sms wrote:

> 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.

It's a red herring to discuss the pros and cons since the reason Apple
removed the industry standard 3.5 mm jack was to make you buy it back.

Every time nospam claims that it makes it _easier_ to design a water
resistant phone without the industry standard jack, all nospam is _really_
saying is that *nospam believes Apple has a shitty hardware design team.*

And he'd be right.

*Apple is _NOT_ a design powerhouse*; Apple is a MARKETING powerhouse.
(Apple's R&D is less than Germany's Nato percentage spending for example).
--
You can't make those kinds of ungodly profits off an intelligent customer.

nospam wrote:

>> Ditto my recent Chrome OS tablet purchase. It too has only one port
>> (USB-C). No power supply, no earphone, and no dongle included.
>
> yet you don't hear anyone complaining. only when apple does it.

Wrong.

With Apple, you have no choice.
With Android or Chrome OS, you do.

Why would anyone complain if they _chose_ a device that doesn't even have
the most basic of the most common industry standard hardware functionality?
>> Welcome
>> to the new world... (Though I didn't miss the PS since I've got a bag of
>> them.)
>
> exactly why they're no longer included.

The only reason Apple made the "courageous" decision to remove common
industry standard hardware functionality that is found on almost all
other devices.... is...

*Apple's strategy is to slowly remove basic functionality...*
*So that you have to buy it back.*
--
You can't make those ungodly profits off of an intelligent customer base.

Jan Panteltje wrote:

> 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?).
>
> :-)

Courage!

What Apple did was NOT what any other company that _survived_ ever did.

Most people do not understand why Apple called the loss of basic industry
standard functionality on all current iPhones a "courageous" strategy.
*They were shocked that they got away with it!*

Apple's customer is _that_ stupid.

Note it was NOT like removing the floppy disk drive _after_ nobody used it.

It was like removing the industry standard jack while it was _still_ being
used by literally almost every phone in the world, including Apple iPhones!

Most phones (by far) come with the industry standard 3.5mm jack today.
*What was "courageous" on Apple's part was Apple screwing the customer.*

The industry standard 3.5mm jack may go away in a decade or two; but what
Apple did was _prematurely_ sunset basic functionality everyone else had.

Apple is NOT a design powerhouse - but Apple is a MARKETING powerhouse.
It's genius.

Apple steadily removes basic functionality so that you have to buy it back.
--
You can't make those ungodly profits off an intelligent customer base.

nospam wrote:

> 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.

While nospam is consistent in his inconsistent arguments, the one thing that
always remains is Apple designs proprietary connectors to make more money.

No other reason.

nospam wrote:

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

Apple will permanently _disable_ your iPhone if you refuse to log into their
iCloud periodically nospam. You _know_ this is true.

Want proof?
I _tested_ two iPads, both of which Apple _requires_ a login years later!

If you don't eventually log into their iCloud - Apple _disables_ the device!
Don't believe me?

Look here:

1. Apple "ID Verification" prompts come up ten, twenty or more times a day.
<https://i.postimg.cc/LXzB3Lc0/appleid01.jpg>
2. Apple "Sign-in to iCloud" prompts come up a dozen or more times a day.
<https://i.postimg.cc/Y9kkj19v/appleid12.jpg>
3. Apple won't let you sign in even with the _correct_ login & password.
<https://i.postimg.cc/8zSvshQf/appleid04.jpg>
4. The Apple web site is so poorly designed it doesn't even tell you why.
<https://i.postimg.cc/SKGfmgnK/appleid05.jpg>
5. Eventually, as it did with one of my iPads already, Apple destroys it.
<https://i.postimg.cc/g008YhxP/appleid02.jpg>
<https://i.postimg.cc/q75t7MSk/appleid03.jpg>
6. On my 2nd iPad, the Apple apps stop working (but everything else works!)
<https://i.postimg.cc/hhFNJ5mq/appleid010.jpg>
7. Every single day, many times a day, you're confronted with tracking crap
such as this "Some account services require you to sign in again"
<https://i.postimg.cc/nrFHSvby/appleid11.jpg>
8. Interestingly, you can update your iOS (which I almost never do) as shown
here where I updated this week from iOS 13 to iOS 15 (and it let me).
<https://i.postimg.cc/nLjqk2HD/osupdate03.jpg>
9. And you can wipe out your Siri recordings (due to the recent zero-day).
<https://i.postimg.cc/sfZ0XP71/osupdate02.jpg>
10. Yet Apple tracking servers still require "Apple ID Verification"
<https://i.postimg.cc/gj0r2cBP/osupdate01.jpg>
11. And, you can install an app, but if you delete it, you can't re-install.
<https://i.postimg.cc/bJPKDSZ1/osupdate04.jpg>
<https://i.postimg.cc/ZR5mZ287/appleid07.jpg>
12. In the end, if you attempt that forced validation on VPN, Apple
unilaterally destroys your investment by locking you out of it forever!
<https://i.postimg.cc/q75t7MSk/appleid03.jpg>
13. All because Apple tracking servers _require_ periodic ID verification.
<https://i.postimg.cc/8k3GQyj4/appleid09.jpg>
<https://i.postimg.cc/q75t7MSk/appleid03.jpg>

Andy Burnelli wrote:
> nospam wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> While nospam is consistent in his inconsistent arguments, the one
> thing that
> always remains is Apple designs proprietary connectors to make more
> money.
>
> No other reason.

Nah, they design them solely to piss you off.

Jan Panteltje wrote:

> 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/

Want another dirty trick?

In civil cases, Apple can just pay more to not agree that they purposefully
lowered the life of the iPhones with the battery throttling scam they
pulled.

But in the CRIMINAL system (like in France), Apple doesn't have the option
of paying their way out of admitting guilt.

Apple _agreed_ that they were guilty of criminal intent to lower the life of
iPhone by throttling only some of them (not all mind you, but some).
(Which throws the excuse of "battery chemistry" out the door.)

*We discussed Apple's _criminal_ fines in gory detail in the past.*
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-51413724
https://www.newsweek.com/apple-fined-12-million-dollars-waterproof-claim-iphone-warranty-european-penalties-1551138
https://www.smh.com.au/technology/apple-fined-41-million-for-secretly-slowing-old-iphones-20200210-p53z9n.html
https://sfist.com/2020/02/07/apple-fined-in-the-eu-for-purposely-slowing-down-older-iphones/
--
The only time Apple tells the truth is in court.

nospam wrote:

> 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.

Years ago, in Texas, I worked on the Power PC project.
Remember that?

Prior to that, I worked with the 68701 (which had the RAM on chip).

One nice thing for hex coding was that the memory order made sense
(compared to that of the Intel MPUs).

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> 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

Did you know that no Apple based browser supports TOR anonymity?

No?
Want proof?

Look at what the Tor Project says about privacy with iOS devices.
*Can I run Tor Browser on an iOS device?*
<https://support.torproject.org/tormobile/tormobile-3/>
"Apple requires browsers on iOS to use something called Webkit,
which prevents Onion Browser from having the same privacy
protections as Tor Browser."

And yet, Apple advertises privacy all day, every day.
--
What Apple advertises is a product that is completely imaginary.

In article <t3kfu4$mc7$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
<spam@nospam.com> wrote:

> Apple will permanently _disable_ your iPhone if you refuse to log into their
> iCloud periodically

that is categorically false, nor is that even possible.

>
> Want proof?

there isn't any such proof.

as usual, you are too stupid to understand what you're doing and
blaming everything other than yourself.

> I _tested_ two iPads, both of which Apple _requires_ a login years later!

you used a disposable email account, forgot the password, and locked
yourself out, with *no* possible way to recover it.

had you used a valid email, you could have reset the password.

in other words, the situation is entirely of your own making.

In article <t3kclh$18cc$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
<spam@nospam.com> wrote:

> The only reason Apple made the "courageous" decision to remove common
> industry standard hardware functionality that is found on almost all
> other devices.... is...

....is because very few people actually used an analog headphone jack to
justify keeping it in a highly-space constrained device, such as a
phone, where that space could be better served for features that
benefit more people. also because it's redundant, because a more
functional option has existed alongside it.

nospam wrote:

>> Apple will permanently _disable_ your iPhone if you refuse to log into their
>> iCloud periodically
>
> that is categorically false, nor is that even possible.

Then you know nothing about iOS because I tested it and you haven't.

How long have _you_ gone refusing Apple's incessant requests to log into the
iCloud nospam?
<https://i.postimg.cc/LXzB3Lc0/appleid01.jpg> Apple _forces_ a log in!

>>
>> Want proof?
>
> there isn't any such proof.

Then what's this?
<https://i.postimg.cc/q75t7MSk/appleid03.jpg> Apple _disables_ your acct!

> as usual, you are too stupid to understand what you're doing and
> blaming everything other than yourself.

It's interesting how _little_ you know about iOS nospam, but then it's not
surprising since you have _never_ tried to NOT log into the iCloud on iOS.
<https://i.postimg.cc/8zSvshQf/appleid04.jpg> Apple _locks_ you out!

>> I _tested_ two iPads, both of which Apple _requires_ a login years later!
>
> you used a disposable email account, forgot the password, and locked
> yourself out, with *no* possible way to recover it.

Nope. Wrong.
You don't understand iOS because you've never tested NOT logging in.

The Apple message clearly says you must periodically log in. Look for once!
<https://i.postimg.cc/nrFHSvby/appleid11.jpg> Apple _forces_ extra logins!

> had you used a valid email, you could have reset the password.

Notice that Apple _requires_ you to log into the iCloud periodically.
<https://i.postimg.cc/ZR5mZ287/appleid07.jpg> Apple fails App Store test

After two years of NOT logging into iOS, Apple simply disables your device.

> in other words, the situation is entirely of your own making.

You are an idiot if you just realized that I was _testing_ what Apple would
do if I ignored their incessant hundred-times-a-day request to periodically
log into the iCloud account.

None of this would have happened if I didn't _test_ what would happen
nospam.

That you are just realizing this is another way I know your IQ is low.
You have _no idea_ how iOS works nospam - because you've never tested it.

I have.
<https://i.postimg.cc/8zSvshQf/appleid04.jpg> Apple _locks_ you out!

I don't give a shit that Apple locked me out (I have plenty of iPads).
I just wanted to test what Apple would do.

The result is that if you ignore Apple's requests to log into the iCloud,
then Apple will eventually unilaterally _DESTROY_ your investment.

The proof is in what Apple did.
<https://i.postimg.cc/q75t7MSk/appleid03.jpg> Apple _disables_ your DEVICE!

nospam wrote:

> ...is because very few people actually used an analog headphone jack to
> justify keeping it in a highly-space constrained device, such as a
> phone, where that space could be better served for features that
> benefit more people. also because it's redundant, because a more
> functional option has existed alongside it.

If so few people wanted a 3.5mm jack in their phone, why is it that the vast
majority of phones made even today still have that industry standard jack?
--
Overall, less than one half of one percent of phones do NOT have the jack!

In article <t3kgga$u7m$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
<spam@nospam.com> wrote:

> Years ago, in Texas, I worked on the Power PC project.

that's a new one.

what did you supposedly do on 'the power pc project' ?

did photos of textbooks about vacuum tubes help with the design of a
microprocessor?

what happened to your usual story about working at silicon valley
companies alongside super-smart people after having gone to the best
colleges in the world?

or have you confused silicon valley, california with silicon hills,
texas, what the tech companies mostly in austin are called?

> Remember that?

very much so, more than you.

> Prior to that, I worked with the 68701 (which had the RAM on chip).

that's a 6800 variant, unrelated to macs, and a lot of microcontrollers
of that era had ram on the chip, along with i/o.

i designed and built a few things with the 6801.

> One nice thing for hex coding was that the memory order made sense
> (compared to that of the Intel MPUs).

yet you don't know the proper terminology, known as little-endian and
big-endian, and you also don't know that the power pc supported both.

In article <t3kgn5$10p2$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
<spam@nospam.com> wrote:

>
> Did you know that no Apple based browser supports TOR anonymity?

did you know that is false?

> Look at what the Tor Project says about privacy with iOS devices.

apple browsers run on more than just ios devices, and ios devices are
the most private, causing facebook to lose roughly 25% of its market
cap in a single day because they can no longer data mine as well as
they once could.

In article <t3khdv$19r9$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
<spam@nospam.com> wrote:

>
> >> Apple will permanently _disable_ your iPhone if you refuse to log into
> >> their iCloud periodically
> >
> > that is categorically false, nor is that even possible.
>
> Then you know nothing about iOS because I tested it and you haven't.

dude, i've been writing ios apps for nearly 15 years and have tested
far more stuff than you can imagine even existing.

the fact is that apple does *not* (nor can they) disable a device for
any reason, certainly not refusing to log in to icloud.

a few years ago, i powered on my original iphone, after having sat
*unused* for something like 10 years (not sure exactly how long) and it
worked surprisingly well, considering how old it is.

the only issue was that some apps did little more than launch because
the needed servers no longer existed, nor did the developers of the
apps.

nospam wrote:

> dude, i've been writing ios apps for nearly 15 years and have tested
> far more stuff than you can imagine even existing.

Dude. Then explain this message if Apple doesn't _require_ periodic login:
<https://i.postimg.cc/nrFHSvby/appleid11.jpg>

nospam wrote:

>> Look at what the Tor Project says about privacy with iOS devices.
>
> apple browsers run on more than just ios devices, and ios devices are
> the most private, causing facebook to lose roughly 25% of its market
> cap in a single day because they can no longer data mine as well as
> they once could.

The fact that you can't make an iOS browser private and the fact that
Facebook doesn't like telling customers that they spy on them...

Are two completely different things, nospam.

What kind of idiot thinks they're the same thing but you?
Seriously.

The fact remains that you can't get the kind of privacy you need with an iOS
browser. <https://support.torproject.org/tormobile/tormobile-3/>

You just can't.
Nobody can.

For you to deny that obvious fact means you know _nothing_ about iOS.

In article <t3kk5j$c58$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
<spam@nospam.com> wrote:

> The fact that you can't make an iOS browser private

it's private by design.

In article <t3kjvh$9qa$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
<spam@nospam.com> wrote:

>
> Dude. Then explain this message if Apple doesn't _require_ periodic login:
> <https://i.postimg.cc/nrFHSvby/appleid11.jpg>

what part of 'sign in again' is not clear?

nothing has been disabled.

if it had, you wouldn't have been able to get anywhere near that far.

enter your apple id (likely autofilled) and the password, and it will
update whatever it needs to update.

unfortunately for you, you don't know what those are.

next time, write down whatever bogus email and password you decide to
use.

like i said, the problem is entirely of your own making.

On 2022-04-18, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <t3khdv$19r9$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
><spam@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> >> Apple will permanently _disable_ your iPhone if you refuse to log
>> >> into their iCloud periodically
>> >
>> > that is categorically false, nor is that even possible.
>>
>> Then you know nothing about iOS because I tested it and you haven't.
>
> dude, i've been writing ios apps for nearly 15 years and have tested
> far more stuff than you can imagine even existing.
>
> the fact is that apple does *not* (nor can they) disable a device for
> any reason, certainly not refusing to log in to icloud.
>
> a few years ago, i powered on my original iphone, after having sat
> *unused* for something like 10 years (not sure exactly how long) and
> it worked surprisingly well, considering how old it is.
>
> the only issue was that some apps did little more than launch because
> the needed servers no longer existed, nor did the developers of the
> apps.

Still rocking my 1st gen iPad, iPhone 4, and so on here. Arlen's a
clueless idiot who locks himself out of his own devices just so he can
turn around and troll the Apple newsgroups with bullshit fabricated
stories.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On 2022-04-18, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <t3kgga$u7m$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
><spam@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> Years ago, in Texas, I worked on the Power PC project.
>
> that's a new one.
>
> what did you supposedly do on 'the power pc project' ?
>
> did photos of textbooks about vacuum tubes help with the design of a
> microprocessor?
>
> what happened to your usual story about working at silicon valley
> companies alongside super-smart people after having gone to the best
> colleges in the world?
>
> or have you confused silicon valley, california with silicon hills,
> texas, what the tech companies mostly in austin are called?
>
>> Remember that?
>
> very much so, more than you.
>
>> Prior to that, I worked with the 68701 (which had the RAM on chip).
>
> that's a 6800 variant, unrelated to macs, and a lot of microcontrollers
> of that era had ram on the chip, along with i/o.
>
> i designed and built a few things with the 6801.
>
>> One nice thing for hex coding was that the memory order made sense
>> (compared to that of the Intel MPUs).
>
> yet you don't know the proper terminology, known as little-endian and
> big-endian, and you also don't know that the power pc supported both.

"hex coding" ... "memory order" ...
LOL... what an idiot.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On 2022-04-18 11:44 a.m., The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 18/04/2022 18:20, Alan wrote:
>> On 2022-04-18 2:39 a.m., The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 17/04/2022 21:15, Alan wrote:
>>>> On 2022-04-17 1:38 a.m., The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>> 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?
>>>>
>>>> I learned it from years and years of experience.
>>>
>>> Experience of what?
>>
>> Working, selling, supporting Macs and PCs for more than 30 years.
>
> So what?
>
>

You asked me where my knowledge came from...

....I told you.

On 2022-04-18 2:08 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> nospam wrote:
>
>> dude, i've been writing ios apps for nearly 15 years and have tested
>> far more stuff than you can imagine even existing.
>
> Dude. Then explain this message if Apple doesn't _require_ periodic login:
> <https://i.postimg.cc/nrFHSvby/appleid11.jpg>

How are "account services" the same as the device?

On 2022-04-18 11:49 a.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> nospam wrote:
>
>> then get usb-c or lightning headphones, such as the ones that were
>> included in the box of the iphone you supposedly have.
>
> The intelligent people here will note that Apple removed basic
> functionality
> in three phases so as to hide the facts from the ignorati like nospam is.
>
> 1. First the iPhone had the industry standard 3.5mm jack on the device.

It wasn't an industry standard.

> 2. Then Apple _removed_ the functionality - but supplanted it in the box.

They removed the JACK...

....not the functionality.

> 3. Then Apple removed that crutch so that you'd now have to buy it back.

For all of $9...

....or choose Bluetooth, or choose someone's Lightning earphones/buds.

>
> Clever Apple, steadily removing functionality so you have to buy it back.