virgin Media merger. My Virgin Mobile service already uses the O2 network,
>and the branding will also switch soon. The switch of networks happened
>seamlessly, and I only discovered this month that it had happened last
>year.

Possibly because the O2 brand is better known than Virgin Mobile when it
comes to phone networks.

There does seem to be a move away from the "one brand on everything"
approach by large, multi-operation companies. BT has retained the EE brand
following its acquisition, and is actively promoting that rather than its
own BT Mobile brand. And, dragging this thread back on topic, First Group no
longer overtly puts the group branding on its rail franchises.

Mark

On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 18:10:46 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

>In message <trojea$2is90$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:53:46 on Sun, 5 Feb
>2023, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>On 05/02/2023 15:27, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <trdhhm$aff6$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:13:58 on Wed, 1 Feb
>>>2023, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <tr9aet$3eg1n$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:48:29 on Mon, 30 Jan
>>>>> 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Pressing that brings up a screen of apps in alphabetical order. At the
>>>>>> top of that screen is a search box).
>>>>>
>>>>> To get a list of apps, I can press: Settings.. General... Apps.. but
>>>>> there's no 'search' and Voi is at the bottom of a very long list
>>>>> (mindful that I would want to be searching for something with electric
>>>>> scooter functionality, not some irrelevant name dreamed up by a
>>>>> marketing person).
>>>>
>>>> Aren't the majority of business names "some irrelevant name dreamed
>>>>up by a
>>>> marketing person", or someone's (equally irrelevant to the product) name?
>>>>
>>>> Examples perhaps being Amstrad, Demon and Virgin.
>
>>> I think Branson has a reasonable explanation for why he called the
>>>company "Virgin", and Alan Michael Sugar Trading isn't a product, any
>>>more than Thomas Edward Stockwell COhen.
>
>>> By beef is much more with names like Demon's successor "Thus", and
>>>as I mentioned earlier apps like "Bolt" and "Bright".
>>
>>First? One?
>
>A quick scan through the 26 train booking apps on my phone doesn't have
>either of those words in any of them.

And why would it, today?

On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 16:03:11 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:

>In message <trdoe2$bnc1$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:11:30 on Wed, 1 Feb
>2023, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>
>>>> Aren't the majority of business names "some irrelevant name dreamed up by a
>>>> marketing person", or someone's (equally irrelevant to the product) name?
>>>>
>>>> Examples perhaps being Amstrad, Demon and Virgin.
>>>
>>> Amstrad being a bad example, as Roland will no doubt point out.
>>
>>Alan Michael Sugar TRADing; could be trading in anything, nothing in the
>>name to suggest it's a computer/technology company.
>
>Nor indeed in the public perception of the company until perhaps 1986/7
>when that particular branch of the extremely diverse product line became
>dominant. In 1983 when I first became involved it was probably "tower
>systems" (the all-in-one 'hifi').

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zqzrm_4_B94&t=1393s

The Mug's Eyeful. This chap claims that not only was he and other
naive hifi buyers duped by Amstrad, but that the market for low-budget
separates was destroyed by Amstad's marketing of fake separates (aka
tower systems) and the creation of a new product category.

On Mon, 06 Feb 2023 09:20:15 +0000
Ken <ken@birchanger.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 16:03:11 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <trdoe2$bnc1$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:11:30 on Wed, 1 Feb
>>2023, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>
>>>>> Aren't the majority of business names "some irrelevant name dreamed up by
>a
>>>>> marketing person", or someone's (equally irrelevant to the product) name?
>>>>>
>>>>> Examples perhaps being Amstrad, Demon and Virgin.
>>>>
>>>> Amstrad being a bad example, as Roland will no doubt point out.
>>>
>>>Alan Michael Sugar TRADing; could be trading in anything, nothing in the
>>>name to suggest it's a computer/technology company.
>>
>>Nor indeed in the public perception of the company until perhaps 1986/7
>>when that particular branch of the extremely diverse product line became
>>dominant. In 1983 when I first became involved it was probably "tower
>>systems" (the all-in-one 'hifi').
>
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zqzrm_4_B94&t=1393s
>
>The Mug's Eyeful. This chap claims that not only was he and other
>naive hifi buyers duped by Amstrad, but that the market for low-budget
>separates was destroyed by Amstad's marketing of fake separates (aka
>tower systems) and the creation of a new product category.

Thats one of the channels I watch occasionally. Sometimes its pretty good,
sometimes a bit dull.

Re Amstrad - you got what you paid for. Which generally wasn't much in either
case. Oddly however their CPC computers were good quality. Perhaps Sugar didn't
know enough about computers to direct the cost cutting - I'm sure Roland can
fill us in on that.

In message <qbjvthtk60pd4oqgbeortg56uigdeqd3s8@4ax.com>, at 15:39:06 on
Sun, 5 Feb 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 15:11:07 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <bbdnth16gukakrofpdrpls2q0hmv37hj0g@4ax.com>, at 13:10:43 on
>>Thu, 2 Feb 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>On Wed, 1 Feb 2023 16:14:37 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson
>>><ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <trc5i6$hic$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:43:18 on Tue, 31 Jan
>>>>> 2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <6mnhthhhqrsauchfp7r1jdjdp0rpj0llqp@4ax.com>, at 09:29:56 on
>>>>>>> Tue, 31 Jan 2023, Ken <ken@birchanger.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Jan 2023 20:43:19 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In message <tr92ca$3d25i$2@dont-email.me>, at 18:30:34 on Mon, 30 Jan
>>>>>>>>> 2023, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> In message <tr8k1r$3ar6n$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:26:03 on
>>>>>>>>>>>Mon, 30 Jan
>>>>>>>>>>> 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On iPhone it's "swipe down on the home screen". I don't have
>>>>>>>>>> work phone with me right now to try on android.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I've tried on two here. Zilch.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How on earth do you do an internet search on your phone? On my home
>>>>>>>> screen there's a Google search box. I type, or begin to type, a search
>>>>>>>> term into it and get results, whether they're apps or internet
>>>>>>>> results.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I do the above[1], but it never returns any results which are apps
>>>>>>> installed on my phone, …
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You’ve got a crap phone,
>>>>>
>>>>> $600 phones from LG and Samsung. Their marketing departments would be
>>>>> mortified.
>>>>
>>>>Neither which has a really useful feature which every phone used by the
>>>>other correspondents here has. <shrug>
>>>
>>>Android is highly configurable, both by the manufacturer and the user,
>>>so it could well be that Roland's phones don't access Drawer mode by
>>>swiping up on the home screen. Mine doesn't, either, but I obviously do
>>>know how to access that mode on my phone, and how to find all loaded
>>>apps. Roland's problem is that, despite thinking he's an expert, he
>>>doesn't know the basics of how to use an Android phone.
>>
>>My problem is that despite being an expert at using at least three
>>mobile phone platforms for purposes other than merely finding an
>>app-in-a-haystack, when I try the relevant "Basics" mentioned here they
>>don't work. On my phone.
>
>Yup, that just proves you don't know how to use your own phone, or
>Android phones in general.

Why are you continuing to flog this dead horse argument? I know how to
use the phones, but I can't access a facility that simply doesn't exist.

And yes, for the umpteenth time, "Swipe up" does *NOTHING* on my phone.

--
Roland Perry

In message <tr8v06$3cake$2@dont-email.me>, at 18:32:54 on Mon, 30 Jan
2023, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>On 30.01.23 16:28, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <tr8lnn$3aurt$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:54:47 on Mon, 30 Jan
>>2023, Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> remarked:
>>> On 30/01/2023 14:11, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> In message <tr3nkl$2ap5m$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:56:36 on Sat, 28
>>>>Jan 2023, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>> On 28/01/2023 14:06, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>> In message <tr10h8$1pc5c$2@dont-email.me>, at 17:10:00 on Fri, 27
>>>>>>Jan  2023, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> *Another* new app! This is becoming a daily phenomenon.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Keep up - it’s not hard.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I've got perhaps 300 already, I don't want to be having to
>>>>>>>>>>coping  with
>>>>>>>>>> 600 by next Xmas.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Especially when the relatively tiny screen only shows 20 at a
>>>>>>>>>>time.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Some people might decide to group them in folders.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  I have some in folders when they are tight-knit groups (such
>>>>>>>>as car-parking-fee apps). But it's not always obvious how to build a
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  So for example do you put Google Maps in a Google folder, or
>>>>>>>>Maps  folder.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What works better for you?
>>>>
>>>>>>  "None of the above", but that's not an option.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes it is. Don't put it in a folder.
>>
>>>>  But then it's on one of seven or eight screenfulls to swipe
>>>>between; needle in a haystack.
>>>
>>> No.  Each screen is for a specific purpose.
>>>
>>> I have a travelling screen with things like ToC apps and Wetherspoons.
>>>
>>> I created a holiday screen for my recent holiday which included
>>>calendar, Dutch and German railway apps, and links to certain web pages.

>> If that works for you, then that's great. But mine has far more
>>"horizontal" apps than those rather scenario-specific ones. Banking
>> for example, is independent of what trips I might be about to engage upon.
>
>If you need an app in more than one scenario, just put the button to
>open the app on more than one screen.

But I don't have "screens for scenarios". There'd be dozens of them,
were that to be the case.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <qbjvthtk60pd4oqgbeortg56uigdeqd3s8@4ax.com>, at 15:39:06 on
> Sun, 5 Feb 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 15:11:07 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <bbdnth16gukakrofpdrpls2q0hmv37hj0g@4ax.com>, at 13:10:43 on
>>> Thu, 2 Feb 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> On Wed, 1 Feb 2023 16:14:37 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson
>>>> <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <trc5i6$hic$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:43:18 on Tue, 31 Jan
>>>>>> 2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> In message <6mnhthhhqrsauchfp7r1jdjdp0rpj0llqp@4ax.com>, at 09:29:56 on
>>>>>>>> Tue, 31 Jan 2023, Ken <ken@birchanger.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Jan 2023 20:43:19 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In message <tr92ca$3d25i$2@dont-email.me>, at 18:30:34 on Mon, 30 Jan
>>>>>>>>>> 2023, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> In message <tr8k1r$3ar6n$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:26:03 on
>>>>>>>>>>>> Mon, 30 Jan
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On iPhone it's "swipe down on the home screen". I don't have
>>>>>>>>>>> work phone with me right now to try on android.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I've tried on two here. Zilch.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How on earth do you do an internet search on your phone? On my home
>>>>>>>>> screen there's a Google search box. I type, or begin to type, a search
>>>>>>>>> term into it and get results, whether they're apps or internet
>>>>>>>>> results.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I do the above[1], but it never returns any results which are apps
>>>>>>>> installed on my phone, …
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You’ve got a crap phone,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> $600 phones from LG and Samsung. Their marketing departments would be
>>>>>> mortified.
>>>>>
>>>>> Neither which has a really useful feature which every phone used by the
>>>>> other correspondents here has. <shrug>
>>>>
>>>> Android is highly configurable, both by the manufacturer and the user,
>>>> so it could well be that Roland's phones don't access Drawer mode by
>>>> swiping up on the home screen. Mine doesn't, either, but I obviously do
>>>> know how to access that mode on my phone, and how to find all loaded
>>>> apps. Roland's problem is that, despite thinking he's an expert, he
>>>> doesn't know the basics of how to use an Android phone.
>>>
>>> My problem is that despite being an expert at using at least three
>>> mobile phone platforms for purposes other than merely finding an
>>> app-in-a-haystack, when I try the relevant "Basics" mentioned here they
>>> don't work. On my phone.
>>
>> Yup, that just proves you don't know how to use your own phone, or
>> Android phones in general.
>
> Why are you continuing to flog this dead horse argument? I know how to
> use the phones, but I can't access a facility that simply doesn't exist.
>
> And yes, for the umpteenth time, "Swipe up" does *NOTHING* on my phone.
>

Why don't you configure it to do something useful then?

In message <tr9bo5$3engv$5@dont-email.me>, at 21:10:29 on Mon, 30 Jan
2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <tr8u8r$3cbh2$2@dont-email.me>, at 17:20:27 on Mon, 30 Jan
>>> 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <tr8l0u$3b0i0$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:42:38 on Mon, 30 Jan
>>>>> 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <tr64q3$2qsml$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:53:38 on Sun, 29 Jan
>>>>>>> 2023, Clank <clank75@googlemail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> Wrote in message:
>>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I also note that when apps auto-update they end up on the
>>>>>>>>>>main screen.
>>>>>>>>>> Which means you are constantly "putting them back in their box".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I hadn?t noticed that, but I don?t have enough apps to need
>>>>>>>>>the feature.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You haven't noticed because, like most of Roland's experiences, it
>>>>>>>> doesn't happen to anybody else.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I can't help it if I'm a more voracious adopter of technology such as
>>>>>>> mobile phone apps than average.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Especially when at the moment all I hear is people constantly saying
>>>>>>> "add this new app".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Generously, we can assume this is a feature of Aldi Smart-Price
>>>>>>>> Mobile handsets.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe Aldi is different where you live, but they've not sold any phones
>>>>>>> here for years, and as far as I'm aware never sold smartphones.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Let alone ones in the $600 range such as I use.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thought you were recently proudly telling us how cheap your phones were.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it's recliner who appears to find some kind of perverse delight in
>>>>> claiming I only buy cheap things.
>>>>
>>>> I distinctly remember you saying your phone cost around £150, when
>>>>berating
>>>> me for the cost of my iPhone.
>>>
>>> That's what I would have paid (not necessarily my current one, it's
>>> difficult to keep track), because that's something I have knack for.
>>>
>>> Probably not in this instance, but a lot of stuff can be bought at about
>>> half-price if you are prepared to accept one that's been sent back as
>>> unwanted in 14days, and refurbished for resale. (What else are they
>>> going to do with them - it's illegal to pass them off as brand new,
>>> although some bricks-and-mortar shops might still attempt it)).
>>
>> Ah ok - so about 6 to 12 months ago you mock me for spending £490 (ish) on
>> an iPhone and proudly state you spend £150. Then it transpires you spend
>> £485 ($600) on an Android phone.
>
>I don't think it's what he meant to say. In reality, surely he bought a
>cut-price refurbished used phone

I surely didn't. It was brand new in a box.

But if it *had* been refurbished (you are probably ignorant of the fact
that most of the ones sold as such are in fact only a week old, and were
returned under whatever the DSRs are called this week) why is that a
problem? Do you think I'd be too ashamed to admit to my friends I hadn't
paid the exorbitant list prices they did. It's not a willy-waving
competition, after all.

>which he thinks might have been in the $600 range if bought new?

The launch price of phones is matter of public record, I'm surprised you
didn't know that.
--
Roland Perry

In message <tr9b6g$3ekgo$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:01:04 on Mon, 30 Jan
2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <tr8u8r$3cbh2$2@dont-email.me>, at 17:20:27 on Mon, 30 Jan
>> 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <tr8l0u$3b0i0$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:42:38 on Mon, 30 Jan
>>>> 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <tr64q3$2qsml$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:53:38 on Sun, 29 Jan
>>>>>> 2023, Clank <clank75@googlemail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> Wrote in message:
>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I also note that when apps auto-update they end up on the main screen.
>>>>>>>>> Which means you are constantly "putting them back in their box".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I hadn?t noticed that, but I don?t have enough apps to need the
>>>>>>>>feature.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You haven't noticed because, like most of Roland's experiences, it
>>>>>>> doesn't happen to anybody else.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can't help it if I'm a more voracious adopter of technology such as
>>>>>> mobile phone apps than average.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Especially when at the moment all I hear is people constantly saying
>>>>>> "add this new app".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Generously, we can assume this is a feature of Aldi Smart-Price
>>>>>>> Mobile handsets.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe Aldi is different where you live, but they've not sold any phones
>>>>>> here for years, and as far as I'm aware never sold smartphones.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Let alone ones in the $600 range such as I use.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Thought you were recently proudly telling us how cheap your phones were.
>>>>
>>>> No, it's recliner who appears to find some kind of perverse delight in
>>>> claiming I only buy cheap things.
>>>
>>> I distinctly remember you saying your phone cost around £150, when berating
>>> me for the cost of my iPhone.
>>
>> That's what I would have paid (not necessarily my current one, it's
>> difficult to keep track), because that's something I have knack for.
>>
>> Probably not in this instance, but a lot of stuff can be bought at about
>> half-price if you are prepared to accept one that's been sent back as
>> unwanted in 14days, and refurbished for resale. (What else are they
>> going to do with them - it's illegal to pass them off as brand new,
>> although some bricks-and-mortar shops might still attempt it)).
>
>Ah ok - so about 6 to 12 months ago you mock me for spending £490 (ish) on
>an iPhone and proudly state you spend £150. Then it transpires you spend
>£485 ($600) on an Android phone.

No, I spend less than that on an Android phone that's perfectly
functional, but superceded by a new model. I don't use a phone as a
status symbol (unlike it seems many iPhone buyers, if you believe the
aspirational advertising pitch) nor do I want to pay three times the
build cost.
--
Roland Perry

On 06.02.23 12:19, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <tr8v06$3cake$2@dont-email.me>, at 18:32:54 on Mon, 30 Jan
> 2023, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>> On 30.01.23 16:28, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <tr8lnn$3aurt$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:54:47 on Mon, 30 Jan
>>> 2023, Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> remarked:
>>>> On 30/01/2023 14:11, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>> In message <tr3nkl$2ap5m$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:56:36 on Sat, 28
>>>>> Jan  2023, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>> On 28/01/2023 14:06, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <tr10h8$1pc5c$2@dont-email.me>, at 17:10:00 on Fri, 27
>>>>>>> Jan  2023, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Another* new app! This is becoming a daily phenomenon.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Keep up - it’s not hard.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I've got perhaps 300 already, I don't want to be having to
>>>>>>>>>>> coping  with
>>>>>>>>>>> 600 by next Xmas.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Especially when the relatively tiny screen only shows 20 at a
>>>>>>>>>>> time.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Some people might decide to group them in folders.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  I have some in folders when they are tight-knit groups (such
>>>>>>>>> as  car-parking-fee apps). But it's not always obvious how to
>>>>>>>>> build a
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  So for example do you put Google Maps in a Google folder, or
>>>>>>>>> Maps  folder.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What works better for you?
>>>>>
>>>>>>>  "None of the above", but that's not an option.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes it is. Don't put it in a folder.
>>>
>>>>>  But then it's on one of seven or eight screenfulls to swipe
>>>>> between;  needle in a haystack.
>>>>
>>>> No.  Each screen is for a specific purpose.
>>>>
>>>> I have a travelling screen with things like ToC apps and Wetherspoons.
>>>>
>>>> I created a holiday screen for my recent holiday which included
>>>> calendar, Dutch and German railway apps, and links to certain web
>>>> pages.
>
>>>  If that works for you, then that's great. But mine has far more
>>> "horizontal" apps than those rather scenario-specific ones. Banking
>>> for example, is independent of what trips I might be about to engage
>>> upon.
>>
>> If you need an app in more than one scenario, just put the button to
>> open the app on more than one screen.
>
> But I don't have "screens for scenarios". There'd be dozens of them,
> were that to be the case.

I find three scenario specific screens plus a fourth for apps that I
occasionally use but not often enough to justify a place on one of the
other three is plenty. I can imagine perhaps two or three more potential
scenarios that I personally don't find myself in often enough for it to
be useful but others might.

The only way I could create dozens of screens with the number of apss on
my phone is if every screen had fewer than 3 "unique" apps on it.

Robin

In message <tr9cqe$3et6t$5@dont-email.me>, at 21:28:46 on Mon, 30 Jan
2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <tr8u8r$3cbh2$2@dont-email.me>, at 17:20:27 on Mon, 30 Jan
>>>> 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <tr8l0u$3b0i0$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:42:38 on Mon, 30 Jan
>>>>>> 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> In message <tr64q3$2qsml$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:53:38 on Sun, 29 Jan
>>>>>>>> 2023, Clank <clank75@googlemail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> Wrote in message:
>>>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I also note that when apps auto-update they end up on the
>>>>>>>>>>>main screen.
>>>>>>>>>>> Which means you are constantly "putting them back in their box".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I hadn?t noticed that, but I don?t have enough apps to need
>>>>>>>>>>the feature.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You haven't noticed because, like most of Roland's experiences, it
>>>>>>>>> doesn't happen to anybody else.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I can't help it if I'm a more voracious adopter of technology such as
>>>>>>>> mobile phone apps than average.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Especially when at the moment all I hear is people constantly saying
>>>>>>>> "add this new app".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Generously, we can assume this is a feature of Aldi Smart-Price
>>>>>>>>> Mobile handsets.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Maybe Aldi is different where you live, but they've not sold any phones
>>>>>>>> here for years, and as far as I'm aware never sold smartphones.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Let alone ones in the $600 range such as I use.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thought you were recently proudly telling us how cheap your phones were.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, it's recliner who appears to find some kind of perverse delight in
>>>>>> claiming I only buy cheap things.
>>>>>
>>>>> I distinctly remember you saying your phone cost around £150, when
>>>>>berating
>>>>> me for the cost of my iPhone.
>>>>
>>>> That's what I would have paid (not necessarily my current one, it's
>>>> difficult to keep track), because that's something I have knack for.
>>>>
>>>> Probably not in this instance, but a lot of stuff can be bought at about
>>>> half-price if you are prepared to accept one that's been sent back as
>>>> unwanted in 14days, and refurbished for resale. (What else are they
>>>> going to do with them - it's illegal to pass them off as brand new,
>>>> although some bricks-and-mortar shops might still attempt it)).
>>>
>>> Ah ok - so about 6 to 12 months ago you mock me for spending £490 (ish) on
>>> an iPhone and proudly state you spend £150. Then it transpires you spend
>>> £485 ($600) on an Android phone.
>>
>> I don't think it's what he meant to say. In reality, surely he bought a
>> cut-price refurbished used phone which he thinks might have been in the
>> $600 range if bought new?
>
>Or maybe the 'one in the $600 range such as I use' was provided by an
>employer as a work phone?

No, that one was around £120 when launched. They only expect me to use
it to make phone calls. Yes, I do mean "make", I don't recall anyone
ever ringing me up on it.
--
Roland Perry

In message <4eh1uhlnckbt3e05nbpbechtbv7k2ph7s7@4ax.com>, at 09:20:15 on
Mon, 6 Feb 2023, Ken <ken@birchanger.com> remarked:
>On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 16:03:11 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <trdoe2$bnc1$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:11:30 on Wed, 1 Feb
>>2023, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>
>>>>> Aren't the majority of business names "some irrelevant name
>>>>>dreamed up by a
>>>>> marketing person", or someone's (equally irrelevant to the product) name?
>>>>>
>>>>> Examples perhaps being Amstrad, Demon and Virgin.
>>>>
>>>> Amstrad being a bad example, as Roland will no doubt point out.
>>>
>>>Alan Michael Sugar TRADing; could be trading in anything, nothing in the
>>>name to suggest it's a computer/technology company.
>>
>>Nor indeed in the public perception of the company until perhaps 1986/7
>>when that particular branch of the extremely diverse product line became
>>dominant. In 1983 when I first became involved it was probably "tower
>>systems" (the all-in-one 'hifi').
>
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zqzrm_4_B94&t=1393s
>
>The Mug's Eyeful. This chap claims that not only was he and other
>naive hifi buyers duped by Amstrad,

Projecting his own poor decision making (assuming we accept his
diagnosis) onto the whole public. Oh dear. I hope he didn't buy any
Sinclair budget hi-fi, because that truly didn't work.

>but that the market for low-budget
>separates was destroyed by Amstad's marketing of fake separates

What he means is that these alleged low-budget (but somehow also
technically superior) separates couldn't compete. Although I'd be
astonished if a stack of real-separates could have come anywhere near
the price, or be available so widely on the High Street.

>(aka tower systems) and the creation of a new product category.

New categories are precisely what happens all the time with consumer
goods. Suppliers who can't adapt, die.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <tr9bo5$3engv$5@dont-email.me>, at 21:10:29 on Mon, 30 Jan
> 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <tr8u8r$3cbh2$2@dont-email.me>, at 17:20:27 on Mon, 30 Jan
>>>> 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <tr8l0u$3b0i0$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:42:38 on Mon, 30 Jan
>>>>>> 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> In message <tr64q3$2qsml$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:53:38 on Sun, 29 Jan
>>>>>>>> 2023, Clank <clank75@googlemail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> Wrote in message:
>>>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I also note that when apps auto-update they end up on the
>>>>>>>>>>> main screen.
>>>>>>>>>>> Which means you are constantly "putting them back in their box".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I hadn?t noticed that, but I don?t have enough apps to need
>>>>>>>>>> the feature.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You haven't noticed because, like most of Roland's experiences, it
>>>>>>>>> doesn't happen to anybody else.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I can't help it if I'm a more voracious adopter of technology such as
>>>>>>>> mobile phone apps than average.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Especially when at the moment all I hear is people constantly saying
>>>>>>>> "add this new app".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Generously, we can assume this is a feature of Aldi Smart-Price
>>>>>>>>> Mobile handsets.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Maybe Aldi is different where you live, but they've not sold any phones
>>>>>>>> here for years, and as far as I'm aware never sold smartphones.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Let alone ones in the $600 range such as I use.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thought you were recently proudly telling us how cheap your phones were.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, it's recliner who appears to find some kind of perverse delight in
>>>>>> claiming I only buy cheap things.
>>>>>
>>>>> I distinctly remember you saying your phone cost around £150, when
>>>>> berating
>>>>> me for the cost of my iPhone.
>>>>
>>>> That's what I would have paid (not necessarily my current one, it's
>>>> difficult to keep track), because that's something I have knack for.
>>>>
>>>> Probably not in this instance, but a lot of stuff can be bought at about
>>>> half-price if you are prepared to accept one that's been sent back as
>>>> unwanted in 14days, and refurbished for resale. (What else are they
>>>> going to do with them - it's illegal to pass them off as brand new,
>>>> although some bricks-and-mortar shops might still attempt it)).
>>>
>>> Ah ok - so about 6 to 12 months ago you mock me for spending £490 (ish) on
>>> an iPhone and proudly state you spend £150. Then it transpires you spend
>>> £485 ($600) on an Android phone.
>>
>> I don't think it's what he meant to say. In reality, surely he bought a
>> cut-price refurbished used phone
>
> I surely didn't. It was brand new in a box.

It's an elderly (2014 or 15?) phone, running a long-unsupported, insecure
version of Android. So it's a reasonable supposition that you are the third
or fourth owner of it.

>
> But if it *had* been refurbished (you are probably ignorant of the fact
> that most of the ones sold as such are in fact only a week old, and were
> returned under whatever the DSRs are called this week) why is that a
> problem? Do you think I'd be too ashamed to admit to my friends I hadn't
> paid the exorbitant list prices they did. It's not a willy-waving
> competition, after all.
>
>> which he thinks might have been in the $600 range if bought new?
>
> The launch price of phones is matter of public record, I'm surprised you
> didn't know that.

I was assuming your phone was so ancient that records of its launch were
lost in the miss of time.

On 6 Feb 2023 at 1:22:40 PM EET, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

> In message <tr9b6g$3ekgo$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:01:04 on Mon, 30 Jan
> 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> That's what I would have paid (not necessarily my current one, it's
>>> difficult to keep track), because that's something I have knack for.
>>>
>>> Probably not in this instance, but a lot of stuff can be bought at about
>>> half-price if you are prepared to accept one that's been sent back as
>>> unwanted in 14days, and refurbished for resale. (What else are they
>>> going to do with them - it's illegal to pass them off as brand new,
>>> although some bricks-and-mortar shops might still attempt it)).
>>
>> Ah ok - so about 6 to 12 months ago you mock me for spending £490 (ish) on
>> an iPhone and proudly state you spend £150. Then it transpires you spend
>> £485 ($600) on an Android phone.
>
> No, I spend less than that on an Android phone that's perfectly
> functional

If it can't update apps in-place, or if it can't search for apps, then it's
not perfectly functional...

Anyway, on that latter point - it occured to me that while I don't have any
devices old enough to still run Android 6, the emulator provided with the
Android SDK of course *can*. So I set up an emulated Android 6 device and set
about, err, searching for the way to search for an app by name:

<https://imgur.com/a/5KFmnJ5>

It took all of three seconds to find it. Click on the app drawer, type into
the search box at the top. The End.

Now of course your phone inevitably has a custom launcher that does things
differently, but the idea that it *cannot* search for an app by name, when
this is standard Android functionality, is just absurd. You just don't know
how to do it.

Incidentally, while I was playing with the Android SDK, I checked the
information Google provide developers on which versions of Android to target
for the largest application reach.

2.8% of Android devices are still running Android 6. I don't think you need to
be a fashionista to have moved on to a slightly more modern device...

On 06.02.23 12:49, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <4eh1uhlnckbt3e05nbpbechtbv7k2ph7s7@4ax.com>, at 09:20:15 on
> Mon, 6 Feb 2023, Ken <ken@birchanger.com> remarked:
>> On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 16:03:11 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <trdoe2$bnc1$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:11:30 on Wed, 1 Feb
>>> 2023, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>
>>>>>> Aren't the majority of business names "some irrelevant name
>>>>>> dreamed up by a
>>>>>> marketing person", or someone's (equally irrelevant to the
>>>>>> product) name?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Examples perhaps being Amstrad, Demon and Virgin.
>>>>>
>>>>> Amstrad being a bad example, as Roland will no doubt point out.
>>>>
>>>> Alan Michael Sugar TRADing; could be trading in anything, nothing in
>>>> the
>>>> name to suggest it's a computer/technology company.
>>>
>>> Nor indeed in the public perception of the company until perhaps 1986/7
>>> when that particular branch of the extremely diverse product line became
>>> dominant. In 1983 when I first became involved it was probably "tower
>>> systems" (the all-in-one 'hifi').
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zqzrm_4_B94&t=1393s
>>
>> The Mug's Eyeful. This chap claims that not only was he and other
>> naive hifi buyers duped by Amstrad,
>
> Projecting his own poor decision making (assuming we accept his
> diagnosis) onto the whole public. Oh dear. I hope he didn't buy any
> Sinclair budget hi-fi, because that truly didn't work.

Not only his position, lots of people did the same thing. When I first
became interested in music and having something to play it on, I got
tons of people telling me don't touch Amstrad with a barge pole, it's
cheap junk.

>> but that the market for low-budget
>> separates was destroyed by Amstad's marketing of fake separates
>
> What he means is that these alleged low-budget (but somehow also
> technically superior) separates couldn't compete. Although I'd be
> astonished if a stack of real-separates could have come anywhere near
> the price, or be available so widely on the High Street.
>
>> (aka tower systems) and the creation of a new product category.
>
> New categories are precisely what happens all the time with consumer
> goods. Suppliers who can't adapt, die.

The point was that Amstrad made stuff that on the surface resembled much
higher quality equipment, and was sold alongside them. People thought
they were getting good quality for a low price, but then discovered they
actually got cheap junk for a low price. Once that became known, the
brands associated with that, including Amstrad, died. There's a reason
why you can still buy Sony, Panasonic etc stereos but not Amstrad ones
today.

Robin

In message <kh90uht74r9e288ajcc8t1j7o5sig5vbb3@4ax.com>, at 21:57:29 on
Sun, 5 Feb 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 18:10:46 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <trojea$2is90$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:53:46 on Sun, 5 Feb
>>2023, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>On 05/02/2023 15:27, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> In message <trdhhm$aff6$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:13:58 on Wed, 1 Feb
>>>>2023, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <tr9aet$3eg1n$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:48:29 on Mon, 30 Jan
>>>>>> 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Pressing that brings up a screen of apps in alphabetical order. At the
>>>>>>> top of that screen is a search box).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To get a list of apps, I can press: Settings.. General... Apps.. but
>>>>>> there's no 'search' and Voi is at the bottom of a very long list
>>>>>> (mindful that I would want to be searching for something with electric
>>>>>> scooter functionality, not some irrelevant name dreamed up by a
>>>>>> marketing person).
>>>>>
>>>>> Aren't the majority of business names "some irrelevant name dreamed
>>>>>up by a
>>>>> marketing person", or someone's (equally irrelevant to the product) name?
>>>>>
>>>>> Examples perhaps being Amstrad, Demon and Virgin.
>>
>>>> I think Branson has a reasonable explanation for why he called the
>>>>company "Virgin", and Alan Michael Sugar Trading isn't a product, any
>>>>more than Thomas Edward Stockwell COhen.
>>
>>>> By beef is much more with names like Demon's successor "Thus", and
>>>>as I mentioned earlier apps like "Bolt" and "Bright".
>>>
>>>First? One?
>>
>>A quick scan through the 26 train booking apps on my phone doesn't have
>>either of those words in any of them.
>
>And why would it, today?

You are asking the wrong person.
--
Roland Perry

In message <trqidt$31cbi$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:48:45 on Mon, 6 Feb
2023, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>On Mon, 06 Feb 2023 09:20:15 +0000
>Ken <ken@birchanger.com> wrote:
>>On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 16:03:11 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In message <trdoe2$bnc1$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:11:30 on Wed, 1 Feb
>>>2023, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>
>>>>>> Aren't the majority of business names "some irrelevant name dreamed up by
>>a
>>>>>> marketing person", or someone's (equally irrelevant to the product) name?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Examples perhaps being Amstrad, Demon and Virgin.
>>>>>
>>>>> Amstrad being a bad example, as Roland will no doubt point out.
>>>>
>>>>Alan Michael Sugar TRADing; could be trading in anything, nothing in the
>>>>name to suggest it's a computer/technology company.
>>>
>>>Nor indeed in the public perception of the company until perhaps 1986/7
>>>when that particular branch of the extremely diverse product line became
>>>dominant. In 1983 when I first became involved it was probably "tower
>>>systems" (the all-in-one 'hifi').
>>
>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zqzrm_4_B94&t=1393s
>>
>>The Mug's Eyeful. This chap claims that not only was he and other
>>naive hifi buyers duped by Amstrad, but that the market for low-budget
>>separates was destroyed by Amstad's marketing of fake separates (aka
>>tower systems) and the creation of a new product category.
>
>Thats one of the channels I watch occasionally. Sometimes its pretty good,
>sometimes a bit dull.
>
>Re Amstrad - you got what you paid for. Which generally wasn't much in either
>case.

The main thing there was a lack of any plausible alternatives. In most
walks of life you get what you pay for, bedsits are cheaper to rent than
five bedroom detached houses, for example.

But like the chief engineer of a bike factory isn't compelled to cycle
to work - he's allowed a car if he can afford it; at home I had a Quad
hifi system, so wasn't in the target market for a tower.

As a bit of background, at the time I was working with an outfit that
one might call the "posh man's Maplin", and as well as selling a range
of state of the art components (many of which weren't unavailable from
anywhere else in quantities of less than 100) we used to bend over
backwards to supply customers with data sheets and application notes
to go with them. And in extreme cases the more ambitious back-room
designers, and slightly out-of-their-depth startup manufacturers would
come round and we'd debug and smarten up their design so they worked.

We enjoyed it, learnt a lot, and in some cases had a happy customer for
lots of production parts. The items in question included home computers
(albeit none of them ever did make it commercially - it was often the
mechanical engineering and marketing which ultimately defeated them)
budget music centres, and high-end separates hifi. We had a particular
knack for FM Stereo receivers and one or two transistor AM receivers
[not in the same product, obviously].

Then one day a rather glum chap from Amstrad turned up (we'd done some
work on a citizens band radio previously) with a computer. "Can you give
this a tweak"... At least we were confident they had the mechanical
engineering and marketing sorted. And we started the circuit board and
software from scratch, of course.

I only entertained it as a project because I quite familiar with the
dogs dinner that only its mother should love [and they did], known as
the BBC Micro, and thought "we can do better than that".

>Oddly however their CPC computers were good quality. Perhaps Sugar didn't
>know enough about computers to direct the cost cutting - I'm sure Roland can
>fill us in on that.

By using a gate array rather than a mass of TTL gates, the team (we
drafted in very able subcontractors too) crafted a machine that worked
well, and inside the bill of materials budget. There wasn't anything to
spend another $5 on, which would have made a scrap of difference. And
there was nothing we could omit without it directly affecting the
specification. A sweet spot, indeed.

Some of the features which made it better than the competition were
incredibly cheap to manufacture. The 27 colours instead of 16 (or 8 in
normal and bright in most instances) cost just six resistors.

How did that work? Well, you have an output from the video controller
that most designers perceived as ON or OFF, and hence RGB with two
states each is 2^3 or eight.

But we added FLOAT, with a pair of resistors between 5v and ground to
hold the level half-way (but easily over-powered by a solid 0v or 5v
from the chip). So three states for each of RGB, and hence 3^3 = 27
colours.

There were other elegant design features, also in the software. I always
used to say "it doesn't cost any less to manufacture a ROM with terrible
software, than burning it with good software".

Almost 40yrs later, no bug fixes required, and the retro scene (mainly
gaming) hotting up considerably.
--
Roland Perry

In message <tron12$2jmbh$6@dont-email.me>, at 16:54:58 on Sun, 5 Feb
2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 05/02/2023 15:27, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <trdhhm$aff6$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:13:58 on Wed, 1 Feb
>>> 2023, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <tr9aet$3eg1n$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:48:29 on Mon, 30 Jan
>>>>> 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Pressing that brings up a screen of apps in alphabetical order. At the
>>>>>> top of that screen is a search box).
>>>>>
>>>>> To get a list of apps, I can press: Settings.. General... Apps.. but
>>>>> there's no 'search' and Voi is at the bottom of a very long list
>>>>> (mindful that I would want to be searching for something with electric
>>>>> scooter functionality, not some irrelevant name dreamed up by a
>>>>> marketing person).
>>>>
>>>> Aren't the majority of business names "some irrelevant name dreamed up
>>>> by a
>>>> marketing person", or someone's (equally irrelevant to the product) name?
>>>>
>>>> Examples perhaps being Amstrad, Demon and Virgin.
>>>
>>> I think Branson has a reasonable explanation for why he called the
>>> company "Virgin", and Alan Michael Sugar Trading isn't a product, any
>>> more than Thomas Edward Stockwell COhen.
>>>
>>> By beef is much more with names like Demon's successor "Thus", and as I
>>> mentioned earlier apps like "Bolt" and "Bright".
>>>
>>
>> First? One?
>
>Somewhat to my surprise, the bizarre O2 brand has been retained after the
>Virgin Media merger.

That'll be for the corporate market, who associate Virgin with consumer
products.

Also, will make it easier to de-merge and sell on [yet again] should the
need arise.

>My Virgin Mobile service already uses the O2 network, and the branding
>will also switch soon. The switch of networks happened seamlessly, and
>I only discovered this month that it had happened last year.

--
Roland Perry

In message <3s40uhdq9klnd5v149tg54ra9n6qeeac47@4ax.com>, at 20:48:19 on
Sun, 5 Feb 2023, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
>On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 16:54:58 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
><recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Somewhat to my surprise, the bizarre O2 brand has been retained after the
>>Virgin Media merger. My Virgin Mobile service already uses the O2 network,
>>and the branding will also switch soon. The switch of networks happened
>>seamlessly, and I only discovered this month that it had happened last
>>year.
>
>Possibly because the O2 brand is better known than Virgin Mobile when it
>comes to phone networks.
>
>There does seem to be a move away from the "one brand on everything"
>approach by large, multi-operation companies. BT has retained the EE brand
>following its acquisition, and is actively promoting that rather than its
>own BT Mobile brand. And, dragging this thread back on topic, First Group no
>longer overtly puts the group branding on its rail franchises.

Maybe still too associated with being a bus company, as well as
preparations for GBR being divorced from the earlier franchise model.

cf the mythical "Arriva Overground".
--
Roland Perry

On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 13:43:18 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

>In message <3s40uhdq9klnd5v149tg54ra9n6qeeac47@4ax.com>, at 20:48:19 on
>Sun, 5 Feb 2023, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
>remarked:
>>On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 16:54:58 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>><recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Somewhat to my surprise, the bizarre O2 brand has been retained after the
>>>Virgin Media merger. My Virgin Mobile service already uses the O2 network,
>>>and the branding will also switch soon. The switch of networks happened
>>>seamlessly, and I only discovered this month that it had happened last
>>>year.
>>
>>Possibly because the O2 brand is better known than Virgin Mobile when it
>>comes to phone networks.
>>
>>There does seem to be a move away from the "one brand on everything"
>>approach by large, multi-operation companies. BT has retained the EE brand
>>following its acquisition, and is actively promoting that rather than its
>>own BT Mobile brand. And, dragging this thread back on topic, First Group no
>>longer overtly puts the group branding on its rail franchises.
>
>Maybe still too associated with being a bus company, as well as
>preparations for GBR being divorced from the earlier franchise model.

As you must surely remember, the franchise operator parent brand has been dropped from TOC names for a number years now.
I think GWR was the first, in 2015, but it soon spread to all the others, probably under DfT pressure.

Looking at the centre of the Universe, Abellio Greater Anglia was your local TOC's brand from Dec 2013 to October 2016,
when it became just Greater Anglia.

>
>cf the mythical "Arriva Overground".

Yes, TfL has never allowed branding on its concessions.

On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 13:38:04 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

>In message <tron12$2jmbh$6@dont-email.me>, at 16:54:58 on Sun, 5 Feb
>2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 05/02/2023 15:27, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> In message <trdhhm$aff6$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:13:58 on Wed, 1 Feb
>>>> 2023, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <tr9aet$3eg1n$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:48:29 on Mon, 30 Jan
>>>>>> 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Pressing that brings up a screen of apps in alphabetical order. At the
>>>>>>> top of that screen is a search box).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To get a list of apps, I can press: Settings.. General... Apps.. but
>>>>>> there's no 'search' and Voi is at the bottom of a very long list
>>>>>> (mindful that I would want to be searching for something with electric
>>>>>> scooter functionality, not some irrelevant name dreamed up by a
>>>>>> marketing person).
>>>>>
>>>>> Aren't the majority of business names "some irrelevant name dreamed up
>>>>> by a
>>>>> marketing person", or someone's (equally irrelevant to the product) name?
>>>>>
>>>>> Examples perhaps being Amstrad, Demon and Virgin.
>>>>
>>>> I think Branson has a reasonable explanation for why he called the
>>>> company "Virgin", and Alan Michael Sugar Trading isn't a product, any
>>>> more than Thomas Edward Stockwell COhen.
>>>>
>>>> By beef is much more with names like Demon's successor "Thus", and as I
>>>> mentioned earlier apps like "Bolt" and "Bright".
>>>>
>>>
>>> First? One?
>>
>>Somewhat to my surprise, the bizarre O2 brand has been retained after the
>>Virgin Media merger.
>
>That'll be for the corporate market, who associate Virgin with consumer
>products.

Yes, could be.

BT has done something similar, with the EE brand to be used for all consumer services (not just mobile) and BT reserved
for the corporate market.

On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 13:33:52 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>In message <trqidt$31cbi$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:48:45 on Mon, 6 Feb
>2023, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>Re Amstrad - you got what you paid for. Which generally wasn't much in either
>>case.
>
>The main thing there was a lack of any plausible alternatives. In most

Oh I dunno, dixons and curries did some cheap own brand crap with japanesy
sounding names (which I can't remember) IIRC.

>As a bit of background, at the time I was working with an outfit that
>one might call the "posh man's Maplin", and as well as selling a range

Tandy?

>I only entertained it as a project because I quite familiar with the
>dogs dinner that only its mother should love [and they did], known as
>the BBC Micro, and thought "we can do better than that".

I've noticed you're a bit biased against the BBC. It was a good machine with
admittedly way too many chips on the board but I guess they used off the
shelf components. It was highly expandable not least with slots for extra
ROMs and the BASIC was damn fast + it had procedures.

>Some of the features which made it better than the competition were
>incredibly cheap to manufacture. The 27 colours instead of 16 (or 8 in
>normal and bright in most instances) cost just six resistors.
>
>How did that work? Well, you have an output from the video controller
>that most designers perceived as ON or OFF, and hence RGB with two
>states each is 2^3 or eight.
>
>But we added FLOAT, with a pair of resistors between 5v and ground to
>hold the level half-way (but easily over-powered by a solid 0v or 5v
>from the chip). So three states for each of RGB, and hence 3^3 = 27
>colours.

Christ, thats a hack if I've ever heard of one! Presumably you had to design
the video controller to be able to float its pins rather than pull up/down by
default?

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <qbjvthtk60pd4oqgbeortg56uigdeqd3s8@4ax.com>, at 15:39:06 on
> Sun, 5 Feb 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 15:11:07 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <bbdnth16gukakrofpdrpls2q0hmv37hj0g@4ax.com>, at 13:10:43 on
>>> Thu, 2 Feb 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> On Wed, 1 Feb 2023 16:14:37 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson
>>>> <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <trc5i6$hic$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:43:18 on Tue, 31 Jan
>>>>>> 2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> In message <6mnhthhhqrsauchfp7r1jdjdp0rpj0llqp@4ax.com>, at 09:29:56 on
>>>>>>>> Tue, 31 Jan 2023, Ken <ken@birchanger.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Jan 2023 20:43:19 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In message <tr92ca$3d25i$2@dont-email.me>, at 18:30:34 on Mon, 30 Jan
>>>>>>>>>> 2023, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> In message <tr8k1r$3ar6n$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:26:03 on
>>>>>>>>>>>> Mon, 30 Jan
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On iPhone it's "swipe down on the home screen". I don't have
>>>>>>>>>>> work phone with me right now to try on android.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I've tried on two here. Zilch.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How on earth do you do an internet search on your phone? On my home
>>>>>>>>> screen there's a Google search box. I type, or begin to type, a search
>>>>>>>>> term into it and get results, whether they're apps or internet
>>>>>>>>> results.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I do the above[1], but it never returns any results which are apps
>>>>>>>> installed on my phone, …
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You’ve got a crap phone,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> $600 phones from LG and Samsung. Their marketing departments would be
>>>>>> mortified.
>>>>>
>>>>> Neither which has a really useful feature which every phone used by the
>>>>> other correspondents here has. <shrug>
>>>>
>>>> Android is highly configurable, both by the manufacturer and the user,
>>>> so it could well be that Roland's phones don't access Drawer mode by
>>>> swiping up on the home screen. Mine doesn't, either, but I obviously do
>>>> know how to access that mode on my phone, and how to find all loaded
>>>> apps. Roland's problem is that, despite thinking he's an expert, he
>>>> doesn't know the basics of how to use an Android phone.
>>>
>>> My problem is that despite being an expert at using at least three
>>> mobile phone platforms for purposes other than merely finding an
>>> app-in-a-haystack, when I try the relevant "Basics" mentioned here they
>>> don't work. On my phone.
>>
>> Yup, that just proves you don't know how to use your own phone, or
>> Android phones in general.
>
> Why are you continuing to flog this dead horse argument? I know how to
> use the phones, but I can't access a facility that simply doesn't exist.
>
> And yes, for the umpteenth time, "Swipe up" does *NOTHING* on my phone.
>

I can’t remember now, but did you tell us the manufacturer and model
number?

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <tr9b6g$3ekgo$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:01:04 on Mon, 30 Jan
> 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <tr8u8r$3cbh2$2@dont-email.me>, at 17:20:27 on Mon, 30 Jan
>>> 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <tr8l0u$3b0i0$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:42:38 on Mon, 30 Jan
>>>>> 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <tr64q3$2qsml$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:53:38 on Sun, 29 Jan
>>>>>>> 2023, Clank <clank75@googlemail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> Wrote in message:
>>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I also note that when apps auto-update they end up on the main screen.
>>>>>>>>>> Which means you are constantly "putting them back in their box".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I hadn?t noticed that, but I don?t have enough apps to need the
>>>>>>>>> feature.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You haven't noticed because, like most of Roland's experiences, it
>>>>>>>> doesn't happen to anybody else.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I can't help it if I'm a more voracious adopter of technology such as
>>>>>>> mobile phone apps than average.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Especially when at the moment all I hear is people constantly saying
>>>>>>> "add this new app".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Generously, we can assume this is a feature of Aldi Smart-Price
>>>>>>>> Mobile handsets.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe Aldi is different where you live, but they've not sold any phones
>>>>>>> here for years, and as far as I'm aware never sold smartphones.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Let alone ones in the $600 range such as I use.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thought you were recently proudly telling us how cheap your phones were.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it's recliner who appears to find some kind of perverse delight in
>>>>> claiming I only buy cheap things.
>>>>
>>>> I distinctly remember you saying your phone cost around £150, when berating
>>>> me for the cost of my iPhone.
>>>
>>> That's what I would have paid (not necessarily my current one, it's
>>> difficult to keep track), because that's something I have knack for.
>>>
>>> Probably not in this instance, but a lot of stuff can be bought at about
>>> half-price if you are prepared to accept one that's been sent back as
>>> unwanted in 14days, and refurbished for resale. (What else are they
>>> going to do with them - it's illegal to pass them off as brand new,
>>> although some bricks-and-mortar shops might still attempt it)).
>>
>> Ah ok - so about 6 to 12 months ago you mock me for spending £490 (ish) on
>> an iPhone and proudly state you spend £150. Then it transpires you spend
>> £485 ($600) on an Android phone.
>
> No, I spend less than that on an Android phone that's perfectly
> functional, but superceded by a new model. I don't use a phone as a
> status symbol (unlike it seems many iPhone buyers, if you believe the
> aspirational advertising pitch) nor do I want to pay three times the
> build cost.

So it’s not a $600 phone at all?