On 14/02/2022 13:17, Recliner wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 12:58:56 +0000, Certes <none@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
>> On 14/02/2022 06:44, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <sub5t5$c9e$2@dont-email.me>, at 14:51:17 on Sun, 13 Feb
>>> 2022, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>
>>>>> An app I've been using for years on Android
>>>>> cannot be ported to iOS because Apple don't allow access to Bluetooth.
>>>>
>>>> I’m surprised by the Bluetooth thing, since there are lots of apps
>>>> that use
>>>> it,
>>>
>>> Including, surely, the infamous NHS tracing app.
>>
>> I think Apple gave that a special dispensation to access features other
>> apps couldn't, on the debatable basis that government could be trusted.
>
> Not at all. Apple and Google specifically did NOT allow the initial contact tracing NHS app to do the spying the
> government wanted, so the latter had to back down and use the anonymised framework that Apple and Google had created.
>
> <https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nhs-covid-19-app-privacy-information/anonymisation-definitions-and-user-data-journeys>
>
>
> From
> <https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/covid19/2021/04/21/the-nhs-contact-tracing-app-fell-foul-of-privacy-concerns-but-did-they-have-the-right-idea/>
>
> It would, however, require keeping track of who has been in contact with whom over time — which would require
> collecting this information (in a pseudonymised form) on a central server.
>
> This is exactly what the NHS had in mind when developing its initial contact tracing app. But this approach was
> effectively ruled out by Apple and Google in their insistence on only providing support for “decentralised” contact
> tracing apps. Without it, the NHS’s app could not be made to function effectively, and they were forced to pivot to a
> decentralised configuration. Apple and Google’s approach was lauded by privacy advocates, as their concerns rapidly
> began to dominate the debate on digital contact tracing. Developers of decentralised contact tracing apps argued that
> minimising the amount of information stored on a central server resulted in an app that was both “privacy-preserving”
> and “abuse-resistant”, and, furthermore, that the central storage of any further information was simply not necessary
> for the app to achieve its goals.
>
> __________
>
> And they continued to block the government's attempts to spy on us:
>
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-56713017

Indeed, and I applaud Big Tech being on our side for once, if only for
the benefit of their public image. But I think they did release new
APIs allowing limited extra permissions, which are mainly useful for
testing and tracing in a less intrusive way than GCHQ would have liked.

In message <sudjmf$lir$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:58:56 on Mon, 14 Feb
2022, Certes <none@nowhere.net> remarked:
>On 14/02/2022 06:44, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <sub5t5$c9e$2@dont-email.me>, at 14:51:17 on Sun, 13 Feb
>>2022, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>
>>>> An app I've been using for years on Android
>>>> cannot be ported to iOS because Apple don't allow access to Bluetooth.
>>>
>>> I’m surprised by the Bluetooth thing, since there are lots of apps
>>>that use it,

>> Including, surely, the infamous NHS tracing app.
>
>I think Apple gave that a special dispensation to access features other
>apps couldn't, on the debatable basis that government could be trusted.

Yes, but wasn't that stuff to more intrusively access the location data,
nothing to do with Bluetooth.

>>> but there is a nice network management app that used to be able to
>>> analyse WiFi networks, but no longer can since Apple tightened security.
>> Hiring electric bikes/scooters is usually done via an app using
>>bluetooth to communicate with the lock. And then there's all those
>>"button tracker" things. And wouldn't fitness gadgets also use bluetooth.
>

--
Roland Perry

In message <sudbmk$v7$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:42:28 on Mon, 14 Feb 2022,
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <sub5jo$a9g$2@dont-email.me>, at 14:46:16 on Sun, 13 Feb
>> 2022, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>
>>>>>> What is this nonsense about "ipad version"? Why can't you use a web
>>>>>> browser on the ipad, and access the same functionality as a browser
>>>>>> on any other platform?
>>>>>
>>>>> Don’t try and feign ignorance as if you don’t know that ipads
>>>>>have versions of programmes tailored to them known as apps , a
>>>>>term that for some reason I find irritating but has since spread
>>>>>to microsoft systems and others as well.
>>>>
>>>> What an extraordinary conclusion to draw. All I said was "why not use
>>>> the web version *INSTEAD*
>>>
>>> No you didn’t, unless you wrote “instead” in invisible electronic ink.
>>
>> Interesting how so many of these spats end up arguing about invisible
>> words. It's hard work typing responses which eliminate all invisible
>> words.
>>
>> Anyway, as the previous poster was complaining about an app, how could
>> suggesting using a web browser [instead], be anything other than an
>> alternative?
>
>As has been pointed out, some sites insist on diverting you to the app when
>using a mobile web browser. Or the mobile web version has reduced
>functionality.

If that's the answer to my question, it's a lot more helpful than
accusing me of feigning ignorance.

--
Roland Perry

In message <sudea7$hqm$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:27:03 on Mon, 14 Feb
2022, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <sub5jo$a9g$2@dont-email.me>, at 14:46:16 on Sun, 13 Feb
>> 2022, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>
>>>>>> What is this nonsense about "ipad version"? Why can't you use a web
>>>>>> browser on the ipad, and access the same functionality as a browser
>>>>>> on any other platform?
>>>>>
>>>>> Don’t try and feign ignorance as if you don’t know that ipads
>>>>>have versions of programmes tailored to them known as apps , a
>>>>>term that for some reason I find irritating but has since spread
>>>>>to microsoft systems and others as well.
>>>>
>>>> What an extraordinary conclusion to draw. All I said was "why not use
>>>> the web version *INSTEAD*
>>>
>>> No you didn’t, unless you wrote “instead” in invisible electronic ink.
>>
>> Interesting how so many of these spats end up arguing about invisible
>> words. It's hard work typing responses which eliminate all invisible
>> words.
>>
>> Anyway, as the previous poster was complaining about an app, how could
>> suggesting using a web browser [instead], be anything other than an
>> alternative?
>
>Given your other posting apparently chiding people for their choice of
>platform and pointing out that your Windows system worked perfectly,
>the lack of “instead” and the inclusion of “nonsense” made me
>prone interpret your comments as pouring scorn on Apple and all its
>works.

While I agree that I'm no fan of Apple, that does not include "feigning
ignorance" about the existence of apps.

>I apologise,
>but you could be more gracious about how abiguous some of your writing is…

I try very hard not to be ambiguous, but perhaps sometimes I get a bit
weary of probing postings which are themselves ambiguous.

For example, when you say "[RP's] Windows system worked perfectly", do
you mean recent experience of Google Maps on a Windows platform, or the
ill-fated Windows phone (which wasn't perfect, not least because in
order to be extremely cross-platform, foisted a tablet/phone user
interface onto desktop users).

>> Perhaps you are auditioning for a job as a cabinet minister, where
>> defending the indefensible is a mandatory skill?
>
>… except perhaps you were intending to be snarky all along - it would be
>consistent with the tone here.

If you want an alternative rendering it might be something like "why
persist in using a broken tool, like the iPad app appears to be, when
Google Maps in a browser ought to be fine".

Now, there's a suggestion been made that somehow an iPad running Google
Maps in a browser gets involuntarily bounced into the app. If that's the
case, what happens if the app is uninstalled? (Genuine question).
--
Roland Perry

In message <sudeql$l12$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:35:49 on Mon, 14 Feb
2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <sub5jo$a9g$2@dont-email.me>, at 14:46:16 on Sun, 13 Feb
>>> 2022, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>
>>>>>>> What is this nonsense about "ipad version"? Why can't you use a web
>>>>>>> browser on the ipad, and access the same functionality as a browser
>>>>>>> on any other platform?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Don’t try and feign ignorance as if you don’t know that ipads
>>>>>>have versions of programmes tailored to them known as apps , a
>>>>>>term that for some reason I find irritating but has since spread
>>>>>>to microsoft systems and others as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> What an extraordinary conclusion to draw. All I said was "why not use
>>>>> the web version *INSTEAD*
>>>>
>>>> No you didn’t, unless you wrote “instead” in invisible
>>>>electronic ink.
>>>
>>> Interesting how so many of these spats end up arguing about invisible
>>> words. It's hard work typing responses which eliminate all invisible
>>> words.
>>>
>>> Anyway, as the previous poster was complaining about an app, how could
>>> suggesting using a web browser [instead], be anything other than an
>>> alternative?
>>
>> Given your other posting apparently chiding people for their choice
>>of platform and pointing out that your Windows system worked
>>perfectly, the lack of “instead” and the inclusion of
>>“nonsense” made me prone interpret your comments as pouring scorn
>>on Apple and all its works. I apologise, but you could be more
>>gracious about how abiguous some of your writing is…
>>
>>> Perhaps you are auditioning for a job as a cabinet minister, where
>>> defending the indefensible is a mandatory skill?
>>
>> … except perhaps you were intending to be snarky all along - it would be
>> consistent with the tone here.
>
>The simple fact is that Roland can't afford Apple gear, but dresses up his
>inability to afford it with a stream of inaccurate technical reasons for
>not wanting it.

Now who is being snarky! That's ones of the other things from your
traditional playbook, along with "you don't like them because they
wouldn't give you a job".

The fact of the matter being none of it's true. I've owned an iPad
before (about three years until the battery died, and also an iPhone).

I almost bought a 1st generation iPod Touch, but there was no obvious
way to add GSM connectivity to it, so I changed my mind. [That's an
accurate technical reason, btw. And the contemporary iPhone didn't have
3G]

The reason I don't buy an iPhone isn't just that it costs about twice as
much as it ought to and their corporate attitude is snooty, but I've
already got enough phones (which do everything I want them to).
Generally I have about four on the go. Similarly, I don't need an iPad
because I've got a £1500 Windows tablet, and that's just fine.

Which brings me back to the killer reason - surrounded as I am with
Android and Windows gadgets (incl four Windows desktops/laptops on the
go), I really don't need a third platform to mess with.

If I want better stuff (like I have a professional A3 scanner/printer
combo, and just had the broadband upgraded to 300Mbps - which is more
than I could possible use) then I'll spend my money on that instead.
--
Roland Perry

On 14/02/2022 12:36, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
> I consider it to be overpriced and Apple are too secretive regarding
> bugs and vulnerabilities.

I mentioned some of the comments to a friend in the US who is a former
CTO of a major software company.

He said Apples's standard QA process takes four days but they have a
fast track for critical vulnerabilities that takes under twenty four
hours. He says Google is notoriously slow at fixing vulnerabilities.

I don't know anything about it myself, I have never owned or used any
item made by Apple.

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <sudea7$hqm$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:27:03 on Mon, 14 Feb
> 2022, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <sub5jo$a9g$2@dont-email.me>, at 14:46:16 on Sun, 13 Feb
>>> 2022, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>
>>>>>>> What is this nonsense about "ipad version"? Why can't you use a web
>>>>>>> browser on the ipad, and access the same functionality as a browser
>>>>>>> on any other platform?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Don’t try and feign ignorance as if you don’t know that ipads
>>>>>> have versions of programmes tailored to them known as apps , a
>>>>>> term that for some reason I find irritating but has since spread
>>>>>> to microsoft systems and others as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> What an extraordinary conclusion to draw. All I said was "why not use
>>>>> the web version *INSTEAD*
>>>>
>>>> No you didn’t, unless you wrote “instead” in invisible electronic ink.
>>>
>>> Interesting how so many of these spats end up arguing about invisible
>>> words. It's hard work typing responses which eliminate all invisible
>>> words.
>>>
>>> Anyway, as the previous poster was complaining about an app, how could
>>> suggesting using a web browser [instead], be anything other than an
>>> alternative?
>>
>> Given your other posting apparently chiding people for their choice of
>> platform and pointing out that your Windows system worked perfectly,
>> the lack of “instead” and the inclusion of “nonsense” made me
>> prone interpret your comments as pouring scorn on Apple and all its
>> works.
>
> While I agree that I'm no fan of Apple, that does not include "feigning
> ignorance" about the existence of apps.
>
>> I apologise,
>> but you could be more gracious about how abiguous some of your writing is…
>
> I try very hard not to be ambiguous, but perhaps sometimes I get a bit
> weary of probing postings which are themselves ambiguous.
>
> For example, when you say "[RP's] Windows system worked perfectly", do
> you mean recent experience of Google Maps on a Windows platform, or the
> ill-fated Windows phone (which wasn't perfect, not least because in
> order to be extremely cross-platform, foisted a tablet/phone user
> interface onto desktop users).
>
>>> Perhaps you are auditioning for a job as a cabinet minister, where
>>> defending the indefensible is a mandatory skill?
>>
>> … except perhaps you were intending to be snarky all along - it would be
>> consistent with the tone here.
>
> If you want an alternative rendering it might be something like "why
> persist in using a broken tool, like the iPad app appears to be, when
> Google Maps in a browser ought to be fine".
>
> Now, there's a suggestion been made that somehow an iPad running Google
> Maps in a browser gets involuntarily bounced into the app. If that's the
> case, what happens if the app is uninstalled? (Genuine question).
>

If you uninstall the app, then the site will work within the browser.
However, for the vast majority of the time [1] the app is faster, more
convenient and easier to use than the site within a browser.

[1] anytime other than when you want to look back through streetview
timeline, tweak a road journey along specific routes, or share a streetview
link on the apparently rare occasions that the app is malfunctioning.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Am 14.02.2022 um 14:05 schrieb Bob:
> On 2022-02-14 12:58:56 +0000, Certes said:
>
>> On 14/02/2022 06:44, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <sub5t5$c9e$2@dont-email.me>, at 14:51:17 on Sun, 13 Feb
>>> 2022, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>
>>>>> An app I've been using for years on Android
>>>>> cannot be ported to iOS because Apple don't allow access to Bluetooth.
>>>>
>>>> I’m surprised by the Bluetooth thing, since there are lots of apps
>>>> that use
>>>> it,
>>>
>>> Including, surely, the infamous NHS tracing app.
>>
>> I think Apple gave that a special dispensation to access features other
>> apps couldn't, on the debatable basis that government could be trusted.
>
> I think it's more a case that Apple (and Google) produces specific APIs
> for covid tracking apps, that gave access to the elements of the
> bluetooth functionality needed for the tracing purpose, without giving
> the apps complete free reign over the bluetooth functionality.  Most of
> the countries that have similar apps have open-sourced them, so it
> should be possible to actually check if anyone can be bothered.

Kind of. Apple refused to run non-Apple apps permanently in background
(active BT communication was always allowed).
So the compromise was to run an Apple Service API in background, and
have a data management app that did not need to run in background.

With this architecture, Google followed suite to simplify world-wide
implementation of national Covid apps (and later "API only" apps for the
US states that did not feel responsible to provide tracking functionality).

Rolf

Certes <none@nowhere.net> wrote:
> On 14/02/2022 12:36, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>> On 14/02/2022 11:35, Recliner wrote:
>>> The simple fact is that Roland can't afford Apple gear, but dresses up
>>> his
>>> inability to afford it with a stream of inaccurate technical reasons for
>>> not wanting it.
>>>
>> I could afford Apple gear but...
>>
>> I consider it to be overpriced and Apple are too secretive regarding
>> bugs and vulnerabilities.
>
> I could afford Apple gear but rivals give me what I need with more
> access to configure and modify it as I wish (and lower prices).
>

I purchased an iphone because there was one app( why does saying app
niggle me so much)
that wasn’t available on android at the time .

It wasn’t a new phone , apple being the choice of many fashinistas means
there is a ready supply
of 2nd hand phones still with plenty of life in them available at
reasonable cost.

The I-pad was new, it was an emergency purchase when I was away from home
for a few weeks and my laptop chose that moment to die and I had a period
of 3 hours when I could leave a sick elderly relative in the care of
another and made a dash to the nearest PC world/Curries style retailer
North Devon isn’t that well endowed with such shops so it that was a 60
mile round trip to Barnstaple.
I had already tried a tablet running windows but the bloody thing became
almost unusable when effing microsoft updated it to windows 10 from windows
8 which I wasn’t impressed with either.

The i-pad is much lighter and the battery even after 5 years still lasts
longer than that tablet, I purchased a new one for my 90 year old mother
who has found one easy to use for 10 years as her original need replacing,
if you don’t need a large screen or all the bells and whistles like an
inbuilt
cell,phone connection they are not that expensive at around the £320 mark.

I have no wish to modify too much and just use it, main thing is to answer
no to many of the privacy and other settings and only select them back as
required.

You needs will be different .
Most users will still need a PC of some sorts to do a few things that the
ipad isn’t good for but we found that after a couple of generations of
having our own laptops that when they died it was nice to have a desktop
one again for those occasions that are so rare we share it.

We don’t all drive the same models of cars as needs and preferences vary
but that is just accepted
but for some reason people choices of IT equipment invokes a sort of
stupid snobbish response that they should not be doing so because the
criticiser feels qualified they know the needs of the person they are
criticising even by implication better than they know themselves and by
doing so makes them tribal members of a club similar to the attitude
exhibited by some football supporters.

GH

GH

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <sub5t5$c9e$2@dont-email.me>, at 14:51:17 on Sun, 13 Feb
>> 2022, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>
>>>> An app I've been using for years on Android
>>>> cannot be ported to iOS because Apple don't allow access to Bluetooth.
>>>
>>> I’m surprised by the Bluetooth thing, since there are lots of apps that use
>>> it,
>>
>> Including, surely, the infamous NHS tracing app.
>>
>>> but there is a nice network management app that used to be able to
>>> analyse WiFi networks, but no longer can since Apple tightened security.
>>
>> Hiring electric bikes/scooters is usually done via an app using
>> bluetooth to communicate with the lock. And then there's all those
>> "button tracker" things. And wouldn't fitness gadgets also use
>> bluetooth.
>
> My car also syncs up with my iPhone via Bluetooth, so I can make hands free
> calls, get messages etc.
>
> This seems to also show that Bluetooth and iOS use is widespread
>
> https://www.verypossible.com/insights/ios-and-bluetooth-the-possibilities-and-limitations
>
>

Saying Apple doesn’t allow access to bluetooth does seem a strange
statement,
I have about 4 pairs of head phones from a cheap Lidl pair for garden use
up to a Bose noise cancelling set that all work via bluetooth, I can
download files from the dash cam with it left in the car via bluetooth ,
and a wildlife camera. and a couple of other gadgets as well.
As later iPhones don’t have separate headphone sockets bluetooth is now
the main way many connect up their audio devices.

GH

On 2022-02-14 16:33:09 +0000, Rolf Mantel said:

> Am 14.02.2022 um 14:05 schrieb Bob:
>> On 2022-02-14 12:58:56 +0000, Certes said:
>>
>>> On 14/02/2022 06:44, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> In message <sub5t5$c9e$2@dont-email.me>, at 14:51:17 on Sun, 13 Feb
>>>> 2022, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>
>>>>>> An app I've been using for years on Android
>>>>>> cannot be ported to iOS because Apple don't allow access to Bluetooth.
>>>>>
>>>>> I’m surprised by the Bluetooth thing, since there are lots of apps that use
>>>>> it,
>>>>
>>>> Including, surely, the infamous NHS tracing app.
>>>
>>> I think Apple gave that a special dispensation to access features other
>>> apps couldn't, on the debatable basis that government could be trusted.
>>
>> I think it's more a case that Apple (and Google) produces specific APIs
>> for covid tracking apps, that gave access to the elements of the
>> bluetooth functionality needed for the tracing purpose, without giving
>> the apps complete free reign over the bluetooth functionality.  Most of
>> the countries that have similar apps have open-sourced them, so it
>> should be possible to actually check if anyone can be bothered.
>
> Kind of. Apple refused to run non-Apple apps permanently in background
> (active BT communication was always allowed).
> So the compromise was to run an Apple Service API in background, and
> have a data management app that did not need to run in background.

Apple moved away from that, and allowed 3rd party apps to run in the
background some versions earlier, as can be seen by things like music
streaming services like Spotify being able to run in the background.

> With this architecture, Google followed suite to simplify world-wide
> implementation of national Covid apps (and later "API only" apps for
> the US states that did not feel responsible to provide tracking
> functionality).

I think the bigger concern with the COVID stuff was related to data
protection and anonymity. Apple was quite keen on making sure that the
COVID trackign stuff wouldn't be used as a means of more pernicious
tracking of people for less benign purposes.

Robin

Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <sub5jo$a9g$2@dont-email.me>, at 14:46:16 on Sun, 13 Feb
>> 2022, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>
>>>>>> What is this nonsense about "ipad version"? Why can't you use a web
>>>>>> browser on the ipad, and access the same functionality as a browser
>>>>>> on any other platform?
>>>>>
>>>>> Don’t try and feign ignorance as if you don’t know that ipads have versions
>>>>> of programmes tailored to them known as apps , a term that for some reason
>>>>> I find irritating but has since spread to microsoft systems and others as
>>>>> well.
>>>>
>>>> What an extraordinary conclusion to draw. All I said was "why not use
>>>> the web version *INSTEAD*
>>>
>>> No you didn’t, unless you wrote “instead” in invisible electronic ink.
>>
>> Interesting how so many of these spats end up arguing about invisible
>> words. It's hard work typing responses which eliminate all invisible
>> words.
>>
>> Anyway, as the previous poster was complaining about an app, how could
>> suggesting using a web browser [instead], be anything other than an
>> alternative?
>
> Given your other posting apparently chiding people for their choice of
> platform and pointing out that your Windows system worked perfectly, the
> lack of “instead” and the inclusion of “nonsense” made me prone interpret
> your comments as pouring scorn on Apple and all its works. I apologise,
> but you could be more gracious about how abiguous some of your writing is…
>
>> Perhaps you are auditioning for a job as a cabinet minister, where
>> defending the indefensible is a mandatory skill?
>
> … except perhaps you were intending to be snarky all along - it would be
> consistent with the tone here.
>
> Sam
>

As the recipient of Rolands reply I took it that way as well though he
seemed niffed that I took it as such.

His first line “What is this nonsense about "ipad version"? wasn’t exactly
a good start when he likely knows very well that many programmes / apps are
now tailored to work on different platforms and sometimes they work a bit
differently.
Though not directly comparable would he write “What is this nonsense
about a DOS Version if someone was asking how to get an old copy of Flight
simulator running , I doubt it.
If he wanted to be helpful. he could have gone straight into his bit about
accessing through the browser though unaware that it wasn’t quite as
straightforward as that.
It took the helpful and non judgemental post from Tweed to list the
important step required of opening the URL in the background that stops the
installed app from intervening and taking over.

Its not the first time Roland has got huffy because we haven’t interpreted
his post as he intended because we haven’t the ability to read invisible
words that can change how something is read.
As there is one of him and more of us who have made according to him these
mistaken interpretations it really shows the problem is with him and he
need to write with a little more care and even if it is hard work stop
being lazy.

Or he his being a wind up merchant.
GH

Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
> Certes <none@nowhere.net> wrote:
>> On 14/02/2022 12:36, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>>> On 14/02/2022 11:35, Recliner wrote:
>>>> The simple fact is that Roland can't afford Apple gear, but dresses up
>>>> his
>>>> inability to afford it with a stream of inaccurate technical reasons for
>>>> not wanting it.
>>>>
>>> I could afford Apple gear but...
>>>
>>> I consider it to be overpriced and Apple are too secretive regarding
>>> bugs and vulnerabilities.
>>
>> I could afford Apple gear but rivals give me what I need with more
>> access to configure and modify it as I wish (and lower prices).
>>
>
> I purchased an iphone because there was one app( why does saying app
> niggle me so much)
> that wasn’t available on android at the time .
>
> It wasn’t a new phone , apple being the choice of many fashinistas means
> there is a ready supply
> of 2nd hand phones still with plenty of life in them available at
> reasonable cost.
>
> The I-pad was new, it was an emergency purchase when I was away from home
> for a few weeks and my laptop chose that moment to die and I had a period
> of 3 hours when I could leave a sick elderly relative in the care of
> another and made a dash to the nearest PC world/Curries style retailer
> North Devon isn’t that well endowed with such shops so it that was a 60
> mile round trip to Barnstaple.
> I had already tried a tablet running windows but the bloody thing became
> almost unusable when effing microsoft updated it to windows 10 from windows
> 8 which I wasn’t impressed with either.
>
> The i-pad is much lighter and the battery even after 5 years still lasts
> longer than that tablet, I purchased a new one for my 90 year old mother
> who has found one easy to use for 10 years as her original need replacing,
> if you don’t need a large screen or all the bells and whistles like an
> inbuilt
> cell,phone connection they are not that expensive at around the £320 mark.
>
> I have no wish to modify too much and just use it, main thing is to answer
> no to many of the privacy and other settings and only select them back as
> required.
>
> You needs will be different .
> Most users will still need a PC of some sorts to do a few things that the
> ipad isn’t good for but we found that after a couple of generations of
> having our own laptops that when they died it was nice to have a desktop
> one again for those occasions that are so rare we share it.
>
> We don’t all drive the same models of cars as needs and preferences vary
> but that is just accepted
> but for some reason people choices of IT equipment invokes a sort of
> stupid snobbish response that they should not be doing so because the
> criticiser feels qualified they know the needs of the person they are
> criticising even by implication better than they know themselves and by
> doing so makes them tribal members of a club similar to the attitude
> exhibited by some football supporters.
>
> GH
>
> GH
>
>

iPads are much better than a PC for the elderly, and/or the computer
phobic. I’ve recommended iPads to quite a few of the above who haven’t been
able to get on with a PC (or won’t even consider going near one) and
without exception they’ve flourished with the iPad.

In message <j6vhr5F407lU1@mid.individual.net>, at 17:29:09 on Mon, 14
Feb 2022, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> remarked:

>Its not the first time Roland has got huffy because we haven’t interpreted
>his post as he intended because we haven’t the ability to read invisible
>words that can change how something is read.

I continually strive to post things as unambiguously as possible.

In this specific case, I'm sticking by my earlier explanation:

] Anyway, as the previous poster was complaining about an app, how could
] suggesting using a web browser [instead], be anything other than an
] alternative?

and

] If you want an alternative rendering it might be something like "why
] persist in using a broken tool, like the iPad app appears to be, when
] Google Maps in a browser ought to be fine".

--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <j6vhr5F407lU1@mid.individual.net>, at 17:29:09 on Mon, 14
> Feb 2022, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> remarked:
>

>
> ] If you want an alternative rendering it might be something like "why
> ] persist in using a broken tool, like the iPad app appears to be, when
> ] Google Maps in a browser ought to be fine".
>

The answers to that part is that A . I wasn’t aware it was broken until a
few days ago, it had been working fine. B For most things I need it for it
works easier than opening the browser first.
I know you suggested somewhere removing it but if I did that I would not
know if the niggle gets fixed like it has been before.

Your solution would be like throwing a whole socket set away because one
socket fell down a drain and going back to using an inferior set of
spanners when the rest of the sockets work fine.

GH

In message <j72106Fie0pU1@mid.individual.net>, at 16:00:06 on Tue, 15
Feb 2022, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <j6vhr5F407lU1@mid.individual.net>, at 17:29:09 on Mon, 14
>> Feb 2022, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> remarked:
>>
>> ] If you want an alternative rendering it might be something like "why
>> ] persist in using a broken tool, like the iPad app appears to be, when
>> ] Google Maps in a browser ought to be fine".
>
>The answers to that part is that A . I wasn’t aware it was broken until a
>few days ago, it had been working fine. B For most things I need it for it
>works easier than opening the browser first.

Not sure why those considerations make it harder to comprehend that I
meant using a browser as an alternative.

>I know you suggested somewhere removing it but if I did that I would not
>know if the niggle gets fixed like it has been before.

That's fair enough, but again tends to suggest you did know I was
suggesting using a browser *instead*.

>Your solution would be like throwing a whole socket set away because one
>socket fell down a drain and going back to using an inferior set of
>spanners when the rest of the sockets work fine.

That's a bit of a strained analogy. The browser version is more like the
complete socket set, while the app is a swiss army knife where the
spanner attachment is broken.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <j72106Fie0pU1@mid.individual.net>, at 16:00:06 on Tue, 15
> Feb 2022, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <j6vhr5F407lU1@mid.individual.net>, at 17:29:09 on Mon, 14
>>> Feb 2022, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> remarked:
>>>
>>> ] If you want an alternative rendering it might be something like "why
>>> ] persist in using a broken tool, like the iPad app appears to be, when
>>> ] Google Maps in a browser ought to be fine".
>>
>> The answers to that part is that A . I wasn’t aware it was broken until a
>> few days ago, it had been working fine. B For most things I need it for it
>> works easier than opening the browser first.
>
> Not sure why those considerations make it harder to comprehend that I
> meant using a browser as an alternative.
>
>> I know you suggested somewhere removing it but if I did that I would not
>> know if the niggle gets fixed like it has been before.
>
> That's fair enough, but again tends to suggest you did know I was
> suggesting using a browser *instead*.

Nope . Your preamble before about nonsense about an iPad version had
wether you intended it that way or not had already set the tone as that
coming from one of those people who feel they have to start an OS war and
so I moved on past it.
Anyway I had already tried using the browser but as I wrote upthread the
end result was the same so your advice was of no use.
It was Tweed who on this point was more knowledgable than you who gave
the additional step to make it function fully. And he did it without using
aggravating phrases which in your post changed
the style of it considerably, in the time taken to type it you could have
added a much shorter “instead” that would have made your what you were
advising much clearer so saving readers having to guess that is what you
meant.

GH

In message <j72nj7FmlfvU1@mid.individual.net>, at 22:25:43 on Tue, 15
Feb 2022, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <j72106Fie0pU1@mid.individual.net>, at 16:00:06 on Tue, 15
>> Feb 2022, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <j6vhr5F407lU1@mid.individual.net>, at 17:29:09 on Mon, 14
>>>> Feb 2022, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>
>>>> ] If you want an alternative rendering it might be something like "why
>>>> ] persist in using a broken tool, like the iPad app appears to be, when
>>>> ] Google Maps in a browser ought to be fine".
>>>
>>> The answers to that part is that A . I wasn’t aware it was broken until a
>>> few days ago, it had been working fine. B For most things I need it for it
>>> works easier than opening the browser first.
>>
>> Not sure why those considerations make it harder to comprehend that I
>> meant using a browser as an alternative.
>>
>>> I know you suggested somewhere removing it but if I did that I would not
>>> know if the niggle gets fixed like it has been before.
>>
>> That's fair enough, but again tends to suggest you did know I was
>> suggesting using a browser *instead*.
>
> Nope . Your preamble before about nonsense about an iPad version had
>wether you intended it that way or not had already set the tone as that
>coming from one of those people who feel they have to start an OS war and
>so I moved on past it.

There's nothing in that which justifies an accusation of "feigning
ignorance" about the existence of app.

FWIW, it wasn't anti-Apple either, I'd have asked the same question if
it was an Android App.

>Anyway I had already tried using the browser but as I wrote upthread the
>end result was the same so your advice was of no use.

It was a question, as well. Actually two questions, both with question
marks at the end. The second one...

"Why can't you use a web browser on the ipad, and access the same
functionality as a browser on any other platform?"

.... has attracted some answers, which I'm not disputing (although I find
it a bit sad that the browser apparently resigns from the task and
launches the app instead; that's a pretty daft thing to be doing; if
people wanted to use the app surely they'd have launched that
*instead*?).

>It was Tweed who on this point was more knowledgable than you

He has more experience of poking around inside the iPad app, which is
hardly surprising, as I don't have an iPad.

>who gave the additional step to make it function fully.

And have I challenged that in any way shape or form?

>And he did it without using aggravating phrases which in your post
>changed the style of it considerably,

I disagree that the posting was "aggravating". If anything, many of the
various responses to it have been far more abrasive.

>in the time taken to type it you could have added a much shorter
>“instead” that would have made your what you were advising much
>clearer so saving readers having to guess that is what you meant.

But I disagree that the word "instead" was necessary, because the
context is perfectly clear. How could it possibly not be, when my
comments were proposing an alternative solution (viz: using a web
browser). For it to be an alternative, it's obvious that it's "instead
of" something.

I don't know why this storm in a teacup is still raging, after
everything that's already been said.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <j72nj7FmlfvU1@mid.individual.net>, at 22:25:43 on Tue, 15
> Feb 2022, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <j72106Fie0pU1@mid.individual.net>, at 16:00:06 on Tue, 15
>>> Feb 2022, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <j6vhr5F407lU1@mid.individual.net>, at 17:29:09 on Mon, 14
>>>>> Feb 2022, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>
>>>>> ] If you want an alternative rendering it might be something like "why
>>>>> ] persist in using a broken tool, like the iPad app appears to be, when
>>>>> ] Google Maps in a browser ought to be fine".
>>>>
>>>> The answers to that part is that A . I wasn’t aware it was broken until a
>>>> few days ago, it had been working fine. B For most things I need it for it
>>>> works easier than opening the browser first.
>>>
>>> Not sure why those considerations make it harder to comprehend that I
>>> meant using a browser as an alternative.
>>>
>>>> I know you suggested somewhere removing it but if I did that I would not
>>>> know if the niggle gets fixed like it has been before.
>>>
>>> That's fair enough, but again tends to suggest you did know I was
>>> suggesting using a browser *instead*.
>>
>> Nope . Your preamble before about nonsense about an iPad version had
>> wether you intended it that way or not had already set the tone as that
>> coming from one of those people who feel they have to start an OS war and
>> so I moved on past it.
>
> There's nothing in that which justifies an accusation of "feigning
> ignorance" about the existence of app.
>
> FWIW, it wasn't anti-Apple either, I'd have asked the same question if
> it was an Android App.
>
>> Anyway I had already tried using the browser but as I wrote upthread the
>> end result was the same so your advice was of no use.
>
> It was a question, as well. Actually two questions, both with question
> marks at the end. The second one...
>
> "Why can't you use a web browser on the ipad, and access the same
> functionality as a browser on any other platform?"
>
> ... has attracted some answers, which I'm not disputing (although I find
> it a bit sad that the browser apparently resigns from the task and
> launches the app instead; that's a pretty daft thing to be doing; if
> people wanted to use the app surely they'd have launched that
> *instead*?).
>

But then I'd have to copy and paste the location into the app; it's much
easier if the app launches itself with the appropriate data already
supplied. And don't forget that 99% of the time, the app is far more
user-friendly than the browser. And I find that switching between multiple
apps easier when multi-tasking than switching between multiple browser
windows.

The feature to launch an app when one exists is actually very useful,
because they're usually far better than viewing the same thing in a
website. For example, if I click on a YouTube link in a website, email or
message, it's great if it opens automatically in the app (if I click a
YouTube link here, it opens in the embedded browser, but if I click to open
it in the external browser, it opens in YouTube app).

Anna Noyd-Dryver

In message <sujb95$3a7$3@dont-email.me>, at 17:12:05 on Wed, 16 Feb
2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <j72nj7FmlfvU1@mid.individual.net>, at 22:25:43 on Tue, 15
>> Feb 2022, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <j72106Fie0pU1@mid.individual.net>, at 16:00:06 on Tue, 15
>>>> Feb 2022, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <j6vhr5F407lU1@mid.individual.net>, at 17:29:09 on Mon, 14
>>>>>> Feb 2022, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ] If you want an alternative rendering it might be something like "why
>>>>>> ] persist in using a broken tool, like the iPad app appears to be, when
>>>>>> ] Google Maps in a browser ought to be fine".
>>>>>
>>>>> The answers to that part is that A . I wasn’t aware it was
>>>>>broken until a
>>>>> few days ago, it had been working fine. B For most things I need it for it
>>>>> works easier than opening the browser first.
>>>>
>>>> Not sure why those considerations make it harder to comprehend that I
>>>> meant using a browser as an alternative.
>>>>
>>>>> I know you suggested somewhere removing it but if I did that I would not
>>>>> know if the niggle gets fixed like it has been before.
>>>>
>>>> That's fair enough, but again tends to suggest you did know I was
>>>> suggesting using a browser *instead*.
>>>
>>> Nope . Your preamble before about nonsense about an iPad version had
>>> wether you intended it that way or not had already set the tone as that
>>> coming from one of those people who feel they have to start an OS war and
>>> so I moved on past it.
>>
>> There's nothing in that which justifies an accusation of "feigning
>> ignorance" about the existence of app.
>>
>> FWIW, it wasn't anti-Apple either, I'd have asked the same question if
>> it was an Android App.
>>
>>> Anyway I had already tried using the browser but as I wrote upthread the
>>> end result was the same so your advice was of no use.
>>
>> It was a question, as well. Actually two questions, both with question
>> marks at the end. The second one...
>>
>> "Why can't you use a web browser on the ipad, and access the same
>> functionality as a browser on any other platform?"
>>
>> ... has attracted some answers, which I'm not disputing (although I find
>> it a bit sad that the browser apparently resigns from the task and
>> launches the app instead; that's a pretty daft thing to be doing; if
>> people wanted to use the app surely they'd have launched that
>> *instead*?).
>
>But then I'd have to copy and paste the location into the app; it's much
>easier if the app launches itself with the appropriate data already
>supplied.

I don't really follow. If I want to disseminate a Streetview link of
something of interest, first I have to find it on the map. That involves
typing in a search term, and depending on how finely grained it was,
scrolling/zooming the map to find close to the required point, before
switching to Streetview mode by dropping the avatar; very often then
checking if one of the "last year, year before..." views doesn't have
some HGV blocking the sightline, then using the "Share or embed" option
from the browser's hamburger.

>And don't forget that 99% of the time, the app is far more
>user-friendly than the browser.

My experience with the Google Maps app on the Android platform is that
it's excessively skewed towards being a satnav, and lacks ease of use of
mapping facilities like "layers" (of which Streetview is just one).

>And I find that switching between multiple apps easier when
>multi-tasking than switching between multiple browser windows.

Perhaps that's because you are doing it (I presume) on a mobile phone.
They are a lot worse than a laptop for very many things.

>The feature to launch an app when one exists is actually very useful,
>because they're usually far better than viewing the same thing in a
>website. For example, if I click on a YouTube link in a website, email or
>message, it's great if it opens automatically in the app (if I click a
>YouTube link here, it opens in the embedded browser, but if I click to open
>it in the external browser, it opens in YouTube app).

Does the YouTube app allow easy curating of one's own Channel? That's
what I use most of the time (publishing my videos for other people to
see). I less frequently watch other people's videos, typically because
they often don't know how to edit them to a manageable length and I've
got other things to than watch over-long poorly edited talking heads.
--
Roland Perry