On 2023-01-04 12:04, chop wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 05:07:46 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2023-01-04 01:02, chop wrote:
>>> On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 13:04:28 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>  Then you need to get your seems machinery seen to, BAD.
>>>  I do in fact do that twice most days, when I am sleeping.
>>
>> Then what was the bullshit about not having it turned on being the way
>> to handle not wanting people calling you?
>
> I never said that. I ACTUALLY said that if you find the phone
> useful in an emergency or even something simple like the car
> stopping working and dont want people calling you, it can
> make sense to turn it off when it isnt an emergency or the
> car not working so that you don't have to charge it every day.

That was the point under discussion when you popped off without reading.

On 2023-01-04 11:57, Jerry wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Jan 2023 10:10:01 -0800, Alan wrote:
>
>>> Because Apple designed photo storage to be five to ten times more
>>> expensive
>>> on the iPhone, then you MUST account for that in the total ownership
>>> costs.
>>
>> You're not seriously proposing that passing around an SD card is an
>> efficient way to share photos, are you?
>
> How did you NOT understand a single word that anyone said about this?
>
> How does NOT having an sd card on the iPhone make it any easier to "pass
> around" photos than it is to have that sd card & choice of other options?
>
> To dumb it down to words you can understand, having 2 arms (Android) is
> always better than having only 1 arm (iPhone) in terms of what you can do.
>
> How did you _miss_ that?
> Are you stupid?

Having two hammers won't let you do what a spanner can do.

On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 05:08:49 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

> On 2023-01-04 01:03, chop wrote:
>> On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 13:05:17 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>> An SD card does that too.

> Nope.

Fraid so.

> If you're using an SD card as the primary store for anything,

You don't do that with an iphone.

> then you need at least one more storage medium to call it a back up.

Not with an iphone, you use the SD card as the means of backing
up your data instead of paying for the cloud storage.

> An SD card IN the phone will get lost or stolen right along WITH the
> phone.

Not when it is used for the backup instead of paying for cloud storage.

On 2023-01-04 11:30, grinch wrote:
> On 04/01/2023 19:8, Alan wrote:
>
>> An SD card IN the phone will get lost or stolen right along WITH the
>> phone.
>
> Your claim is ridiculously short sighted out of your ignorance of sd cards.
>
> Do you really not know how easy it is to copy sd to any pc or flash drive?
>
> There has to be about 10 ways to do it, none of which are at all difficult.

But you have to REMEMBER to do it.

The whole point of computers (of which a smartphone is just a
specialized variety) is to make repetitive tasks simple.

And if all you have is a smartphone with an SD card slot...

....how do you make a copy of that SD card?

On 2023-01-04 12:07, chop wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 05:08:49 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2023-01-04 01:03, chop wrote:
>>> On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 13:05:17 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>  An SD card does that too.
>
>> Nope.
>
> Fraid so.
>
>> If you're using an SD card as the primary store for anything,
>
> You don't do that with an iphone.
>
>> then you need at least one more storage medium to call it a back up.
>
> Not with an iphone, you use the SD card as the means of backing
> up your data instead of paying for the cloud storage.

Provided you REMEMBER to do it...

>
>> An SD card IN the phone will get lost or stolen right along WITH the
>> phone.
>
> Not when it is used for the backup instead of paying for cloud storage.

Provided you remember to do so.

Personally, $4/month to have it happen automatically is a very
reasonable exchange of value.

On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 06:41:29 +1100, Jerry <Jerry@jerrythinks.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 19:59:45 +1100, chop wrote:
>
>>> The iPhone photo storage is MUCH more expensive than Android storage.
>> Bullshit.

> You can say bullshit but you can't back it up

I did.

> so it's you who bullshits.

You just did.

> Every comment from you reeks of lack of understanding of photo storage.

We'll see...

>>> $48/year for 3 years

>> That isnt the only way to do iphone photo storage.

> Why did you think anyone said it was?
> Are you stupid?

More of your bullshit.

> If you're not stupid, then you'd have realized nobody said it was.

But you stupidly waved it around and ignored the much
cheaper ways to do photo storage on an iphone.

>>> is about $150 for that 200GB of iPhone photo storage.

>> Pity that isnt the only way to do iphone photo storage.

<reams of your mindless repetition flushed where it belongs>

> You need to bone up on how the iPhone/Android camera apps store photos.

Nope, dope/bullshitter.

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

>> Perfectly possible to use that for your iphone photo storage.

> All your comments simply show that you're stupid.

We'll see...

> You don't even realize the iPhone saves photos to the internal storage.

Wrong, as always given that I have an iphone and only use that for photos.

> Meanwhile, Android is typically set to save photos to sd card storage.

But it is perfectly possible to save your photos to and sd card
with an iphone to avoid paying anything for cloud storage.

> Big difference in cost.

Not when you use an sd card with an iphone instead of paying anything
for cloud storage,

> It's one of the reasons the iPhone is always more expensive in every way.

More of your bullshit.

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

>> Bullshit given that it is perfectly possible to use the
>> 200GB Sandisk sdcard for your iphone photo storage.

<reams of your mindless repetition flushed where it belongs>

> Please bone up on how the iPhone and Android camera apps work.

Go and fuck yourself. No please, that's an order.

> If you don't say stupid things, I won't respond that you're stupid.

No one actually gives a flying red fuck what some stupid bullshitter
stupidly bullshits.

> Instead, say smart intelligent things when/if you reply.

Go and fuck yourself, again. No please, that's an order.

On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 06:52:29 +1100, Jerry <Jerry@jerrythinks.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 04:48:44 +1100, chop wrote:
>
>>> Sharing sd card storage is trivial on Android.
>>> It's impossible on iOS.
>> Bullshit it is. Plenty of sd adapters that use the lightning port.

> Everything you don't understand, you call bullshit.

I call a spade a spade and a stupid bullshitter a stupid bullshitter.

> Do you even realize that the iPhone saves the photos to internal storage?

Might well do given that I only do photos on an iphone now.

> That's expensive internal storage.

No more expensive than the equivalent top end or mid level smartphone.

> That's non-removable internal storage.

But it is trivial to add removable storage to an iphone
if you choose to avoid paying for cloud storage.

> Do you realize that most Androids save the photo to external storage?

That's bullshit too. Most in fact choose to save their photos
to internal storage and to the cloud and don't bother with
primitive sd cards with their high end and mid level smartphones.

> That's inexpensive external storage.

Perfectly possible to do that with an iphone if you want to.

> That's removable external storage.

Perfectly possible to do that with an iphone if you want to.

> Why do you think Apple never gave iPhone owners this common option?

Because it has always been possible to do that with an iphone if you
want to and Apple realises that most who buy the classes of smartphones
that they choose to sell don't do their photos that way and because
that will always compromise the water proofing of the phone.

> Why do you think Apple makes it so easy to sync photos to the iCloud?

Because that is much more convenient and automatic than
farting around with an sd card and for some odd reason androids
make that just as easy. Can't imagine why for the life of me.

> Why do you think Apple gave you a meager amount of free iCloud space?

It is no more meager than the other could services.

> Do you know anything about Apple?

Might well do given that I have chosen to buy and use iphones.

> Or do you just want to call everything bullshit that you don't
> understand?

I understand bullshit when I see it and usually do call it bullshit.

>>> Because Apple designed photo storage to be five to ten times more
>>> expensive
>>> on the iPhone,

>> More bullshit.

<reams of your stupid repeated bullshit flushed where it belongs>

>>> then you MUST account for that in the total ownership costs.

>> More bullshit.

> If you respond, please indicate that you understand how an iPhone camera
> app initially stores photos and likewise, how most Android camera apps
> do.

Go and fuck yourself, again.

On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 06:57:41 +1100, Jerry <Jerry@jerrythinks.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 4 Jan 2023 10:10:01 -0800, Alan wrote:
>
>>> Because Apple designed photo storage to be five to ten times more
>>> expensive
>>> on the iPhone, then you MUST account for that in the total ownership
>>> costs.
>> You're not seriously proposing that passing around an SD card is an
>> efficient way to share photos, are you?

> How did you NOT understand a single word that anyone said about this?

More of your bullshit.

> How does NOT having an sd card on the iPhone make it any easier to "pass
> around" photos than it is to have that sd card & choice of other options?

He said EFFICIENT, not EASIER, stupid.

> To dumb it down to words you can understand, having 2 arms (Android) is
> always better than having only 1 arm (iPhone) in terms of what you can
> do.

Perfectly possible to add an sd card to an iphone if you find that useful,
stupid.

> How did you _miss_ that?

He didn't.

> Are you stupid?

No need to ask if you are a bullshitter, the answer is obvious.

On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 07:05:21 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

> On 2023-01-04 12:04, chop wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 05:07:46 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2023-01-04 01:02, chop wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 13:04:28 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>> Then you need to get your seems machinery seen to, BAD.
>>>> I do in fact do that twice most days, when I am sleeping.
>>>
>>> Then what was the bullshit about not having it turned on being the way
>>> to handle not wanting people calling you?
>> I never said that. I ACTUALLY said that if you find the phone
>> useful in an emergency or even something simple like the car
>> stopping working and dont want people calling you, it can
>> make sense to turn it off when it isnt an emergency or the
>> car not working so that you don't have to charge it every day.
>
> That was the point under discussion when you popped off without reading.

Couldn't have replied without reading, stupid.

On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 07:06:17 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

> On 2023-01-04 11:57, Jerry wrote:
>> On Wed, 4 Jan 2023 10:10:01 -0800, Alan wrote:
>>
>>>> Because Apple designed photo storage to be five to ten times more
>>>> expensive
>>>> on the iPhone, then you MUST account for that in the total ownership
>>>> costs.
>>>
>>> You're not seriously proposing that passing around an SD card is an
>>> efficient way to share photos, are you?
>> How did you NOT understand a single word that anyone said about this?
>> How does NOT having an sd card on the iPhone make it any easier to
>> "pass
>> around" photos than it is to have that sd card & choice of other
>> options?
>> To dumb it down to words you can understand, having 2 arms (Android) is
>> always better than having only 1 arm (iPhone) in terms of what you can
>> do.
>> How did you _miss_ that?
>> Are you stupid?
>
> Having two hammers won't let you do what a spanner can do.

But no iphone can do any more than any android can do with
photo storage or exchange except maybe the most primitive
andoids that have so little internal storage that they can't run
any cloud app at all.

On 2023-01-04 12:46, chop wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 07:05:21 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2023-01-04 12:04, chop wrote:
>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 05:07:46 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2023-01-04 01:02, chop wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 13:04:28 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>  Then you need to get your seems machinery seen to, BAD.
>>>>>  I do in fact do that twice most days, when I am sleeping.
>>>>
>>>> Then what was the bullshit about not having it turned on being the
>>>> way to handle not wanting people calling you?
>>>  I never said that. I ACTUALLY said that if you find the phone
>>> useful in an emergency or even something simple like the car
>>> stopping working and dont want people calling you, it can
>>> make sense to turn it off when it isnt an emergency or the
>>> car not working so that you don't have to charge it every day.
>>
>> That was the point under discussion when you popped off without reading.
>
> Couldn't have replied without reading, stupid.

And yet, you failed to understand what you read.

On 2023-01-04 12:48, chop wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 07:06:17 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2023-01-04 11:57, Jerry wrote:
>>> On Wed, 4 Jan 2023 10:10:01 -0800, Alan wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Because Apple designed photo storage to be five to ten times more
>>>>> expensive
>>>>> on the iPhone, then you MUST account for that in the total
>>>>> ownership costs.
>>>>
>>>> You're not seriously proposing that passing around an SD card is an
>>>> efficient way to share photos, are you?
>>>  How did you NOT understand a single word that anyone said about this?
>>>  How does NOT having an sd card on the iPhone make it any easier to
>>> "pass
>>> around" photos than it is to have that sd card & choice of other
>>> options?
>>>  To dumb it down to words you can understand, having 2 arms (Android) is
>>> always better than having only 1 arm (iPhone) in terms of what you
>>> can do.
>>>  How did you _miss_ that?
>>> Are you stupid?
>>
>> Having two hammers won't let you do what a spanner can do.
>
> But no iphone can do any more than any android can do with
> photo storage or exchange except maybe the most primitive
> andoids that have so little internal storage that they can't run
> any cloud app at all
But none of that is the point under discussion, sunshine.

On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 07:23:19 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

> On 2023-01-04 12:07, chop wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 05:08:49 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2023-01-04 01:03, chop wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 13:05:17 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>> An SD card does that too.
>>
>>> Nope.
>> Fraid so.
>>
>>> If you're using an SD card as the primary store for anything,
>> You don't do that with an iphone.
>>
>>> then you need at least one more storage medium to call it a back up.
>> Not with an iphone, you use the SD card as the means of backing
>> up your data instead of paying for the cloud storage.

> Provided you REMEMBER to do it...

Correct, but that's irrelevant to his stupid claim about iphone
photo storage always being much more expensive.

>>> An SD card IN the phone will get lost or stolen right along WITH the
>>> phone.
>> Not when it is used for the backup instead of paying for cloud storage.

> Provided you remember to do so.

Correct, but that's irrelevant to his stupid claim about iphone
photo storage always being much more expensive.

> Personally, $4/month to have it happen automatically is a very
> reasonable exchange of value.

I don't bother because I don't have enough photos I care about to exceed
the free space.

On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 07:53:31 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

> On 2023-01-04 12:46, chop wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 07:05:21 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2023-01-04 12:04, chop wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 05:07:46 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2023-01-04 01:02, chop wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 13:04:28 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>> Then you need to get your seems machinery seen to, BAD.
>>>>>> I do in fact do that twice most days, when I am sleeping.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then what was the bullshit about not having it turned on being the
>>>>> way to handle not wanting people calling you?
>>>> I never said that. I ACTUALLY said that if you find the phone
>>>> useful in an emergency or even something simple like the car
>>>> stopping working and dont want people calling you, it can
>>>> make sense to turn it off when it isnt an emergency or the
>>>> car not working so that you don't have to charge it every day.
>>>
>>> That was the point under discussion when you popped off without
>>> reading.
>> Couldn't have replied without reading, stupid.
>
> And yet, you failed to understand what you read.

Bullshit I did. You failed to understand the point I was
making, that there can be a good reason to turn the
phone off if you don't need to answer incoming calls.

On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 07:54:08 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

> On 2023-01-04 12:48, chop wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 07:06:17 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2023-01-04 11:57, Jerry wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 4 Jan 2023 10:10:01 -0800, Alan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Because Apple designed photo storage to be five to ten times more
>>>>>> expensive
>>>>>> on the iPhone, then you MUST account for that in the total
>>>>>> ownership costs.
>>>>>
>>>>> You're not seriously proposing that passing around an SD card is an
>>>>> efficient way to share photos, are you?
>>>> How did you NOT understand a single word that anyone said about this?
>>>> How does NOT having an sd card on the iPhone make it any easier to
>>>> "pass
>>>> around" photos than it is to have that sd card & choice of other
>>>> options?
>>>> To dumb it down to words you can understand, having 2 arms (Android)
>>>> is
>>>> always better than having only 1 arm (iPhone) in terms of what you
>>>> can do.
>>>> How did you _miss_ that?
>>>> Are you stupid?
>>>
>>> Having two hammers won't let you do what a spanner can do.
>> But no iphone can do any more than any android can do with
>> photo storage or exchange except maybe the most primitive
>> andoids that have so little internal storage that they can't run
>> any cloud app at all
> But none of that is the point under discussion, sunshine.

There never is just one point under discussion, moonshine.

On 04/01/2023 12:8, Alan wrote:

>> There has to be about 10 ways to do it, none of which are at all difficult.
>
> But you have to REMEMBER to do it.

A computer based sync remembers itself.

> The whole point of computers (of which a smartphone is just a
> specialized variety) is to make repetitive tasks simple.

What does the "repetitive task made simple" have to do with the overall
cost of ownership of Android versus iOS?

Both can sync to anything.

One has to do so with very expensive media.
The other can use very cheap media.

>
> And if all you have is a smartphone with an SD card slot...
>
> ...how do you make a copy of that SD card?

What?
There's no card?

Then it's as dumb as an iPhone is.

Most Androids have an sd card slot.
A 200MB sd card is about $27.

200MB of iPhone storage is a LOT more expensive than that, no matter how
you count that iPhone storage (local to the phone or via iCloud).

The iPhone will always be more expensive on photo storage than Android.

On 2023-01-04 13:21, chop wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 07:53:31 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2023-01-04 12:46, chop wrote:
>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 07:05:21 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2023-01-04 12:04, chop wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 05:07:46 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2023-01-04 01:02, chop wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 13:04:28 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>  Then you need to get your seems machinery seen to, BAD.
>>>>>>>  I do in fact do that twice most days, when I am sleeping.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then what was the bullshit about not having it turned on being the
>>>>>> way to handle not wanting people calling you?
>>>>>  I never said that. I ACTUALLY said that if you find the phone
>>>>> useful in an emergency or even something simple like the car
>>>>> stopping working and dont want people calling you, it can
>>>>> make sense to turn it off when it isnt an emergency or the
>>>>> car not working so that you don't have to charge it every day.
>>>>
>>>> That was the point under discussion when you popped off without
>>>> reading.
>>>  Couldn't have replied without reading, stupid.
>>
>> And yet, you failed to understand what you read.
>
> Bullshit I did. You failed to understand the point I was
> making, that there can be a good reason to turn the
> phone off if you don't need to answer incoming calls.

No. There's a good reason to put the phone on "Do Not Disturb" or silent.

On 2023-01-04 13:22, chop wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 07:54:08 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2023-01-04 12:48, chop wrote:
>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 07:06:17 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2023-01-04 11:57, Jerry wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 4 Jan 2023 10:10:01 -0800, Alan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because Apple designed photo storage to be five to ten times more
>>>>>>> expensive
>>>>>>> on the iPhone, then you MUST account for that in the total
>>>>>>> ownership costs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're not seriously proposing that passing around an SD card is
>>>>>> an efficient way to share photos, are you?
>>>>>  How did you NOT understand a single word that anyone said about this?
>>>>>  How does NOT having an sd card on the iPhone make it any easier to
>>>>> "pass
>>>>> around" photos than it is to have that sd card & choice of other
>>>>> options?
>>>>>  To dumb it down to words you can understand, having 2 arms
>>>>> (Android) is
>>>>> always better than having only 1 arm (iPhone) in terms of what you
>>>>> can do.
>>>>>  How did you _miss_ that?
>>>>> Are you stupid?
>>>>
>>>> Having two hammers won't let you do what a spanner can do.
>>>  But no iphone can do any more than any android can do with
>>> photo storage or exchange except maybe the most primitive
>>> andoids that have so little internal storage that they can't run
>>> any cloud app at all
>> But none of that is the point under discussion, sunshine.
>
> There never is just one point under discussion, moonshine.

And I never said there was.

But the point under discussion was that it is not an EFFICIENT way to
share photos.

On 2023-01-04 13:23, grinch wrote:
> On 04/01/2023 12:8, Alan wrote:
>
>>> There has to be about 10 ways to do it, none of which are at all
>>> difficult.
>>
>> But you have to REMEMBER to do it.
>
> A computer based sync remembers itself.
>
>> The whole point of computers (of which a smartphone is just a
>> specialized variety) is to make repetitive tasks simple.
>
> What does the "repetitive task made simple" have to do with the overall
> cost of ownership of Android versus iOS?
>
> Both can sync to anything.
>
> One has to do so with very expensive media.
> The other can use very cheap media.
>
>>
>> And if all you have is a smartphone with an SD card slot...
>>
>> ...how do you make a copy of that SD card?
>
> What?
> There's no card?
>
> Then it's as dumb as an iPhone is.
>
> Most Androids have an sd card slot.
> A 200MB sd card is about $27.

"A" slot.

Not two.

So you have to take additional...

....manual...

....steps to back up the data that is on that SD card in that one slot.

>
> 200MB of iPhone storage is a LOT more expensive than that, no matter how
> you count that iPhone storage (local to the phone or via iCloud).
>
> The iPhone will always be more expensive on photo storage than Android.

Not once you make the Android phone do what the iPhone will do.

On 2023-01-04 13:23, grinch wrote:
> On 04/01/2023 12:8, Alan wrote:
>
>>> There has to be about 10 ways to do it, none of which are at all
>>> difficult.
>>
>> But you have to REMEMBER to do it.
>
> A computer based sync remembers itself.
>
>> The whole point of computers (of which a smartphone is just a
>> specialized variety) is to make repetitive tasks simple.
>
> What does the "repetitive task made simple" have to do with the overall
> cost of ownership of Android versus iOS?
>
> Both can sync to anything.
>
> One has to do so with very expensive media.
> The other can use very cheap media.

But that "cheap media" will require you to take repetitive manual steps
to make it happen.

Ask yourself:

Is all the data on your phone backed up right at this moment?

Backed up last when?

My was last backed up when I plugged it in for the night.

And my photos are being backed up CONSTANTLY.

>
>>
>> And if all you have is a smartphone with an SD card slot...
>>
>> ...how do you make a copy of that SD card?
>
> What?
> There's no card?
>
> Then it's as dumb as an iPhone is.
>
> Most Androids have an sd card slot.
> A 200MB sd card is about $27.
>
> 200MB of iPhone storage is a LOT more expensive than that, no matter how
> you count that iPhone storage (local to the phone or via iCloud).
>
> The iPhone will always be more expensive on photo storage than Android.

On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 08:29:22 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

> On 2023-01-04 13:21, chop wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 07:53:31 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2023-01-04 12:46, chop wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 07:05:21 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2023-01-04 12:04, chop wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 05:07:46 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2023-01-04 01:02, chop wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 13:04:28 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>> Then you need to get your seems machinery seen to, BAD.
>>>>>>>> I do in fact do that twice most days, when I am sleeping.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then what was the bullshit about not having it turned on being the
>>>>>>> way to handle not wanting people calling you?
>>>>>> I never said that. I ACTUALLY said that if you find the phone
>>>>>> useful in an emergency or even something simple like the car
>>>>>> stopping working and dont want people calling you, it can
>>>>>> make sense to turn it off when it isnt an emergency or the
>>>>>> car not working so that you don't have to charge it every day.
>>>>>
>>>>> That was the point under discussion when you popped off without
>>>>> reading.
>>>> Couldn't have replied without reading, stupid.
>>>
>>> And yet, you failed to understand what you read.
>> Bullshit I did. You failed to understand the point I was
>> making, that there can be a good reason to turn the
>> phone off if you don't need to answer incoming calls.
>
> No.

Fraid so.

> There's a good reason to put the phone on "Do Not Disturb" or silent.

That doesn't save the battery, stupid.

On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 08:31:57 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

> On 2023-01-04 13:22, chop wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 07:54:08 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2023-01-04 12:48, chop wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 07:06:17 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2023-01-04 11:57, Jerry wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 4 Jan 2023 10:10:01 -0800, Alan wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Because Apple designed photo storage to be five to ten times more
>>>>>>>> expensive
>>>>>>>> on the iPhone, then you MUST account for that in the total
>>>>>>>> ownership costs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You're not seriously proposing that passing around an SD card is
>>>>>>> an efficient way to share photos, are you?
>>>>>> How did you NOT understand a single word that anyone said about
>>>>>> this?
>>>>>> How does NOT having an sd card on the iPhone make it any easier to
>>>>>> "pass
>>>>>> around" photos than it is to have that sd card & choice of other
>>>>>> options?
>>>>>> To dumb it down to words you can understand, having 2 arms
>>>>>> (Android) is
>>>>>> always better than having only 1 arm (iPhone) in terms of what you
>>>>>> can do.
>>>>>> How did you _miss_ that?
>>>>>> Are you stupid?
>>>>>
>>>>> Having two hammers won't let you do what a spanner can do.
>>>> But no iphone can do any more than any android can do with
>>>> photo storage or exchange except maybe the most primitive
>>>> andoids that have so little internal storage that they can't run
>>>> any cloud app at all
>>> But none of that is the point under discussion, sunshine.
>> There never is just one point under discussion, moonshine.
>
> And I never said there was.

And I never said you did.

> But the point under discussion was that it is not an EFFICIENT way to
> share photos.

There was more than just that point under discussion.

On 2023-01-04 14:04, chop wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 08:29:22 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2023-01-04 13:21, chop wrote:
>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 07:53:31 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2023-01-04 12:46, chop wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 07:05:21 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2023-01-04 12:04, chop wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 05:07:46 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2023-01-04 01:02, chop wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 13:04:28 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>  Then you need to get your seems machinery seen to, BAD.
>>>>>>>>>  I do in fact do that twice most days, when I am sleeping.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then what was the bullshit about not having it turned on being
>>>>>>>> the way to handle not wanting people calling you?
>>>>>>>  I never said that. I ACTUALLY said that if you find the phone
>>>>>>> useful in an emergency or even something simple like the car
>>>>>>> stopping working and dont want people calling you, it can
>>>>>>> make sense to turn it off when it isnt an emergency or the
>>>>>>> car not working so that you don't have to charge it every day.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That was the point under discussion when you popped off without
>>>>>> reading.
>>>>>  Couldn't have replied without reading, stupid.
>>>>
>>>> And yet, you failed to understand what you read.
>>>  Bullshit I did. You failed to understand the point I was
>>> making, that there can be a good reason to turn the
>>> phone off if you don't need to answer incoming calls.
>>
>> No.
>
> Fraid so.
>
>> There's a good reason to put the phone on "Do Not Disturb" or silent.
>
> That doesn't save the battery, stupid.

If you actually have a battery life problem, ...

....that would be a reason for turning of your phone.

The REASON is NOT: "I don't want to be bothered with people calling me".

On 2023-01-04 14:05, chop wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 08:31:57 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2023-01-04 13:22, chop wrote:
>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 07:54:08 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2023-01-04 12:48, chop wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 07:06:17 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2023-01-04 11:57, Jerry wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 4 Jan 2023 10:10:01 -0800, Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Because Apple designed photo storage to be five to ten times
>>>>>>>>> more expensive
>>>>>>>>> on the iPhone, then you MUST account for that in the total
>>>>>>>>> ownership costs.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You're not seriously proposing that passing around an SD card is
>>>>>>>> an efficient way to share photos, are you?
>>>>>>>  How did you NOT understand a single word that anyone said about
>>>>>>> this?
>>>>>>>  How does NOT having an sd card on the iPhone make it any easier
>>>>>>> to "pass
>>>>>>> around" photos than it is to have that sd card & choice of other
>>>>>>> options?
>>>>>>>  To dumb it down to words you can understand, having 2 arms
>>>>>>> (Android) is
>>>>>>> always better than having only 1 arm (iPhone) in terms of what
>>>>>>> you can do.
>>>>>>>  How did you _miss_ that?
>>>>>>> Are you stupid?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Having two hammers won't let you do what a spanner can do.
>>>>>  But no iphone can do any more than any android can do with
>>>>> photo storage or exchange except maybe the most primitive
>>>>> andoids that have so little internal storage that they can't run
>>>>> any cloud app at all
>>>> But none of that is the point under discussion, sunshine.
>>>  There never is just one point under discussion, moonshine.
>>
>> And I never said there was.
>
> And I never said you did.

You implied it.

>
>> But the point under discussion was that it is not an EFFICIENT way to
>> share photos.
>
> There was more than just that point under discussion.

Not that I was discussing.

Not that you responded to in your irrelevancy.

On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 09:53:07 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

> On 2023-01-04 14:04, chop wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 08:29:22 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2023-01-04 13:21, chop wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 07:53:31 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2023-01-04 12:46, chop wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 07:05:21 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2023-01-04 12:04, chop wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 05:07:46 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2023-01-04 01:02, chop wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 13:04:28 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>> Then you need to get your seems machinery seen to, BAD.
>>>>>>>>>> I do in fact do that twice most days, when I am sleeping.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Then what was the bullshit about not having it turned on being
>>>>>>>>> the way to handle not wanting people calling you?
>>>>>>>> I never said that. I ACTUALLY said that if you find the phone
>>>>>>>> useful in an emergency or even something simple like the car
>>>>>>>> stopping working and dont want people calling you, it can
>>>>>>>> make sense to turn it off when it isnt an emergency or the
>>>>>>>> car not working so that you don't have to charge it every day.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That was the point under discussion when you popped off without
>>>>>>> reading.
>>>>>> Couldn't have replied without reading, stupid.
>>>>>
>>>>> And yet, you failed to understand what you read.
>>>> Bullshit I did. You failed to understand the point I was
>>>> making, that there can be a good reason to turn the
>>>> phone off if you don't need to answer incoming calls.
>>>
>>> No.
>> Fraid so.
>>
>>> There's a good reason to put the phone on "Do Not Disturb" or silent.

>> That doesn't save the battery, stupid.

> If you actually have a battery life problem, ...

Not talking about battery life, JUST talking about how often it needs
to be charged so its useful in an emergency or even something simple
like the car stopping working and dont want people calling you, it can
make sense to turn it off when it isnt an emergency or the car not working

> ...that would be a reason for turning of your phone.
>
> The REASON is NOT: "I don't want to be bothered with people calling me".

Never said it was