alister wrote:

> 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.

I understand your point completely - but allow me to add technical details.

What hardware exists works well - but notice what hardware does NOT exist?
*Zero iPhones come with the charger & earbuds & sdslot & 3.5mm jack*

What software exists works well - but notice what software does NOT exist:
a. It's impossible to get privacy like that of the Tor browser on iOS
b. It's impossible to spoof your GPS like we can easily do on Android
c. It's impossible to automatically record phone calls like Android can
d. It's impossible to scrape the Apple App Store like we can with Android
e. It's impossible to do any graphical wi-fi signal strength on iOS
f. It's impossible to graphical cellular signal strength on iOS
g. It's impossible to load any launcher on iOS like you can on Android
h. It's impossible to set the defaults for many key apps like Android can
i. It's impossible to download the OS in layers like Android now does
j. It's impossible to run a system wide firewall without a tether
etc.

The iPhone is so crippled that you can't even use it without having to log
into the mother ship constantly (and yes, I said "constantly").
<https://i.postimg.cc/hhFNJ5mq/appleid010.jpg> Constant mothership logins

Android has no problem having _zero_ mothership logins (yes, zero).
<https://i.postimg.cc/4djB69pr/updateallapps02.jpg>

Try _that_ on iOS.

You can't even organize your iOS device like you'd want to (see Android ex).
<https://i.postimg.cc/N0G1TXcZ/scrcpy01.jpg> Mirror Android on any PC

Hell, you can't even "not delete" the iOS IPA (equivalent to an Android APK)
whenever you install any new version, which Android easily does for you.

In summary, Apple is a very successful company because of MARKETING, and not
because of functionality. Apple severely limits the functionality of the
iPhone while Google can't (e.g., NewPipe, Aurora Store, NetGuard, etc.).

And yes, I have _plenty_ of iOS devices (I use both platforms every day).
<https://i.postimg.cc/LXzB3Lc0/appleid01.jpg> Apple _forces_ a log in!
--
My posts always assume unrooted/unjailbroken phones unless noted otherwise.

nospam 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.

While you iKooks defend everything Apple does to the death, he's right.

The facts show Apple is a MARKETING powerhouse. Not an R&D powerhouse.

*Does it surprise you Apple spends less in R&D than anyone in high tech?*
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/STrAkx09VYk/m/4Qr_Iuq5AwAJ>

nospam wrote:

> however, the claim that apple is a fashion brand is flat out false.

If a company has the highest marketing expenditure, and the lowest R&D in
their industry, what would you say that makes them then, nospam? Efficient?

Nobody would expect an iKook like nospam to claim that Apple is a design
powerhouse (just as nobody would expect the iTroll Alan to read a cite).

However, not everyone agrees with the iKook nospam.
*Apple is a Fashion Company and Style is a Service*
<https://medium.com/@shahrsays/apple-is-a-fashion-company-and-style-is-a-service-d6190d4048aa>
"Apple is no longer a hardware and/or software company.
Apple is a fashion company, and in fashion companies,
the role of design is style definition."

While that's an opinion piece, the fact remains that Apple's R&D is the
lowest by both percentage of all similar high tech companies, and,
shockingly, even lower in dollar amounts than _smaller_ similar outfits.

What do you think their marketing budget is compared to their R&D budget?
--
*Does it surprise you Apple spends less in R&D than all similar outfits?*
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/STrAkx09VYk/m/4Qr_Iuq5AwAJ>

nospam wrote:

> you must be new.

I've been posting screenshots like this for more than a decade.
<https://i.postimg.cc/N0G1TXcZ/scrcpy01.jpg>

It's only the low IQ people like Alan Baker & nospam who need hundreds of
posts before they figure out that the screenshots are always the same style.
<https://i.postimg.cc/Ssm7fkR5/psiphon02.jpg>

The importance of a gift isn't in the wrapping paper. The wrapping paper is
for privacy but the body of the message always uses the same screenshots.
<https://i.postimg.cc/zGvhGxSb/charging13.jpg>

I find it funny that the lower the IQ, the more they claim _everyone_ is me.
--
If it takes someone more than five seconds to figure out my posts, then I
assess them to be an utter moron (especially if they claim, with glee, that
they finally figured it out much as when they figured out in their adult
days Santa Claus isn't real - it's just a successful marketing gimmick).

sms wrote:

> The parallel port is also super easy to use.

The argument to compare the parallel port to the 3.5mm port is specious.

The 3.5mm jack is _still_ in 78% of all phones made in the past five years.

Remember how Apple defended removal of this industry standard functionality:
*It's courageous*
--
Nothing more than that.

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

It's become harder to directly read from, and write to, the parallel
port when using Windows versions beginning with Windows 7, as well as
more difficult because the I/O addresses are no longer the legacy ISA
parallel port addresses. Of course you can still use MS-DOS or FreeDOS
if you're doing embedded systems control through the parallel port.

Not sure how this thread went from wired keyboards to 3.5mm audio jacks
(when did 1/8" audio jacks become 3.5mm jacks?).

On 4/16/2022 11:16 AM, Axel Berger wrote:
> Alan wrote:
>> They did it because a deep jack like that makes for a mechanism for
>> damaging the phone if it gets levered.
>
> No quite the oppsite. Given a certain torque (determined by the
> outside), the forces damaging stuff inside are smaller the longer the
> lever is and vice versa.

Wow, I've never seen the "torque" excuse before for eliminating the
headphone jack!

By that logic, they should have gotten rid of the Lightning port since
it's much more prone to damage. Very creative!

The reality is that a metal 3.5mm plug, inside the phone, is much less
subject to damage than the non-conductive PC board substrate that is
part of the Lightning connector.

Of course a USB-C connector, both sides of which have a steel shell, is
also less subject to damage than a Lightning connector. Hopefully the
move to USB-C, which has already occurred with the iPad, will occur with
the iPhone by the iPhone 15. If Apple really wants to distinguish the
iPhone Pro versus non Pro models then they could use USB-C on the Pro
and Lightning on the non-Pro, like they initially did with the iPad.

In article <t3fg8q$mum$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

>
> 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)

all of those can be done more easily, more reliably and with more
functionality by using lightning or usb-c, and in some cases,
bluetooth.

> And of course the 3.5mm headphone jack provides better quality audio
> than Bluetooth,

it does not.

the limiting factor is the transducer itself, not the connection method.

> 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.

then get usb-c or lightning headphones, such as the ones that were
included in the box of the iphone you supposedly have.

In article <t3fs3e$qe1$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> >> They did it because a deep jack like that makes for a mechanism for
> >> damaging the phone if it gets levered.
> >
> > No quite the oppsite. Given a certain torque (determined by the
> > outside), the forces damaging stuff inside are smaller the longer the
> > lever is and vice versa.
>
> Wow, I've never seen the "torque" excuse before for eliminating the
> headphone jack!

then you haven't done any research, to the surprise of absolutely
nobody.

> By that logic, they should have gotten rid of the Lightning port since
> it's much more prone to damage. Very creative!

wrong. lightning is specifically designed to be *less* prone for damage.

> The reality is that a metal 3.5mm plug, inside the phone, is much less
> subject to damage than the non-conductive PC board substrate that is
> part of the Lightning connector.

nope. the reality is that lightning is designed to shear when torqued
so that the phone and its lightning connector are *not* damaged.

that means a repair is basically removing the now broken plug from the
port and replacing the cable, which is both easy and inexpensive, and
likely something someone can do on their own rather than take it to a
repair shop..

> Of course a USB-C connector, both sides of which have a steel shell, is
> also less subject to damage than a Lightning connector.

that is very much false.

usb-c does *not* have the above requirement, which means excessive
torque can cause damage to the port and/or the device. also, the
internal tab can break, which means the usb-c port would need to be
replaced, and for a phone, quite possibly the logic board, depending if
it's part of the same or a separate board.

> Hopefully the
> move to USB-C, which has already occurred with the iPad, will occur with
> the iPhone by the iPhone 15. If Apple really wants to distinguish the
> iPhone Pro versus non Pro models then they could use USB-C on the Pro
> and Lightning on the non-Pro, like they initially did with the iPad.

that would be a huge clusterfuck, so much so that it's obviously
trolling.

On a sunny day (Sat, 16 Apr 2022 18:05:03 -0700) it happened sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in <t3fp41$8sm$1@dont-email.me>:

>On 4/16/2022 1:40 PM, meff wrote:
>> 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.
>
>It's become harder to directly read from, and write to, the parallel
>port when using Windows versions beginning with Windows 7, as well as
>more difficult because the I/O addresses are no longer the legacy ISA
>parallel port addresses. Of course you can still use MS-DOS or FreeDOS
>if you're doing embedded systems control through the parallel port.

Linux
I have a Microchip PIC programmer connected to the PC parport,
the hardware design is from this person:
http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/noppp/
just modified it a bit,
and I wrote software for it.
No problem addressing the port
http://panteltje.com/panteltje/pic/jppp18/index.html

Also made a Raspberry version using GPIO:
http://panteltje.com/panteltje/raspberry_pi_noppp/
Just got some parts in to put it all on one small board,

No problem changing code from partport ot GPIO
But as PCs were getting faster and faster I had to add a delay loop command line option else the PIC could not keep up.

>Not sure how this thread went from wired keyboards to 3.5mm audio jacks
>(when did 1/8" audio jacks become 3.5mm jacks?).

:-)

On a sunny day (Sun, 17 Apr 2022 00:06:09 -0400) it happened nospam
<nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in <170420220006097968%nospam@nospam.invalid>:

>In article <t3fg8q$mum$1@dont-email.me>, sms
><scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> 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)
>
>all of those can be done more easily, more reliably and with more
>functionality by using lightning or usb-c, and in some cases,
>bluetooth.
>
>> And of course the 3.5mm headphone jack provides better quality audio
>> than Bluetooth,
>
>it does not.
>
>the limiting factor is the transducer itself, not the connection method.

That is not correct.
In my experience wireless links (bluetooth or whatever) are not very reliable.
Same for wireless keyboards, sometimes mine is obstructed by stuff on the table
that I then have to move,
A direct connection will always be better no matter the RF protocol.

Also I do not like bluetooth headsets I want no RF next to my head for long times,

>> 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.
>
>then get usb-c or lightning headphones, such as the ones that were
>included in the box of the iphone you supposedly have.

The small earbuds normally have a 90 degrees angled connector and do not have that 'lever'
sort of thing that can break the connector.
================{ ]
||
||
0
And the waterproof argument is a bit far fetched listen with phone upside down in the shower?
Dive with it listening underwater to the earplugs?

On 16/04/2022 18:53, Alan wrote:
> On 2022-04-16 3:55 a.m., The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 16/04/2022 11:41, nospam wrote:
>>> In article <t3ds8l$1bvi$1@gioia.aioe.org>, 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
>>>
>>> that's nothing more than the usual bashing, and is demonstrably false.
>>
>> Its demonstrably true.
>>
>> 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.
>
> Is that all consumers...
>
> ...except you?
>
> You're clever enough to see through it, right?
>
Yes. I was lucky enough to spend most of my life selling and making
products for professional and industrial users.

I learnt to see the difference.

--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

On 16/04/2022 19:31, Alan wrote:
> 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.

Who told you that, then?

--
"Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They
always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them"

Margaret Thatcher

On 16/04/2022 20:28, alister wrote:
> Apple have very much an attitude of you will only use our product the way
> we say you will use it.

And only on the protocols they sell themselves.

No apple based brower supports webm for example

--
"Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They
always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them"

Margaret Thatcher

On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 13:51:16 -0700, Alan wrote:

> 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?
No
Must other companies don't give a f**k what you do with a product once you
have purchased it (unless you try to claim under warranty for damage you
have caused of course)
>
>> 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!

Sorry (you may need to look that word up as I am pretty sure you have
never used it & don't understand its meaning) can't & I accept that the
story may be apocryphal & inaccurate

--
Just don't create a file called -rf. :-)
-- Larry Wall in <11393@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV>

In article <t3gcug$ghv$1@dont-email.me>, Jan Panteltje
<pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

> >> And of course the 3.5mm headphone jack provides better quality audio
> >> than Bluetooth,
> >
> >it does not.
> >
> >the limiting factor is the transducer itself, not the connection method.
>
> That is not correct.

it is correct.

> In my experience wireless links (bluetooth or whatever) are not very reliable.
> Same for wireless keyboards, sometimes mine is obstructed by stuff on the
> table
> that I then have to move,
> A direct connection will always be better no matter the RF protocol.

i don't know what bluetooth devices you've used, but they don't sound
like very good ones.

what you describe is definitely not representative of bluetooth, which
is *extremely* reliable.

headsets can work at fairly long distances, including between floors in
a house, which is something not realistic with a cable, and would have
losses due to distance if it was.

analog headphones are actually *less* reliable, many times requiring
wiggling the plug to get a good connection, an issue that *can't*
happen with bluetooth.

> Also I do not like bluetooth headsets I want no RF next to my head for long
> times,

that's a different issue, except that you are exposed to far higher rfi
from many other sources, namely a cellphone held to your head for a
phone call, as well as tv/radio transmitters, etc.

>
> The small earbuds normally have a 90 degrees angled connector and do not have
> that 'lever'
> sort of thing that can break the connector.

no they don't normally have a 90 degree connector.

almost all headphone plugs protrude and can torque. it's a very common
failure mode.

> And the waterproof argument is a bit far fetched listen with phone upside down in the shower?
> Dive with it listening underwater to the earplugs?

it's not far fetched at all.

an analog headphone jack is literally a hole in the phone where liquid
and dirt can ingress.

although it's possible to make it water resistant, that is a lot more
difficult than if there was no hole at all, which should be obvious.

In article <t3gjr8$n36$3@dont-email.me>, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>
> And only on the protocols they sell themselves.

false, nor does apple sell any protocols.

you must be thinking about microsoft, who is well known for creating
their own proprietary formats such as wma and wmv for which licensing
was *very* expensive.

those formats have been reverse engineered, although not perfectly.
it's not unusual to have a wma/wmv file that doesn't play properly,
unless it's in a microsoft player.

microsoft also created their own web protocols and modified existing
ones so that netscape would not work properly, something which got them
into a *lot* of legal trouble.

> No apple based brower supports webm for example

false. safari supports webm, however, it's a niche format that is very
rarely used, which is why it was only recently added. there is almost
no demand to bother. the number of sites with webm instead of mp4 is
close to zero.

In article <t3go74$sa$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.
> >
> > So you mean like literally thousands of other companies?
> No
> Must other companies don't give a f**k what you do with a product once you
> have purchased it (unless you try to claim under warranty for damage you
> have caused of course)

apple doesn't care what you do with a product once it's been purchased.

also, they will sometimes repair customer damage for free. it's not
always going to happen, but it's certainly a possibility.

i know someone who bought an iphone and dropped it shortly after,
causing the display to crack. he went to the apple store and told them
what happened, that he was a clumsy oaf and it was entirely his fault,
wanting to know how much it would cost to fix it. they said 'no
charge'.

On a sunny day (Sun, 17 Apr 2022 06:53:48 -0400) it happened nospam
<nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in <170420220653484600%nospam@nospam.invalid>:

>In article <t3gcug$ghv$1@dont-email.me>, Jan Panteltje
><pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> >> And of course the 3.5mm headphone jack provides better quality audio
>> >> than Bluetooth,
>> >
>> >it does not.
>> >
>> >the limiting factor is the transducer itself, not the connection method.
>>
>> That is not correct.
>
>it is correct.
>
>> In my experience wireless links (bluetooth or whatever) are not very reliable.
>> Same for wireless keyboards, sometimes mine is obstructed by stuff on the
>> table
>> that I then have to move,
>> A direct connection will always be better no matter the RF protocol.
>
>i don't know what bluetooth devices you've used, but they don't sound
>like very good ones.
>
>what you describe is definitely not representative of bluetooth, which
>is *extremely* reliable.

I have heard others do what sounded like a 'break into' my bluetooth link to my TV.
Also the whole pairing is a nuisance if you have more than one BT transmitter and receiver like I do.

Then there is the general security issue, not only for BT but for all wireless equipment, disaster.

On a sunny day (Sun, 17 Apr 2022 06:53:53 -0400) it happened nospam
<nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in <170420220653534903%nospam@nospam.invalid>:

>In article <t3go74$sa$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.
>> >
>> > So you mean like literally thousands of other companies?
>> No
>> Must other companies don't give a f**k what you do with a product once you
>> have purchased it (unless you try to claim under warranty for damage you
>> have caused of course)
>
>apple doesn't care what you do with a product once it's been purchased.
>
>also, they will sometimes repair customer damage for free. it's not
>always going to happen, but it's certainly a possibility.
>
>i know someone who bought an iphone and dropped it shortly after,
>causing the display to crack. he went to the apple store and told them
>what happened, that he was a clumsy oaf and it was entirely his fault,
>wanting to know how much it would cost to fix it. they said 'no
>charge'.

Apple was fake from the beginning, buying the name 'Apple' from the Beatles
Steve Jobs went on (later) about Apple's superior processors used for nuclear research testing.
I demonstrated to someone that a x86 was faster... they went Intel
Jobs then also changed to Intel
He was a very good salesman.
But if you take the trouble to google a bit, then you will see, that even recently, Apple does a lot of dirty tricks
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/11/apple-settles-with-states-for-113m-over-iphone-battery-throttling/

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/03/apple-fixes-ios-15-4-battery-drain-issue-with-software-update/?comments=1
read the comments

Jan Panteltje wrote:
> Steve Jobs went on (later) about Apple's superior processors used
> for nuclear research testing.

Without any doubt the 68000 was a much better processor than the
comparable 80386. From then on Intel took off and left Motorola behind
(the 68030, 69040 never caught on commercially). But up to than IBM sold
far inferior products through marketing clout.

--
/¯\ 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 4/16/2022 11:41 PM, Jan Panteltje wrote:

<snip>

>>> And of course the 3.5mm headphone jack provides better quality audio
>>> than Bluetooth,
>>
>> it does not.
>>
>> the limiting factor is the transducer itself, not the connection method.

nospam is wrong of course™.

What makes no difference is whether the A/D and D/A for wired headphones
are inside the phone or inside the Lightning or USB-C dongle. There is
no difference in sound quality (unless you've purchased a junky
after-market dongle).

But there are multiple differences in sound quality between wired
headphones and Bluetooth headphones, depending on the phone and the
headphones.

The iPhone does not yet support LDAC so high-end headphones like the
Sony WF-1000XM4 will not get as high quality sound as they will on an
Android device with LDAC (see
<https://discussions.apple.com/thread/252917132>).

When using Bluetooth headphones and watching video, there is often a
perceptible delay between the video and the audio, depending on both the
phone and the headphones. For music, a few milliseconds of delay doesn't
matter but when watching videos it does.

On Android devices, you can use the higher quality aptX HD or aptX
Adaptive codecs to mostly solve this issue.

> That is not correct.
> In my experience wireless links (bluetooth or whatever) are not very reliable.
> Same for wireless keyboards, sometimes mine is obstructed by stuff on the table
> that I then have to move,
> A direct connection will always be better no matter the RF protocol.
>
> Also I do not like bluetooth headsets I want no RF next to my head for long times,
>
>
>
>>> 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.
>>
>> then get usb-c or lightning headphones, such as the ones that were
>> included in the box of the iphone you supposedly have.
>
> The small earbuds normally have a 90 degrees angled connector and do not have that 'lever'
> sort of thing that can break the connector.

Some do, but most don't. The problem with the 90 degree plugs is that a
thick phone case will often prevent them from plugging in.

And of course my iPhone did not come with either a Lightning power
adapter or Lightning earpods, Apple stopped including those even on the
phone models that originally included them. Nor did it include a
Lightning to 3.5mm dongle, I had to buy that separately.

> And the waterproof argument is a bit far fetched listen with phone upside down in the shower?
> Dive with it listening underwater to the earplugs?

It's more for accidental dunkings of the phone. Of course there are IP68
phones that still have headphone jacks. My wife's old Moto X4 took a
dive in our pool and was no worse for wear despite the headphone jack.
She was gardening near the pool, it fell out of her pocket, and she
advised me to dive in to retrieve it. But it was in a protective case
which may have had a rubber plug over the headphone jack, I can't recall.

On 4/17/2022 7:56 AM, sms wrote:

> And of course my iPhone did not come with either a Lightning power
> adapter or Lightning earpods, Apple stopped including those even on
> the phone models that originally included them.

Ditto my recent Chrome OS tablet purchase. It too has only one port
(USB-C). No power supply, no earphone, and no dongle included. Welcome
to the new world... (Though I didn't miss the PS since I've got a bag of
them.)

> Nor did it include a Lightning to 3.5mm dongle, I had to buy that
> separately.

Worse for me. I needed to power the tablet at the same time I used the
earphones so I bought a USB-C power/earphone splitter (with USB-C
outputs) AND a USB-C to 3.5 mm dongle. It's quite a kluge when all
plugged together. A bit of a PITA. But it's the coming thing. I also
looked at the new Samsung tablets and guess what... Yup.

In article <t3gt4k$kdi$1@dont-email.me>, Jan Panteltje
<pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I have heard others do what sounded like a 'break into' my bluetooth link to
> my TV.

that isn't necessarily someone hacking it, which would require that
someone to be *very* close, as in the next room.

> Also the whole pairing is a nuisance if you have more than one BT transmitter
> and receiver like I do.

it's hardly a nuisance, regardless of how many devices there are.
recent bluetooth devices auto-pair simply by being close enough and
powering it on, or there's a pop-up window to confirm with a tap. worst
case, you type in a code *once*.

> Then there is the general security issue, not only for BT but for all wireless equipment, disaster.

only for those who don't understand security.

In article <625C26FC.3B802F06@Berger-Odenthal.De>, Axel Berger
<Spam@Berger-Odenthal.De> wrote:

> Without any doubt the 68000 was a much better processor than the
> comparable 80386. From then on Intel took off and left Motorola behind
> (the 68030, 69040 never caught on commercially).

yes they did. the '030 and '040 were used not only in macs, but also in
many other products, including amiga, alpha, routers and more.

> But up to than IBM sold
> far inferior products through marketing clout.

true.