On Tue, 11 Jan 2022 21:23:43 -0500, nospam wrote:

> irrelevant. it's a 12 year old ipad, regardless of who she is or what
> she does.

If this were _any_ other common consumer operating system other than iOS,
there would be _thousands_ of apps which would keep the device being useful.

All we want for this woman is for someone who knows more than I to name it.
*Name just one*

> old products become obsolete. it's that simple.

The fact remains if it were a 12 year old (anything but iOS), there would
still be _thousands_ of free apps that would still work - as it's only Apple
that cripples your huge investment in iOS devices after only a few years.

If you can't even name _one_ useful free app for her, then you're proving my
point Apple has unilaterally destroyed the utility of her expensive iPad.
*Name just one*

> some apps might not work because they rely on external services that no
> longer exist or require security protocols that a device that old does
> not support, because ten years ago, they didn't exist.

I suggested she turn her expensive iPad into a permanent kitchen clock.

Are you claiming that she can't even turn her investment in expensive Apple
devices into something as simple and yet useful as a kitchen clock nospam?

If not, then name an app that she can put on that iPad that is useful.
*Name just one*
> banks in particular are very aggressive in requiring the latest apps
> and operating systems.

Are you claiming that she can't even turn that expensive investment into
something useful when _any_ other device would be able to run a clock app?

If you claim that Apple did not unilaterally destroy her iPad investment
*Name just one*

> modern apps won't run because they require something much newer than
> ios 5.

Either Apple is unilaterally destroying her expensive investment, or not.

If Apple hasn't destroyed her expensive investment, then at least she can
turn that expensive (supposedly "smart") iPad into a dumb kitchen clock.

If an expensive iPad can't even do that, then you make my point for me.

Hence, all I ask of you is name an app that she can put on it that's useful.
*Name just one*

> not only is it true for android, but it's true for all platforms.

Are you seriously claiming that a 12-year old Android can't run a kitchen
clock app nospam? Really? You're _that_ desperate to absolve Apple?

Are you seriously claiming that a 12-year old Windows PC can't run a kitchen
clock app nospam? How _desperate_ are you to excuse Apple.

If you can't name even a _single_ useful app that she can install, then all
you're doing is proving me right that Apple _destroyed_ her expensive iPad.
*Name just one*

> the problem is that it's now 2022 and the world expects significantly
> more functionality.

Are you seriously claiming that a dumb kitchen clock is _too significant_ of
a functionality for her expensive iPad to perform in the year 2022?

If it's true, as you claim, Apple has not destroyed her investment, then
*Name just one*

> the problem is that it's going to be very, very difficult to find apps
> that support ios 5 anymore.

If this were _any_ other operating system other than iOS, it wouldn't be.
Apple has unilaterally destroyed her expensive investment over time.

All we ask of you is to name just one useful functionality for that iPad.
*Name just one*

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

> If this were _any_ other common consumer operating system other than iOS,
> there would be _thousands_ of apps which would keep the device being useful.

there are hundreds of thousands of ipad apps that could be used.

they're just no longer available on the app store because ios 5 is *12*
*years* *old*.

those who chose to keep those apps, as you do with android apps, can
still use them.

try finding a new android app today that works on donut, which was what
was most commonly used 12 years ago. eclair was current but it didn't
eclipse donut (or cupcake) at that time.

> All we want for this woman is for someone who knows more than I

that's easy.

On Thu, 13 Jan 2022 12:54:39 -0500, nospam wrote:

> there are hundreds of thousands of ipad apps that could be used.

FACT:
You've fabricated purely imaginary iOS functionality in the past, nospam.

ASSESSMENT:
You're _desperate_ to excuse flaws that are _only_ in Apple devices, nospam.

Adults never disagree on facts (only idiots do that); but adults can
reasonably disagree on the assessments of those facts.

So here's a chance for you to prove that my assessment is wrong, nospam.
*Name Just One*

If her expensive Apple investment can do something even _that_ simple:
*Name Just One*

> they're just no longer available on the app store because ios 5 is *12*
> *years* *old*.

You can make all the excuses you want for why it's _only_ Apple devices
which are so crippled they can't even run a kitchen clock app over time.

The fact remains if this was any other investment _other_ than in Apple
equipment, the expensive device would be able to run a kitchen clock app.

If you claim that it can run something that simple, all you have to do is
*Name Just One*