On 2022-04-16 12:50 a.m., alister wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 17:55:05 -0400, nospam wrote:
>
>> In article <t3cjcj$1s9$2@gioia.aioe.org>, alister
>> <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Apple replaced one method of connecting headphones/earbuds with
>>>> another.
>>>
>>> replaces a universal interface with a proprietary one that can only be
>>> sourced from Apple of an Apple licensed supplier.
>>
>> usb-c is also licensed, for the many android devices that do not have an
>> analog headphone jack anymore.
>
> Yep it is not just apple, others have seen that it can generate an
> additional revenue stream & have adopted the same strategy

You think Apple is making any significant additional revenue from the
deletion of the headphone jack?

Please.

On 2022-04-16 1:23 a.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> alister wrote:
>
>> the reason is actually quite simple Apple are NOT primarily a
>> technology company, they are a fashion house. change for the sake of
>> change every 6 months & your customer base will buy everything again
>> because they simply must have the latest model or die of embarrassment
>
> Yup.
>
> You understand the market dynamics well.
>
> Marketing is why Apple products get worse, faster & more expensive over
> time, while other electronics (like the raspi) get better, faster &
> cheaper.
>
> Apple removes functionality, and then tells them it's "courageous" to do
> so.
>  *And they believe it!*

This is a lie.

>
> Apple secretly throttles CPUs and then says they have a special battery
> chemistry that only Apple uses and it's only used in certain iPhones.
>  *And they believe it!*

This is a lie.

>
> Apple has never shipped the correct 20W charger in any iPhone box when
> Apple
> tells its customers that they have too many (old decrepit) chargers
> already.
>  *And they believe it!*

It's true Apple doesn't ship 20W chargers with any of their phones.

The rest is just bullshit.

>
> You can't make those ungodly profits off of an intelligent customer base.
>  *You just can't*

Isn't it great how you declare a HUGE portion of the human race
"unintelligent" because they make a choice you disagree with.

I guarantee you: there are lots of people who are measurably more
intelligent than you who prefer iPhones.

nospam wrote:
> he's correct. torquing it *will* damage the phone,

Of course it does, no-one ever doubted that. The real question is, for a
given external torque which kind of jack does the most and which the
least damage. And for that the argument against 3.5mm was reversed.

--
/¯\ No | Dipl.-Ing. F. Axel Berger Tel: +49/ 221/ 7771 8067
\ / HTML | Roald-Amundsen-Straße 2a Fax: +49/ 221/ 7771 8069
 X in | D-50829 Köln-Ossendorf http://berger-odenthal.de
/ \ Mail | -- No unannounced, large, binary attachments, please! --

On 2022-04-16 1:37 a.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> meff wrote:
>
>>> How is that a logical sensible assessment in your well-informed opinion?
>>
>> I for one prefer not having a 3.5mm jack on my phone (and I don't on
>> my Android).
>
> Thank you for approaching the answer in the manner in which it was
> posed, as
> the iKooks are saying that somehow the phone is damaged by the mere
> presence
> of that industry standard 3.5mm jack on the side.

It's water resistance is definitely compromised.

>
>> I already talked about my problems with the connector in
>> another post.
>
> I don't doubt that _every_ standard has its pros and cons.
>
>> Practically speaking, they add another failure mode to
>> the phone and increase its bulk.
>
> Do they?

Yes.

>
> A lot of people believe in their own intuition more than they believe in
> facts, where that's how marketing works (it preys on your intuition
> believing something that wasn't actually ever said - but it was implied).
>
> Is there _any_ evidence that the vast majority of phones with the standard
> 3.5mm jack are more prone to failures not associated directly with the
> jack?

'But the headphone jack is a different story. The headphone jack was
ultimately designed a century ago and Apple can’t change its design to
make it easier to waterproof. Other waterproof phones have struggled
with the headphone jack; they’ve either provided a plug you’re supposed
to put in when it’s not in use, or they’ve not proven to be as
waterproof as advertised.

That’s not to say it’s impossible to waterproof a headphone jack, or
that other manufacturers haven’t done it. But the most dependably
waterproof port is the one you removed.'

<https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/09/21/why-did-apple-remove-the-headphone-jack-from-the-iphone-7/?sh=80e81d33058d>

>
> And, given most Android phones nowadays are coming with huge batteries
> (greater than about 4.5 Amp hour capacities), is the "bulk" of the industry
> standard 3.5mm jack on that rather thick side really a design impediment?

What? Yes!

The more stuff you have to put into a device...

....the bigger the device gets.

>
>> I've had my 3.5mm connectors die on
>> me often and frequently, everything from one channel going dead to
>> gunk buildup causing attenuated audio.
>
> With all due respect, that's not what I'm asking as any 3.5mm jack that
> works for a time and then fails thereafter was still useful for that time.
>
> Not having that jack made it *NOT* useful for the _entire_ time.

But the phone has a port that serves the same purpose, so...

....irrelevant.

>
>> I'm a pretty outdoorsy person
>> so that doesn't help.
>
> You don't know me, but my last phone got crushed while I was rappelling.

You never miss an opportunity to brag about yourself, do you?

:-)

>
>> The single connector design of phones without
>> the 3.5mm sockets make them easy to clean and maintain.
>
> Again, I get it that you're basing that on pure intuition, but bear in mind
> that I know quite a lot about engineering where intuition is often wrong.

Riiiiiiiiight.

>
> Take the "intuition" that people have with high-test gasoline being used
> for
> racing engines, so they think it gives their Honda Civic more power
> somehow.
>
> Hell, they even think "high octane jet fuel" will be even better, right?
> And yet it's not.

No. Not right. Some small number of people don't understand why
high-octane fuel is necessary for some engines and not theirs.

But it's an utterly ridiculous analogy in this context.

>
> Intuition is almost always wrong because even the smartest of us owns the
> intuition that nature gives the monkeys who descended from the trees onto
> the savanna. (I know a bit about quantum mechanics, for example, where
> _nothing_ is intuitive, and if you think it is, you don't understand it...
> to paraphrase Richard Feynman.)

More unsubstantiated bragging along with a completely wrong
understanding of what "intuition" encompasses.

>
> I completely understood what you are claiming, but I question these
> intuits:
> 1. Something to fail

Totally true.

> 2. Increase in bulk

Totally true.

> 3. Easy to maintain

"EasiER" to maintain, yes.

A deep port is harder to clean out than a shallow one.

>
> Personally, I don't find any of those intuitive thoughts persuasive in
> light
> of the _functionality_ of a phone with and without the standard 3.5mm jack.
>
> However let's see if anyone else has an ideas why the iKooks seem to claim
> that a phone with the functionality is somehow _less_ functional than one
> that doesn't have it at all.

The iPhones without the 3.5mm audio jack have Lightning ports which
support all the same FUNCTIONALITY.

On 2022-04-16 12:46 a.m., alister wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 08:36:37 +0100, Andy Burnelli wrote:
>
>> Jan Panteltje wrote:
>>
>>> I have a PCI par port card in one of my PCs its the only real I/O on a
>>> PC.
>>> Now with raspi we have GPIO, a BIG win!!!!
>>>
>>> Apple is overpriced crap.
>>
>> I agree, and, more to the point of an educated astute observation...
>>
>> The commonality of the raspi with almost _all_ other common consumer
>> electronics is that every year the raspi (and most consumer electronics)
>> gets (a) better, (b) faster, and (c) cheaper over time.
>>
>> It's only the immensely hugely marketed electronic items which don't get
>> (a) better, (b) faster, and (c) cheaper over time.
>>
>> HINT #1: Apple spends the lowest of all of high tech in R&D, yet Apple's
>> marketing budget is likely the largest of all high tech (bar none).
>>
>> HINT #2: Guess why Apple products (which every year lose more and more
>> functionality) get (a) worse, (b) faster, and (c) more expensive over
>> time?
>
> the reason is actually quite simple Apple are NOT primarily a technology
> company, they are a fashion house. change for the sake of change every 6
> months & your customer base will buy everything again because they simply
> must have the latest model or die of embarrassment

What utterly, patent bullshit.

They are clearly a technology company...

....and a very successful one.

On 2022-04-16 12:41 a.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> meff wrote:
>
>> Nobody said anything about Apple being priced well :) I'm just here to
>> say the 3.5mm TRS jack is good to be dead. It was a bad connector and
>> it's well and good to be gone. I really don't care about Apple either
>> way. I'm an Android user myself and I'm _glad_ I don't have to bother
>> with 3.5mm jacks anymore.
>
> If I assume you're a well educated person with at least an average IQ, I
> will also have to assume that your thinking is based on a modicum of logic.
>
> With that assumption in mind, I must ask how is a phone any less functional
> if it happens to be most phones which have the industry standard 3.5mm
> jack?

Straw man, as he didn't make any such claim.

AND it's less functional in that it is more difficult to make water
resistant.

>
> The Apple iKooks seem to claim any phone with the industry standard 3.5 mm
> jack is (somehow) less functional than a phone that doesn't have that jack.

No one has claimed that beyond what I just wrote...

....which is factual.

>
> How is that a logical sensible assessment in your well-informed opinion?

On 2022-04-16 12:30 a.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> meff wrote:
>
>> On 2022-04-16, Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
>>> The loss of functionality you advocate for is like Apple removing the
>>> industry standard USB-A ports on Apple computers which negates the
>>> use of a
>>> simple USB thumb drive.
>>
>> Oof I'm sorry you lost your parallel port. It must have stung when
>> they took those industry-standard connectors out of computers for
>> USB.
>
> Why not compare a modern Tesla to the old magtape of the days of yore?

Because a Tesla is a CAR and a magnetic tape is a piece of computer
hardware?

>
> What ceases to be shocking is how powerful Apple propaganda is on the
> weakest brains who obtain most of their self esteem from Apple ads.
>
> It's interesting that you equate the commonly useful USB-A port with the
> no-longer-used parallel port which proves how much power Apple advertising
> has on your feeble brain.

Apple computers still have perfectly usable USB-C ports.

>
> Clearly you have no education and a low IQ since a standard part of any
> testing regimen is to see how people can discern similar with different.
>
> Like Russian citizens, you have been fed the propaganda soup for so long
> that you can't possibly comprehend that a floppy disk isn't the same thing
> as a 3.5 jack in terms of modern commonly useful & oft-used functionality.

On 2022-04-16 12:36 a.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Jan Panteltje wrote:
>
>> I have a PCI par port card in one of my PCs
>> its the only real I/O on a PC.
>> Now with raspi we have GPIO, a BIG win!!!!
>>
>> Apple is overpriced crap.
>
> I agree, and, more to the point of an educated astute observation...
> The commonality of the raspi with almost _all_ other common consumer
> electronics is that every year the raspi (and most consumer electronics)
> gets (a) better, (b) faster, and (c) cheaper over time.
>
> It's only the immensely hugely marketed electronic items which don't get
> (a) better, (b) faster, and (c) cheaper over time.
>
> HINT #1: Apple spends the lowest of all of high tech in R&D, yet Apple's
> marketing budget is likely the largest of all high tech (bar none).

LIE #1: Apple spends more on R&D than all but a few companies.

On 2022-04-16 7:30 a.m., sms wrote:
> On 4/15/2022 11:47 PM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> I have a PCI par port card in one of my PCs
>> its the only real I/O on a PC.
>> Now with raspi we have GPIO, a BIG win!!!!
>
> The parallel port is also super easy to use. Even in the early days you
> could use the four control lines as inputs so it was bi-directional, 4
> bits at a time, but as it evolved it became fully bi-directional with a
> direction control bit (which caused problems for some users who would
> inadvertently set the bit to input).

And yet the entire personal computer industry has eliminated them from
pretty much every computer sold for personal computer use.

In article <625B0B76.15041620@Berger-Odenthal.De>, Axel Berger
<Spam@Berger-Odenthal.De> wrote:

> > he's correct. torquing it *will* damage the phone,
>
> Of course it does, no-one ever doubted that. The real question is, for a
> given external torque which kind of jack does the most and which the
> least damage. And for that the argument against 3.5mm was reversed.

it wasn't reversed.

the lightning connector is designed to snap when torqued to prevent
damage to the device. removing the remaining plug and replacing the now
broken cable is easy and inexpensive.

that is *not* the case for a 3.5mm plug, where the chances for
significant damage to the device when torqued is *much* higher.

nospam wrote:

> In article <t3f0i6$4jt$1@dont-email.me>, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>>> All my rapis have 3.5 mm jacks up to and including the Pi4 8 GB.
>>
>> What is a "rapi"
>
> raspberry pi, one of the two groups to which this is cross-posted, for
> reasons known only to 'arlen'.

Again you're dead wrong, nospam. As usual.
You don't even _look_ at the OP before you spew your complete bullshit.

It's how I surmise you have a low IQ nospam.
You're almost always wrong as a result.

> note that the raspberry pi zero (all varieties) does *not* have a 3,5mm
> jack.

The rapi people (whom the OP, Eli the Bearded included) don't know that the
'nospam' character will defend everything Apple does to the death.

No matter what.

They also don't know yet that "Alan" (aka Alan Baker) is a Snit-like
character who is universally plonked by everyone since he cannot carry on an
adult conversation.

This "Alan" buys arguments by the dozen, but what's worse is he _never_
clicks on any of the references before outright refuting anything that
doesn't make Apple shine like the back end of a greased monkey.

In the end, the rapi people will realize who the iKooks are on their own, as
all the iKooks exhibit three singlular traits that are consistent throughout

1. The iKooks have a low IQ (Alan's is about 40, nospam's is only 2X that)
2. None of the iKooks owns _any_ education to speak of (they're ignorant)
3. But what's their defining trait is their self esteem is in the gutter
(understandably so) but that they bolster their low self esteem by
their supposed superiority in choosing Apple products and in agreeing
without question (much like Russians seem to do) with whatever propaganda
the Apple mothership (who supplies them their self esteem) feeds them.

Notice the iKooks don't have an equivalent on the Linux or Windows or
Android newsgroups because the low self esteem component is missing.

Apple marketing is _brilliant_ at feeding low self esteem people like these
iKooks are, but what makes them iKooks are the confluence of the 3 traits.
--
I don't care iKooks are child-like with a low-IQ, no education & low self
esteem; but due to that, they're so DK confident in always being dead wrong.

On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 11:18:34 -0700, Alan wrote:

> On 2022-04-16 2:31 a.m., alister wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 08:50:58 -0000 (UTC), A. Dumas wrote:
>>
>>> alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>>> the reason is actually quite simple Apple are NOT primarily a
>>>> technology company, they are a fashion house. change for the sake of
>>>> change every 6 months & your customer base will buy everything again
>>>> because they simply must have the latest model or die of
>>>> embarrassment
>>>
>>> This is a gross generalisation which might be true for a lot of people
>>> and works well for Apple but a generalisation nonetheless. I am an old
>>> unix/linux user who switched from Windows to Apple around 2008 because
>>> as a developer (formerly web now mostly C) it "just" works. I don't
>>> need gamer graphics but I do appreciate not running system updates for
>>> a whole day after a week of not using a computer. And yes, I like the
>>> aesthetics of both the hardware and (mostly) the software. Linux
>>> doesn't work for me as a day to day desktop. I like tinkering as a
>>> hobby but I don't want to be a busy system administrator for my own
>>> system.
>>>
>>> I only recently switched from Android to iPhone and yes I miss the
>>> headphone jack but I got a €5 adapter. It kinda sucks but modern (high
>>> end)
>>> Android phones also often don't have it anymore.
>>
>>
>>
>> This much is true, unlike most Fashion houses Apple do make high
>> Quality products that work well, its not the product I dislike it is
>> the Corporate mentality & ethos of the company.
>>
>>
>>
> What specific parts of the "mentality & ethos" do you find
> objectionable?
Apple have very much an attitude of you will only use our product the way
we say you will use it.
example they refused a camera app for the ip into the store because the
user had repurposed one of the SOFT keys as a shutter button.
Apples reasoning - whilst documented as a soft button our apps use that
for a specific function & it is what users expect.
I MIGHT have accepted this except for the fact that in the next upgrade
they decided to change the operation of that button themselves!

--
Think sideways!
-- Ed De Bono

On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 10:02:27 -0400, nospam wrote:

> In article <t3e7am$7hi$1@dont-email.me>, The Natural Philosopher
> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> >> the reason is actually quite simple Apple are NOT primarily a
>> >> technology company, they are a fashion house. change for the sake of
>> >> change every 6 months & your customer base will buy everything again
>> >> because they simply must have the latest model or die of
>> >> embarrassment
>> >
>> > that's nothing more than the usual bashing, and is demonstrably
>> > false.
>>
>> Its demonstrably true.
>
> it is not.
>
>> As it is of all consumer product companies. Sales are everything, no
>> matter what the reason for them, and consumers are by their very nature
>> less sophisticated buyers, for whom brand image is usually far more
>> relevant than performance or total lifetime cost.
>
> except that people buy apple products because they do what people want
> them to do, not because of any mythical brand image.
>
> performance is as good or better than the competition and total lifetime
> cost is less, often by quite a bit.
>
> <https://bgr.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/galaxy-s21-ultra-vs-iphone-1
> 3-pro-geekench-5-benchmark.jpg>
> <https://bgr.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/pixel-5-vs-iphone-13-pro-gee
> kench-5-benchmark.jpg>
>
> <https://www.computerworld.com/article/3131906/ibm-says-macs-are-even-ch
> eaper-to-run-than-it-thought.html>
> IBM today told the record-setting seventh Jamf Nation User Conference
> that it is saving even more money by deploying Macs across the company
> than it thought: each Mac deployment saves the company up to $535 over
> four years, in contrast to the $270 per Mac it claimed last year.
> ...
> This is fully in line with experiences shared in 2015, when Previn
> said just 5 percent of IBM¹s Mac users needed to call the help desk;
> In contrast, an astonishing 40 percent of PC staff request tech
> support help. At IBM last year just 25 staff supported 30,000 Macs.

why do you keep Posting under 2 identities? It is quite clear who you
actually are

--
There isn't any problem

In article <t3f5c6$1idl$1@gioia.aioe.org>, alister
<alister.ware@ntlworld.com> wrote:

> > What specific parts of the "mentality & ethos" do you find
> > objectionable?
> Apple have very much an attitude of you will only use our product the way
> we say you will use it.

that is false.

> example they refused a camera app for the ip into the store because the
> user had repurposed one of the SOFT keys as a shutter button.

that's not quite correct. users have nothing to do with it.

one *developer* added the ability to take a photo with the volume
button in their app, which was rejected because apple didn't want
people to mistakenly take photos when adjusting the volume.

apple later reversed that decision.

this may come to you as a surprise, but the app review process is not
perfect.

that was also more than a decade ago.

In article <t3f5fc$1idl$2@gioia.aioe.org>, alister
<alister.ware@ntlworld.com> wrote:

>
> why do you keep Posting under 2 identities? It is quite clear who you
> actually are

it's not as clear as you think since i only post under one identity.

'arlen' is the one who switches nyms more often than the wind changes.

On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 15:36:06 -0400, nospam wrote:

> In article <t3f5fc$1idl$2@gioia.aioe.org>, alister
> <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>
>> why do you keep Posting under 2 identities? It is quite clear who you
>> actually are
>
> it's not as clear as you think since i only post under one identity.
>
> 'arlen' is the one who switches nyms more often than the wind changes.

strange, i mentioned no names but you seem to think you know who i mean
Guilty conscience?

--
<Mercury> emacs sucks, literally, not a insult, just a comment that its
large enough to have a noticeable gravitational pull...

On 2022-04-16, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> Parallel ports are still used as control interfaces to small CNC
> machines in preference to USB because they provide better real time
> control. Old computers with parallel ports command a surprising premium
> because of this.

Yeah I'm fully aware that there are situations that parallel ports
make more sense, and latency is a big one. Same with Serial ports as
there's no bring-up or negotiation process required along the port
(and if you can drive the serial port faster than the parallel port,
then it could potentially have higher throughput.) But not for most
consumer usecases.

Likewise there are cases where the TRS 3.5mm connector is IMO a better
choice than a USB or Bluetooth based connector. I've used TRS 3.5mm
connectors as a way to directly connect low-voltage low-frequency
digital lines together. For this usecase it offers the functionality
of a serial port with a fraction of the bulk (at the cost of a worse
connection/lower usable max switching speed than a serial port.) My
trackball lets the user add additional buttons by plugging them into
the trackball through a 3.5mm TRS connector and this is one of the few
good uses. The trackball doesn't have enough space for a true serial
connector and just detecting on-and-off from human input isn't
frequency sensitive enough that connection capacitance would affect
the reading significantly. As long as the trackball has some built-in
debouncing, it's a convenient small interface to work with.

Unfortunately there are very few other cases where I would find myself
trying to use a TRS 3.5mm connector. If I want to make a low-latency
direct connection I would use a serial or parallel port which has none
of the connection issues of TRS and can offer much lower latency and
higher throughput (thanks to lower capacitance around the connector.)
If I'm looking for a convenient connector to transmit audio, I'd stick
to a USB based standard. If I'm looking to transmit analog audio
signals I'd use (mini-)XLR. The largest usecase in my mind for a TRS
3.5mm connector is to use older headphones and mics that use TRS
connectors. TRS connectors aren't rugged enough to hit consumer
usecases. They're fiddly enough to not be a good choice in low-latency
or high-throughput environments. Overall they're just bad connectors.

Which brings me back to my original point, as a consumer connector TRS
sockets are just bad. Even as an industrial connector TRS sockets are
kinda bad. In certain specialized situations TRS sockets make sense
but as a consumer connector I'm glad they're mostly done and over.

On 2022-04-16 12:28 p.m., alister wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 11:18:34 -0700, Alan wrote:
>
>> On 2022-04-16 2:31 a.m., alister wrote:
>>> On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 08:50:58 -0000 (UTC), A. Dumas wrote:
>>>
>>>> alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>>>> the reason is actually quite simple Apple are NOT primarily a
>>>>> technology company, they are a fashion house. change for the sake of
>>>>> change every 6 months & your customer base will buy everything again
>>>>> because they simply must have the latest model or die of
>>>>> embarrassment
>>>>
>>>> This is a gross generalisation which might be true for a lot of people
>>>> and works well for Apple but a generalisation nonetheless. I am an old
>>>> unix/linux user who switched from Windows to Apple around 2008 because
>>>> as a developer (formerly web now mostly C) it "just" works. I don't
>>>> need gamer graphics but I do appreciate not running system updates for
>>>> a whole day after a week of not using a computer. And yes, I like the
>>>> aesthetics of both the hardware and (mostly) the software. Linux
>>>> doesn't work for me as a day to day desktop. I like tinkering as a
>>>> hobby but I don't want to be a busy system administrator for my own
>>>> system.
>>>>
>>>> I only recently switched from Android to iPhone and yes I miss the
>>>> headphone jack but I got a €5 adapter. It kinda sucks but modern (high
>>>> end)
>>>> Android phones also often don't have it anymore.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This much is true, unlike most Fashion houses Apple do make high
>>> Quality products that work well, its not the product I dislike it is
>>> the Corporate mentality & ethos of the company.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> What specific parts of the "mentality & ethos" do you find
>> objectionable?
> Apple have very much an attitude of you will only use our product the way
> we say you will use it.

So you mean like literally thousands of other companies?

> example they refused a camera app for the ip into the store because the
> user had repurposed one of the SOFT keys as a shutter button.
> Apples reasoning - whilst documented as a soft button our apps use that
> for a specific function & it is what users expect.
> I MIGHT have accepted this except for the fact that in the next upgrade
> they decided to change the operation of that button themselves!

Cite please!

On 2022-04-16 12:29 p.m., alister wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 10:02:27 -0400, nospam wrote:
>
>> In article <t3e7am$7hi$1@dont-email.me>, The Natural Philosopher
>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>>> the reason is actually quite simple Apple are NOT primarily a
>>>>> technology company, they are a fashion house. change for the sake of
>>>>> change every 6 months & your customer base will buy everything again
>>>>> because they simply must have the latest model or die of
>>>>> embarrassment
>>>>
>>>> that's nothing more than the usual bashing, and is demonstrably
>>>> false.
>>>
>>> Its demonstrably true.
>>
>> it is not.
>>
>>> As it is of all consumer product companies. Sales are everything, no
>>> matter what the reason for them, and consumers are by their very nature
>>> less sophisticated buyers, for whom brand image is usually far more
>>> relevant than performance or total lifetime cost.
>>
>> except that people buy apple products because they do what people want
>> them to do, not because of any mythical brand image.
>>
>> performance is as good or better than the competition and total lifetime
>> cost is less, often by quite a bit.
>>
>> <https://bgr.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/galaxy-s21-ultra-vs-iphone-1
>> 3-pro-geekench-5-benchmark.jpg>
>> <https://bgr.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/pixel-5-vs-iphone-13-pro-gee
>> kench-5-benchmark.jpg>
>>
>> <https://www.computerworld.com/article/3131906/ibm-says-macs-are-even-ch
>> eaper-to-run-than-it-thought.html>
>> IBM today told the record-setting seventh Jamf Nation User Conference
>> that it is saving even more money by deploying Macs across the company
>> than it thought: each Mac deployment saves the company up to $535 over
>> four years, in contrast to the $270 per Mac it claimed last year.
>> ...
>> This is fully in line with experiences shared in 2015, when Previn
>> said just 5 percent of IBM¹s Mac users needed to call the help desk;
>> In contrast, an astonishing 40 percent of PC staff request tech
>> support help. At IBM last year just 25 staff supported 30,000 Macs.
>
> why do you keep Posting under 2 identities? It is quite clear who you
> actually are
>
>
Do you ask the same of Arlen/Andy Burnelli/Nil?

On 2022-04-16 1:28 p.m., alister wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 15:36:06 -0400, nospam wrote:
>
>> In article <t3f5fc$1idl$2@gioia.aioe.org>, alister
>> <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> why do you keep Posting under 2 identities? It is quite clear who you
>>> actually are
>>
>> it's not as clear as you think since i only post under one identity.
>>
>> 'arlen' is the one who switches nyms more often than the wind changes.
>
> strange, i mentioned no names but you seem to think you know who i mean
> Guilty conscience?
>
>
>

Perhaps because you asked the question in a reply to his post...

In article <t3f8sv$14de$1@gioia.aioe.org>, alister
<alister.ware@ntlworld.com> wrote:

> >> why do you keep Posting under 2 identities? It is quite clear who you
> >> actually are
> >
> > it's not as clear as you think since i only post under one identity.
> >
> > 'arlen' is the one who switches nyms more often than the wind changes.
>
> strange, i mentioned no names but you seem to think you know who i mean
> Guilty conscience?

you must be new. 'arlen' and his antics is well known, across *many*
newsgroups.

if you think he and i are the same person then you're *very* confused.

In article <GQF6K.40124$I_.25832@fx44.iad>, meff <email@example.com>
wrote:

>
> Which brings me back to my original point, as a consumer connector TRS
> sockets are just bad. Even as an industrial connector TRS sockets are
> kinda bad. In certain specialized situations TRS sockets make sense
> but as a consumer connector I'm glad they're mostly done and over.

+1

alister wrote:

> Yep it is not just apple, others have seen that it can generate an
> additional revenue stream & have adopted the same strategy

What the iTrolls (Alan Baker) and iKooks (nospam) won't tell you is that
Apple is perhaps the finest marketing organization on the planet.

The iTrolls (Alan) & iKooks (nospam) blindly defend everything Apple does.
To the death.

Apple spends almost nothing in R&D compared to similarly sized companies in
high tech, but boy oh boy does Apple outspend everyone else on marketing.

Hence any company would _love_ to be able to follow in Apple's footsteps,
as you astutely noted.

To your point, notice recent estimates showed Apple made tens of billions of
dollars by removing the accessories from the iPhone 12 & iPhone 13 boxes.

<https://www.gizmochina.com/2022/03/14/apple-reportedly-6-billion-removing-charger-earpods-box/>
<https://www.phonearena.com/news/apple-saved-billions-removing-accessories-from-boxes_id139005>
<https://techstory.in/apple-reportedly-saved-in-billions-with-removing-chargers-earpods-from-box/>
<https://screenrant.com/apple-saved-billions-removing-chargers-boxes/>
etc.

Who wouldn't want a piece of that pie which Apple pioneered for them?
--
You can't make that kind of ungodly profit margin off intelligent customers.

A. Dumas wrote:

> I only recently switched from Android to iPhone and yes I miss the
> headphone jack but I got a �5 adapter. It kinda sucks but modern (high end)
> Android phones also often don't have it anymore.

Earlier in this thread we showed that 78% of modern Android phones have the
industry standard 3.5mm jack.

What I haven't seen yet is any argument that shows a phone with the industry
standard jack is any less functional than a phone without the standard jack.

In fact, all the arguments show otherwise, where it's specious to say it
takes up too much room when a battery takes up far more width (which is the
important spec) coupled with the known fact there are _zero_ iPhones with a
battery even approaching modern capacity found in Android devices (> 4.5Ah).
*Zero iPhones ship with modern capacity batteries*
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/dusIMmPTfrA>

Notice how the iKooks argue for the necessary space, but yet they also argue
for the feeble batteries Apple puts in all iPhones (<< 4.4Ah capacity).

Then notice the iKooks argue for water resistance, and yet, _plenty_ of
Android phones with the industry standard jack meet the same IP specs.

Notice iKooks argue it will break the phone and yet there's zero reliable
evidence that it's happening in any numbers as to be remotely important.

Notice iKooks argue that the space can be used for "other things", and yet
they always argue against sd slots and FM radios (among "other things").

In the end, the iKooks base their self esteem on what Apple feeds them.
And, since they have the confluence of low IQ & no education, they can't
comprehend that their own arguments in defense of all that Apple does,
are illogic & inconsistent.

Tell us, nospam... how is a phone that has the basic industry standard
3.5 mm jack any less functional than a phone which is missing that jack?

What can a jackless phone do that a jackfull phone doesn't do?
--
Just like Apple's arguments were that only they had a special battery
chemistry that caused them to secretly throttle billions of iPhones.

On 4/16/2022 1:40 PM, meff wrote:

<snip>

> Likewise there are cases where the TRS 3.5mm connector is IMO a better
> choice than a USB or Bluetooth based connector.

The 3.5mm connector was used for a wide variety of devices that plugged
into a phone, devices that needed only a low-speed interface with
minimal power. Since it was on every phone, and there were no royalties
associated with it, it became the de facto "universal interface" for
both iPhones and Android phones.

Some of the devices were:
• High quality microphones when doing video recording
• Light meters
• IR Blasters
• Credit card readers (Square originally used the headphone jack)
• Amplified high-quality speakers
• Breathalyzer
• Laser Pointer
• Level
• Thermometer
• FM Radio Antenna (for Android)

And of course the 3.5mm headphone jack provides better quality audio
than Bluetooth, though the Lightning to 3.5mm and USB to 3.5mm dongles
are just as good, it's just that the D/A and A/D are duplicated in the
dongle. It's just an annoyance to have to buy and carry along one extra
item.