nospam wrote:

>> Apple is able to sell at higher margins because they have no competition
>> for iOS devices.
>
> nonsense. the competition is huge, including countless android devices
> and dumbphones.

Below is an adult response (imho) to the conversation above...

Here, nospam is "more correct" than is Steve, given competition exists.

Smartphone competition is huge if you consider all market segments.
For example, Samsung tries to play in all the market segments.
Google. Not so much. Apple, even less so.

If you consider only the high end segment, the market is smaller.
But the profits are higher because TCO isn't a major concern there.

And if you consider only the technically inclined wealthy USA, the TAM is
even smaller but even higher profit margins overall, again, becase TCO is
not a major determining factor for people in the USA in that market.

Having said that, Apple has slightly more than half the phones in the US.
It's still huge but it's not the world market - which is mostly Android.

>
>> It is true that they've delayed moving to USB-C because
>> of the royalties on Lightning devices,
>
> that is very much not true.

Again, I assess nospam to be "more correct" than is Steve in this case.

Apple put lightning in the iPhone for one reason alone, imho, but nospam
will try to convince us that Apple did it for our own good - which is fine.

>
> mfi licensing revenue is a negligible part of apple's revenue.

While royalties were likely not a major rationale for the non standard
cord, it won't matter soon because the EU forced Apple to fit to standards.

>
> also note that there are usb licensing fees, which apple would need to
> pay, versus not paying for using their own lightning connector.

Even so, Apple's intense resistance to fitting to common standards wasn't
due to the royalty fees, imho, and I doubt you believe it was either.

>
> you also fail to understand the impact switching to usb-c will have by
> forcing existing iphone owners to replace their existing cables and
> accessories. that is why apple has been carefully transitioning to
> usb-c to minimize the impact, rather than suddenly doing so across all
> products.

It's nice you believe Apple does everything it does for the common good.

Luckily, the EU didn't believe what you believe, and therefore all of us
can sooner ditch the now-worthless lightning cables for our new devices.

>
>> but the Lightning connector
>> preceded USB-C and was much better than Micro-USB.
>
> wow! you got something correct again.
>
> one out of three isn't bad.

The fact the now-worthless lightning cables will be ditched sooner than
Apple would have allowed is the best thing that the EU did in a while.

>
>> Often people on "grandfathered" plans actually pay a lot more than they
>> have to because those old plans often have very low data amounts, but
>> they don't realize that they're paying much more than they have to
>> because they assume that prices are always going to go up.
>
> nope. generally people stay on grandfathered plans because those plans
> have benefits that the carrier no longer offers, such as unlimited
> data.

I concur, again, with nospam, since I agree with any sensible statement.

As a real world example, my grandfathered T-Mobile plan _added_ unlimited
data in April of 2021 - without changing my plan in any manner at all.
<https://i.postimg.cc/YC1B906F/tmopromo01.jpg> A32-5G & iPhone 12 contract

In fact, as Steve _must be aware_ (is he not?), T-Mobile gave EVERY SINGLE
CUSTOMER on a post-paid plan that had _any_ data, free unlimited data.

Is Steve actually not aware of this well-published fact, nospam?
<https://i.postimg.cc/nhpbcP50/tmopromo04.jpg> $100 for 6 lines + $16 tax

In addition, T-Mobile gave everyone a free Android phone (with very minor
hassles), and about a half-priced iPhone (with another iPhone tradein)
which, interestingly, shows that the Android is astromically less expensive
than the iPhone (as will almost always be the case in most situations).
<https://i.postimg.cc/Xq5SpS4D/tmopromo02.jpg> $15 iPhone, $0 Android phone

Note those are _real_ numbers, where the iPhone costs, alone, before you
calculate the astromical price for accessories and AppleCare, $15/month
while Android is $0/month which _includes_ Steve's vaunted resale value!

>
> carriers try to get people to switch off of those plans using all sorts
> of promos. some do, while some prefer to retain their grandfathered
> plan because it better fits their needs.

Again, I agree with any logical statement made by nospam (or anyone else).

In fact, T-Mobile is constantly asking me to "upgrade" my grandfathered
unlimited data plan, which, see below, is $100 for six devices plus tax.
<https://i.postimg.cc/L6dFGXVd/tmopromo03.jpg> $100 for 6 lines + $16 tax

>
>> You need to learn to look at the big picture and base your statements on
>> factual data that you can back up with references and citations. That
>> will enable you to gain the credibility that you presently lack.
>
> there you go resorting to ad hominem attacks again.

It's my observation that, on this newsgroup, more so than on the adult OS
newsgroups, when people like you, nospam, or Steve are asked sensible
questions to back up their data, ad hominem attacks instantly result.

You'll note that I acted like an adult in my response to you above.

Most of the time, your main goal appears to be as simple as you will defend
everything Apple to the death, where you do so using only 7 responses, one
of which is the ad hominem attack (e.g., your thousands of ftfy posts).

Usually you resort to those thousands upon thousands of (ftfy) ad hominem
attacks when you have no more excuses for why Apple did what Apple did.

For Steve, it's different.

Steve is claiming he's figured out how to outwit Apple's marketing plan.

He does so using one-off here-today-gone-tomorrow crazy maneuvers which,
while they may exist, they only prove a theoretical TOC difference.

What Steve doesn't seem to realize is that most people don't do what he
does, e.g., most won't jump here and there from carrier to MVNO and back to
carrier, just to get a good deal on an iPhone that they can't really
afford.

In Steve's case, he can't afford that iPhone so he resorts to all these
crazy cliff-jumping maneuvers, and in the end, after an intense series of
death-defying leaps from one overhang to another, he _may_ manage to end up
with an iPhone that costs less than an equivalent Samsung phone.

But even then, after all those crazy maneuvers, I would like to ask you,
nospam, if you believe Steve believes the average person will do all that?

Would you go through all the crazy MVNO leaps that Steve goes through to
just to get the cost of a good iPhone to be less than a good Samsung?

I certainly won't. (see above proof of iPhone & Samsung prices of my own)
Would you?

In article <tp9slg$bjc$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
<spam@nospam.com> wrote:

>
> Even so, Apple's intense resistance to fitting to common standards wasn't
> due to the royalty fees, imho, and I doubt you believe it was either.

except that apple was first to adopt usb-c with the retina macbook,
more than 7 years ago, transitioning other products over time.

so much for 'intense resistance'.

Andy Burnelli wrote:

> In fact, as Steve _must be aware_ (is he not?), T-Mobile gave EVERY SINGLE
> CUSTOMER on a post-paid plan that had _any_ data, free unlimited data.
>
> Is Steve actually not aware of this well-published fact, nospam?
> <https://i.postimg.cc/nhpbcP50/tmopromo04.jpg> $100 for 6 lines + $16 tax

Correction... T-Mobile gave everyone unlim data on a post-paid plan who had
any data *in the USA* only (the rest of the world fends for themselves).

Unlike Steve's always phony numbers, my iPhone/Android numbers are real.
<https://i.postimg.cc/YC1B906F/tmopromo01.jpg> A32-5G & iPhone 12 contract
<https://i.postimg.cc/Xq5SpS4D/tmopromo02.jpg> $15/mo iPhone,$0/mo Android
<https://i.postimg.cc/L6dFGXVd/tmopromo03.jpg> $100 for 6 lines + $16 tax
<https://i.postimg.cc/nhpbcP50/tmopromo04.jpg> $100 for 6 lines + $16 tax
<https://i.postimg.cc/zf9w1tGZ/speedtest07.jpg> *255Mbps* 5G home speed

Steve is desperately trying to outwit Apple's strategic marketing plan.
As you can see above, for my iPhones, I don't even bother to try to outwit.

Clearly my iPhones cost me astronomically more than my Samsungs cost me.

Even _with_ a vaunted iPhone tradein Steve claims is how he outwits Apple's
marketing plan, my iPhone is $15/month for two years more than my Androids.

Of course, my iPhone 12 is in a different market segment than my Android,
but that also makes the point that for the people in the lower end market,
the Android phone will always be exponentially less expensive in TOC.

Steve's insanely complex cherry picked TOC assumptions are, in a nutshell,
his way of desperately attempting to outwit Apple's basic marketing plan.

nospam wrote:

>> Even so, Apple's intense resistance to fitting to common standards wasn't
>> due to the royalty fees, imho, and I doubt you believe it was either.
>
> except that apple was first to adopt usb-c with the retina macbook,
> more than 7 years ago, transitioning other products over time.

And yet, we're on an iPhone newsgroup talking about iPhone ownership cost.

Not macbooks. Not iPads. But iPhones.

> so much for 'intense resistance'.

If you're desperately trying to claim that Apple _willingly_ and _easily_
decided to make all their future iPhones USB in the upcoming year (which is
what most people expect Apple to do even as they're not legally obligated),
then you're not going to get agreement from sensible logical people like I.

Apple did have USB-C on "some" devices, but not in iPhones.

You think I am like you are, nospam, with nary a synapse devoted to memory,
where I'm well aware you claimed umpteen times iPhones are different.

Now you claim they're the same.

It's isn't an ad hominem attack to make the clear observation that you
can't even keep your own excuses consistent, nospam.

It's one way I know you have a low IQ and almost zero education.

An educated intelligent person would own the synaptic equivalen of
remembering what their own excuses for Apple's behavior is.

It happens every day where the iKooks have been told their whole lives that
they're stupid, so they suffer from self esteem issues such that they can
_never_ simply be man enough to admit they were wrong.
**
<>

In that case, nospam was oh so very confident in being oh so very wrong.
And yet, he can't man up to simply admit what everyone else already knows.

It's what makes iKooks, ikooks, after all.
a. Low IQ and no education
b. Low self esteem (everyone tells them they're stupid)
c. Adores Apple (Apple loves them & as a result, iKooks love Apple back!)

To wit...

nospam wrote:

> nice bit of projection.
>
>> Look up the extent of Los Gatos, you idiot.
>
> 'the extent of los gatos' ?? you're moving the goalposts. the store is
> downtown, not on the outskirts of town, which is largely uninhabited.\

Look nospam, I live in the Santa Cruz mountains. My kids went to school
there, and my grandkids are about to enter into the system.

I don't know where you live but you don't have a clue that Los Gatos is a
huge area, the unincorporated area dwarfing that which is incorporated.

It's all Los Gatos and for you claim otherwise is patently absurd.

HINT: Common school districts, for example. Same library system too.
Same almost everything (95032 is the same post office as 95033).

> but if you insist:

It's amazing that you are desperate not to just be a man and admit
you were oh so very confident in being oh so very dead wrong, nospam.

>
> <https://www.losgatosca.gov/515/About-Los-Gatos>
> The Town of Los Gatos is nestled at the base of the Sierra Azules,
> and is located approximately 60 miles south of San Francisco, in the
> southwestern portion of Santa Clara County where the Santa Clara
> Valley meets the lower slopes of the Santa Cruz Mountains.

Look nospam, I know the exact borders of Los Gatos, so for you to bring up
an "about" page that _only_ looks at a small portion, is just ridiculous.

What shows that you have low self esteem, in addition to a low IQ and no
education, is that you're unable to simply admit when you're dead wrong.

It's something badgolferman has often noted about all of you iKooks.
*Why can't iKooks admit when they're wrong* by badgolferman, May 30, 2019
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/BjiM9DsVXj8/m/CiSykWPPBwAJ>

> 'nestled at the base of' and 'where the santa clara valley meets the
> lower slopes' is quite clear, even for stupid people.

Again, the way I know you have low self esteem (because your whole life
everyone has told you that you're stupid), and because you have a low IQ
and no education, you can't comprehend that Los Gatos is a huge area that
comprises both an unincorporated and an incorporated town, which share
taxation, school districts, many utilities, post offices, etc.

It's _all_ Los Gatos when it's _named_ Los Gatos (incorporated or not).
95022 & 95033 for example

> this is further confirmed with a topographic map:
> <https://en-us.topographic-map.com/map-sr7b3/Los-Gatos/>

I'm not going to play this game with you nospam, other than to observe
that all you low IQ uneducated ill-educated iKooks suffer from the same set
of common abnormal problems, which are...

a. All the iKooks have a low IQ and almost no formal education to speak of
b. And as a result, all iKooks have extreme confidence in their ignorance,
c. But what's worse, you all suffer from extremely low self esteem.

In a way, I feel sorry for you nospam, because your whole life people have
been telling you that you're stupid - so you can't admit when you're wrong.

But what makes you the iKook you are is you are oh so very confident in
being so very dead wrong - and - you will never be man enough to admit it.

It seems badgolferman is write about uneducated people like you, nospam.]
*Updating the "wrong - by badgolferman" thread from May 29, 2019*
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/Pg9fi_sV3CU>

You _remain_ ignorant _because_ you don't have the capacity to learn.

Andy Burnelli wrote:

> It happens every day where the iKooks have been told their whole lives that
> they're stupid, so they suffer from self esteem issues such that they can
> _never_ simply be man enough to admit they were wrong.
> **
> <>
>
> In that case, nospam was oh so very confident in being oh so very wrong.
> And yet, he can't man up to simply admit what everyone else already knows.
>
> It's what makes iKooks, ikooks, after all.
> a. Low IQ and no education
> b. Low self esteem (everyone tells them they're stupid)
> c. Adores Apple (Apple loves them & as a result, iKooks love Apple back!)

I accidentally omitted the references, where, since my credibility is my
most valuable asset, I belatedly provide for the permanent Usenet record.

This is the original badgolferman thread on why iKooks can't act like men.
*Why can't iKooks admit when they're wrong* by badgolferman, May 30, 2019
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/BjiM9DsVXj8/m/CiSykWPPBwAJ>

A later update adding proof child-like iKooks can't admit being wrong.
*Updating the "wrong - by badgolferman" thread from May 29, 2019*
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/Pg9fi_sV3CU>

This is the sequence of posts which prove, yet again, the iKooks can never
be men and simply admit that they're oh so very confident in being oh so
very ignorant - such that it's impossible for iKooks to admit being wrong.
*Total Cost of Ownership - iPhone Versus Android*
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/K82eSYA64Y4/m/Q0INGFg2CgAJ>

In summary, the strange iKooks own a confluence of common odd traits which
are a combination of low IQ, lack of education, and low self esteem such
that they believe everything Apple feeds them, and can't admit when they're
wrong.

That's what makes iKooks different from normal people after all.

Andy Burnelli wrote:

> It seems badgolferman is write about uneducated people like you, nospam.]
> *Updating the "wrong - by badgolferman" thread from May 29, 2019*
> <https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/Pg9fi_sV3CU>

That's funny... "write". Mea culpa!

I made a mistake.

I admit it.

I'm a man after all. Not an iKook.

In article <tpa1gk$c37$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
<spam@nospam.com> wrote:

>
> >> Even so, Apple's intense resistance to fitting to common standards wasn't
> >> due to the royalty fees, imho, and I doubt you believe it was either.
> >
> > except that apple was first to adopt usb-c with the retina macbook,
> > more than 7 years ago, transitioning other products over time.
>
> And yet, we're on an iPhone newsgroup talking about iPhone ownership cost.
>
> Not macbooks. Not iPads. But iPhones.

your claim is that apple has 'intense resistance to fitting to common
standards'.

if that were at all true, then they would not be first to adopt usb-c
on anything.

you are wrong. again.

nospam wrote:

>> Not macbooks. Not iPads. But iPhones.
>
> your claim is that apple has 'intense resistance to fitting to common
> standards'.

Hi nospam,
I realize your whole life everyone has called you stupid, and I'm saddened
by that, but you need to begin at some point to break away from all that.

For you to insinuate Apple planned on converting all the newly upcoming
iPhones to USB-C all along, without the EU making them do it, is a farce.

> if that were at all true, then they would not be first to adopt usb-c
> on anything.

Again, it's only you, and nobody else who is insinuating that Apple is
moving their next iPhones to USB-C completely on their own volition.

>
> you are wrong. again.

What's interesting is that you are the one who is bucking what everyone
else believes, and even more so, since nobody knows for sure EXACTLY what
Apple will do with the next iPhones, you thinking I'm wrong is dead wrong.

Everything you write, unfortunately, shows you have a low IQ, nospam.
I'm sorry to be blunt, but you argue purely for argument's sake.

Always defending to the death everything Apple, no matter what.
Let's get back to the topic, please, of total cost of ownership.

The iPhone will (almost) always have a higher total cost of ownership.
Do you dispute that?

On what grounds?

On Jan 6, 2023, nospam wrote
(in article<060120231724072811%nospam@nospam.invalid>):

> In article<tpa1gk$c37$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
> <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > > > Even so, Apple's intense resistance to fitting to common standards wasn't
> > > > due to the royalty fees, imho, and I doubt you believe it was either.
> > >
> > > except that apple was first to adopt usb-c with the retina macbook,
> > > more than 7 years ago, transitioning other products over time.
> >
> > And yet, we're on an iPhone newsgroup talking about iPhone ownership cost.
> >
> > Not macbooks. Not iPads. But iPhones.
>
> your claim is that apple has 'intense resistance to fitting to common
> standards'.
>
> if that were at all true, then they would not be first to adopt usb-c
> on anything.
>
> you are wrong. again.

Apple was also early to USB 1, with the original iMac, more than 20 years
ago. And early to USB 2. And FireWire. And Thunderbolt. And were pioneers in
the move away from floppies. And the move to SSDs.

Arlen’s an idiot.

On 2023-01-09 10:34, WolfFan wrote:
> On Jan 6, 2023, nospam wrote
> (in article<060120231724072811%nospam@nospam.invalid>):
>
>> In article<tpa1gk$c37$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
>> <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>>> Even so, Apple's intense resistance to fitting to common standards wasn't
>>>>> due to the royalty fees, imho, and I doubt you believe it was either.
>>>>
>>>> except that apple was first to adopt usb-c with the retina macbook,
>>>> more than 7 years ago, transitioning other products over time.
>>>
>>> And yet, we're on an iPhone newsgroup talking about iPhone ownership cost.
>>>
>>> Not macbooks. Not iPads. But iPhones.
>>
>> your claim is that apple has 'intense resistance to fitting to common
>> standards'.
>>
>> if that were at all true, then they would not be first to adopt usb-c
>> on anything.
>>
>> you are wrong. again.
>
> Apple was also early to USB 1, with the original iMac, more than 20 years
> ago. And early to USB 2. And FireWire. And Thunderbolt. And were pioneers in
> the move away from floppies. And the move to SSDs.
>
> Arlen’s an idiot.
>

Yup.

What people don't get is that Apple is very happy to use GOOD standards.

Before there was a USB-C connector, Apple realized that their initial
connector for iPhones and iPads needed to be something better, and so
they invented the Lightning connector.

Then USB-C came along and was better than the USB-Mini and USB-Micro
standards that preceded it, and Apple was happy to use it.

In article <0001HW.296C95B1001A137E70000F37738F@news.supernews.com>,
WolfFan <akwolffan@zoho.com> wrote:

>
> Apple was also early to USB 1, with the original iMac, more than 20 years
> ago.

true. i forgot about that.

going back even further, the gui itself (and no, the xerox star doesn't
count, as it was a huge market failure).

> And early to USB 2.

actually, they were a little slow for that.

> And FireWire. And Thunderbolt. And were pioneers in
> the move away from floppies. And the move to SSDs.

all true.

> Arlen¹s an idiot.

very true.

nospam wrote:

>> Apple was also early to USB 1, with the original iMac, more than 20 years
>> ago.
>
> true. i forgot about that.

If Apple loves USB as much as you desperate revisionists would want it to
be, then why is Apple only now just beginning to replace the completely
non-standard now-worthless POS iPhone lightning connector with USB-C?

In article <tphsmt$d8e$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
<spam@nospam.com> wrote:

>
> If Apple loves USB as much as you desperate revisionists would want it to
> be, then why is Apple only now just beginning to replace the completely
> non-standard now-worthless POS iPhone lightning connector with USB-C?

apple started moving to usb-c *eight* years ago, with the first laptop
in the industry to have usb-c.

On 2023-01-09 12:16, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> nospam wrote:
>
>>> Apple was also early to USB 1, with the original iMac, more than 20
>>> years ago.
>>
>> true. i forgot about that.
>
> If Apple loves USB as much as you desperate revisionists would want it
> to be, then why is Apple only now just beginning to replace the completely
> non-standard now-worthless POS iPhone lightning connector with USB-C?

It's not "non-standard": it's just a standard you don't like.

It's worth quite a bit to the people who have Lightning accessories.

And like in times past, Apple is transitioning to USB-C now that it is
as good (basically) as Lightning is.

On 1/9/2023 10:34 AM, WolfFan wrote:

<snip>

> Apple was also early to USB 1, with the original iMac, more than 20 years
> ago. And early to USB 2. And FireWire. And Thunderbolt. And were pioneers in
> the move away from floppies. And the move to SSDs.

Yes, all that's true for computers.

However for smart phones it's not the case. Just look at the history.
The iPhone was later than Android with 3G, 4G, 5G, NFC, IP68, OLED
screens, multi-lens cameras, phablets, wireless charging, 120Hz LTPO
displays, reverse wireless charging (except for the MagSafe battery
pack), hole punch cameras, USB-C, folding displays, active styluses,
under-screen fingerprint readers, and eSIMs. These all came later than
Android phones (or are all likely coming on future iPhones).

Even when the technology is ready, Apple tends to carefully meter out
the inclusion of new features in order to create continuous demand for
upgrades.

For Android, there's competition among Android device makers to bring
out new features to not be left behind, but there's not the similar
pressure on Apple. Few users are going to move from iPhone to Android in
order to get a new feature a year or two sooner, they'll just wait for
Apple to bring out that feature.

On 2023-01-09 13:41, sms wrote:
> On 1/9/2023 10:34 AM, WolfFan wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Apple was also early to USB 1, with the original iMac, more than 20
>> years ago. And early to USB 2. And FireWire. And Thunderbolt. And
>> were pioneers in the move away from floppies. And the move to
>> SSDs.
>
> Yes, all that's true for computers.
>
> However for smart phones it's not the case. Just look at the history.
> The iPhone was later than Android with 3G, 4G, 5G, NFC, IP68, OLED
> screens, multi-lens cameras, phablets, wireless charging, 120Hz LTPO
> displays, reverse wireless charging (except for the MagSafe battery
> pack), hole punch cameras, USB-C, folding displays, active styluses,
> under-screen fingerprint readers, and eSIMs. These all came later
> than Android phones (or are all likely coming on future iPhones).

And entirely misses the point.

>
> Even when the technology is ready, Apple tends to carefully meter out
> the inclusion of new features in order to create continuous demand
> for upgrades.
>
> For Android, there's competition among Android device makers to bring
> out new features to not be left behind, but there's not the similar
> pressure on Apple. Few users are going to move from iPhone to
> Android in order to get a new feature a year or two sooner, they'll
> just wait for Apple to bring out that feature.

In article <tpi1lp$9v9f$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

>
> However for smart phones it's not the case. Just look at the history.
> The iPhone was later than Android with 3G,

nope. the first iphone with 3g came out *before* the first android
phone of any kind, which amusingly enough, did not have an analog
headphone jack.

now if you had said android was first with no analog headphone jack,
you would have been correct.

> 4G,

technically true, however, the first android phone with 4g had battery
run time of a couple of hours. it could not last past lunch time, which
meant people had to turn*off* 4g to get a day's worth of use.

in other words, it was useless. not only that, but the 4g cellular
infrastructure was not built out, so even with it on, it didn't make
much of a difference.

> 5G,

technically true, however, as you did above, you're ignoring is that
the first android 5g phones also had poor battery life and overheated
as well. joanna stern couldn't complete her testing without putting the
phones into a cooler.

as with 4g, 5g wasn't built out at the time and it was extremely rare
for the early 5g phones to actually get 5g service. this is still true
today indoors with mmw.

worse, some of those early 5g phones were based on draft standards and
are not compatible with the final version, which means early buyers
need to buy a new phone to use on the existing network. sometimes it's
best to *not* be first.

> NFC,

true, although there was very little use for it until apple pay, which
was first to use industry standard emv processing.

> IP68, OLED
> screens,

lower quality ones, yes.

> multi-lens cameras, phablets,

phablets happened because battery life with 4g was poor and needed a
larger phone to house a larger battery.

> wireless charging, 120Hz LTPO
> displays,

true, however, the first ones did not run at full resolution and also
drained the battery faster. note that 120hz is not needed for most
common tasks, such as taking and viewing photos, texting, reading
email, etc.

apple was first with variable refresh rate displays, which are *far*
more power efficient.

> reverse wireless charging (except for the MagSafe battery
> pack),

that is a completely useless feature.

for iphones, it's only to simplify charging both the battery pack and
the phone at the same time, using one cable.

> hole punch cameras,

that's because the camera is less functional due to not having face id.

obviously, if you have a lesser functional camera array, you can use
less space for it. that's not a benefit.

> USB-C,

true, however, lightning predates usb-c.

usb-c doesn't offer much real world advantage over lightning. 15-20w
charging is more than sufficient in nearly every case and data transfer
is almost entirely done wirelessly.

apple is transitioning their entire product line to usb-c over several
years.

> folding displays,

that's a gimmick with technology that's nowhere near mature.

folding phones are significantly less durable and it is more than twice
as thick (including the gap at the hinge).

the first samgung galaxy fold review units failed within a day, forcing
samsung to delay the actual product introduction.

what might be interesting is a folding *tablet* that can fold to
roughly the size of a large phone.

> active styluses,

low quality ones, sure.

nothing comes close to the apple pencil, another apple first.

> under-screen fingerprint readers,

those do not work particularly well. they are slow, unreliable and less
secure than face id or even touch id, both apple firsts.

> and eSIMs.

nope. apple was first with the apple sim, which is what eventually
became an esim.

> These all came later than
> Android phones (or are all likely coming on future iPhones).

you're ignoring all of the numerous features that were first on ios.
here's a list of just some of them:

retina display, 64-bit processor, gorilla glass, bluetooth le, uwb,
secure enclave, satellite sos, colorsync, truetone, face id, wide gamut
displays, airprint, heif/hevc, apple sim, 3d touch, magsafe, find my
network, airdrop, universal control, lidar, arkit, healthkit, homekit,
gymkit, carplay, continuity & handoff, quick transfer, bitcode, thread,
matter, passkey, continuity camera facetime handoff, centerstage, tap
to pay, dynamic lock screen, apple pencil, apple pencil hover, apple
watch mirroring, app tracking transparency, deskview, bluetooth pair
sync, icloud wifi calling, safety check, simultaneous vpn, live listen,
differential privacy and instant hotspot.

note that most of those are actually very useful in the real world,
versus a checklist of things such as 'hole punch camera' or 5g that
causes the phone to overheat and shut down.

> Even when the technology is ready, Apple tends to carefully meter out
> the inclusion of new features in order to create continuous demand for
> upgrades.

nope. they definitely do *not* do that. that is nothing more than
another easily debunked myth.

what apple does is release features when they're ready.

other companies often release features *before* they're ready, which is
why the first android 4g phone couldn't last past lunchtime and why the
under-screen fingerprint sensors are awful.

releasing a feature just to be first when it doesn't actually work that
well (or at all) is not a good business strategy.

> For Android, there's competition among Android device makers to bring
> out new features to not be left behind, but there's not the similar
> pressure on Apple.

nonsense. the entire android ecosystem is competition.

> Few users are going to move from iPhone to Android in
> order to get a new feature a year or two sooner, they'll just wait for
> Apple to bring out that feature.

the opposite it far more common because of all of the features ios has
that android lacks or has a worse implementation. see above for a
partial list.

On 2023-01-09, WolfFan <akwolffan@zoho.com> wrote:
> On Jan 6, 2023, nospam wrote
> (in article<060120231724072811%nospam@nospam.invalid>):
>
>> In article<tpa1gk$c37$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
>> <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > > > Even so, Apple's intense resistance to fitting to common standards wasn't
>> > > > due to the royalty fees, imho, and I doubt you believe it was either.
>> > >
>> > > except that apple was first to adopt usb-c with the retina macbook,
>> > > more than 7 years ago, transitioning other products over time.
>> >
>> > And yet, we're on an iPhone newsgroup talking about iPhone ownership cost.
>> >
>> > Not macbooks. Not iPads. But iPhones.
>>
>> your claim is that apple has 'intense resistance to fitting to common
>> standards'.
>>
>> if that were at all true, then they would not be first to adopt usb-c
>> on anything.
>>
>> you are wrong. again.
>
> Apple was also early to USB 1, with the original iMac, more than 20 years
> ago. And early to USB 2. And FireWire. And Thunderbolt. And were pioneers in
> the move away from floppies. And the move to SSDs.
>
> Arlen’s an idiot.

Yes, and his trolls are extremely weak.

--
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 2023-01-09, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <tphsmt$d8e$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
><spam@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> If Apple loves USB as much as you desperate revisionists would want
>> it to be, then why is Apple only now just beginning to replace the
>> completely non-standard now-worthless POS iPhone lightning connector
>> with USB-C?
>
> apple started moving to usb-c *eight* years ago, with the first laptop
> in the industry to have usb-c.

Yes, and Lightning is actually a terrific connector as well. It's
actually superior to USB-C in significant ways, not the least of which
is port longevity and robustness. But that doesn't fit the troll
narrative so it is ignored by the dimwits.

--
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

In article <k241kpF7e4qU3@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
<jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> >> If Apple loves USB as much as you desperate revisionists would want
> >> it to be, then why is Apple only now just beginning to replace the
> >> completely non-standard now-worthless POS iPhone lightning connector
> >> with USB-C?
> >
> > apple started moving to usb-c *eight* years ago, with the first laptop
> > in the industry to have usb-c.
>
> Yes, and Lightning is actually a terrific connector as well. It's
> actually superior to USB-C in significant ways, not the least of which
> is port longevity and robustness. But that doesn't fit the troll
> narrative so it is ignored by the dimwits.

there are advantages and disadvantages to everything.

usb-c on a macbook in 2015 made sense.

usb-c on an iphone in 2015 did not, especially since apple had *just*
switched to lightning three years earlier. switching to a new connector
that soon would have *really* pissed off customers.

nospam wrote:

> apple started moving to usb-c *eight* years ago, with the first laptop
> in the industry to have usb-c

Then Apple is incompetent as hell because even today, Apple still can't
figure out how to put a USB-C port on the latest thousand dollar iPhone.

Jolly Roger wrote:

> Yes, and Lightning is actually a terrific connector as well.

Think about what you just said, Jolly Roger, and think logically.

If that laughably poorly designed now-worthless lightning connector wasn't
such a non-standard piece of crap, don't you think everyone would have put
lighting ports on their smartphones by now?

nospam wrote:

> usb-c on an iphone in 2015 did not, especially since apple had *just*
> switched to lightning three years earlier. switching to a new connector
> that soon would have *really* pissed off customers.

Hi nospam,

You say Apple started trying to design using the USB standards eight years
ago, right, and yet Apple is so incompetent they _still_ can't figure out
how to put a USB-C port on an iPhone, right?

Your argument that Apple is incompetent even I have trouble believing.

sms wrote:

> However for smart phones it's not the case. Just look at the history.
> The iPhone was later than Android with 3G, 4G, 5G, NFC, IP68, OLED
> screens, multi-lens cameras, phablets, wireless charging, 120Hz LTPO
> displays, reverse wireless charging (except for the MagSafe battery
> pack), hole punch cameras, USB-C, folding displays, active styluses,
> under-screen fingerprint readers, and eSIMs. These all came later than
> Android phones (or are all likely coming on future iPhones).
>
> Even when the technology is ready, Apple tends to carefully meter out
> the inclusion of new features in order to create continuous demand for
> upgrades.
>
> For Android, there's competition among Android device makers to bring
> out new features to not be left behind, but there's not the similar
> pressure on Apple. Few users are going to move from iPhone to Android in
> order to get a new feature a year or two sooner, they'll just wait for
> Apple to bring out that feature.

I commend Steve for his assessment above, which he got correct as far as I
can tell, which is that Apple is always behind the curve on new tech for
smartphones - where Apple is a MARKETING company - NOT a design house.

Apple simply copies the hardware that works on Android, since Apple is a
leader in MARKETING and a distant third or fourth in smartphone hardware.

On the flip side, Android makers COPY Apple marketing gimmicks (like
removing the sdcard so people are forced to pay more for storage).

In summary, Steve seems to know the iPhone hardware situation better than
the iKooks who always seem to be ignorant of all the things Apple does.

nospam wrote:

> now if you had said android was first with no analog headphone jack,
> you would have been correct.

One way it's easy to tell the iKooks have no education and low IQ is their
arguments are ridiculously sophomoric in that an early twenty dollar phone
with no headphone jack doesn't have any bearing on the fact that Apple
designed the iPhone to cost more in terms of almost everything you connect
to it - which is why Apple removed the headphone jack.

Apple removed the headphone jack to make it more expensive to buy it back.

Meanwhile, most Android have a headphone jack and an sd card slot, both of
which the iPhone lacks because the iPhone is _designed_ for higher TOC.

> technically true, however, the first android phone with 4g had battery
> run time of a couple of hours. it could not last past lunch time, which
> meant people had to turn*off* 4g to get a day's worth of use.

Again, your arguments, nospam, are that of a kindergarten child given the
iPhones of today all have laughably puny batteries compared to Androids.

> technically true, however, as you did above, you're ignoring is that
> the first android 5g phones also had poor battery life and overheated
> as well. joanna stern couldn't complete her testing without putting the
> phones into a cooler.

Again, all your arguments show you're completely unaware of the fact that
iPhone batteries will ALWAYS die sooner (far sooner in fact) than Android
batteries simply because the aging process is the same on both - but - the
iPhone batteries start at a laughably puny size - which is just ridiculous.

> as with 4g, 5g wasn't built out at the time and it was extremely rare
> for the early 5g phones to actually get 5g service. this is still true
> today indoors with mmw.

If Apple hadn't surrendered to Qualcomm to the tune of about ten billion
dollars (enough to equip an entire navy), Apple would be bankrupt today.

That's how important 5G is.

> worse, some of those early 5g phones were based on draft standards and
> are not compatible with the final version, which means early buyers
> need to buy a new phone to use on the existing network. sometimes it's
> best to *not* be first.

I wonder if you realize Apple would be bankrupt today without Qualcomm?

>> NFC,
>
> true, although there was very little use for it until apple pay, which
> was first to use industry standard emv processing.

The fact is Apple spends almost nothing in R&D compared to a tech company
like Samsung - where almost all of Apple's spending is in MARKETING.