On 2022-04-08 9:43 a.m., Nil wrote:
> 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).

"no true scotsman".

>
>> 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 2022-04-08 8:22 a.m., Nil wrote:
> On 8 Apr 2022, Lewis <g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote in
> misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.mobile.android:
>
>>> The correct charger is the $19 20W USB-C charger, not the 5W USB-A garbage.
>>
>> No. That is the charger YOU would prefer because you have a soft chubby
>> for fast charging. No one else cares.
>
> Many people don't want to use 20 year old charger tech on their new iPhone.

Another straw man.

20 years ago was 2002...

....and the iPhone came out in 2007

>
> 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.

On 2022-04-08 9:30 a.m., Nil wrote:
> 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?

Why haven't you provided a source for it?

In message <t2qh8n$v7t$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.

> You call me a liar because

You are a liar.

--
Ninjas don't hug!

On 10 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 a liar.

Are you still so stupid you can't find your own quote of the cite?
Message-ID: <slrnt50lgu.gm1.g.kreme@m1mini.local>

Apple cost savings are 9.5 Billion but that's not where the real money is.
Read the cite next time that you quoted yourself, before denying it existed.

If you're not too stupid to find it in your own messages that is.

On 10 Apr 2022, Nil <rednoise9@REMOVETHIScomcast.net> wrote in
misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.mobile.android:

> Apple cost savings are 9.5 Billion but that's not where the real money is.

6.5

In message <t2us4s$8s4$1@dont-email.me> Nil <rednoise9@REMOVETHIScomcast.net> wrote:
> On 10 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 a liar.

> Apple cost savings are 9.5 Billion

Still lying.

--
When the least they could do to you was everything, then the most
they could do to you suddenly held no terror. --Small Gods

On 10 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 a liar.
>
>> Apple cost savings are 9.5 Billion
>
> Still lying.

You even included the cite in one of your own messages and you still say
that you didn't do what you did?

Are you stupid?

Read your own message which shows you already read the cite that you say
doesn't exist which estimates not only 6.5 billion in cost savings, but it
also showed billions more of where the real money is being made by Apple
shipping & then selling that empty box to 190 million new iPhone owners.

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.

Andy Burnelli wrote:
> 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?

Hell, I dunno. Why don't you jackoff and tell us all about it?

But be careful ... iKooks are probably spying on you.

Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
> What can a jackless phone do that a jackfull phone doesn't do?

Probably "be thinner" or "be less likely to have a water leak".

On 2022-04-16 3:31 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> 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.

No true Scotsman fallacy coming.

>
> 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.

It's harder to make water resistant.

Done.

>
> 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.

And all iPhones let you plug in earphones/earbuds.

>
> 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?

Rob wrote:

>> What can a jackless phone do that a jackfull phone doesn't do?
>
> Probably "be thinner" or "be less likely to have a water leak".

This is likely true in both cases that it's likely easier to design a phone
cheaply if the manufacturers remove all the industry standard ports.