In message <t2phrc$7pn$1@dont-email.me> sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 4/8/2022 12:51 AM, Alan wrote:
>> On 2022-04-08 12:06 a.m., Nil wrote:
>>> On 8 Apr 2022, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in
>>> misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.mobile.android:
>>>
>>>> Well the $6.5 billion was cited here
>>>> <https://screenrant.com/apple-saved-billions-removing-chargers-boxes/>.
>>>> But it's a bogus number because it claims that Apple is saving $25 per
>>>> phone by not including accessories. In reality it's almost certainly
>>>> less than $2 per phone for a 5W charger and Lightning earbuds. The
>>>> article must have used the retail price of the accessories that are no
>>>> longer included.
>>>
>>> The correct charger is the $19 20W USB-C charger, not the 5W USB-A
>>> garbage.
>>
>> No.

> Apple only ever included the fast charger on the iPhone 11 Pro and Pro
> Max, before they dropped including chargers at all.

> The 5W charger, which had been included on lower-end phones, would have
> cost them 25-50¢.

A made up number based on your usual lack of any knowledge or evidence.

--
Secret to a happy relationship: when you're wrong, admit it. When
you're right, shut up.

On 4/8/2022 12:52 AM, Alan wrote:

<snip>

>> Exactly.
>> Apple wants 19 bucks for a cheaply made usb cable.  It likely costs
>> them a
>> dollar or less in the  large quantities.
>
> 1. How do you know it is "cheaply made"?

Actually, the quality of included cables has been an issue since they
made changes to the cable design in 2007. "Cheaply made" is not the
issue, it's two specific design changes that they made, for specific
reasons, that have caused the problems.

The first is the elimination of PVC in the outer insulation in favor of
a less durable rubber. This was done for environmental reasons.

The second is the removal of the ribbed strain relief. This was done
(allegedly) for aesthetic reasons. They have a patent to try to address
the strain relief issue without going back to using ribs:
<https://appleinsider.com/articles/21/02/04/apple-may-have-a-solution-for-fraying-lightning-cables>.

A video I watched stated the the elimination of the ribbed strain
relief, which you'll see on most other cables, was for aesthetic reasons
and that the engineering team was aware that this would result in less
durable cables, see <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dizu3e-qsmk>. As to
the elimination of PVC, this is not the first time that environmental
concerns have resulted in products that are not as durable.

If you have cables without a proper ribbed strain relief, you can buy
after-market strain reliefs to protect the cable from breaking. See
<https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07P835Z1L>.

Avoid the temptation to buy el-cheapo USB-C PD to Lightning cables if
you are expecting fast-charging to actually work. Sellers may claim "MFi
Certified" but no one checks those claims. And remember, unlike Android
devices, Apple devices don't tell you whether you're fast-charging or
slow-charging so you might not even realize that you're not fast
charging unless you have a USB-C voltage/current/wattage/WH tester which
of course few people own, see
<https://www.aliexpress.com/item/4000349886468.html>.

These $10.99 cables worked great and have an excellent strain relief
<https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07RDPNWRR>.

This 3-pack for $11.99 didn't fast charge and went back to Amazon
<https://www.amazon.com/dp/B097BL622M>. And now I notice that they have
the same design issue with the strain relief as the more expensive
Apple-cables.

On 8 Apr 2022, Lewis <g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote in
misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.mobile.android:

>> Many people don't want to use 20 year old charger tech on their new iPhone.
>
> "Many People"? Are you Trumpanzee Shitgibbon?

Who wants to use 20 year old technology that has long ago been improved?

>> There's another $29 million Apple is estimated to have pocketed from
>> increased charger sales but that's not where the empty box money is made.
>
> More invented numbers don't impress anyone.

The reported $6.5 billion is only in the estimated empty box cost savings.
Wait until you find out where the real money is in shipping that empty box.

On 8 Apr 2022, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote in
misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.mobile.android:

> These useless trolls don't care about factual discussion, and they
> certainly won't acknowledge this or anything else that proves they know
> next to nothing about the topic.

Why haven't you found the reports which estimated the $6.5 billion savings?

On 8 Apr 2022, Lewis <g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote in
misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.mobile.android:

>>> "Disassembling Apple's diminutive inch-cube iPhone charger reveals a
>>> technologically advanced flyback switching power supply that goes beyond
>>> the typical charger. It simply takes AC input (anything between 100 and
>>> 240 volts) and produce 5 watts of smooth 5 volt power, but the circuit
>>> to do this is surprisingly complex and innovative."
>
>> What's so impressive to you about 20 year old 5W charging brick technology?
>
> Once again you reveal your inability to read or comprehend.

Once again you're impressed Apple can create a 20 year old 5W charge brick?

On 8 Apr 2022, Lewis <g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote in
misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.mobile.android:

> It's not my job to fact check you.

Then why did you deny the cost savings of shipping that nearly empty box
have been recently estimated to be "north of 6.5 billion" US dollars?

On 8 Apr 2022, Lewis <g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote in
misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.mobile.android:

>> The 5W charger, which had been included on lower-end phones, would have
>> cost them 25-50�.
>
> A made up number based on your usual lack of any knowledge or evidence.

What's not made up is that people are currently buying an almost empty box.

Neither is it made up the 6.5 billion US dollars estimation saved by
shipping 190 million nearly empty boxes, nor the estimated additional sales.

On 8 Apr 2022, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in
misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.mobile.android:

> Apple only ever included the fast charger on the iPhone 11 Pro and Pro
> Max, before they dropped including chargers at all.

That's an older slower 18W charger and not the correct 20W charger (although
it won't make much of a difference in lost time but it's still not right).
> The 5W charger, which had been included on lower-end phones, would have
> cost them 25-50�.

The missing charger in the nearly empty box is only half the missing story.
> A 20W USB-C PD charger would have cost them $2 at most, but more likely
> around $1.

As you know, the $6.5 billion is only the estimated cost savings.

You saw there's another $29 million Apple is estimated to have pocketed from
increased charger sales but that's not where the real money is being made.

With most people buying these accessories, is there any real eco-savings?

On 8 Apr 2022, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in
misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.mobile.android:

>> The 5W charger, which had been included on lower-end phones, would have
>> cost them 25-50�.
>
> you have no idea what their cost is, nor is the cost of the charger the
> only factor.
>
>> A 20W USB-C PD charger would have cost them $2 at most, but more likely
>> around $1.
>
> again, you have no idea what their cost is.

The estimated cost savings has been recently reported to be $6.5 billion.
Do you have better estimates if you're trying to say that report is wrong?

In article <t2ppge$7dv$1@dont-email.me>, Nil
<rednoise9@REMOVETHIScomcast.net> wrote:

> The estimated cost savings has been recently reported to be $6.5 billion.

that estimate is not based in reality.

> Do you have better estimates if you're trying to say that report is wrong?

nobody outside of a small number of people inside apple know the exact
numbers.

everyone is guessing, pulling random numbers out of their butt and
making all sorts of baseless uninformed claims.

nospam wrote:
> In article <t2ppge$7dv$1@dont-email.me>, Nil
> <rednoise9@REMOVETHIScomcast.net> wrote:
>
>> The estimated cost savings has been recently reported to be $6.5 billion.
>
> that estimate is not based in reality.
>
>> Do you have better estimates if you're trying to say that report is wrong?
>
> nobody outside of a small number of people inside apple know the exact
> numbers.
>

And they don't tell you? I'm shocked!

On 8 Apr 2022, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in
misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.mobile.android:

>> The estimated cost savings has been recently reported to be $6.5 billion.
>
> that estimate is not based in reality.

That $6.5 billion was explained & you then discount it without reading it?

>> Do you have better estimates if you're trying to say that report is wrong?
>
> nobody outside of a small number of people inside apple know the exact
> numbers.

You didn't even read the explanation and then you said the estimate is too
high and then in the next sentence you say you don't have any clue at all.
> everyone is guessing, pulling random numbers out of their butt and
> making all sorts of baseless uninformed claims.

Wrong. YOU are guessing. The 6.5 billion dollars cost saving was explained.

On 8 Apr 2022, Hank Rogers <hank@nospam.invalid> wrote in
misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.mobile.android:

>>> The estimated cost savings has been recently reported to be $6.5 billion.
>>
>> that estimate is not based in reality.
>>
>>> Do you have better estimates if you're trying to say that report is wrong?
>>
>> nobody outside of a small number of people inside apple know the exact
>> numbers.
>>
>
> And they don't tell you? I'm shocked!

The reported $6.5 billion is only in the estimated empty box cost savings.
Wait until you find out where the real money is in shipping that empty box.

In message <t2po8p$t33$1@dont-email.me> Nil <rednoise9@REMOVETHIScomcast.net> wrote:
> On 8 Apr 2022, Lewis <g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote in
> misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.mobile.android:

>> It's not my job to fact check you.

> Then why did you deny the cost savings of shipping that nearly empty box
> have been recently estimated to be "north of 6.5 billion" US dollars?

Because it smells like bullshit, it sounds like bullshit, and you refuse
to cite anything that supports your bullshit.

--
I'm on the path, he thought. I don't have to know where it leads. I
just have to follow.

In message <t2poh7$v74$1@dont-email.me> Nil <rednoise9@REMOVETHIScomcast.net> wrote:
> On 8 Apr 2022, Lewis <g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote in
> misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.mobile.android:

>>> The 5W charger, which had been included on lower-end phones, would have
>>> cost them 25-50¢.
>>
>> A made up number based on your usual lack of any knowledge or evidence.

> What's not made up is that people are currently buying an almost empty box.

My box contained exactly what I expected and bought and wanted. I have a
draw FULL of chargers that I never use. Why do I have them? Because I
don't want to toss them in the trash, but does anyone use them? Nope.
The iPhone chargers get exactly as much use as my 1st generation iPod
charged (FireWire 400 charger), None.

Getting a charger in the box with my iPhone 12 Pro would have simply
meant another charger in the drawer, and most of those still have their
plastic wrapping on them as they have never been used even once.

> Neither is it made up the 6.5 billion US dollars estimation saved by

Repeating your bullshit doesn't stop it being bullshit.

--
There is nothing like puking with somebody to make you into old friends.

On 8 Apr 2022, Lewis <g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote in
misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.mobile.android:

>> Then why did you deny the cost savings of shipping that nearly empty box
>> have been recently estimated to be "north of 6.5 billion" US dollars?
>
> Because it smells like bullshit, it sounds like bullshit, and you refuse
> to cite anything that supports your bullshit.

You being stupid doesn't make what has been in the news for weeks wrong.

On 8 Apr 2022, Lewis <g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote in
misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.mobile.android:

>> Neither is it made up the 6.5 billion US dollars estimation saved by
>
> Repeating your bullshit doesn't stop it being bullshit.

Repeating that you are stupid doesn't make what's in the news bullshit.

Not only was it already cited but it had been in the news for weeks.

In message <t2qbdp$q2k$1@dont-email.me> Nil <rednoise9@REMOVETHIScomcast.net> wrote:
> On 8 Apr 2022, Lewis <g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote in
> misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.mobile.android:

>>> Then why did you deny the cost savings of shipping that nearly empty box
>>> have been recently estimated to be "north of 6.5 billion" US dollars?
>>
>> Because it smells like bullshit, it sounds like bullshit, and you refuse
>> to cite anything that supports your bullshit.

> You being stupid doesn't make what has been in the news for weeks wrong.

You claiming it has been "in the news for weeks" is more incited
bullshit.

Put up of fuck off.

But don't bother, I no longer care.

--
'Nothing works against magic. Except stronger magic. And then the
only thing that beats stronger magic is even stronger magic. And
the next thing you know...' 'Phooey?' --Sourcery

In message <t2qbic$qva$1@dont-email.me> Nil <rednoise9@REMOVETHIScomcast.net> wrote:
> Not only was it already cited

Liar.

--
"Are you pondering what I'm pondering?"
"I think so, Brain, but isn't that why they invented tube socks?"

On 8 Apr 2022, Lewis <g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote in
misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.mobile.android:

> You claiming it has been "in the news for weeks" is more incited
> bullshit.

It's only you saying it wasn't already cited which means you are stupid.

On 8 Apr 2022, Lewis <g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote in
misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.mobile.android:

>> Not only was it already cited
>
> Liar.

No. You are stupid. It's only you who says it wasn't cited in this thread.

Citing it ten more times isn't going to make you any less stupid, is it?

On 2022-04-08 07:51:18 +0000, Alan said:

> On 2022-04-08 12:06 a.m., Nil wrote:
>> On 8 Apr 2022, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in
>> misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.mobile.android:
>>
>>> Well the $6.5 billion was cited here
>>> <https://screenrant.com/apple-saved-billions-removing-chargers-boxes/>.
>>> But it's a bogus number because it claims that Apple is saving $25 per
>>> phone by not including accessories. In reality it's almost certainly
>>> less than $2 per phone for a 5W charger and Lightning earbuds. The
>>> article must have used the retail price of the accessories that are no
>>> longer included.
>>
>> The correct charger is the $19 20W USB-C charger, not the 5W USB-A garbage.
>
> No.
>
> The "correct charger" is any charger that meets:
>
> 1. The USB 2.0 standards for chargers
>
> 2. The safety standards for its jurisdiction.
>
> 3. The needs of the user.

Rumouredly Apple has a new dual-port charger planned ...

Apple leaks its own dual-port 35W power adapter

<https://appleinsider.com/articles/22/04/08/apple-leaks-its-own-dual-port-35w-power-adapter>

In message <t2qd6m$6lh$1@dont-email.me> Nil <rednoise9@REMOVETHIScomcast.net> wrote:
> On 8 Apr 2022, Lewis <g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote in
> misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.mobile.android:

>>> Not only was it already cited
>>
>> Liar.

> No.

Liar.

--
Nine-tenths of the universe is the knowledge of the position and
direction of everything in the other tenth. Every atom has its
biography, every star its file, every chemical exchange its
equivalent of the inspector with a clipboard. It is unaccounted
for because it is doing the accounting for the rest of it.
Nine-tenths of the universe, in fact, is the paperwork. --The
Thief of Time

On 8 Apr 2022, Lewis <g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote in
misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.mobile.android:

>>>> Not only was it already cited
>>>
>>> Liar.
>
>> No.
>
> Liar.

You call me a liar because you are stupid.

Not only was it already cited here
Message-ID: <t2oilj$sa9$1@dont-email.me>

But you read that site & you then replied to that cite and you even also
included that cite when you replied to that cite here
Message-ID: <slrnt50lgu.gm1.g.kreme@m1mini.local>

The cite was included here also:
Message-ID: <t2qe8m$mg7$1@gioia.aioe.org>

If you're already stupid, how is giving you that same cite ten more times
going to make you any less stupid?

On 2022-04-08 7:46 a.m., sms wrote:
> On 4/8/2022 12:51 AM, Alan wrote:
>> On 2022-04-08 12:06 a.m., Nil wrote:
>>> On 8 Apr 2022, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in
>>> misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.mobile.android:
>>>
>>>> Well the $6.5 billion was cited here
>>>> <https://screenrant.com/apple-saved-billions-removing-chargers-boxes/>.
>>>> But it's a bogus number because it claims that Apple is saving $25 per
>>>> phone by not including accessories. In reality it's almost certainly
>>>> less than $2 per phone for a 5W charger and Lightning earbuds. The
>>>> article must have used the retail price of the accessories that are no
>>>> longer included.
>>>
>>> The correct charger is the $19 20W USB-C charger, not the 5W USB-A
>>> garbage.
>>
>> No.
>
> Apple only ever included the fast charger on the iPhone 11 Pro and Pro
> Max, before they dropped including chargers at all.
>
> The 5W charger, which had been included on lower-end phones, would have
> cost them 25-50¢.
>
> A 20W USB-C PD charger would have cost them $2 at most, but more likely
> around $1.

And Arlen is engaging in the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

But why did you snip this:

"The "correct charger" is any charger that meets:

1. The USB 2.0 standards for chargers

2. The safety standards for its jurisdiction.

3. The needs of the user. "