On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 14:08:34 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

> On 2023-01-04 18:49, chop wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 13:21:34 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2023-01-04 17:55, chop wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 11:05:14 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2023-01-04 16:01, chop wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 10:45:31 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2023-01-04 15:08, chop wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 09:53:46 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2023-01-04 14:05, chop wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 08:31:57 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-01-04 13:22, chop wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 07:54:08 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-01-04 12:48, chop wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 07:06:17 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-01-04 11:57, Jerry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 4 Jan 2023 10:10:01 -0800, Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because Apple designed photo storage to be five to ten
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> times more expensive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the iPhone, then you MUST account for that in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> total ownership costs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're not seriously proposing that passing around an SD
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> card is an efficient way to share photos, are you?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How did you NOT understand a single word that anyone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> said about this?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How does NOT having an sd card on the iPhone make it any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> easier to "pass
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> around" photos than it is to have that sd card & choice
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of other options?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To dumb it down to words you can understand, having 2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arms (Android) is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> always better than having only 1 arm (iPhone) in terms of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what you can do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How did you _miss_ that?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you stupid?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Having two hammers won't let you do what a spanner can do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But no iphone can do any more than any android can do with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> photo storage or exchange except maybe the most primitive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> andoids that have so little internal storage that they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't run
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any cloud app at all
>>>>>>>>>>>>> But none of that is the point under discussion, sunshine.
>>>>>>>>>>>> There never is just one point under discussion, moonshine.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And I never said there was.
>>>>>>>>>> And I never said you did.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You implied it.
>>>>>>>> Wrong.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But the point under discussion was that it is not an EFFICIENT
>>>>>>>>>>> way to share photos.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There was more than just that point under discussion.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not that I was discussing.
>>>>>>>> You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly
>>>>>>>> irrelevant.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And yet it was to my post you addressed your reply.
>>>>>> I was rubbing your nose in that stupidity of yours, stupid.
>>>>
>>>>> By talking about something I wasn't talking about?
>>>> Because you didnt have a clue about what Your Name was talking about.
>>
>>> I knew exactly what he was talking about and addressed my remarks to
>>> it.

>> But never had a fucking clue why it works better in his situation
>> to turn the phone off instead of using do not disturb.

> You're confused, sunshine.

Nope, shitshine.

> This sub-thread was not about turning off the phone.

My comment was, shitshine.

<reams of your shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it
belongs>

On 2023-01-04 19:39, chop wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 14:04:19 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
> <reams of your shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it
> belongs>

Yeah, you've lost.

No suck it up.

On 2023-01-04 19:41, chop wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 14:08:34 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2023-01-04 18:49, chop wrote:
>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 13:21:34 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2023-01-04 17:55, chop wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 11:05:14 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2023-01-04 16:01, chop wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 10:45:31 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2023-01-04 15:08, chop wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 09:53:46 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-01-04 14:05, chop wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 08:31:57 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-01-04 13:22, chop wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 07:54:08 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-01-04 12:48, chop wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 07:06:17 +1100, Alan
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-01-04 11:57, Jerry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 4 Jan 2023 10:10:01 -0800, Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because Apple designed photo storage to be five to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ten times more expensive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the iPhone, then you MUST account for that in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> total ownership costs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're not seriously proposing that passing around an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SD card is an efficient way to share photos, are you?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  How did you NOT understand a single word that anyone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> said about this?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  How does NOT having an sd card on the iPhone make it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any easier to "pass
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> around" photos than it is to have that sd card & choice
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of other options?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  To dumb it down to words you can understand, having 2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arms (Android) is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> always better than having only 1 arm (iPhone) in terms
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of what you can do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  How did you _miss_ that?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you stupid?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Having two hammers won't let you do what a spanner can do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  But no iphone can do any more than any android can do with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> photo storage or exchange except maybe the most primitive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> andoids that have so little internal storage that they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't run
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any cloud app at all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But none of that is the point under discussion, sunshine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  There never is just one point under discussion, moonshine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And I never said there was.
>>>>>>>>>>>  And I never said you did.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You implied it.
>>>>>>>>>  Wrong.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> But the point under discussion was that it is not an
>>>>>>>>>>>> EFFICIENT way to share photos.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>  There was more than just that point under discussion.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Not that I was discussing.
>>>>>>>>>  You have always been, and always will be, completely and
>>>>>>>>> utterly irrelevant.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And yet it was to my post you addressed your reply.
>>>>>>>  I was rubbing your nose in that stupidity of yours, stupid.
>>>>>
>>>>>> By talking about something I wasn't talking about?
>>>>>  Because you didnt have a clue about what Your Name was talking about.
>>>
>>>> I knew exactly what he was talking about and addressed my remarks to
>>>> it.
>
>>>  But never had a fucking clue why it works better in his situation
>>> to turn the phone off instead of using do not disturb.
>
>> You're confused, sunshine.
>
> Nope, shitshine.

If that were true, you wouldn't have had to snip what I wrote.

>
>> This sub-thread was not about turning off the phone.
>
> My comment was, shitshine.

Not to the topic that was under discussion:

Whether or not using an SD card to share your photos was a good idea.

>
> <reams of your shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it
> belongs>

Yeah, you've lost, sunshine.

Grow a pair and admit it.

On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 14:41:39 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

> On 2023-01-04 19:39, chop wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 14:04:19 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

<reams of your shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it
belongs>

On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 14:43:41 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

> On 2023-01-04 19:41, chop wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 14:08:34 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2023-01-04 18:49, chop wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 13:21:34 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2023-01-04 17:55, chop wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 11:05:14 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2023-01-04 16:01, chop wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 10:45:31 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2023-01-04 15:08, chop wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 09:53:46 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-01-04 14:05, chop wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 08:31:57 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-01-04 13:22, chop wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 07:54:08 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-01-04 12:48, chop wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 07:06:17 +1100, Alan
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-01-04 11:57, Jerry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 4 Jan 2023 10:10:01 -0800, Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because Apple designed photo storage to be five to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ten times more expensive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the iPhone, then you MUST account for that in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> total ownership costs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're not seriously proposing that passing around an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SD card is an efficient way to share photos, are you?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How did you NOT understand a single word that anyone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> said about this?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How does NOT having an sd card on the iPhone make it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any easier to "pass
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> around" photos than it is to have that sd card & choice
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of other options?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To dumb it down to words you can understand, having 2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arms (Android) is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> always better than having only 1 arm (iPhone) in terms
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of what you can do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How did you _miss_ that?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you stupid?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Having two hammers won't let you do what a spanner can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But no iphone can do any more than any android can do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> photo storage or exchange except maybe the most primitive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> andoids that have so little internal storage that they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't run
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any cloud app at all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But none of that is the point under discussion, sunshine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There never is just one point under discussion, moonshine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And I never said there was.
>>>>>>>>>>>> And I never said you did.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You implied it.
>>>>>>>>>> Wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> But the point under discussion was that it is not an
>>>>>>>>>>>>> EFFICIENT way to share photos.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> There was more than just that point under discussion.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Not that I was discussing.
>>>>>>>>>> You have always been, and always will be, completely and
>>>>>>>>>> utterly irrelevant.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And yet it was to my post you addressed your reply.
>>>>>>>> I was rubbing your nose in that stupidity of yours, stupid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> By talking about something I wasn't talking about?
>>>>>> Because you didnt have a clue about what Your Name was talking
>>>>>> about.
>>>>
>>>>> I knew exactly what he was talking about and addressed my remarks to
>>>>> it.
>>
>>>> But never had a fucking clue why it works better in his situation
>>>> to turn the phone off instead of using do not disturb.
>>
>>> You're confused, sunshine.
>> Nope, shitshine.

<reams of your shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it
belongs>

grinch <grinch@somewhere.com> wrote:
> On 04/01/2023 23:46, Chris wrote:
>
>>> Do you really not know how easy it is to copy sd to any pc or flash drive?
>>
>> Almost as easy as copying photos directly from a phone.
>
> You know that it's easy.
> I know that it's easy.
> It's that idiot Alan who doesn't know this.
>
> Anyway, what's that got to do with the overall cost of photo storage is
> always going to be much higher for iPhones than for Android phones?
>
> Apple designed it to be that way.
> Google didn't.
>
> iPhone primary storage costs a lot more than Android secondary storage.
> It's never going to be anything else so iPhones always cost more.

Whoosh.

Copying photos off phones is easy regardless of whether they are android or
ios.

On 1/4/2023 3:27 PM, sms wrote:

<snip>

> Apple, Google, Samsung, Amazon, Best Buy, as well as the three U.S.
> carriers all offer trade-ins. Sometimes the trade-in value is tiny but
> often it's beyond all reason, exceeding the price that was paid for the
> traded-in phone. Walmart has trade-ins via
> <https://walmart.cexchange.com/> but the trade-in values are poor.

It's interesting that since the iPhone 11 is being heavily discounted by
carriers, and because it has a relatively high trade-in value, that it
could actually have a net cost of less than $0. IMVAIO, the iPhone 11 is
a better option than the SE2022 for a price-sensitive buyer even though
it lacks 5G.

Resale values tend to be higher than trade-in values, but of course you
have to do more work and if you use a service like Swappa to make it
easier they take a commission of 3% from the seller and charge the buyer
3% commission as well.

Trade-ins of phones have been increasing. "Using data from Assurant’s
Device IQ analytics platform, as well as industry market data, to
provide insights into the device trade-in and upgrade trends in North
America, the quarterly Mobile trade-in and upgrade industry trends
report for Q3 2022 revealed a steady pace of growth in the secondary
device market, with approximately $970m returned to US consumers in Q3
2022 through mobile device trade-in and upgrade programmes. Not only was
this the highest third quarter recorded, it also represented a 28%
year-on-year increase." See
<https://www.computerweekly.com/news/252527821/Nearly-1bn-in-mobile-trade-ins-and-upgrades-in-third-quarter-of-2022>.

If you look at the report referenced in the Computer Weekly articke, at
<https://www.assurant.com/documents/assurant/infographics/trade-in-and-upgrade-infographic-q3-2022.pdf?sfvrsn=19415805_23>,
the top phones being traded in are:
1. iPhone 11 (37.92%)
2. iPhone Xr (28.62%)
3. iPhone 11 Pro Max (13.60%)
4. iPhone 12 (9.97%)
5. iPhone 8 (9.89%)

The average trade-in value for iPhones was $157.93.
The average trade-in value for Android phones was $79.95.

It was also interesting that the average age for traded-in devices was
slightly shorter for iPhones at 3.41 years, versus 3.56 years for
Android devices.

According to "Bankmycell," "After 4 years, iPhones will lose -47.49% of
their initial buyback value, whereas flagship Android phones will lose
-78.94% on average."
<https://www.bankmycell.com/blog/cell-phone-depreciation-report-2021-2022/>.

I added a table in the document, comparing three mid-range devices, the
Apple SE2022, the Apple iPhone 11, and the Samsung A53 5G. I included
estimated trade-in values (from Google).

I added both published trade-in values (from Google), and resale value
for an unlocked, mint condition device (from Swappa).

The "street price" came from Verizon's Total Wireless because, due to an
FCC rule, Verizon must unlock phones 60 days after activation (not 60
days of service). So you could pay for one month of service to activate
the device, wait until the 60 days is up, then unlock the device and use
it on any carrier or resell it. For trade-ins, the device does not have
to be unlocked, but you get a much better price when reselling a device
if it is unlocked.

The document is at: <https://tinyurl.com/iOS-Android-Features> or
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JznrWfGJDA8CYVfjSnPTwfVy8-gAC0kPyaApuJTcUNE>.

The fact remains, for comparable devices, the total cost of ownership is
not much different between iPhones and Android phones. You pay less for
the Android phone initially, but it's also worth a lot less when you
decide to upgrade.

In article <tp6p4m$2rhq6$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

>
> It's interesting that since the iPhone 11 is being heavily discounted by
> carriers, and because it has a relatively high trade-in value, that it
> could actually have a net cost of less than $0.

only if someone jumps through a lot of hoops to get discounts, which
has its own cost in time & effort.

> IMVAIO, the iPhone 11 is
> a better option than the SE2022 for a price-sensitive buyer even though
> it lacks 5G.

but you have repeatedly stated that fingerprint sensors are better. at
least you finally realized that is very much false and face id is more
secure.

the se 2022 is mostly an iphone 13 internally, which will be supported
for a longer period of time.

the se 2020 is mostly an iphone 11 internally, which would be a proper
comparison for performance.

> Trade-ins of phones have been increasing.

so have msrps.

> The fact remains, for comparable devices, the total cost of ownership is
> not much different between iPhones and Android phones. You pay less for
> the Android phone initially, but it's also worth a lot less when you
> decide to upgrade.

wow, you said something that's almost completely true.

the only thing you got wrong is that android devices cost less
initially.

the reality is that comparable devices cost about the same for both
platforms.

In comp.mobile.android, on Tue, 3 Jan 2023 13:11:09 -0800, Alan
<nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

>On 2023-01-03 05:20, Mayayana wrote:
>> I don't generally use apps and mostly just keep a cellphone on-hand,
>> not powered up, for when I need to make a phone call away from home.
>
>And if someone needs to call you...
>
>...because it's urgent...
>
>...and you keep your cell phone turned off?
>
>That's about as stupid an idea as I have ever heard.

I guarantee you there are much stupider ideas. For a start, just check
the other political party's ideas.

Only 2 people and some doctor's office have my phone number. Doctor's
only call to cancel appointments and I don't have any appointments to
cancel. No one calls but one of those 2 people, who only calls between 4
and 6 PM M-F and only if I don't answer my home phone. So if I'm not
home or I'm sleeping between 4 and 6, I turn my cell on.

BTW, my message tells callers not to leave a message unless they know
I'm expecting them to call.

On Fri, 06 Jan 2023 02:08:06 +1100, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> On 1/4/2023 3:27 PM, sms wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Apple, Google, Samsung, Amazon, Best Buy, as well as the three U.S.
>> carriers all offer trade-ins. Sometimes the trade-in value is tiny but
>> often it's beyond all reason, exceeding the price that was paid for the
>> traded-in phone. Walmart has trade-ins via
>> <https://walmart.cexchange.com/> but the trade-in values are poor.
>
> It's interesting that since the iPhone 11 is being heavily discounted by
> carriers, and because it has a relatively high trade-in value, that it
> could actually have a net cost of less than $0. IMVAIO, the iPhone 11 is
> a better option than the SE2022 for a price-sensitive buyer even though
> it lacks 5G.
>
> Resale values tend to be higher than trade-in values, but of course you
> have to do more work and if you use a service like Swappa to make it
> easier they take a commission of 3% from the seller and charge the buyer
> 3% commission as well.
>
> Trade-ins of phones have been increasing. "Using data from Assurant’s
> Device IQ analytics platform, as well as industry market data, to
> provide insights into the device trade-in and upgrade trends in North
> America, the quarterly Mobile trade-in and upgrade industry trends
> report for Q3 2022 revealed a steady pace of growth in the secondary
> device market, with approximately $970m returned to US consumers in Q3
> 2022 through mobile device trade-in and upgrade programmes. Not only was
> this the highest third quarter recorded, it also represented a 28%
> year-on-year increase." See
> <https://www.computerweekly.com/news/252527821/Nearly-1bn-in-mobile-trade-ins-and-upgrades-in-third-quarter-of-2022>.
> If you look at the report referenced in the Computer Weekly articke, at
> <https://www.assurant.com/documents/assurant/infographics/trade-in-and-upgrade-infographic-q3-2022.pdf?sfvrsn=19415805_23>,
> the top phones being traded in are:
> 1. iPhone 11 (37.92%)
> 2. iPhone Xr (28.62%)
> 3. iPhone 11 Pro Max (13.60%)
> 4. iPhone 12 (9.97%)
> 5. iPhone 8 (9.89%)
>
> The average trade-in value for iPhones was $157.93.
> The average trade-in value for Android phones was $79.95.

Unsurprising given that Androids cover
a much bigger range of value when new.

> It was also interesting that the average age for traded-in devices was
> slightly shorter for iPhones at 3.41 years, versus 3.56 years for
> Android devices.
>
> According to "Bankmycell," "After 4 years, iPhones will lose -47.49% of
> their initial buyback value, whereas flagship Android phones will lose
> -78.94% on average."
> <https://www.bankmycell.com/blog/cell-phone-depreciation-report-2021-2022/>.
>
> I added a table in the document, comparing three mid-range devices, the
> Apple SE2022, the Apple iPhone 11, and the Samsung A53 5G. I included
> estimated trade-in values (from Google).
>
> I added both published trade-in values (from Google), and resale value
> for an unlocked, mint condition device (from Swappa).
>
> The "street price" came from Verizon's Total Wireless because, due to an
> FCC rule, Verizon must unlock phones 60 days after activation (not 60
> days of service). So you could pay for one month of service to activate
> the device, wait until the 60 days is up, then unlock the device and use
> it on any carrier or resell it. For trade-ins, the device does not have
> to be unlocked, but you get a much better price when reselling a device
> if it is unlocked.
>
> The document is at: <https://tinyurl.com/iOS-Android-Features> or
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JznrWfGJDA8CYVfjSnPTwfVy8-gAC0kPyaApuJTcUNE>.
>
> The fact remains, for comparable devices, the total cost of ownership is
> not much different between iPhones and Android phones. You pay less for
> the Android phone initially, but it's also worth a lot less when you
> decide to upgrade.

On Fri, 06 Jan 2023 03:30:38 +1100, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <tp6p4m$2rhq6$1@dont-email.me>, sms
> <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> It's interesting that since the iPhone 11 is being heavily discounted by
>> carriers, and because it has a relatively high trade-in value, that it
>> could actually have a net cost of less than $0.
>
> only if someone jumps through a lot of hoops to get discounts, which
> has its own cost in time & effort.
>
>
>> IMVAIO, the iPhone 11 is
>> a better option than the SE2022 for a price-sensitive buyer even though
>> it lacks 5G.
>
> but you have repeatedly stated that fingerprint sensors are better. at
> least you finally realized that is very much false and face id is more
> secure.
>
> the se 2022 is mostly an iphone 13 internally, which will be supported
> for a longer period of time.
>
> the se 2020 is mostly an iphone 11 internally, which would be a proper
> comparison for performance.
>
>
>> Trade-ins of phones have been increasing.
>
> so have msrps.
>
>
>
>
>> The fact remains, for comparable devices, the total cost of ownership is
>> not much different between iPhones and Android phones. You pay less for
>> the Android phone initially, but it's also worth a lot less when you
>> decide to upgrade.
>
> wow, you said something that's almost completely true.
>
> the only thing you got wrong is that android devices cost less
> initially.
>
> the reality is that comparable devices cost about the same for both
> platforms.

That's not true of the iphone 14 Max Pro and Pixel 7 pro or the
iphone 14 Max Pro and the Samsung S22,

On 1/5/2023 9:21 AM, chop wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Jan 2023 02:08:06 +1100, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

<snip>

>> The average trade-in value for iPhones was $157.93.
>> The average trade-in value for Android phones was $79.95.
>
> Unsurprising given that Androids cover
> a much bigger range of value when new.

A lot of low-end Android devices have no trade-in value at all. The ones
that have trade-in value, beyond a token amount, are the flagship devices.

On Fri, 06 Jan 2023 04:32:06 +1100, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> On 1/5/2023 9:21 AM, chop wrote:
>> On Fri, 06 Jan 2023 02:08:06 +1100, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
>> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> The average trade-in value for iPhones was $157.93.
>>> The average trade-in value for Android phones was $79.95.
>> Unsurprising given that Androids cover
>> a much bigger range of value when new.

> A lot of low-end Android devices have no trade-in value at all.

Sure, but that would still pull the average down.

> The ones that have trade-in value, beyond a token amount, are the
> flagship devices.

On 2023-01-05, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> The fact remains, for comparable devices, the total cost of ownership is
> not much different between iPhones and Android phones. You pay less for
> the Android phone initially, but it's also worth a lot less when you
> decide to upgrade.

Your entire premise is ridiculous as it applies to 1% of all phones sold.

At the high end, TCO is not even slightly one of the owners' concerns.
At the low end, TCO is very much an important concern of owners.

Yet you ignore about 90% of all phones sold to make your bogus claim.

The fact remains that the ONLY way you can argue that the total cost of
ownership of the iPhone isn't hugely greater than that of Android is to
clip coupons, and let those coupons determine what phone you buy.

It's ridiculous for you to assume people buying high end phones are going
to let whatever hassle of a deal you find determine their personal phone.

Even more ridiculous is your premise that people buying high end phones are
standing on street corners with signs around their necks selling them.

Or trading them in (which even you say only about 1/3rd of the people do).
At best, you have to use 1/3rd of the tradein/resale values you're quoting.

Worse than all those obvious holes in your argument is the only way you can
make ANY argument is to ignore the existence of about 90% of all Androids.

In the end your argument only works for about 1% of all phones sold today.

In 99% of the cases, Android will have a hugely lower TCO than the iPhone.
In 1% of the cases - cherry picked iPhones have a lower TCO over Android.

And even then, you're _only_ counting resale value (which is already
overstated by you by more than 2/3rds!).

Your argument is bogus.
At best, it applies to 1% of all phones sold today.

On 2023-01-05, chop <chop654@gmail.com> wrote:
>> A lot of low-end Android devices have no trade-in value at all.
>
> Sure, but that would still pull the average down.

The entire premise is ridiculous as it applies to 1% of all phones sold.
In 99% of the cases, Android will have a hugely lower TCO than the iPhone.

In 1% of the cases - using cherry picked coupon discounts and cherry picked
carrier trade in hassles, iPhones might have a lower TCO over the Androids.

But even then, he is _only_ counting resale value (which is already
overstated by him by more than 2/3rds!) which is that of a goat turd.

The vast majority of people do not sell or trade in their phone.
Whether Android or iPhone.

Notwithstanding the phone has the value of a goat turd, even if the resale
value calculations didn't need to be cut by 2/3rds, it still doesn't change
the fact that total cost of ownership is more than just residual value.

The entire argument that only the resale value is part of cost of ownership
is absurd.

Who makes an argument that absurd?
Nobody, right?

But he does.

His entire argument is bogus.
At best, it applies to 1% of all phones sold today.

At worst, it applies to none.

On 05/01/2023 9:7, Chris wrote:

> Copying photos off phones is easy regardless of whether they are android or
> ios.

Whoosh back.

Copying photos is irrelevant when we're comparing total cost of maintaining
200GB of photo storage over the lifetime of Android and iPhone devices.

Even if copying photos was relevant, for you to claim Android can't copy
photos is ridiculous - so if your argument depends on that, it's dumb.

Android copies photos.
iPhone copies photos.

They can do it differently but in the end, that's NOT what differientates
the total cost of storing 200GB of photos between Android and iOS devices.

What matters most is iPhone photo storage is always more expensive.

For one, just buying an iPhone with enough storage to maintain the initial
200GB of internal storage just for photos will always cost more than doing
the same for Android. A lot more.

For another, most Android phones allow you to add an inexpensive secondary
storage sd card to add that initial 200GB of photo storage.

That cheap option for sd storage is infinitely less than iPhone storage.

Hence, we've established conclusively, unless you're an idiot, that
1. The iPhone does not have the option of sd storage
2. The Android usually has the option of sd storage
3. That sd storage is infinitely less expensive than internal storage
4. Most likely the iphone internal storage is also more expensive
than the Android internal storage (assuming no sd slot exists).

In EVERY WAY, the iPhone photo storage is always going to be far more
expensive than Android photo storage because Apple designed it that way.

How can you possibly claim otherwise?

On 05/01/2023 3:38, Alan wrote:

> But you get something more for your money.

You buy an iPhone.
Any iPhone.
It doesn't even have the option for 200GB of added inexpensive sd storage.

Apple designed that 200GB of initial photo storage to be very expensive.

IPHONE
So if you need 200GB just for photos, you have to buy an iPhone with at
least 200GB of spare internal storage to store those photos initially.

ANDROID
So if you need 200GB just for photos, you have the option to buy an Anroid
with an sd slot to add that 200GB to hold the initial photo storage.

After that you can copy all you want but if you're taking 200GB of photos
on a trip in Pategonia, you're stuck with whatever storage is on the phone.

And that storage will ALWAYS be far more expensive on Apple iPhones than on
Android phones - simply because Apple purposefully designed it that way.

No other reason.

What you're trying to do is find some way around Apple's design & intent.
And you can't.

Apple designed that 200GB of initial photo storage to be very expensive.

On Wed, 4 Jan 2023 23:35:26 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:

>> Sharing sd card storage is trivial on Android.
>> It's impossible on iOS.
>
> Humour me. How do you share an SD card with five people, simultaneously and
> regardless of where they are in the world? Looking forward to your mental
> gymnastics in this one...
>
> This really is trivial with cloud.

Humour me back.

How do you share a ream of large photos on the iPhone with five people,
simultaneously, and regardless of where you are in the world?

versus

How do you share a ream of large photos on Android with five people,
simultaneously, and regardless of where you are in the world?

This really is trivial with any cloud solution, Android or iPhone.

That you are unaware that cloud solutions exist for Android is starting to
make me wary that you don't know anything of what you're talking about.

Now humour me some more.

How much does it cost per GB of storage on the iPhone to take those photos?
(where the camera stores the photo on the internal storage of that iPhone)

versus

How much does it cost per GB of storage on Android to take those photos?
(where the camera stores the photo on the sd card of that Android phone)

Humour me.
Reply using your basic math skills.

On Fri, 06 Jan 2023 04:26:04 +1100, chop wrote:

>> the reality is that comparable devices cost about the same for both
>> platforms.
>
> That's not true of the iphone 14 Max Pro and Pixel 7 pro or the
> iphone 14 Max Pro and the Samsung S22,

Every statement he has made for his document assumes he clips coupons which
determine exactly which phone he will buy, and he changes carriers and he
changes carrier plans to get those phones at those prices, thereby letting
the coupon terms and conditions determine which phone he will own for the
next few years.

Nobody does that but him.

On Fri, 06 Jan 2023 09:25:37 +1100, grinch <grinch@somewhere.com> wrote:

> On 05/01/2023 9:7, Chris wrote:
>
>> Copying photos off phones is easy regardless of whether they are
>> android or
>> ios.
>
> Whoosh back.
>
> Copying photos is irrelevant when we're comparing total cost of
> maintaining
> 200GB of photo storage over the lifetime of Android and iPhone devices.
>
> Even if copying photos was relevant, for you to claim Android can't copy
> photos is ridiculous - so if your argument depends on that, it's dumb.
>
> Android copies photos.
> iPhone copies photos.
>
> They can do it differently but in the end, that's NOT what differientates
> the total cost of storing 200GB of photos between Android and iOS
> devices.
>
> What matters most is iPhone photo storage is always more expensive.
>
> For one, just buying an iPhone with enough storage to maintain the
> initial
> 200GB of internal storage just for photos will always cost more than
> doing
> the same for Android. A lot more.

Not if you choose to use a sd card adapter on the lightning port of the
iphone.

> For another, most Android phones allow you to add an inexpensive
> secondary
> storage sd card to add that initial 200GB of photo storage. That cheap
> option for sd storage is infinitely less than iPhone storage.

Not if you choose to use a sd card adapter on the lightning port of the
iphone.

> Hence, we've established conclusively, unless you're an idiot, that1.
> The iPhone does not have the option of sd storage

Yes it does.

> 2. The Android usually has the option of sd storage
> 3. That sd storage is infinitely less expensive than internal storage

But can be done on an iphone.

> 4. Most likely the iphone internal storage is also more expensive
> than the Android internal storage (assuming no sd slot exists).

Nope,

> In EVERY WAY, the iPhone photo storage is always going to be far more
> expensive than Android photo storage

Nope.

> because Apple designed it that way.

> How can you possibly claim otherwise?

By realising that it is perfectly possible to have an sd card on an iphone
if you want to.

On Fri, 06 Jan 2023 09:32:45 +1100, grinch <grinch@somewhere.com> wrote:

> On 05/01/2023 3:38, Alan wrote:
>
>> But you get something more for your money.
>
> You buy an iPhone.
> Any iPhone.
> It doesn't even have the option for 200GB of added inexpensive sd
> storage.

Yes it does with an sd card adapter that plugs into the lightning port.

> Apple designed that 200GB of initial photo storage to be very expensive.
>
> IPHONE
> So if you need 200GB just for photos, you have to buy an iPhone with at
> least 200GB of spare internal storage to store those photos initially.

Nope, you can add an sd card adapter that plugs into the lightning port.

> ANDROID
> So if you need 200GB just for photos, you have the option to buy an
> Anroid
> with an sd slot to add that 200GB to hold the initial photo storage.
>
> After that you can copy all you want but if you're taking 200GB of photos
> on a trip in Pategonia, you're stuck with whatever storage is on the
> phone.

Nope, even Patagonia has cellphone coverage.

> And that storage will ALWAYS be far more expensive on Apple iPhones than
> on
> Android phones - simply because Apple purposefully designed it that way.

Nope.

> No other reason.
>
> What you're trying to do is find some way around Apple's design & intent.
> And you can't.

Yes you can.

> Apple designed that 200GB of initial photo storage to be very expensive.

But you don't have to use the internal storage.

On Fri, 06 Jan 2023 09:45:26 +1100, Jerry <Jerry@jerrythinks.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 06 Jan 2023 04:26:04 +1100, chop wrote:
>
>>> the reality is that comparable devices cost about the same for both
>>> platforms.
>> That's not true of the iphone 14 Max Pro and Pixel 7 pro or the
>> iphone 14 Max Pro and the Samsung S22,
>
> Every statement he has made for his document assumes he clips coupons
> which
> determine exactly which phone he will buy, and he changes carriers and he
> changes carrier plans to get those phones at those prices,

No, he sometimes just ADDS another carrier to get the attractive
offer and gets them to unlock the phone as soon as the law forces
them to do that.

> thereby letting
> the coupon terms and conditions determine which phone he will own for the
> next few years.

No,

> Nobody does that but him.

That's wrong too. Plenty do in fact choose to use the carrier
which gives them the best price for the handset they want.

On 2023-01-05 14:32, grinch wrote:
> On 05/01/2023 3:38, Alan wrote:
>
>> But you get something more for your money.
>
> You buy an iPhone.
> Any iPhone.
> It doesn't even have the option for 200GB of added inexpensive sd storage.

It has the option of adding inexpensive cloud storage.

>
> Apple designed that 200GB of initial photo storage to be very expensive.

That's just false.

>
> IPHONE
> So if you need 200GB just for photos, you have to buy an iPhone with at
> least 200GB of spare internal storage to store those photos initially.

Only if you assume you'll take 200GB of photos before you have a chance
to sync your photo store with the cloud.

>
> ANDROID
> So if you need 200GB just for photos, you have the option to buy an Anroid
> with an sd slot to add that 200GB to hold the initial photo storage.

And with the Mac, you have the option to buy an Lightning SD card
adapter for the princely sum of $10.

<yawn>

>
> After that you can copy all you want but if you're taking 200GB of photos
> on a trip in Pategonia, you're stuck with whatever storage is on the phone.

Bzzzzt. Wrong again.

>
> And that storage will ALWAYS be far more expensive on Apple iPhones than on
> Android phones - simply because Apple purposefully designed it that way.
>
> No other reason.
>
> What you're trying to do is find some way around Apple's design & intent.
> And you can't.
>
> Apple designed that 200GB of initial photo storage to be very expensive.

Bzzzzzt.

On Fri, 06 Jan 2023 10:18:37 +1100, chop wrote:

>> Nobody does that but him.
>
> That's wrong too. Plenty do in fact choose to use the carrier
> which gives them the best price for the handset they want.

He says only Verizon gives him the coverage he needs.
So he's not going switch if T-Mobile gives him a good deal.

The point being all his assumptions are bogus.
He won't even make them in real life.

Just on paper.
And just to skew the answer to what he wants it to be.

He has to skew the stats to get around that Apple designed the iPhone to be
far more expensive to operate in almost all ways that consumers may use it.

On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 11:30:38 -0500, nospam wrote:

>> carriers, and because it has a relatively high trade-in value, that it
>> could actually have a net cost of less than $0.
>
> only if someone jumps through a lot of hoops to get discounts, which
> has its own cost in time & effort.

Not only does he assume people clip coupons to determine which phone they
will buy in the high end (which people may do for the low end, but not for
the high end), he also assumes that the ONLY measure of total cost of
ownership is resale value - which is bogus.

What's more bogus is he assumes everyone resells or trades in their phones
when his own numbers show 2/3rds of people don't bother with that hassle.

Even more bogus is he eliminates all the Android phones that are in markets
that Apple doesn't even try to compete in, all of which are competitive.

Every assumption of his is to wring out his foregone but false conclusion.

>> The fact remains, for comparable devices, the total cost of ownership is
>> not much different between iPhones and Android phones. You pay less for
>> the Android phone initially, but it's also worth a lot less when you
>> decide to upgrade.
>
> wow, you said something that's almost completely true.

Actually it's not even close to true.
It only comes closer if you ignore almost all Android phones sold today.

> the only thing you got wrong is that android devices cost less
> initially.

The average selling price of Android is much less than that of iPhone.

>
> the reality is that comparable devices cost about the same for both
> platforms.

wow, you said something that's almost completely true.

What you missed is the total cost of ownership for those two devices is
what makes iPhones cost far more than Android. For example, the cost of
adding another 128GB of storage for Android initial photo storage is almost
nothing with sd cards but an extra 128GB of initial photo storage is
immensely more expensive for iPhones.

The apps are more expensive for iPhone (if we look at typical whale stats).
The accessories are more expensive for iPhone (if we look at MFR prices).
The repairs are more expensive for iPhone (if we look at MFR repairs).

Almost everything is more expensive for the iPhone than it is for Android.
Apple designed it that way.

�s there any manufacturer cost on an iPhone that people typically purchase
�hat is NOT more expensive than the same manufacturer bought item on Android?

Show me the two prices for equivalent items people typical buy for each.
From the manufacturer's own web site (so as to compare apples to apples).