On 2022-04-18 11:54 a.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> nospam wrote:
>
>>> And the waterproof argument is a bit far fetched listen with phone
>>> upside down in the shower?
>>> Dive with it listening underwater to the earplugs?
>>
>> it's not far fetched at all.
>
> It's a stretch to claim that all phones with the industry standard 3.5mm
> jack can't have the same water resistance ratings of phones that lack it.

No one has claimed that so...

....straw man.

On 2022-04-18 11:59 a.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> sms wrote:
>
>> On 4/16/2022 11:41 PM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>> And of course the 3.5mm headphone jack provides better quality audio
>>>>> than Bluetooth,
>>>>
>>>> it does not.
>>>>
>>>> the limiting factor is the transducer itself, not the connection
>>>> method.
>>
>> nospam is wrong of course™.
>>
>> What makes no difference is whether the A/D and D/A for wired
>> headphones are inside the phone or inside the Lightning or USB-C
>> dongle. There is no difference in sound quality (unless you've
>> purchased a junky after-market dongle).
>>
>> But there are multiple differences in sound quality between wired
>> headphones and Bluetooth headphones, depending on the phone and the
>> headphones.
>>
>> The iPhone does not yet support LDAC so high-end headphones like the
>> Sony WF-1000XM4 will not get as high quality sound as they will on an
>> Android device with LDAC (see
>> <https://discussions.apple.com/thread/252917132>).
>>
>> When using Bluetooth headphones and watching video, there is often a
>> perceptible delay between the video and the audio, depending on both
>> the phone and the headphones. For music, a few milliseconds of delay
>> doesn't matter but when watching videos it does.
>>
>> On Android devices, you can use the higher quality aptX HD or aptX
>> Adaptive codecs to mostly solve this issue.
>>
>>> That is not correct.
>>> In my experience wireless links (bluetooth or whatever) are not very
>>> reliable.
>>> Same for wireless keyboards, sometimes mine is obstructed by stuff on
>>> the table
>>> that I then have to move,
>>> A direct connection will always be better no matter the RF protocol.
>>>
>>> Also I do not like bluetooth headsets I want no RF next to my head
>>> for long times,
>>>
>>>>> though the Lightning to 3.5mm and USB to 3.5mm dongles
>>>>> are just as good, it's just that the D/A and A/D are duplicated in the
>>>>> dongle. It's just an annoyance to have to buy and carry along one
>>>>> extra
>>>>> item.
>>>>
>>>> then get usb-c or lightning headphones, such as the ones that were
>>>> included in the box of the iphone you supposedly have.
>>>
>>> The small earbuds normally have a 90 degrees angled connector and do
>>> not have that 'lever'
>>> sort of thing that can break the connector.
>>
>> Some do, but most don't. The problem with the 90 degree plugs is that
>> a thick phone case will often prevent them from plugging in.
>>
>> And of course my iPhone did not come with either a Lightning power
>> adapter or Lightning earpods, Apple stopped including those even on
>> the phone models that originally included them. Nor did it include a
>> Lightning to 3.5mm dongle, I had to buy that separately.
>>
>>> And the waterproof argument is a bit far fetched listen with phone
>>> upside down in the shower?
>>> Dive with it listening underwater to the earplugs?
>>
>> It's more for accidental dunkings of the phone. Of course there are
>> IP68 phones that still have headphone jacks. My wife's old Moto X4
>> took a dive in our pool and was no worse for wear despite the
>> headphone jack. She was gardening near the pool, it fell out of her
>> pocket, and she advised me to dive in to retrieve it. But it was in a
>> protective case which may have had a rubber plug over the headphone
>> jack, I can't recall.
>
> It's a red herring to discuss the pros and cons since the reason Apple
> removed the industry standard 3.5 mm jack was to make you buy it back.

Incorrect.

>
> Every time nospam claims that it makes it _easier_ to design a water
> resistant phone without the industry standard jack, all nospam is _really_
> saying is that *nospam believes Apple has a shitty hardware design team.*
> And he'd be right.

It does make it easier.

>
> *Apple is _NOT_ a design powerhouse*; Apple is a MARKETING powerhouse.
> (Apple's R&D is less than Germany's Nato percentage spending for example).

Which is an utterly irrelevant comparison.

On 2022-04-18 1:08 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> nospam wrote:
>
>> In article <625C26FC.3B802F06@Berger-Odenthal.De>, Axel Berger
>> <Spam@Berger-Odenthal.De> wrote:
>>
>>> Without any doubt the 68000 was a much better processor than the
>>> comparable 80386. From then on Intel took off and left Motorola behind
>>> (the 68030, 69040 never caught on commercially).
>>
>> yes they did. the '030 and '040 were used not only in macs, but also in
>> many other products, including amiga, alpha, routers and more.
>>
>>> But up to than IBM sold
>>> far inferior products through marketing clout.
>>
>> true.
>
> Years ago, in Texas, I worked on the Power PC project.
> Remember that?

Really?

Got any proof of that?

>
> Prior to that, I worked with the 68701 (which had the RAM on chip).
>
> One nice thing for hex coding was that the memory order made sense
> (compared to that of the Intel MPUs).

On 2022-04-18 12:59 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> nospam wrote:
>
>> apple doesn't care what you do with a product once it's been purchased.
>
> Apple will permanently _disable_ your iPhone if you refuse to log into
> their
> iCloud periodically nospam. You _know_ this is true.

I know it's false.

>
> Want proof?
> I _tested_ two iPads, both of which Apple _requires_ a login years later!

So then they weren't disabled.

On 2022-04-19, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
> On 2022-04-18 1:08 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
>> nospam wrote:
>>
>>> In article <625C26FC.3B802F06@Berger-Odenthal.De>, Axel Berger
>>> <Spam@Berger-Odenthal.De> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Without any doubt the 68000 was a much better processor than the
>>>> comparable 80386. From then on Intel took off and left Motorola
>>>> behind (the 68030, 69040 never caught on commercially).
>>>
>>> yes they did. the '030 and '040 were used not only in macs, but also
>>> in many other products, including amiga, alpha, routers and more.
>>>
>>>> But up to than IBM sold far inferior products through marketing
>>>> clout.
>>>
>>> true.
>>
>> Years ago, in Texas, I worked on the Power PC project. Remember
>> that?
>
> Really?
>
> Got any proof of that?

Now you've done it... Photos of old crufty books incoming!

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

JR

On 4/18/2022 6:08 PM, Alan wrote:
> On 2022-04-18 11:59 a.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:

<snip>

>> It's a red herring to discuss the pros and cons since the reason Apple
>> removed the industry standard 3.5 mm jack was to make you buy it back.
>
> Incorrect.

Yes, he is incorrect. the primary reason was to encourage the purchase
of AirPods. The secondary reason was to reduce manufacturing cost. I
doubt if the profit from selling the dongles would even show up as a
blip in their reports, even though they sold a LOT of those dongles. I
recall reading an article that said the the dongle was the best selling
Apple product at Best Buy for a while, see
<https://wccftech.com/apple-dongles-top-selling-items-best-buy/>.

>> saying is that *nospam believes Apple has a shitty hardware design team.*
>> And he'd be right.
>
> It does make it easier.

It makes it easier, but other manufacturers have managed IP68 even with
a headphone jack.

In article <t3l443$vv$1@dont-email.me>, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:

> >> It's a red herring to discuss the pros and cons since the reason Apple
> >> removed the industry standard 3.5 mm jack was to make you buy it back.
> >
> > Incorrect.
>
> Yes, he is incorrect.

as are you.

> the primary reason was to encourage the purchase
> of AirPods.

that is absolutely false.

in fact, airpods weren't even available when the iphone 7 was released.

when they did become available, they were backordered for *months*,
needing *no* encouragement whatsoever.

the majority of them were sold to people who had iphones *with* analog
headphone jacks, and being a standard bluetooth device, some were sold
to non-apple customers.

> The secondary reason was to reduce manufacturing cost.

also wrong. the difference is negligible.

the primary reason was because space inside a phone is at a premium,
and there were other features that had a much higher priority than an
analog headphone jack which wasn't used by a sufficient number of
people to justify keeping it.

> I doubt if the profit from selling the dongles would even show up as a
> blip in their reports, even though they sold a LOT of those dongles.

no they don't sell a lot of those.

> I recall reading an article that said the the dongle was the best selling
> Apple product at Best Buy for a while,

that article is laughable and easily refuted. first, the adapter was
*included* with iphones at the time they claim it sold well, so any
sales weren't because it was needed. second, it references a claim from
a company that doesn't do market research. third, how they obtained
sales data is undisclosed and it's only one store, not industry-wide.

On 2022-04-18 6:43 p.m., sms wrote:
> On 4/18/2022 6:08 PM, Alan wrote:
>> On 2022-04-18 11:59 a.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> It's a red herring to discuss the pros and cons since the reason Apple
>>> removed the industry standard 3.5 mm jack was to make you buy it back.
>>
>> Incorrect.
>
> Yes, he is incorrect. the primary reason was to encourage the purchase
> of AirPods. The secondary reason was to reduce manufacturing cost. I
> doubt if the profit from selling the dongles would even show up as a
> blip in their reports, even though they sold a LOT of those dongles. I
> recall reading an article that said the the dongle was the best selling
> Apple product at Best Buy for a while, see
> <https://wccftech.com/apple-dongles-top-selling-items-best-buy/>.
>
>>> saying is that *nospam believes Apple has a shitty hardware design
>>> team.*
>>> And he'd be right.
>>
>> It does make it easier.
>
> It makes it easier, but other manufacturers have managed IP68 even with
> a headphone jack.

Yup.

But "harder" translates into additional cost to the consumer.

The 3.5mm jack you can make water resistant is both bulkier and more
expensive than one you don't have to make water resistant.

On a sunny day (Mon, 18 Apr 2022 16:12:43 -0400) it happened nospam
<nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in <180420221612438873%nospam@nospam.invalid>:

>In article <t3kclh$18cc$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
><spam@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> The only reason Apple made the "courageous" decision to remove common
>> industry standard hardware functionality that is found on almost all
>> other devices.... is...
>
>...is because very few people actually used an analog headphone jack to
>justify keeping it in a highly-space constrained device, such as a
>phone, where that space could be better served for features that
>benefit more people. also because it's redundant, because a more
>functional option has existed alongside it.

As somebody else already pointed out,
the analog jack with cable is required for FM radio reception,
the headphone lead in that case functions as antenna.

On 2022-04-18 10:56 p.m., Jan Panteltje wrote:
> On a sunny day (Mon, 18 Apr 2022 16:12:43 -0400) it happened nospam
> <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in <180420221612438873%nospam@nospam.invalid>:
>
>> In article <t3kclh$18cc$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
>> <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The only reason Apple made the "courageous" decision to remove common
>>> industry standard hardware functionality that is found on almost all
>>> other devices.... is...
>>
>> ...is because very few people actually used an analog headphone jack to
>> justify keeping it in a highly-space constrained device, such as a
>> phone, where that space could be better served for features that
>> benefit more people. also because it's redundant, because a more
>> functional option has existed alongside it.
>
> As somebody else already pointed out,
> the analog jack with cable is required for FM radio reception,
> the headphone lead in that case functions as antenna.
>

Since no iPhone ever had FM radio...

On a sunny day (Mon, 18 Apr 2022 20:59:15 +0100) it happened Andy Burnelli
<spam@nospam.com> wrote in <t3kfu4$mc7$1@gioia.aioe.org>:

>nospam wrote:
>
>> apple doesn't care what you do with a product once it's been purchased.
>
>Apple will permanently _disable_ your iPhone if you refuse to log into their
>iCloud periodically nospam. You _know_ this is true.
>
>Want proof?
>I _tested_ two iPads, both of which Apple _requires_ a login years later!
>
>If you don't eventually log into their iCloud - Apple _disables_ the device!
>Don't believe me?
>
>Look here:
>
>1. Apple "ID Verification" prompts come up ten, twenty or more times a day.
> <https://i.postimg.cc/LXzB3Lc0/appleid01.jpg>
>2. Apple "Sign-in to iCloud" prompts come up a dozen or more times a day.
> <https://i.postimg.cc/Y9kkj19v/appleid12.jpg>
>3. Apple won't let you sign in even with the _correct_ login & password.
> <https://i.postimg.cc/8zSvshQf/appleid04.jpg>
>4. The Apple web site is so poorly designed it doesn't even tell you why.
> <https://i.postimg.cc/SKGfmgnK/appleid05.jpg>
>5. Eventually, as it did with one of my iPads already, Apple destroys it.
> <https://i.postimg.cc/g008YhxP/appleid02.jpg>
> <https://i.postimg.cc/q75t7MSk/appleid03.jpg>
>6. On my 2nd iPad, the Apple apps stop working (but everything else works!)
> <https://i.postimg.cc/hhFNJ5mq/appleid010.jpg>
>7. Every single day, many times a day, you're confronted with tracking crap
> such as this "Some account services require you to sign in again"
> <https://i.postimg.cc/nrFHSvby/appleid11.jpg>
>8. Interestingly, you can update your iOS (which I almost never do) as shown
> here where I updated this week from iOS 13 to iOS 15 (and it let me).
> <https://i.postimg.cc/nLjqk2HD/osupdate03.jpg>
>9. And you can wipe out your Siri recordings (due to the recent zero-day).
> <https://i.postimg.cc/sfZ0XP71/osupdate02.jpg>
>10. Yet Apple tracking servers still require "Apple ID Verification"
> <https://i.postimg.cc/gj0r2cBP/osupdate01.jpg>
>11. And, you can install an app, but if you delete it, you can't re-install.
> <https://i.postimg.cc/bJPKDSZ1/osupdate04.jpg>
> <https://i.postimg.cc/ZR5mZ287/appleid07.jpg>
>12. In the end, if you attempt that forced validation on VPN, Apple
> unilaterally destroys your investment by locking you out of it forever!
> <https://i.postimg.cc/q75t7MSk/appleid03.jpg>
>13. All because Apple tracking servers _require_ periodic ID verification.
> <https://i.postimg.cc/8k3GQyj4/appleid09.jpg>
> <https://i.postimg.cc/q75t7MSk/appleid03.jpg>

And from the news TODAY:
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2022/04/a-year-after-apple-enforces-app-tracking-policy-covert-ios-tracking-remains/

sms wrote:

>>> It's a red herring to discuss the pros and cons since the reason Apple
>>> removed the industry standard 3.5 mm jack was to make you buy it back.
>>
>> Incorrect.
>
> Yes, he is incorrect. the primary reason was to encourage the purchase
> of AirPods.

Jesus Chris Steve.
You say I'm incorrect, and then you completely agree with me.

Don't be a moron.
I expect the iKooks to be morons - but I don't expect you to be one too.

Apple did it to make more money. No other reason.
(All the reasons nospam claims are all completely bullshit.)

Sure Apple made money on saving costs, but they make _more_ on sales.

As your own cite showed with the billions of dollars Apple made by removing
basic amenities in the box Steve, they make that money in multiple ways:
a. Costs saved in shipping & design
b. Money made by selling product

But it all boils down to what I said.
Don't be inconsistent Steve.

I don't make every post contain all the details when I summarize what
Apple's strategic plan is - which is to slowly remove functionality so that
they make a profit on how you respond.

You even refuted recently that I said "year after year", where you claimed
it wasn't every year, but every "few years" which again, is a ridiculous
argument because it means you completely missed the main strategic point.

The point is that Apple's strategy is to remove basic functionality over
time so that Apple can make more money off of you as you try to recover.

The iKooks are oblivious to this - but every _adult_ knows what Apple did:
1. First they had the industry standard 3.5mm jack
2. Then they removed it - but - they gave you an alternative
3. Then they removed that alternative - and told you it was "green"

It doesn't matter what Apple "says" is the reason because Apple's real
reason is to remove functionality so that they make money off of you trying
to get it back (they make _more_ on that than they do on the cost savings).
--
All I care about on the Android & iOS newsgroups are three things:
1. Learning from others
2. Teaching others
3. Showing that the iKooks are utter morons who are always full of shit

The latter is because I despise cruel despicable unprepossessing people.
a. As long as you teach me or learn from me, I'll respect you.
b. And as long as you don't act like the iKooks do, I'll respect you.

nospam wrote:

>> The secondary reason was to reduce manufacturing cost.
>
> also wrong. the difference is negligible.

It's consistent how the iKooks deny all facts about Apple that they hate.
And yet, the iKooks _never_ seem to be able to supply the facts themselves.

It's as if their _entire_ belief system is _comopletely_ imaginary.

They _believe_ that it's perfectly reasonable that Apple expects you
to live as if you were born in the slums, where you are expected by
Apple to share your old slow accessories among all your family members
such that only one of you can charge your phone at a time overnight.

And nospam then claims that Apple didn't do it solely for the money?

What estimates does nospam have to refute the recently reported 6.5 billion
dollars Apple saved on costs by removing the accessories from the box?

None?

And what estimates does nospam have for the further billions of dollars in
_increased sales_ of accessories Apple directly garnered by forcing upon
consumers a new buying decision that never needed to be made prior?

Again none?
Bear in mind, NOBODY wants to share old decrepit chargers or AirPods.

HINT: *AirPods alone are a 20 billion dollar business for Apple.*

REFERENCES:
<https://screenrant.com/apple-saved-billions-removing-chargers-boxes/>
<https://www.phonearena.com/news/apple-saved-billions-removing-accessories-from-boxes_id139005>
<https://www.gizmochina.com/2022/03/14/apple-reportedly-6-billion-removing-charger-earpods-box/>
<https://techstory.in/apple-reportedly-saved-in-billions-with-removing-chargers-earpods-from-box/>
<https://tech.hindustantimes.com/mobile/news/how-much-apple-saved-by-removing-charger-earpods-from-iphone-12-box-71610289652370.html>

On a sunny day (Mon, 18 Apr 2022 23:01:04 -0700) it happened Alan
<nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote in <t3lj70$f8e$1@dont-email.me>:

>On 2022-04-18 10:56 p.m., Jan Panteltje wrote:
>> On a sunny day (Mon, 18 Apr 2022 16:12:43 -0400) it happened nospam
>> <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in <180420221612438873%nospam@nospam.invalid>:
>>
>>> In article <t3kclh$18cc$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
>>> <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The only reason Apple made the "courageous" decision to remove common
>>>> industry standard hardware functionality that is found on almost all
>>>> other devices.... is...
>>>
>>> ...is because very few people actually used an analog headphone jack to
>>> justify keeping it in a highly-space constrained device, such as a
>>> phone, where that space could be better served for features that
>>> benefit more people. also because it's redundant, because a more
>>> functional option has existed alongside it.
>>
>> As somebody else already pointed out,
>> the analog jack with cable is required for FM radio reception,
>> the headphone lead in that case functions as antenna.
>>
>
>Since no iPhone ever had FM radio...

Really?
How bad, no radio in an emergency 'THE RUSSIANS ARE COMING HIDE UNDER THE TABLE AND LISTEN FOR 100.1MHz' sort of thing :-)
'No radio' is an other no-no to ever buy Apple,
Sometimes there is good music on FM.
I even have some Chinese old phone that could show analog TV when it was still here.

On 19/04/2022 07:41, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> It's consistent how the iKooks deny all facts about Apple that they hate.
> And yet, the iKooks _never_ seem to be able to supply the facts themselves.
>
> It's as if their _entire_ belief system is _completely_ imaginary.

Its not 'as if', it *is*.
We all know these sorts of people. They dint know how to verify any
knowledge for themselves so their validation consists in choosing who to
believe.
My dear sister even said that 'well it depends which websites you believe'

As she assured me that German government was lying about its own nuclear
power but was telling the exact truth about Chernobyl, that it was going
to kill 1/4 million people. And cover it up. Somehow.

Its called doublethink.

I call these people in general ArtSuidents™ because what is important to
them is the emotional and moral tenor of their lives. They buy Apple
tech and German cars, because it makes them feel superior and good
about themselves. Another habit they have was vest describe by Rudyard
Kipling - and acute psychologist - in 'the Jungle Book'.

"We are the greatest and the wisest people in the jungle...what we think
to day the world will think tomorrow ... we all say it, so it must be true!"

Bandar Log. The monkey people.

They are not stupid people, they are that most dangerous of species,
people who are a bit smart, but think they are a lot smarter than they
are, and as smart as anybody else.

But they are intellectually lazy: the short cut of simply receiving
someone else's wisdom instead of the hard work of acquiring some
themselves, is simply too tempting

In a political context they are called 'useful idiots' : they will latch
on to any 'new' idea and support it with fervour simply in order to be
as they see it 'ahead of the game'.

Marketing to this group consists in generating an emotional narrative
about the product that presents it in the light of being 'new,
promising, and full of hope - the obvious choice of an intelligent
person', Rather than 'true, useful, tried and tested'

Or as the Daily Mash put it 'clever science man say new shiny thing make
everything better'

Whenever you detect a potential emotional bias to a narrative, the
implication that those not 'with it' are incurable Neanderthals, an/or
research that implies that '97% of everybody who counts believes in it'
you may be sure its snake oil...

--
"The great thing about Glasgow is that if there's a nuclear attack it'll
look exactly the same afterwards."

Billy Connolly

On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 11:18:11 +0100
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> Whenever you detect a potential emotional bias to a narrative, the
> implication that those not 'with it' are incurable Neanderthals, an/or
> research that implies that '97% of everybody who counts believes in it'
> you may be sure its snake oil...

Occasionally it is someone using the tried and tested techniques to
sell something good - but usually success will convert the good product
into cheaper-to-produce-snake-oil once money takes control so these
examples are short lived but often to be found in the early history of the
best snake oil providers.

It occurs to me that there are uncomfortable parallels in this
approach to Goerring's "voice or no voice, the people can always be brought
to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell
them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of
patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any
country.”. Also to Sun Tzu's lengthy observations.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/

In article <t3lj38$fas$1@dont-email.me>, Jan Panteltje
<pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> As somebody else already pointed out,
> the analog jack with cable is required for FM radio reception,
> the headphone lead in that case functions as antenna.

fm radio is almost never used on a phone for a number of reasons,
including a distance limit of roughly 50 miles (usually less due to
terrain) and that headphones are required (and not coiled up stuffed
into a pocket), making it impossible to listen with bluetooth wireless
headphones, the internal speakers or external speakers.

smartphones do not have any of those limitations and can stream
stations from anywhere in the world, and not just fm, but also am,
police/fire, air traffic control and more.

more commonly, smartphones stream from music services such as spotify
or from podcast networks, and of course, anything stored locally on the
phone.

people can listen via any headset, wired or wireless, internal
speakers, which on many phones are reasonably good, or external
speakers.

In article <t3lnti$c5d$1@dont-email.me>, Jan Panteltje
<pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

> >> As somebody else already pointed out,
> >> the analog jack with cable is required for FM radio reception,
> >> the headphone lead in that case functions as antenna.
> >>
> >
> >Since no iPhone ever had FM radio...
>
> Really?

really. nor do almost all android phones as well as feature phones.
it's not something that is in any demand, let alone high demand.

> How bad, no radio in an emergency 'THE RUSSIANS ARE COMING HIDE UNDER THE
> TABLE AND LISTEN FOR 100.1MHz' sort of thing :-)

that's what push notifications are for, and the emergency alert system.

> 'No radio' is an other no-no to ever buy Apple,

almost all smartphones do not have an fm radio, and of those that do,
it's exceptionally rare that it's actually used due to its limitations.

> Sometimes there is good music on FM.

and often times not.

that's why people have moved to streaming services such as spotify,
where you have control over what you hear, from a library of nearly
everything.

or they listen to music from their own music library stored on the
phone, or other content, such as podcasts.

none of that is possible with fm radio.

> I even have some Chinese old phone that could show analog TV when it was still here.

smartphones can stream video and optionally cast it to a large screen
tv.

netflix is extremely popular, as are other services.

you're living in the dark ages.

In article <t3lj8c$glu$1@dont-email.me>, Jan Panteltje
<pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

> And from the news TODAY:
> https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2022/04/a-year-after-apple-enforces-app-tracking-policy-covert-ios-tracking-remains/

yet another thing you don't understand.

that's about third party companies who continue to track people despite
the user choosing to not be tracked.

On a sunny day (Tue, 19 Apr 2022 08:24:22 -0400) it happened nospam
<nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in <190420220824225222%nospam@nospam.invalid>:

>In article <t3lj38$fas$1@dont-email.me>, Jan Panteltje
><pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> As somebody else already pointed out,
>> the analog jack with cable is required for FM radio reception,
>> the headphone lead in that case functions as antenna.
>
>fm radio is almost never used on a phone for a number of reasons,
>including a distance limit of roughly 50 miles (usually less due to

1)
I get 5 or six FM stations here, just plugged my big Sennheiser headphones into my Xiaomi smartphone.

>terrain) and that headphones are required (and not coiled up stuffed
>into a pocket), making it impossible to listen with bluetooth wireless

The wire was mostly coiled up.

>headphones, the internal speakers or external speakers.

2)
I then switched to speaker on the phone, left the headphones connector in of course.
The Xiaomi automatically searches to the next FM station if I press the < or > button..

>>smartphones do not have any of those limitations and can stream
>stations from anywhere in the world,

3)
Only if you are in range, payed for the (maybe prepaid) subscription to your provider

4)
AND only if the tower still stands (some here were burned down by anti-5G protesters a while back),

5)
and only if that provider does not have a blackout (like Vodafone has here on a regular basis it seems).

>and not just fm, but also am,
>police/fire, air traffic control and more.

AM is pretty much dead here.

>more commonly, smartphones stream from music services such as spotify
>or from podcast networks, and of course, anything stored locally on the
>phone.

>people can listen via any headset, wired or wireless, internal
>speakers, which on many phones are reasonably good, or external
>speakers.

6)
Yes my Xiaomi can do all that, plus the FM radio, price was 140 Euro, (about 140 USD these days)
Of course it also has GPS, magnetic compass, google maps for navigation,
level meter, and even can work as remote for many makes TV, like for my Samsung TV for example.

Value for money, has not failed me yet.
40 megapixel camera
audio / video recorder, screen recorder, clock, calculator, browser, what not...
Why pay more for less?

On a sunny day (Tue, 19 Apr 2022 08:24:27 -0400) it happened nospam
<nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in <190420220824275527%nospam@nospam.invalid>:

>In article <t3lj8c$glu$1@dont-email.me>, Jan Panteltje
><pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> And from the news TODAY:
>>
>> https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2022/04/a-year-after-apple-enforces-app-tracking-policy-covert-ios-tracking-remains/
>
>yet another thing you don't understand.
>
>that's about third party companies who continue to track people despite
>the user choosing to not be tracked.

Try learning to read

On a sunny day (Tue, 19 Apr 2022 08:24:24 -0400) it happened nospam
<nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in <190420220824245331%nospam@nospam.invalid>:

>In article <t3lnti$c5d$1@dont-email.me>, Jan Panteltje
><pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> >> As somebody else already pointed out,
>> >> the analog jack with cable is required for FM radio reception,
>> >> the headphone lead in that case functions as antenna.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Since no iPhone ever had FM radio...
>>
>> Really?
>
>really. nor do almost all android phones as well as feature phones.
>it's not something that is in any demand, let alone high demand.

Bullshit
Go away

In article <t3mbsf$p39$1@dont-email.me>, Jan Panteltje
<pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

> 1)
> I get 5 or six FM stations here, just plugged my big Sennheiser headphones
> into my Xiaomi smartphone.

that many?

smartphone apps can receive many hundreds if not thousands of fm radio
stations from anywhere in the world, along with many other sources, and
without the need to use headphones.

> >>smartphones do not have any of those limitations and can stream
> >stations from anywhere in the world,
>
> 3)
> Only if you are in range, payed for the (maybe prepaid) subscription to your
> provider

nope. all that's needed is wifi or cellular signal, which is available
in far more places than terrestrial radio and capable of streaming far
more stations.

there is also no subscription payment needed for radio station apps.
services such as spotify have fees, but your concern is radio.

>
> 4)
> AND only if the tower still stands (some here were burned down by anti-5G
> protesters a while back),

you live in a place inhabited by idiots.

nevertheless, 5g is not needed. 4g/lte still exists, as well as 3g in
many places, although that is slowly being turned off.

why haven't those 5g towers been replaced?

> 5)
> and only if that provider does not have a blackout (like Vodafone has here on
> a regular basis it seems).

false. cellular providers can't block internet streaming.

a few radio stations might not offer a feed, but that's the exception,
not the rule.

> >and not just fm, but also am,
> >police/fire, air traffic control and more.
>
> AM is pretty much dead here.

am is useful for news, sports, traffic, talk shows, etc.

the point is that a smartphone can receive *much* more than just fm
radio, making an old school terrestrial fm radio obsolete.

welcome to the future.

In article <t3mbtu$pg0$1@dont-email.me>, Jan Panteltje
<pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

> >> And from the news TODAY:
> >>
> >>
> >> https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2022/04/a-year-after-apple-
> >> enforces-app-tracking-policy-covert-ios-tracking-remains/
> >
> >yet another thing you don't understand.
> >
> >that's about third party companies who continue to track people despite
> >the user choosing to not be tracked.
>
> Try learning to read

take your own advice.

you are mindlessly blaming apple for the actions of ad tracking
companies, who ignored the user's choice to not be tracked and tracked
them anyway.

On 4/17/2022 7:41 AM, Axel Berger wrote:
> Jan Panteltje wrote:
>> Steve Jobs went on (later) about Apple's superior processors used
>> for nuclear research testing.
>
> Without any doubt the 68000 was a much better processor than the
> comparable 80386. From then on Intel took off and left Motorola behind
> (the 68030, 69040 never caught on commercially). But up to than IBM sold
> far inferior products through marketing clout.

The biggest issue Apple ran into with the PowerPC processors was the
high tdp (thermal design power). It didn't matter much for desktops but
it was causing the Macbook to fall too far behind the
power/performance/battery life of X86 Windows laptops. "PowerPC
processors had the potential to be very fast, but they ran hot and
required a lot of power, which is bad for laptops,"
<https://mashable.com/article/intel-macs-at-10>.

The move to X86, and the ability to dual boot Windows and OS-X, also
enabled sales of Macs to a much wider user base, "Even though Apple
primarily moved from PowerPC to Intel x86 for performance reasons, one
of the huge advantages of the move was that for the first time, Mac
users could run Windows natively on Mac hardware,"
<https://mashable.com/article/intel-macs-at-10>.