On 06.04.22 00:51, nospam wrote:
> In article <t2ifs9$u7o$1@dont-email.me>, knuttle
> <keith_nuttle@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>>> Most people upgrading their iPhone to one that supports fast charging
>>>> don't already own a fast charger.
>>>
>>> most people don't need a fast charger. they charge overnight, where how
>>> long it takes does not matter.
>>
>> If you paid dearly for a fancy iPhone that can fast charge why wouldn't you
>> want your fancy iPhone to charge at the fast speeds you already paid for?
>
> because most of the time, fast charging is not needed, for any phone,
> not just iphones. charge it overnight and it lasts at least a day,
> often longer.

I disagree. Sometimes it is very convenient to top off. And in such
circumstances the user want bang for the buck. I quite often do that
before I leave my desk in the office for a business trip

--
Sent with Bettterbird from an Intel-Mac. Simply better. www.betterbird.eu

On 06.04.22 06:54, knuttle wrote:
> On 4/6/2022 3:53 AM, nospam wrote:
>
>>> Just like having credit cards in your pocket, a fast charger is convenient
>>> when you need it & you don't have all day or all night to charge the phone.
>>
>> there is no need to carry a charger all the time. you might want to get
>> a phone with much better battery life than what you have now.
>
> You misunderstood.
> I was saying the great thing about a fast charger is that it's convenient.

It definitely is. See my other post.

--
Sent with Bettterbird from an Intel-Mac. Simply better. www.betterbird.eu

On 06.04.22 06:26, sms wrote:
> On 4/5/2022 5:48 PM, Alan wrote:
>> On 2022-04-05 5:33 p.m., nospam wrote:
>>> In article <t2ime0$5t9$1@dont-email.me>, sms
>>> <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>      One reason was to prove that the amount of extra electricity used
>>>> for wireless charging is so minuscule that it has no effect on climate
>>>> change.
>>>
>>> multiplied by a couple of billion phones, it absolutely does.
>>
>> In the larger context of how much electricity is used overall...
>>
>> ...I very much doubt it.
>
> nospam is wrong of course™.

No. He is absolutely right. 100 phones charging at 10 Watt use 1 kW.
100'000 devices 1 MW. 10 Million devices 100 MW.

100 MW is a quarter of the power of Switzerland's samllest nuclear power
station.

100 million devices absorb 100% of the power of a modern nuclear plant.
That is what you can expect in Germany and France alone in one night.

In this calculation I assume 100% efficiency of the chain and no losses
at all which is completely unrealistic.

--
Sent with Bettterbird from an Intel-Mac. Simply better. www.betterbird.eu

On 2022-04-05 10:45 p.m., Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> On 06.04.22 06:26, sms wrote:
>> On 4/5/2022 5:48 PM, Alan wrote:
>>> On 2022-04-05 5:33 p.m., nospam wrote:
>>>> In article <t2ime0$5t9$1@dont-email.me>, sms
>>>> <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>      One reason was to prove that the amount of extra electricity used
>>>>> for wireless charging is so minuscule that it has no effect on climate
>>>>> change.
>>>>
>>>> multiplied by a couple of billion phones, it absolutely does.
>>>
>>> In the larger context of how much electricity is used overall...
>>>
>>> ...I very much doubt it.
>>
>> nospam is wrong of course™.
>
> No. He is absolutely right. 100 phones charging at 10 Watt use 1 kW.
> 100'000 devices 1 MW. 10 Million devices 100 MW.
>
> 100 MW is a quarter of the power of Switzerland's samllest nuclear power
> station.
>
> 100 million devices absorb 100% of the power of a modern nuclear plant.
> That is what you can expect in Germany and France alone in one night.
>
> In this calculation I assume 100% efficiency of the chain and no losses
> at all which is completely unrealistic.
>
>

No.

He and you are absolutely wrong.

In message <jb3vmnFajs2U3@mid.individual.net> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> On 2022-04-05, knuttle <keith_nuttle@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> On 5 Apr 2022, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in
>> misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.mobile.android:
>>
>>>> Most people upgrading their iPhone to one that supports fast
>>>> charging don't already own a fast charger.
>>>
>>> most people don't need a fast charger. they charge overnight, where
>>> how long it takes does not matter.
>>
>> If you paid dearly for a fancy iPhone that can fast charge why
>> wouldn't you want your fancy iPhone to charge at the fast speeds you
>> already paid for?

> Because faster charging generates more heat, which lessens the overall
> lifespan of a battery. And if my routine is already to charge my device
> while I sleep, there's literally no benefit in needlessly decreasing the
> overall lifespan of my battery simply "because I can". Also, I'd have
> to spend money on a fast charge power adapter for no real gain. No
> thanks.

Fast charging can be a convenience in some situations, but for most
people it is not an issue and certainly does not warrant buying a new
charger.

Also, I did not go out an look for an iPhone with fast charging, nor is
it a feature I paid for. It is not even a feature I considered. I am not
sure which iPhones support it because it is meaningless to me.

In over 20 years I have never been in the situation of "PANIC! I must
charge up my phone to full as quickly as possible!" Not once, on any
phone, ever.

--
'How come you know all that stuff?' 'I ain't just a pretty face.'
'You aren't even a pretty face, Gaspode.'

In message <t2j6rv$d6n$1@dont-email.me> knuttle <keith_nuttle@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 4/5/2022 11:21 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:

>>> There are times you're in a rush
>>
>> No there aren't. You're desperately trying to speak for me and many
>> others due to your bias, but it's clear you know nothing about my use
>> cases.

> A quick charger is convenient when you need it because the phone is charged
> in no time flat, but if you don't mind waiting all day or all night for the
> phone to slowly charge, then you don't need a quick charger.

You're being an idiot. It does not take all day nor all night to charge
a phone.

> What's the disadvantage of the convenience of a quick charger that makes you
> dislike quick chargers so much?

This has been pointed out to you several times. Expense of a new charger
and damage over time to the battery.

--
Given your quest-heavy lifestyle, there’s no guarantee any of you will live to
see Christmas.

In message <050420221859262879%nospam@nospam.invalid> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <t2ih3o$1tta$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
> <spam@nospam.com> wrote:

>> The only reason Apple removed the charger is because Apple's strategy is to
>> remove a key functionality each year from the entire iPhone model lineup.

> exactly correct. it's widely known among insiders that after a few
> years, apple will eventually remove the ability to make and receive
> calls

Hey now, I would buy an iPhone that couldn't make calls. It would save
me quite some effort in avoiding calls. :)

--
Humans are always slightly lost. It's a basic characteristic. It
explains a lot about them.

In message <t2iqtu$3pk$1@dont-email.me> knuttle <keith_nuttle@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Sometimes you use the iPhone more than you normally do or you forget to
> charge it or you're out all night or you check into your hotel late and you
> have early meetings the next morning or any of a million things that could
> prevent you from enjoying your full night every night slow charging cycle.

Stop being stupid. There is no "full night" about it. It does not take
hours to charge an iPhone. You're being a colossal dumbass.

> There's a great amount of convenience to fast charging that's really useful.

To you, perhaps. Not to most people, no.

> You don't want that convenience but if you ever needed it, it would be nice
> convenience to have for free.

How do you figure it's free? You have to buy new chargers.

--
'The only reason we're still alive now is that we're more fun alive
than dead,' said Granny's voice behind her. --Lords and Ladies

In message <t2incv$bv7$1@dont-email.me> sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> The reason they stopped including the charger was to save money and
> increase sales of high-power wired and wireless chargers

Save money in packaging and shipping and waste, yes. The rest of your
statement is, of course, your usual bullshit troll lies.

> The only key functionality that appears to have been removed between the
> 12 and 13 is noise cancellation for phone calls
> <https://www.idropnews.com/news/did-apple-deliberately-remove-noise-cancellation-from-the-iphone-13/177417/>.

Also bullshit.

> One minor annoyance I noticed when going from my 6s Plus to my Xr was
> the loss of the battery percentage indicator in the top-right corner of
> the screen,

More and more bullshit.

> but that went away beginning with the X

No it didn't, and it is still there on the 13, 12, 11, and Xr

> related t the loss of screen real estate due to the notch. As the notch
> shrinks in future iPhones, perhaps that indicator will come back.

Look harder.

--
In the 60's, people took acid to make the world appear weird. Now the
world is weird and people take Prozac to make it appear normal.

In message <050420222033159758%nospam@nospam.invalid> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <t2ime0$5t9$1@dont-email.me>, sms
> <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

>> One reason was to prove that the amount of extra electricity used
>> for wireless charging is so minuscule that it has no effect on climate
>> change.

> multiplied by a couple of billion phones, it absolutely does.

No, it really doesn't.

It's a bit like comparing a burst water main to a dripping sink. Does
the dripping sink waste water? Sure, technically. Is it in anyway
comparable to a bust mains pipe flooding your neighborhood? Not in the
slightest.

If you drop $1,000 i that a lot of money? What if you have $200 billion,
do you even notice $1,000? No, you don't; it's a rounding error.

--
The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

On 4/6/2022 12:33 PM, Lewis wrote:

>> A quick charger is convenient when you need it because the phone is charged
>> in no time flat, but if you don't mind waiting all day or all night for the
>> phone to slowly charge, then you don't need a quick charger.
>
> You're being an idiot.

You don't consider saved time a convenience?

> It does not take all day nor all night to charge a phone.

How long does it take to slow charge that phone of yours compared to how
long it takes to fast charge that phone of yours?

That's the convenience.

>> What's the disadvantage of the convenience of a quick charger that makes you
>> dislike quick chargers so much?
>
> This has been pointed out to you several times.

Your great grandfather who used a hand drill would have loved the
convenience of a power drill.

You seem to dislike the convenience of fast charging because you don't have
it. It's like you disliking the convenience of nail guns because all you own
is a hammer.

> Expense of a new charger

It comes free with the phone, even cheap phones.

> and damage over time to the battery.

No more than a power drill causes damage to the wood over a hand drill.

Are you disliking the convenience of a fast charger because of the damage or
do you dislike the convenience of a fast charger because you don't have one?

On 4/6/2022 12:39 PM, Lewis wrote:

> Stop being stupid. There is no "full night" about it. It does not take
> hours to charge an iPhone. You're being a colossal dumbass.

What's the difference in time to charge an iPhone on the slow charger and on
the fast charger? How many hours difference is it?

That's the convenience.

>> There's a great amount of convenience to fast charging that's really useful.
>
> To you, perhaps. Not to most people, no.

If your great grandma could do the household laundry in a couple of hours
instead of the way your great grandmother did it taking at least a half day
or more, she would say that the saving is convenient too.
>> You don't want that convenience but if you ever needed it, it would be nice
>> convenience to have for free.
>
> How do you figure it's free? You have to buy new chargers.

The fast charger comes with new phones, even cheap phones.

On 4/6/2022 12:56 PM, Lewis wrote:

>>> One reason was to prove that the amount of extra electricity used
>>> for wireless charging is so minuscule that it has no effect on climate
>>> change.
>
>> multiplied by a couple of billion phones, it absolutely does.
>
> No, it really doesn't.
>
> It's a bit like comparing a burst water main to a dripping sink. Does
> the dripping sink waste water? Sure, technically. Is it in anyway
> comparable to a bust mains pipe flooding your neighborhood? Not in the
> slightest.

With these calculations how much waste "wall warts" cause in wasted energy
kilowatts when they are left in the live electrical socket most of the time.

On 4/5/2022 9:25 PM, Ant wrote:
> In misc.phone.mobile.iphone Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>> On 2022-04-05, John McGaw <Nobody@Nowh.ere> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> How long does it take _you_ to charge your phone from dead to full?
>>>
>>> No idea. I've never had my Pixel 6 Pro get below maybe 40% after a
>>> full day of use and I can't see any reason to drain it on purpose.
>
>> Same with my iPhones for the past several years. I charge them at night
>> while I sleep, they are fully charged when I wake up, and they last all
>> day every day without needing a recharge. The fast charging craze is
>> mostly overblown hype to those of us who rarely if ever need such a
>> thing.
>
> I have to charge my old, used iPhones (6 + and 4S) and new 12 mini. I
> use them a lot! Also, it doens't help when cellular coverage is really
> bad here even if I disable cellular data. :(

Normally I can get through a whole day on my iPhone Xr (as well as my
old 6s Plus). However when traveling, not in a rental car, and using
various apps that rely on the GPS and data, the phone can't make it
through a long day (6 a.m. to past midnight) so I carry along a power
bank that supports USB-C PD so I can charge the phone quickly.

On 4/6/2022 12:30 PM, Lewis wrote:

> Fast charging can be a convenience in some situations, but for most
> people it is not an issue and certainly does not warrant buying a new
> charger.

The fast charger is the only charger most people use since it comes with the
phone, even cheap phones.

A lot of new houses come with the clothes dryer in the laundry room.

It's so inexpensive in terms of the overall expense that it doesn't change
the price of the house. Even inexpensive houses come with a clothes dryer.

> Also, I did not go out an look for an iPhone with fast charging, nor is
> it a feature I paid for. It is not even a feature I considered. I am not
> sure which iPhones support it because it is meaningless to me.

Don't all the new iPhones support fast charging?

> In over 20 years I have never been in the situation of "PANIC! I must
> charge up my phone to full as quickly as possible!" Not once, on any
> phone, ever.

Do you hang your clothes outside to dry or do you use a "fast" dryer?

You appear to dislike dryers because all you have is a clothes line.

On 4/6/2022 12:25 AM, Ant wrote:

> I have to charge my old, used iPhones (6 + and 4S) and new 12 mini. I
> use them a lot! Also, it doens't help when cellular coverage is really
> bad here even if I disable cellular data. :(

Your older iPhone is like a house that isn't designed for a fast dryer so
you are stuck with using the slow drying clothes line that they gave you
when you bought it.

They sold you on the slow drying by clothes line by telling you it's good
for the environment. And that's true. But that's not why they did it.

The cost of the dryer is small compared to the cost of the house but the
company that sold the house saves money by only handing you a piece of rope.

Your older iPhone wasn't designed to handle a fast dryer so all you can do
is use that piece of rope but all new houses can handle the convenience of a
dryer.

Instead of taking a half day to dry your clothes using the clothesline they
gave you (it's good for the environment), you can dry your clothes in an
hour or two (it's not as good for the environment but it's convenient).

They didn't do it for the environment anyway.
And you can still dry your clothes on the line if you care that much about
it.

A fast clothes dryer may damage the clothes a tiny bit more than a slow dry
on a line but what you gain is the convenience of being able to dry your
clothes day or night and whenever you want.

On 4/6/2022 10:22 AM, sms wrote:

> Normally I can get through a whole day on my iPhone Xr (as well as my
> old 6s Plus). However when traveling, not in a rental car, and using
> various apps that rely on the GPS and data, the phone can't make it
> through a long day (6 a.m. to past midnight) so I carry along a power
> bank that supports USB-C PD so I can charge the phone quickly.

If on that business trip your clothes get wet or dirty from lots of use, you
can use the spring loaded clothes line in the bathtub of that hotel room.

The slow dry clothes line is better for the environment but that's not why
the hotel didn't put a fast dryer in every hotel room, even cheap rooms.

If hotel rooms came with a fast dryer, you'd benefit from the convenience of
being able to dry clothes in a half hour instead of most of the night.

On 4/6/2022 1:34 AM, Joerg Lorenz wrote:

>> because most of the time, fast charging is not needed, for any phone,
>> not just iphones. charge it overnight and it lasts at least a day,
>> often longer.
>
> I disagree. Sometimes it is very convenient to top off. And in such
> circumstances the user want bang for the buck. I quite often do that
> before I leave my desk in the office for a business trip

There are some who advocate for rubbing two sticks together to start a fire
and by all accounts, that slow way of starting a fire works over time.

They advocate for that because they don't have matches & newspaper so the
slow way to make a fire is what they try to say is better than the fast way.

But others advocate for the convenience of the fast way to start a campfire
using matches and newspaper (which maybe even the campground provides you).

They dislike matches/newspaper because all they have are sticks to rub.

Jolly Roger wrote:

>> The only reason Apple...
>
> Blah blah blah. Arlen can't address the point, so he tries to derail the
> thread instead. Lame troll.

The iPhone is so primitive that it's laughable in terms of functionality.

Hence it's you iKooks who are desperate to derail the topic from the fact
that my modern inexpensive phone with a huge battery only takes a couple of
hours to charge to full with the equipment that comes in the box.

The primitive iPhone, by contrast, contains laughably archaic functionality.

On 2022-04-06 8:40 a.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>>> The only reason Apple...
>>
>> Blah blah blah. Arlen can't address the point, so he tries to derail the
>> thread instead. Lame troll.
>
> The iPhone is so primitive that it's laughable in terms of functionality.

No.

It is not.

It can do anything that any other smartphone can do.

>
> Hence it's you iKooks who are desperate to derail the topic from the fact
> that my modern inexpensive phone with a huge battery only takes a couple of
> hours to charge to full with the equipment that comes in the box.

Why is it relevant if it comes in the box?

>
> The primitive iPhone, by contrast, contains laughably archaic
> functionality.

A choice not to sell a power adapter with every phone is not "archaic".

Do you even know what that word means?

In article <t2kcle$dhq$2@dont-email.me>, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

> On 2022-04-06 8:40 a.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> > The iPhone is so primitive that it's laughable in terms of functionality.
>
> No.
>
> It is not.
>
> It can do anything that any other smartphone can do.

as well as many things other smartphones cannot.

On 4/6/2022 12:25 AM, Alan wrote:

<snip>

> He and you are absolutely wrong.

Yes, they are wrong.

The problem some people have is that they don't look at the data or the
big picture when it comes to the total worldwide electricity consumption
versus the small amount of extra electricity consumed by wireless charging.

Total world electricity consumption is about 24,000 trillion KWH per
year. The extra electricity, if every mobile device was charged
wirelessly instead of wired, would be 8-10 billion KWH per year. That
sounds like a lot of KWH, but it's around 0.000003 percent to 0.000004
percent of total world electricity consumption.

Here is the spreadsheet with the electricity consumption data:
<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1G6yMOgpGtSYB-3VYcK2LFPpjSSkhkJtTgDWD3YdxSEM/>.

Here is the spreadsheet with the measurements of wired versus wireless
charging for my iPhone Xr and my Samsung Note 9:
<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1hP-jXAPxgcIB2friQ7Bmt3Gqqv0RgQ0fBPP_RmwIHjc/>.
I used that data for the total electricity consumption data.

Here is the document that details the pros and cons of wireless
charging:
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wnJX50hca_KCQHg-D7TzDxKZg_5kf4fXEB_blwXoOE4/>

And of course there are environmental benefits to wireless charging that
offset the tiny extra percentage of electricity used.

nospam wrote:

>> It can do anything that any other smartphone can do.
>
> as well as many things other smartphones cannot.

The iPhone is antediluvian technology mired in an ancient 15-year-old design.
*The reason isn't the hardware; it's that Apple _cripples_ the software.*

For example:
a. Tell us nospam how that primitive iPhone handles GPS spoofing?
b. Tell us nospam how that archaic iPhone allows icons on any grid?
c. Tell us nospam how that inept iPhone sets the default messenger app
(or any number of default functionalities that _every_ other OS allows)?
All by its itty bitty self.
--
The only reason Apple removed the charger is that slowly removing basic
functionality so that you have to buy it back is an Apple key strategy.

sms wrote:

> And of course there are environmental benefits to wireless charging that
> offset the tiny extra percentage of electricity used.

Steve speaks dogma.

Steve is a wacko far-to-the-left Democrat politician, hence it's expected
he'd play up only the dogma in his environmental crusade to raise taxes.

That's normal for politicians, where the Democrats are _desperate_ to enact
an entirely new shockingly huge taxation system (which is their main goal).

The Democrats like Steve, will brazenly lie, claiming every environmental
happenstance is due to "global warming" (ooops. "Climate Chage") dogma.

Even the PG&E-caused fires were blamed on that by Gavin Newsom who said he
has no patience for intellectuals who don't believe every lie he claims.

REFERENCES:
<https://civicfinance.org/2020/09/14/weve-lost-patience-with-you-gavin-newsom/>
<https://energynews.us/digests/california-governor-no-patience-for-climate-change-deniers/>
<https://climaterealism.com/2020/09/the-truth-about-wildfires-that-gov-newsom-has-no-patience-for/>
<https://www.latimes.com/california/newsletter/2020-09-09/fires-newsom-climate-change-essential-california>
<https://deadline.com/2020/09/california-governor-gavin-newsom-no-patience-for-climate-change-deniers-1234572770/#!>
<https://www.newsweek.com/california-gov-has-no-patience-climate-change-deniers-he-reports-historic-wildfires-1530466>
<https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2020/sep/09/california-governor-wildfires-no-patience-climate-change-deniers-video>
<https://www.theepochtimes.com/california-gov-gavin-newsom-i-quite-literally-have-no-patience-for-climate-change-deniers_3497996.html>
<https://www.politico.com/newsletters/california-playbook/2020/09/09/gavin-newsom-no-patience-for-climate-deniers-trump-targets-kamala-as-first-woman-president-an-insult-to-our-country-winds-ramp-up-wildfire-danger-power-outages-called-by-pg-e-gender-reveal-family-could-owe-millions-490277>
etc.
--
The problem with politicians like Steve is that their constituency has to be stupid
to even begin to believe the incessant dogma they spew.

Andy Burnelli wrote:
> sms wrote:
>
>> And of course there are environmental benefits to wireless
>> charging that offset the tiny extra percentage of electricity used.
>
> Steve speaks dogma.
>
> Steve is a wacko far-to-the-left Democrat politician, hence it's
> expected
> he'd play up only the dogma in his environmental crusade to raise
> taxes.
>
> That's normal for politicians, where the Democrats are _desperate_
> to enact
> an entirely new shockingly huge taxation system (which is their
> main goal).
>
> The Democrats like Steve, will brazenly lie, claiming every
> environmental
> happenstance is due to "global warming" (ooops. "Climate Chage")
> dogma.
>

Are all democrats also uneducated iKooks? I bet they are.