Ken Blake wrote:

> On Sat, 05 Nov 2022 13:50:27 -0400, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>In article <vtscmh1n84cq29bcf9htn8b2litgu5vrhk@4ax.com>, Ken Blake
>><Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote:
>>
>>> >> I don't agree. If a phone could fold in the middle and double its
>>> >> screen size while still fitting in my pocket, it would be a big
>>> >> improvement. I'm not willing to pay current prices for such a phone
>>> >> now, but one of these days they might be much better and much cheaper.
>>> >
>>> >while folding would make it smaller, the benefit is minimal for
>>> >something the size of a phone, which already fits in a pocket.
>>>
>>> If you want to think double the screen size is a minimal benefit,
>>> that's your prerogative. I obviously disagree, and strongly..
>>
>>double the screen size of something that's relatively small and easily
>>fits in a pocket is still relatively small, just not quite as much.
>>
>>if you have the opportunity, go to a cellphone store and take a look at
>>the foldable phones.
>>
>>the concept might sound good, but the implementations are very much not.
>
> Reread what I wrote. I didn't say the implementations were good.
> You said "it's a solution in search of a problem" and I replied "I
> don't agree. If a phone could fold in the middle and double its
> screen size while still fitting in my pocket, it would be a big
> improvement. I'm not willing to pay current prices for such a phone
> now, but one of these days they might be much better and much
> cheaper."
>
> Note that I said "would be a big improvement," not *is* a big
> improvement, and that I said " *one of these days* they might be much
> better."
>
> ...
>
>>the technology is definitely not ready and there's little indication
>>that will change any time soon.
>
> I didn't suggest that the technology was ready and I didn't suggest
> that it would change any time soon. I said "one of these days."
>
> Before you decide to argue with me, read what was said carefully.
> Don't put words into my mouth.

The only goal of nospam is to defend Apple's inability to innovate to the
death so it doesn't matter what you say about Samsung's innovative phone.

There are 7 excuses that nospam uses to defend Apple flaws to the death.

Invariably nospam will twist your words so he can use one of his 7 excuses.