On 2023-01-03, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> there is no signup for a family plan.]]

Doesn't matter.

If the only way an iPhone can have lower cost of ownership than an Android
phone is that you have to sign up for a special plan, then it's a bogus
argument, especially given how huge iPhone cost of ownership usually is.

>> What does backing up user data have to do with total cost of ownership?
>
> the claim was that people must 'depend on apple's service to keep a
> copy of your system online', which is easily debunked and doesn't even
> make sense. everything is local. the cloud is an optional extra.

Unless there is a relevant cost of ownership difference in backing up
Android versus backing up iPhones, then again, the argument is bogus.

>> More expensive phones tend to be larger and larger more expensive phones
>> tend to have larger batteries but iPhones tend to have smaller batteries
>> than equivalently sized and priced Android phones (almost always actually).
>
> yet iphones generally have the longest run times, which is what
> matters, not the size of the battery.

Unless there is an appreciable cost of ownership argument that you are not
stating then the size of the battery (or run time) is irrelevant to TCO.

> almost everyone has chargers and cables from previous phones and other
> devices.

It's ridiculous for you to claim the only way you can get the iPhone to NOT
far exceed Android cost of ownership is to use garbage dump accessories.

If the only way you can make your total cost of ownership work out less
horrible for the iPhone is to assume people go to the dump to find old worn
out (probably dangerous) slow low amperage chargers, then say it outright.

> that's almost nothing over a typical 3-4 year ownership.

If the only way you can make any case for iPhone ownership costs not being
huge over Android ownership costs is to assume iPhone owners scrounge all
their accessories from the local garbage dump, then your case is bogus.

The only valid case for iPhone versus Android ownership costs is to
calculate them on the basis of all new common accessories designed to fit
that phone's charging standard (which is often either PD or QC nowadays).

It's ridiculous for you to claim the only way you can get the iPhone to NOT
exceed the cost of ownership of Android is to only use garbage dump parts.

On 2023-01-03 05:20, Mayayana wrote:
> I don't generally use apps and mostly just keep a cellphone on-hand,
> not powered up, for when I need to make a phone call away from home.

And if someone needs to call you...

....because it's urgent...

....and you keep your cell phone turned off?

That's about as stupid an idea as I have ever heard.

In article <tp2524$1jmm$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Chris Schram
<chrispam1@me.com> wrote:

> > there is no signup for a family plan.]]
>
> Doesn't matter.

it does matter, because it's further evidence that you have no clue
about much of anything.

> If the only way an iPhone can have lower cost of ownership than an Android
> phone is that you have to sign up for a special plan, then it's a bogus
> argument, especially given how huge iPhone cost of ownership usually is.

nobody said it was the only way, nor does one have to sign up for it,
and not only that, the same benefit applies to android.

you truly are clueless.

> >> What does backing up user data have to do with total cost of ownership?
> >
> > the claim was that people must 'depend on apple's service to keep a
> > copy of your system online', which is easily debunked and doesn't even
> > make sense. everything is local. the cloud is an optional extra.
>
> Unless there is a relevant cost of ownership difference in backing up
> Android versus backing up iPhones, then again, the argument is bogus.

mayayana made that claim and yes it's bogus, however, it's not for the
reasons you claim.

> > almost everyone has chargers and cables from previous phones and other
> > devices.
>
> It's ridiculous for you to claim the only way you can get the iPhone to NOT
> far exceed Android cost of ownership is to use garbage dump accessories.

nobody claimed anything close to that.

not only are you clueless, but you're a liar.

On 2023-01-03 21:11:09 +0000, Alan said:
> On 2023-01-03 05:20, Mayayana wrote:
>> I don't generally use apps and mostly just keep a cellphone on-hand,
>> not powered up, for when I need to make a phone call away from home.
>
> And if someone needs to call you...
>
> ...because it's urgent...
>
> ...and you keep your cell phone turned off?
>
> That's about as stupid an idea as I have ever heard.

This will make you happy then ... I've never had a mobile phone of any
kind, and probably never will. I don't see any point at all in *me*
having one - it's simply yet another unnecessary on-going expense
paying out to greedy telecoms companies.

On 2023-01-03 13:25, Your Name wrote:
> On 2023-01-03 21:11:09 +0000, Alan said:
>> On 2023-01-03 05:20, Mayayana wrote:
>>> I don't generally use apps and mostly just keep a cellphone on-hand,
>>> not powered up, for when I need to make a phone call away from home.
>>
>> And if someone needs to call you...
>>
>> ...because it's urgent...
>>
>> ...and you keep your cell phone turned off?
>>
>> That's about as stupid an idea as I have ever heard.
>
> This will make you happy then ... I've never had a mobile phone of any
> kind, and probably never will. I don't see any point at all in *me*
> having one - it's simply yet another unnecessary on-going expense paying
> out to greedy telecoms companies.
>

That makes me completely happy.

Not having mobile phone at all is a valid choice.

Having one, paying for it...

....but not taking full advantage of what you're paying for is just stupid.

Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
> Am 03.01.23 um 21:51 schrieb Chris:
>> Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
>>> *ROTFLSTC*
>>> Short Messages, Telegram, Signal, Threema and even WhatsApp exist.
>>> This is no issue at all.
>>> A family that wants to communicate can communicate irrespective of the
>>> platform.
>>
>> There's more to it than chatting.
>
> E-Mail? Phone calls? Everything platform-agnostic.
> Tell us a little more we don't know yet.

Sharing photos or cloud storage or paid apps or media subscriptions.

On 2023-01-03, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> Unless there is a relevant cost of ownership difference in backing up
>> Android versus backing up iPhones, then again, the argument is bogus.
>
> mayayana made that claim and yes it's bogus, however, it's not for the
> reasons you claim.

Your entire argument REQUIRES arbitrary limitations.

The only way an iPhone isn't going to cost far more than an Android phone
is if you artificially limit almost everything in terms of true costs.

You're already scraping the barrel claiming that you have to sneak into
junk yards at night so that you don't have to pay the price for Apple
branded chargers of the proper iPhone charging standard (PD usually).

You're ignoring that most phones are NOT either sold or traded when someone
purchases a new phone, but they turn into a zero dollar value goat turd.

For your argument on iOS apps costing less you have to go against all known
statistics about which market segment contains the app whales.

Your argument that most people get their iPhones at zero cost is as
preposterous as the rest of your arguments have been.

Every one of your ridiculous arguments REQUIRES you to limit the selection
of the two phones that you would be comparing for total ownership costs.

You'd have to cherry pick to find one iPhone whose high cost of ownership
isn't many fold that of the total ownership cost of most Android phones.

On Tue, 3 Jan 2023 22:12:55 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:

> Sharing photos or cloud storage or paid apps or media subscriptions.

How much is 128GB of iCloud storage rented for the life of an iPhone?
How much is a 128GB sd card storage for a typical Android phone life?

The problem with photo storage is the entire iPhone platform is designed to
*increase* the total cost of ownership for people who store large amounts.

All these total cost of ownership calculations are ignoring that Apple
designs the iPhone to *increase* the total cost of ownership such as when
Apple removed the 3.5mm slot in favor of far more expensive accessories.

Given Apple's intent is expressly to *increase total cost of ownership*
there is no way except in very special corner cases an iPhone can ever cost
less than Android (for equivalent phones and capacities and carrier plans).

Any attempt to show otherwise has to ignore almost every Android out there.

In article <tp2a0d$1jqo$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Chris Schram
<chrispam1@me.com> wrote:

> You're already scraping the barrel claiming that you have to sneak into
> junk yards at night so that you don't have to pay the price for Apple
> branded chargers of the proper iPhone charging standard (PD usually).

nobody has claimed anything close to that, liar.

> You're ignoring that most phones are NOT either sold or traded when someone
> purchases a new phone, but they turn into a zero dollar value goat turd.

false. most phones are traded in, sold on the used market, or handed
down to other family members, usually parents giving them to their kids
after they get something new for themselves. this is not unique to
iphones and has been the case long before there even were iphones.

> For your argument on iOS apps costing less you have to go against all known
> statistics about which market segment contains the app whales.

nobody said anything about the price of ios or android apps, liar.

> Your argument that most people get their iPhones at zero cost is as
> preposterous as the rest of your arguments have been.

most people get discounts from the retail price no matter what phone
they buy, as low as zero with contract, which has been the case for
decades.

mayayana's claim that iphones cost 'thousands of dollars' or whatever
price he said is simply bullshit. even the carrier he uses sells one
for $189.

> Every one of your ridiculous arguments REQUIRES you to limit the selection
> of the two phones that you would be comparing for total ownership costs.

nothing is limited, except your ability to think.

On 2023-01-03 14:38, Jerry wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Jan 2023 22:12:55 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
>
>> Sharing photos or cloud storage or paid apps or media subscriptions.
>
> How much is 128GB of iCloud storage rented for the life of an iPhone?

$4/month gets you 200GB.

> How much is a 128GB sd card storage for a typical Android phone life?
How much use is that when the phone...

....along the SD card...

....get stolen.

The $4/month for iCloud not only gets you more storage:

It's an effective backup as well.

>
> The problem with photo storage is the entire iPhone platform is designed to
> *increase* the total cost of ownership for people who store large amounts.
>
> All these total cost of ownership calculations are ignoring that Apple
> designs the iPhone to *increase* the total cost of ownership such as when
> Apple removed the 3.5mm slot in favor of far more expensive accessories.

Hi, Arlen!

I'm sure the extra $10 that somebody makes (not necessarily Apple) is an
absolute deal-breaker (where's the eyeroll emoji? Oh, right! It's easy
to find them on a Mac!)

🙄

On 2023-01-03 23:15:25 +0000, Alan said:
> On 2023-01-03 14:38, Jerry wrote:
>> On Tue, 3 Jan 2023 22:12:55 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
>>>
>>> Sharing photos or cloud storage or paid apps or media subscriptions.
>>
>> How much is 128GB of iCloud storage rented for the life of an iPhone?
>
> $4/month gets you 200GB.
>
>> How much is a 128GB sd card storage for a typical Android phone life?
>
> How much use is that when the phone...
>
> ...along the SD card...
>
> ...get stolen.
>
> The $4/month for iCloud not only gets you more storage:
>
> It's an effective backup as well.

Apple itself says iCloud is NOT a good way to backup photos, etc.
because the syncing means you can too easily delete somethign by
accident (although there is a grace period where you can retrieve
deleted items, remaining free iCloud space allowing). You need to have
a proper backup elsewhere, preferably more than one if the items are
important to you.

Besides which, anyone who actually knows anything about the iPhone
knows you can easily use an SD card to store stuff. Maybe not quite as
easily or cheaply as putting the card into the phone itself ... but
then the extra SSD socket on some Android phones is just another way
for water to get in, something else to potentially go wrong, and a
marketing gimmick that most people will never use anyway.

In article <tp2e8s$1704$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Your Name
<YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:

>
> Apple itself says iCloud is NOT a good way to backup photos, etc.

no, they do not say that. in fact, they say the exact opposite.

> because the syncing means you can too easily delete somethign by
> accident (although there is a grace period where you can retrieve
> deleted items,

in other words, not a risk.

> remaining free iCloud space allowing). You need to have
> a proper backup elsewhere, preferably more than one if the items are
> important to you.

although more backups is always better, it is not a 'need', and if
someone did mistakenly delete something, it would be reflected in the
other backups as well, and unlike icloud, there's no 'grace period'.

you've admitted you do not own a cellphone, so stop pretending to know
how they work.

> Besides which, anyone who actually knows anything about the iPhone
> knows you can easily use an SD card to store stuff. Maybe not quite as
> easily or cheaply as putting the card into the phone itself ... but
> then the extra SSD socket on some Android phones is just another way
> for water to get in, something else to potentially go wrong, and a
> marketing gimmick that most people will never use anyway.

stop digging.

On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 07:51:41 +1100, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

> Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
>> Am 03.01.23 um 18:05 schrieb Chris:
>>> Mayayana <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>>>> If you're going to compare TCO then wouldn't usage factors
>>>> also come into play? Does you spouse/lover have the same phone?
>>>
>>> Also family members. It's hard to be the only family member that isn't
>>> on
>>> the same OS as everyone else.
>>
>> *ROTFLSTC*
>> Short Messages, Telegram, Signal, Threema and even WhatsApp exist.
>> This is no issue at all.
>> A family that wants to communicate can communicate irrespective of the
>> platform.
>
> There's more to it than chatting.

But most don't do the other stuff much. Even tracking where the
other family members are currently works fine between android
and iphone.

On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 08:25:25 +1100, Your Name <YourName@yourisp.com> wrote:

> On 2023-01-03 21:11:09 +0000, Alan said:
>> On 2023-01-03 05:20, Mayayana wrote:
>>> I don't generally use apps and mostly just keep a cellphone on-hand,
>>> not powered up, for when I need to make a phone call away from home.
>> And if someone needs to call you...
>> ...because it's urgent...
>> ...and you keep your cell phone turned off?
>> That's about as stupid an idea as I have ever heard.
>
> This will make you happy then ... I've never had a mobile phone of any
> kind, and probably never will. I don't see any point at all in *me*
> having one

So why should anyone take any notice of anything you ever say about mobile
phones ?

> - it's simply yet another unnecessary on-going expense paying out to
> greedy telecoms companies.

On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 08:40:35 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

> On 2023-01-03 13:25, Your Name wrote:
>> On 2023-01-03 21:11:09 +0000, Alan said:
>>> On 2023-01-03 05:20, Mayayana wrote:
>>>> I don't generally use apps and mostly just keep a cellphone on-hand,
>>>> not powered up, for when I need to make a phone call away from home.
>>>
>>> And if someone needs to call you...
>>>
>>> ...because it's urgent...
>>>
>>> ...and you keep your cell phone turned off?
>>>
>>> That's about as stupid an idea as I have ever heard.
>> This will make you happy then ... I've never had a mobile phone of any
>> kind, and probably never will. I don't see any point at all in *me*
>> having one - it's simply yet another unnecessary on-going expense
>> paying out to greedy telecoms companies.
>>
>
> That makes me completely happy.
>
> Not having mobile phone at all is a valid choice.
>
> Having one, paying for it...
>
> ...but not taking full advantage of what you're paying for is just
> stupid.

Not if you don't want people calling you and do find the phone
useful in an emergency or even something simple like the car
stopping working.

On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 09:12:55 +1100, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

> Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
>> Am 03.01.23 um 21:51 schrieb Chris:
>>> Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
>>>> *ROTFLSTC*
>>>> Short Messages, Telegram, Signal, Threema and even WhatsApp exist.
>>>> This is no issue at all.
>>>> A family that wants to communicate can communicate irrespective of the
>>>> platform.
>>>
>>> There's more to it than chatting.
>>
>> E-Mail? Phone calls? Everything platform-agnostic.
>> Tell us a little more we don't know yet.
>
> Sharing photos or cloud storage or paid apps or media subscriptions.

Perfectly possible to do all of that apart from paid apps cross platform.

On 2023-01-03, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> You're already scraping the barrel claiming that you have to sneak into
>> junk yards at night so that you don't have to pay the price for Apple
>> branded chargers of the proper iPhone charging standard (PD usually).
>
> nobody has claimed anything close to that, liar.

You don't understand metaphor in addition to not understanding that the
iPhone will always have a much higher total cost of ownership over Android.

The metaphor of the junk yard was that you repeatedly made the ridiculous
suggestion that someone buying a $1500 phone is going to use an old charger
from a decade ago which doesn't have anywhere near current PD/QC standards.

If the only way you can make your case is you have to say that Android
accessories cost money but Apple accessories are free because you use
chargers from a decade ago that don't support today's standards, then it's
further proof that you have no argument at all.

The only realistic way to assess charger cost is to use the charger that
came with the phone (if any) and if no charger came with the phone then you
have to add the cost of a branded charger at the Apple store or from
Samsung (assuming a comparison to Galaxy phones against the iPhone) that
supports the PD/QC standards that the phone itself supports.

Anything else is just ridiculous.

You make the suggestion to use an old beat up anemic charger because your
argument on total cost of ownership can't work without free accessories.

>
>> You're ignoring that most phones are NOT either sold or traded when someone
>> purchases a new phone, but they turn into a zero dollar value goat turd.
>
> false. most phones are traded in, sold on the used market, or handed
> down to other family members, usually parents giving them to their kids
> after they get something new for themselves. this is not unique to
> iphones and has been the case long before there even were iphones.

The other guy already reported that 30% to 35% of phones are resold or
traded in so the majority of phones have a resale value of a goat turd.

Again, your argument only works if you assume preposterous assumptions
where you know that the iPhone will always cost more than Android overall.

>
>> For your argument on iOS apps costing less you have to go against all known
>> statistics about which market segment contains the app whales.
>
> nobody said anything about the price of ios or android apps, liar.

Again you don't understand that YOU brought up the apps, not me.

If you're going to bring apps into a conversation of total costs between
iPhone and Android you have to establish the cost of those apps.

Not me.
You.

It's well known iPhone owners are whales so you're again going to have to
make preposterous assumptions if you are to claim apps make Android cost
more than iPhones as Androids will always cost less in almost every way.

Including apps.

>
>> Your argument that most people get their iPhones at zero cost is as
>> preposterous as the rest of your arguments have been.
>
> most people get discounts from the retail price no matter what phone
> they buy, as low as zero with contract, which has been the case for
> decades.

You are the one limiting the target market to only high end phones.

Not me.
You.

If you do not limit the phone to only the high end, then, sure, people will
get whatever phone comes to them by whatever deal they can get from others.

But if the phones are high end phones, those people who buy them KNOW what
they want and they're not going to choose their personal phone which they
will keep by their side for the next few years based on some momentary deal
that the carrier gave them for a specific phone with a specific setup.

At the high end, people choose the phone first, and then they pay for it.
It's not the other way around.

Again, your arguments only work if you make these preposterous assumptions.

The iPhone will almost always cost more than the Android phone in almost
all cases. All your attempts to change that are simply cherry picking.

>
> mayayana's claim that iphones cost 'thousands of dollars' or whatever
> price he said is simply bullshit. even the carrier he uses sells one
> for $189.

Can I get that $190 iPhone right now or not?
If I can't get it without changing anything on my plan, tell me how.

It doesn't exist for me, right?
I knew that.

So do you.

It's a highly unrealistic cherry picked special deal which is the only way
your argument will ever work - and that's just a bogus argument overall.

>
>> Every one of your ridiculous arguments REQUIRES you to limit the selection
>> of the two phones that you would be comparing for total ownership costs.
>
> nothing is limited, except your ability to think.

In general, the iPhone will *always* cost (a lot) more than Android over
the life of the device for all the reasons you are cherry picking against.

No. Your entire argument is ridiculous because in almost every way the
iPhone is designed by Apple to cost more than is Android - from the lack of
expansion slots to the removal of ports to the inclusion of small batteries
to the limitation on app installations to the need for special cables and
to the lack of any charger included with the iPhone nowadays.

The iPhone will *always* cost more than Android phones for these reasons.

Any argument otherwise *requires* your ridiculously bogus cherry picking
such as using an old beat up slow low-current charger that is a decade old
so that you don't have to buy a PD charger from Apple for that new phone.

On Tue, 3 Jan 2023 15:15:25 -0800, Alan wrote:

>> How much is 128GB of iCloud storage rented for the life of an iPhone?
>
> $4/month gets you 200GB.

The topic is cost of photo storage between iPhone and Android for the
lifetime of the phone.

The iPhone photo storage is MUCH more expensive than Android storage.
$48/year for 3 years is about $150 for that 200GB of iPhone photo storage.

A 200GB Sandisk sdcard on Amazon (first hit) is $27 today.
https://www.amazon.com/SanDisk-200GB-microSDXC-Memory-Adapter/dp/B08HCHS64Y/

That iPhone photo storage is about 5 times more expensive than for Android.

On 2023-01-03 17:00, chop wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 08:40:35 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2023-01-03 13:25, Your Name wrote:
>>> On 2023-01-03 21:11:09 +0000, Alan said:
>>>> On 2023-01-03 05:20, Mayayana wrote:
>>>>> I don't generally use apps and mostly just keep a cellphone on-hand,
>>>>> not powered up, for when I need to make a phone call away from home.
>>>>
>>>> And if someone needs to call you...
>>>>
>>>> ...because it's urgent...
>>>>
>>>> ...and you keep your cell phone turned off?
>>>>
>>>> That's about as stupid an idea as I have ever heard.
>>>  This will make you happy then ... I've never had a mobile phone of
>>> any kind, and probably never will. I don't see any point at all in
>>> *me* having one - it's simply yet another unnecessary on-going
>>> expense paying out to greedy telecoms companies.
>>>
>>
>> That makes me completely happy.
>>
>> Not having mobile phone at all is a valid choice.
>>
>> Having one, paying for it...
>>
>> ...but not taking full advantage of what you're paying for is just
>> stupid.
>
> Not if you don't want people calling you and do find the phone
> useful in an emergency or even something simple like the car
> stopping working.

So you don't seem to be aware that you can put the phone on silent / do
not disturb.

Interesting.

On 2023-01-03 18:00, Jerry wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Jan 2023 15:15:25 -0800, Alan wrote:
>
>>> How much is 128GB of iCloud storage rented for the life of an iPhone?
>>
>> $4/month gets you 200GB.
>
> The topic is cost of photo storage between iPhone and Android for the
> lifetime of the phone.
> The iPhone photo storage is MUCH more expensive than Android storage.
> $48/year for 3 years is about $150 for that 200GB of iPhone photo storage.
>
> A 200GB Sandisk sdcard on Amazon (first hit) is $27 today.
> https://www.amazon.com/SanDisk-200GB-microSDXC-Memory-Adapter/dp/B08HCHS64Y/
>
> That iPhone photo storage is about 5 times more expensive than for Android.

But you get a benefit you don't get with an SD card:

A backup of your data.

In article <tp2m4c$1g59$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Chris Schram
<chrispam1@me.com> wrote:

> >
> > mayayana's claim that iphones cost 'thousands of dollars' or whatever
> > price he said is simply bullshit. even the carrier he uses sells one
> > for $189.
>
> Can I get that $190 iPhone right now or not?

anyone can.

whether you personally can figure out what to do is questionable.

> If I can't get it without changing anything on my plan, tell me how.

this isn't about you, and you're continuing to dig yourself a deeper
hole.

On 2023-01-03 15:38, Your Name wrote:
> On 2023-01-03 23:15:25 +0000, Alan said:
>> On 2023-01-03 14:38, Jerry wrote:
>>> On Tue, 3 Jan 2023 22:12:55 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Sharing photos or cloud storage or paid apps or media subscriptions.
>>>
>>> How much is 128GB of iCloud storage rented for the life of an iPhone?
>>
>> $4/month gets you 200GB.
>>
>>> How much is a 128GB sd card storage for a typical Android phone life?
>>
>> How much use is that when the phone...
>>
>> ...along the SD card...
>>
>> ...get stolen.
>>
>> The $4/month for iCloud not only gets you more storage:
>>
>> It's an effective backup as well.
>
> Apple itself says iCloud is NOT a good way to backup photos, etc.

Do they really?

Let's see it.

Am 03.01.23 um 23:12 schrieb Chris:
> Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
>> Am 03.01.23 um 21:51 schrieb Chris:
>>> There's more to it than chatting.
>>
>> E-Mail? Phone calls? Everything platform-agnostic.
>> Tell us a little more we don't know yet.
>
> Sharing photos or cloud storage or paid apps or media subscriptions.

There are a lot of platform-independent solutions for exactly these
functions.

--
Gutta cavat lapidem (Ovid)

Am 04.01.23 um 08:02 schrieb Joerg Lorenz:
> Am 03.01.23 um 23:12 schrieb Chris:
>> Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
>>> Am 03.01.23 um 21:51 schrieb Chris:
>>>> There's more to it than chatting.
>>>
>>> E-Mail? Phone calls? Everything platform-agnostic.
>>> Tell us a little more we don't know yet.
>>
>> Sharing photos or cloud storage or paid apps or media subscriptions.
>
> There are a lot of platform-independent solutions for exactly these
> functions.

BTW: I use them because I use a Pixel 7 and an iPhone 14 with services
from two different providers.

--
Gutta cavat lapidem (Ovid)

Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
> Am 03.01.23 um 23:12 schrieb Chris:
>> Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
>>> Am 03.01.23 um 21:51 schrieb Chris:
>>>> There's more to it than chatting.
>>>
>>> E-Mail? Phone calls? Everything platform-agnostic.
>>> Tell us a little more we don't know yet.
>>
>> Sharing photos or cloud storage or paid apps or media subscriptions.
>
> There are a lot of platform-independent solutions for exactly these
> functions.

Did I say otherwise? It's simply easier within a smaller (family) group for
everyone to be on the same platform.