On 06/01/2023 0:24, Alan wrote:

>> It doesn't even have the option for 200GB of added inexpensive sd storage.
>
> It has the option of adding inexpensive cloud storage.

How stupid are you?
The iPhone will always be more expensive for photo storage than Android.

Where do you think a camera app PUTS the pictures it just took?
You actually think the camera app stores photos directly to the cloud!

This is over as you're an idiot.
You don't know something as simple as where photos go when they are snapped.

On 2023-01-05 22:25:37 +0000, grinch said:
> 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.
<snip>

Ahh, you want to go down that kind of idiotic route.

Okay, buying an adapter and a portable 2TB hard drive for the iPhone
probably works out a lot cheaper than buying the equivalent storage
space in SSD cards for an Android phone. Plus the drive can easily be
plugged into any computer (might need a USB adapter, but that's cheaper
than an SSD reader) and the photos are all stored in one place rather
than all over various separate fiddly little cards.

The reality is people buy the phone they can afford and for most people
that means a cheap-ass Android phone, which will ALWAYS be worse then a
high-end Android phone or an iPhone. But ask most people which they
*want* to buy (ignoring the price), and the iPhone usually tops the
polls.

Continually arguing about which is better is simply a game for
brainless imbeciles ... and constantly cross-posting this utter shit is
an obvious sign of moronic trolls.

On 2023-01-05 15:45, grinch wrote:
> On 06/01/2023 0:24, Alan wrote:
>
>>> It doesn't even have the option for 200GB of added inexpensive sd
>>> storage.
>>
>> It has the option of adding inexpensive cloud storage.
>
> How stupid are you?
> The iPhone will always be more expensive for photo storage than Android.

By $10...

....once.

>
> Where do you think a camera app PUTS the pictures it just took?
> You actually think the camera app stores photos directly to the cloud!

When the iPhone is connected to the cloud?

Yes. It does.

They go to the phone, and then they get shunted to the cloud and the
space on the phone is freed up.

>
> This is over as you're an idiot.
> You don't know something as simple as where photos go when they are
> snapped.

On 1/5/2023 2:45 PM, Jerry 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, thereby letting
> the coupon terms and conditions determine which phone he will own for the
> next few years.

Untrue. I do not change carriers often.

I've had the same carrier for seven years now (Total Wireless, now owned
by Verizon). Prior to that I was on AT&T's Cricket for several years.

Sometimes I buy new phones from the carrier, sometimes I buy unlocked
phones direct from the manufacturer.

In the San Francisco Bay Area, if you want adequate coverage, you must
be on Verizon unless you never leave the urban core of towns. See
<https://i.imgur.com/QOqnAVP.png>. We often visit those areas that are
only covered by Verizon.

On 1/5/2023 11:50 AM, chop wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Jan 2023 04:32:06 +1100, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

<snip>

>> A lot of low-end Android devices have no trade-in value at all.
>
> Sure, but that would still pull the average down.

They're only looking at phones that are actually traded in so the
worthless low-end Android phones would not pull the average down.

About 35% of phones are traded-in or resold which is a significant
percentage. I suspect that most of the Android devices, other than some
Samsung Galaxy S and Note models, are never used again, the manufacturer
or carrier inflates the trade-in value as a way to get subscribers to
sign up for financing a new phone as a de-facto new contract.

On Thu, 5 Jan 2023 17:03:36 -0800, sms wrote:

> About 35% of phones are traded-in or resold which is a significant
> percentage.

You are so frantic to make the math work out that you make preposterous
illogical claims that 65% of people is NOT a significant percentage?

65% is most people.
Most people do not trade in or sell their phones.

Even if they did, you still have to multiply your bogus tradein/resale
values by 0.35% in order to get any statistically valid residual value.

If you claim $500 in residual value, that's really only $175 statistically.

And you STILL don't understand that total cost of ownership is a lot more
than simply your bogus highly inflated numbers for residual value.

> I suspect that most of the Android devices, other than some
> Samsung Galaxy S and Note models, are never used again, the manufacturer
> or carrier inflates the trade-in value as a way to get subscribers to
> sign up for financing a new phone as a de-facto new contract.

You have no clue Apple crushes the vast majority of iPhones it takes in
tradeins, and, in fact, Apple sued its contractors for NOT crushing them.

The last thing Apple wants on the market is a used iPhone.
Apple only says that they want it but they crush 95% of the phones traded.

If even 5% of the traded in iPhones are actually resold, it'd be a miracle.

On Thu, 5 Jan 2023 16:54:05 -0800, sms wrote:

> Untrue. I do not change carriers often.

If T-Mobile offered a plan which was the same price as you're paying now,
and if with that plan came a free iPhone, would you take them up on it?

>
> I've had the same carrier for seven years now (Total Wireless, now owned
> by Verizon). Prior to that I was on AT&T's Cricket for several years.

But you're not the norm.
The typical smartphone owner stays on the plan that they're currently on.

>
> Sometimes I buy new phones from the carrier, sometimes I buy unlocked
> phones direct from the manufacturer.

Most people walk into the Apple or carrier store and ask their advice.
They walk out of that store with everything they need to use that phone.

>
> In the San Francisco Bay Area, if you want adequate coverage, you must
> be on Verizon unless you never leave the urban core of towns. See
> <https://i.imgur.com/QOqnAVP.png>. We often visit those areas that are
> only covered by Verizon.

Why can't you run a test picking two similar priced phones right now?

1. Let's go to the San Francisco Bay Area Verizon site (if it exists).
2. Let's pick a thousand dollar Android & iPhone on that Verizon site.
3. Let's buy all the typical accessories from that site (if not supplied).

Pick accessories that fit the phone.
Don't play the game nospam played which was to assume people will use
accessories that aren't designed for the phone just to make cost work out.

You have to have the same (or similar) amount of the basics, which is the
same amount of RAM, a similar battery size, and the same amount of storage.

All from the same Verizon web site (so you don't play games with the math).

What's the cost, today, using Verizon San Francisco figures, of those two?
I can tell you what you're going to find out without even looking.

The Android phone, when fully equipped properly, is ALWAYS going to be much
less expensive than the iPhone (because Apple designed it to be that way).

Please run the math and provide the URL to the two phones & accessories.

On Fri, 06 Jan 2023 10:34:58 +1100, Jerry <Jerry@jerrythinks.com> wrote:

> 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.

Irrelevant to what is the case for most smartphone purchasers.

> So he's not going switch if T-Mobile gives him a good deal.

But he doesn't need to switch to use them for
a good offer, just take advantage of the offer
and then unlock the phone as soon as possible.

> The point being all his assumptions are bogus.

That's wrong. Yes it is true that particularly
with the top of the range phones, most don't
care about the total cost of ownership, but
that doesn't mean that no one does.

> He won't even make them in real life.

He does in fact with trade in value,
taking advantage of some offers etc.

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

That's wrong too with TCO.

> 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.

That last is a lie. You are free to use an sd card adapter if you want to
and to use an alternative to the apple cloud as well if you don't like
their prices and to backup to other than anyone's cloud too.

On 1/5/2023 6:03 PM, Jerry wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Jan 2023 16:54:05 -0800, sms wrote:
>
>> Untrue. I do not change carriers often.
>
> If T-Mobile offered a plan which was the same price as you're paying now,
> and if with that plan came a free iPhone, would you take them up on it?

No. We travel all over the Bay Area, all over California, and all over
the U.S.. T-Mobile would not work for us. It also has terrible coverage
at our house. I can see the fake tree AT&T and Verizon tower from my
upstairs windows and coverage is excellent. Also, the "free" iPhones are
not really free, but you knew that already.

> But you're not the norm.
> The typical smartphone owner stays on the plan that they're currently on.

They do not. They may stay with the same carrier, but the plans that
they're on have changed over time as data limits increased or went away
completely. You should look at the monthly churn rates for each carrier
which indicates those who change carriers. They don't publish statistics
on who changes plans.

>> Sometimes I buy new phones from the carrier, sometimes I buy unlocked
>> phones direct from the manufacturer.
>
> Most people walk into the Apple or carrier store and ask their advice.
> They walk out of that store with everything they need to use that phone.

Untrue in the U.S. where it's presently about 50% online 50% physical
store, and that was in 2021, by now it's likely higher online.

>> In the San Francisco Bay Area, if you want adequate coverage, you must
>> be on Verizon unless you never leave the urban core of towns. See
>> <https://i.imgur.com/QOqnAVP.png>. We often visit those areas that are
>> only covered by Verizon.
>
> Why can't you run a test picking two similar priced phones right now?
>
> 1. Let's go to the San Francisco Bay Area Verizon site (if it exists).
> 2. Let's pick a thousand dollar Android & iPhone on that Verizon site.
> 3. Let's buy all the typical accessories from that site (if not supplied).

Why would you do that? It's not typical of how most people buy phones.

You have made so many false assumptions that it's impossible to keep up!

In article <tp7rff$2v6fc$2@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> In the San Francisco Bay Area, if you want adequate coverage, you must
> be on Verizon unless you never leave the urban core of towns.

false.

On Fri, 06 Jan 2023 13:03:03 +1100, Jerry <Jerry@jerrythinks.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 5 Jan 2023 16:54:05 -0800, sms wrote:
>
>> Untrue. I do not change carriers often.
>
> If T-Mobile offered a plan which was the same price as you're paying now,
> and if with that plan came a free iPhone, would you take them up on it?
>
>> I've had the same carrier for seven years now (Total Wireless, now
>> owned by Verizon). Prior to that I was on AT&T's Cricket for several
>> years.
>
> But you're not the norm.
> The typical smartphone owner stays on the plan that they're currently on.
>
>> Sometimes I buy new phones from the carrier, sometimes I buy unlocked
>> phones direct from the manufacturer.
>
> Most people walk into the Apple or carrier store and ask their advice.
> They walk out of that store with everything they need to use that phone.
>
>> In the San Francisco Bay Area, if you want adequate coverage, you must
>> be on Verizon unless you never leave the urban core of towns. See
>> <https://i.imgur.com/QOqnAVP.png>. We often visit those areas that are
>> only covered by Verizon.
>
> Why can't you run a test picking two similar priced phones right now?
>
> 1. Let's go to the San Francisco Bay Area Verizon site (if it exists).
> 2. Let's pick a thousand dollar Android & iPhone on that Verizon site.
> 3. Let's buy all the typical accessories from that site (if not
> supplied).
>
> Pick accessories that fit the phone.
> Don't play the game nospam played which was to assume people will use
> accessories that aren't designed for the phone just to make cost work
> out.
>
> You have to have the same (or similar) amount of the basics, which is the
> same amount of RAM, a similar battery size, and the same amount of
> storage.
>
> All from the same Verizon web site (so you don't play games with the
> math).
>
> What's the cost, today, using Verizon San Francisco figures, of those
> two?
> I can tell you what you're going to find out without even looking.

> The Android phone, when fully equipped properly, is ALWAYS going to be
> much
> less expensive than the iPhone

Bullshit.

> (because Apple designed it to be that way).

But you are free to do it as cheaply as can be done with an android
if you want to.

> Please run the math and provide the URL to the two phones & accessories.

On Thu, 5 Jan 2023 18:44:41 -0800, sms wrote:

>> If T-Mobile offered a plan which was the same price as you're paying now,
>> and if with that plan came a free iPhone, would you take them up on it?
>
> No.

Then you proved my point that your entire argument that people "shop
around" to (figuratively speaking) "clip coupons" is a complete farce.

> We travel all over the Bay Area, all over California, and all over
> the U.S.. T-Mobile would not work for us. It also has terrible coverage
> at our house. I can see the fake tree AT&T and Verizon tower from my
> upstairs windows and coverage is excellent. Also, the "free" iPhones are
> not really free, but you knew that already.

I knew everything you would say & I know that your entire premise is bogus.

What I don't know is why you are so determined to "prove" that under the
most oddly insane of conditions, the iPhone has a lower cost of ownership.

The iPhone is designed by Apple to have a higher total cost of ownership.
You think you're smarter than Apple?

You're not. Neither am I. Nobody is.
The iPhone will always have the higher total cost of ownership.

Apple designs the entire ecosystem to be that way.

>
>> But you're not the norm.
>> The typical smartphone owner stays on the plan that they're currently on.
>
> They do not. They may stay with the same carrier,

At least you admit they stay on the same carrier becasue if you denied
that, it would be just another one of your bogus arguments intent on trying
to prove that the iPhone is NOT the most expensive smartphone to own.

> but the plans that
> they're on have changed over time as data limits increased or went away
> completely.

That I wasn't speaking to, and I, myself, have been grandfathered, as you
must know the carriers OFTEN change their plans but they almost always
grandfather the existing customers.

> You should look at the monthly churn rates for each carrier
> which indicates those who change carriers. They don't publish statistics
> on who changes plans.

No. YOU should look at the monthly churn rate. Not me.

You're the one trying to disprove that the iPhone is always going to be the
most expensive smartphone to maintain. Not me.

>
>>> Sometimes I buy new phones from the carrier, sometimes I buy unlocked
>>> phones direct from the manufacturer.
>>
>> Most people walk into the Apple or carrier store and ask their advice.
>> They walk out of that store with everything they need to use that phone.
>
> Untrue in the U.S. where it's presently about 50% online 50% physical
> store, and that was in 2021, by now it's likely higher online.

It doesn't matter all your excuses as to why Android is always going to be
far lower in to total operating cost than the iPhone.

Pick any store you want.

Pick an Apple store against the Samsung web site.
Pick a Verizon store and choose an iPhone and an Android phone.
Pick an AT&T or T-Mobile store and choose equivalent Android & iPhone.

It won't matter.
The iPhone will almost always come out as more expensive in the long run.

Apple designs it that way.
All your phony machinations can't change that which Apple's strategy is.

>
>>> In the San Francisco Bay Area, if you want adequate coverage, you must
>>> be on Verizon unless you never leave the urban core of towns. See
>>> <https://i.imgur.com/QOqnAVP.png>. We often visit those areas that are
>>> only covered by Verizon.
>>
>> Why can't you run a test picking two similar priced phones right now?
>>
>> 1. Let's go to the San Francisco Bay Area Verizon site (if it exists).
>> 2. Let's pick a thousand dollar Android & iPhone on that Verizon site.
>> 3. Let's buy all the typical accessories from that site (if not supplied).
>
> Why would you do that? It's not typical of how most people buy phones.

Again, pick any store you want.
Pick a Verizon, T-Mobile, AT&T, Apple, Target, Best Buy, whatever.

Given Samsung outsells all Androids, you should pick a Samsung and then
pick whatever iPhone you think is equivalent and use those two phones.

1. Point to the URL of the price of that Samsung and that iPhone.
2. Add up all the normal accessories at that same store (whatever it is).
3. Add real costs such as tax, shipping & handling, AppleCare,
assume one battery is replaced, assume case and screen is bought,
if a charger doesn't come with it then pick the appropriate charger
for that high end phone at that same store, and same with a cable.

Why don't you do this simple test?
I know why.
So do you.

You will ALWAYS find the iPhone will come out (much) more expensive.

>
> You have made so many false assumptions that it's impossible to keep up!

Don't denigrate me because you have no way to respond to my queries.

Every single one of my statements are based on the math of TCO.
Every one of yours is based to skew that TCO math to absurd proportions.

You are frantically trying to find a cherry-picked absurd scenario
where you can claim you finally found one Android phone and one iPhone
where that Android phone actually cost more to operate than the iPhone.

And yet, you haven't yet found that special cherry picked set of phones.
You can't even find a store.

How absurd is that?

Just pick a Samsung and an iPhone at ANY outlet you want.
Pick the necessary common accessories at that same outlet.
Add up the local tax for wherever it is that YOU live.

Why don't you do it.
I know why.
So do you.

If you did, it would show that iPhones are always more expensive to operate
than Android & that's why you won't and can't just pick a store & phones.

On Fri, 06 Jan 2023 15:24:58 +1100, Jerry <Jerry@jerrythinks.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 5 Jan 2023 18:44:41 -0800, sms wrote:
>
>>> If T-Mobile offered a plan which was the same price as you're paying
>>> now,
>>> and if with that plan came a free iPhone, would you take them up on it?
>> No.
>
> Then you proved my point that your entire argument that people "shop
> around" to (figuratively speaking) "clip coupons" is a complete farce.
>
>> We travel all over the Bay Area, all over California, and all over the
>> U.S.. T-Mobile would not work for us. It also has terrible coverage at
>> our house. I can see the fake tree AT&T and Verizon tower from my
>> upstairs windows and coverage is excellent. Also, the "free" iPhones
>> are not really free, but you knew that already.
>
> I knew everything you would say & I know that your entire premise is
> bogus.
>
> What I don't know is why you are so determined to "prove" that under the
> most oddly insane of conditions, the iPhone has a lower cost of
> ownership.
>
> The iPhone is designed by Apple to have a higher total cost of ownership.
> You think you're smarter than Apple?

Easy to be smart enough to get a sd card adapter for
your iphone if you want to have the same low cost
as you can get with some androids and end up better
off with the higher trade in or resale value.

> You're not. Neither am I. Nobody is.

Bullshit.

> The iPhone will always have the higher total cost of ownership.

Bullshit.

> Apple designs the entire ecosystem to be that way.

But you are free to do an end run around that if you want to.

>>> But you're not the norm.
>>> The typical smartphone owner stays on the plan that they're currently
>>> on.
>> They do not. They may stay with the same carrier,
>
> At least you admit they stay on the same carrier becasue if you denied
> that, it would be just another one of your bogus arguments intent on
> trying
> to prove that the iPhone is NOT the most expensive smartphone to own.
>
>> but the plans that they're on have changed over time as data limits
>> increased or went away completely.
>
> That I wasn't speaking to, and I, myself, have been grandfathered, as you
> must know the carriers OFTEN change their plans but they almost always
> grandfather the existing customers.
>
>> You should look at the monthly churn rates for each carrier which
>> indicates those who change carriers. They don't publish statistics on
>> who changes plans.
>
> No. YOU should look at the monthly churn rate. Not me.
>
> You're the one trying to disprove that the iPhone is always going to be
> the
> most expensive smartphone to maintain. Not me.
>
>
>>
>>>> Sometimes I buy new phones from the carrier, sometimes I buy unlocked
>>>> phones direct from the manufacturer.
>>> Most people walk into the Apple or carrier store and ask their advice.
>>> They walk out of that store with everything they need to use that
>>> phone.
>> Untrue in the U.S. where it's presently about 50% online 50% physical
>> store, and that was in 2021, by now it's likely higher online.
>
> It doesn't matter all your excuses as to why Android is always going to
> be
> far lower in to total operating cost than the iPhone. Pick any store you
> want. Pick an Apple store against the Samsung web site.
> Pick a Verizon store and choose an iPhone and an Android phone.
> Pick an AT&T or T-Mobile store and choose equivalent Android & iPhone.
>
> It won't matter.
> The iPhone will almost always come out as more expensive in the long run.
>
> Apple designs it that way.
> All your phony machinations can't change that which Apple's strategy is.
>
>>
>>>> In the San Francisco Bay Area, if you want adequate coverage, you
>>>> must be on Verizon unless you never leave the urban core of towns.
>>>> See <https://i.imgur.com/QOqnAVP.png>. We often visit those areas
>>>> that are only covered by Verizon.
>>> Why can't you run a test picking two similar priced phones right now?
>>> 1. Let's go to the San Francisco Bay Area Verizon site (if it exists).
>>> 2. Let's pick a thousand dollar Android & iPhone on that Verizon site.
>>> 3. Let's buy all the typical accessories from that site (if not
>>> supplied).
>> Why would you do that? It's not typical of how most people buy phones.
>
> Again, pick any store you want.
> Pick a Verizon, T-Mobile, AT&T, Apple, Target, Best Buy, whatever.
>
> Given Samsung outsells all Androids, you should pick a Samsung and then
> pick whatever iPhone you think is equivalent and use those two phones.
>
> 1. Point to the URL of the price of that Samsung and that iPhone.
> 2. Add up all the normal accessories at that same store (whatever it is).
> 3. Add real costs such as tax, shipping & handling, AppleCare, assume
> one battery is replaced, assume case and screen is bought, if a
> charger doesn't come with it then pick the appropriate charger
> for that high end phone at that same store, and same with a cable.
>
> Why don't you do this simple test?
> I know why. So do you.
>
> You will ALWAYS find the iPhone will come out (much) more expensive.
>
>> You have made so many false assumptions that it's impossible to keep
>> up!
>
> Don't denigrate me because you have no way to respond to my queries.
>
> Every single one of my statements are based on the math of TCO.
> Every one of yours is based to skew that TCO math to absurd proportions.
>
> You are frantically trying to find a cherry-picked absurd scenario where
> you can claim you finally found one Android phone and one iPhone
> where that Android phone actually cost more to operate than the iPhone.
>
> And yet, you haven't yet found that special cherry picked set of phones.
> You can't even find a store.
>
> How absurd is that?
>
> Just pick a Samsung and an iPhone at ANY outlet you want.
> Pick the necessary common accessories at that same outlet.
> Add up the local tax for wherever it is that YOU live.
>
> Why don't you do it.
> I know why.
> So do you.
>
> If you did, it would show that iPhones are always more expensive to
> operate
> than Android & that's why you won't and can't just pick a store & phones.

On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 22:09:30 -0500, nospam wrote:

>> In the San Francisco Bay Area, if you want adequate coverage, you must
>> be on Verizon unless you never leave the urban core of towns.
>
> false.

His answer when I asked if he would take a free iPhone from T-Mobile is
that he won't - which means that his premise people switch carriers just to
get a good deal on expensive iPhones is something even he said he won't do.

Nobody does the horribly complex machinations he is proposing just to have
any hope to make costs of owning and operating an iPhone less than Android.

He's trying to find a way around Apple's fundamental marketing strategy.

His goal to find a way around Apple's strategy of ensuring the iPhone has
the highest total cost of ownership is and was always doomed to fail.

Why?
Apple designed it that way.

He thinks he's smarter than Apple is.
He's not.
Nobody is.

The iPhone is designed to have higher total costs of ownership.
Android isn't.

On Fri, 06 Jan 2023 16:08:24 +1100, Jerry <Jerry@jerrythinks.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 22:09:30 -0500, nospam wrote:
>
>>> In the San Francisco Bay Area, if you want adequate coverage, you must
>>> be on Verizon unless you never leave the urban core of towns.
>> false.
>
> His answer when I asked if he would take a free iPhone from T-Mobile is
> that he won't - which means that his premise people switch carriers just
> to
> get a good deal on expensive iPhones is something even he said he won't
> do.
>
> Nobody does the horribly complex machinations he is proposing just to
> have
> any hope to make costs of owning and operating an iPhone less than
> Android.

Nothing horribly complex about buying an iphone for the better
trade in or resale value and doing the phone backup other than
the cloud.

> He's trying to find a way around Apple's fundamental marketing strategy.

And that is available to anyone who has even half a clue.

> His goal to find a way around Apple's strategy of ensuring the iPhone has
> the highest total cost of ownership is

And anyone with even half a clue can do that.

> and was always doomed to fail.

Bullshit.

> Why?
> Apple designed it that way.

But its trivial to do an end run around that.

> He thinks he's smarter than Apple is.
> He's not.
> Nobody is.

Bullshit.

> The iPhone is designed to have higher total costs of ownership.

And its trivial to do an end run around that.

> Android isn't.

The ones with no sd card slot do precisely what apple has done
and dont have as good a tradein and resale value.

On 1/5/2023 8:24 PM, Jerry wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Jan 2023 18:44:41 -0800, sms wrote:
>
>>> If T-Mobile offered a plan which was the same price as you're paying
>>> now,
>>> and if with that plan came a free iPhone, would you take them up on it?
>>
>> No.
>
> Then you proved my point that your entire argument that people "shop
> around" to (figuratively speaking) "clip coupons" is a complete farce.

No idea who claimed that, but it wasn't me. I generally buy phones
direct from my carrier because they usually, but not always, offer lower
prices than purchasing from the manufacturer or at a big box store.

I do check the prices between buying from the carrier and buying from
the manufacturer before purchasing.

I'm preparing for traveling so I wanted a phone with the best camera so
I recently did by a Google Pixel 7 Pro direct from the manufacturer
which offered the best price. But the previous Android flagship I
purchased, a Samsung Note 9, came from the carrier who charged $300 less
than Samsung was charging, but it was locked for 12 months (the lock
time is now only 60 days on phones purchased directly from my carrier).

I also know people that like upgrading their phones much more often than
the average person and are willing to pay much higher monthly wireless
bills in order to get a "free" or heavily discounted iPhone.

>
>> We travel all over the Bay Area, all over California, and all over the
>> U.S.. T-Mobile would not work for us. It also has terrible coverage at
>> our house. I can see the fake tree AT&T and Verizon tower from my
>> upstairs windows and coverage is excellent. Also, the "free" iPhones
>> are not really free, but you knew that already.
>
> I knew everything you would say & I know that your entire premise is bogus.

LOL. T-Mobile even gave my IT director some SIM cards because he was
trying to get two hundred lines moved from Verizon. We tried them out,
including me. It would have saved about $4000 per month but the coverage
was unacceptable.

I currently have a T-Mobile eSIM in my iPhone, with my Verizon/Total
Wireless physical SIM.
Here's a SpeedTest I did just now (a little before 8 a.m. 6 Jan 2023):
<https://i.imgur.com/oriUFJP.jpeg>. This is actually a big improvement
for T-Mobile, since in December 2022 I got 13.1 Mb/s down, 0.24Mb/s up,
and 39ms ping. And remember, Verizon's Total prepaid service is
deprioritized, but T-Mobile's trial with an eSIM is not.

> What I don't know is why you are so determined to "prove" that under the
> most oddly insane of conditions, the iPhone has a lower cost of ownership.

I never claimed that the cost of ownership of an iPhone was lower, just
that the cost of comparable Android phones and iPhones was not very
different.

> The iPhone is designed by Apple to have a higher total cost of ownership.
> You think you're smarter than Apple?

Apple is able to sell at higher margins because they have no competition
for iOS devices. It is true that they've delayed moving to USB-C because
of the royalties on Lightning devices, but the Lightning connector
preceded USB-C and was much better than Micro-USB.

<snip>

> At least you admit they stay on the same carrier becasue if you denied
> that, it would be just another one of your bogus arguments intent on trying
> to prove that the iPhone is NOT the most expensive smartphone to own.

There is churn between carriers, you can look at the churn figures, and
remember that they report _monthly_ churn for the quarter, it's not
three months of churn. It's way down from the past where postpaid churn
rates of 2-3% were common, now it's around 1% churn. But that still
means that about 12% of subscribers change carriers each year.

<snip>

> That I wasn't speaking to, and I, myself, have been grandfathered, as you
> must know the carriers OFTEN change their plans but they almost always
> grandfather the existing customers.

Often people on "grandfathered" plans actually pay a lot more than they
have to because those old plans often have very low data amounts, but
they don't realize that they're paying much more than they have to
because they assume that prices are always going to go up.

>> You should look at the monthly churn rates for each carrier which
>> indicates those who change carriers. They don't publish statistics on
>> who changes plans.
>
> No. YOU should look at the monthly churn rate. Not me.

LOL, I already have. But I can understand that you don't like what those
churn rates prove!

You need to learn to look at the big picture and base your statements on
factual data that you can back up with references and citations. That
will enable you to gain the credibility that you presently lack.

On 1/5/2023 9:03 PM, chop wrote:

<snip>

> Easy to be smart enough to get a sd card adapter for
> your iphone if you want to have the same low cost
> as you can get with some androids and end up better
> off with the higher trade in or resale value.

It's a hassle and one more thing to carry.

Of course most flagship Android devices have dropped the MicroSD card as
well. Sony has retained the MicroSD card slot on the Sony Xperia 1 IV,
Sony Xperia Pro-I, and Sony Xperia 1 III.

However it goes beyond just transferring photos. If you’re using a real
camera instead of the phone’s camera, and want to send photos using
e-mail or Facebook, or other programs, you can stick the memory card
from the camera into your phone to transfer photos. If you’re using an
offline mapping program the maps can take vast amounts of storage space
and can be stored on the MicroSD card.

On 1/5/2023 9:08 PM, Jerry wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 22:09:30 -0500, nospam wrote:
>
>>> In the San Francisco Bay Area, if you want adequate coverage, you
>>> must be on Verizon unless you never leave the urban core of towns.
>>
>> false.
>
> His answer when I asked if he would take a free iPhone from T-Mobile is
> that he won't - which means that his premise people switch carriers just to
> get a good deal on expensive iPhones is something even he said he won't do.

Wow, you really have a lot to learn! While no one is going to change to
a carrier with poor coverage, regardless of some great deal they may get
on a new phone, people can and do move between carriers for multiple
reasons, including lower monthly costs and promotions on new devices.
They also move between prepaid and postpaid on the same carrier, and
MVNOs and carrier's own plans.

Would I move to a different Verizon provider? Yes. I'll likely do that
in 2024 because Verizon will no longer be required to offer the plan I'm
currently on ($95 for four lines with 100GB high-speed data shared);
they've already stopped offering this plan to new subscribers. Visible
by Verizon and US Mobile both offer good plans. Surprisingly, Boost
offers good plans on AT&T's network though native AT&T coverage is not
quite as good as native Verizon coverage (plus Visible now includes
off-network roaming).

The bottom line is that you need to learn to look at the big picture,
taking into account all the facts regarding cost of ownership, not make
up fantastic stories that don't represent how most people normally behave.

On 2023-01-06 08:42, sms wrote:
> On 1/5/2023 9:03 PM, chop wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Easy to be smart enough to get a sd card adapter for
>> your iphone if you want to have the same low cost
>> as you can get with some androids and end up better
>> off with the higher trade in or resale value.
>
> It's a hassle and one more thing to carry.
>
> Of course most flagship Android devices have dropped the MicroSD card as
> well. Sony has retained the MicroSD card slot on the Sony Xperia 1 IV,
> Sony Xperia Pro-I, and Sony Xperia 1 III.
>
> However it goes beyond just transferring photos. If you’re using a real
> camera instead of the phone’s camera, and want to send photos using
> e-mail or Facebook, or other programs, you can stick the memory card
> from the camera into your phone to transfer photos. If you’re using an
> offline mapping program the maps can take vast amounts of storage space
> and can be stored on the MicroSD card.

And if you're using a "real camera" and carrying a phone...

....is it really so difficult to carry one tiny adapter?

On 1/6/2023 9:13 AM, sms wrote:

> I generally buy phones direct from my carrier because they usually,
> but not always, offer lower prices than purchasing from the
> manufacturer or at a big box store.

Verizon gave me a $300 discount off my Galaxy S10. BUT... I only got the
discount if I used their 2 year payment plan and the discount was
deducted monthly. So if I left early I lost the discount. Sneaky, huh.

But since I've been with Verizon since the beginning and don't plan to
change I thought why not. Now that it's 3 1/2 years later I'm glad I did
it. And the phone is still working great...

On Sat, 07 Jan 2023 03:13:20 +1100, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> On 1/5/2023 8:24 PM, Jerry wrote:
>> On Thu, 5 Jan 2023 18:44:41 -0800, sms wrote:
>>
>>>> If T-Mobile offered a plan which was the same price as you're paying
>>>> now,
>>>> and if with that plan came a free iPhone, would you take them up on
>>>> it?
>>>
>>> No.
>> Then you proved my point that your entire argument that people "shop
>> around" to (figuratively speaking) "clip coupons" is a complete farce.
>
> No idea who claimed that, but it wasn't me. I generally buy phones
> direct from my carrier because they usually, but not always, offer lower
> prices than purchasing from the manufacturer or at a big box store.
>
> I do check the prices between buying from the carrier and buying from
> the manufacturer before purchasing.
>
> I'm preparing for traveling so I wanted a phone with the best camera so
> I recently did by a Google Pixel 7 Pro direct from the manufacturer

It will be interesting to see how you go with that. Mate of mine got
a Google Pixel 6 Pro and loves the camera/video but finds it
shutting down due to overheating in perfectly normal temps
in the high 20Cs. Even when just talking to me on the phone.

Just got a full cash refund from Google after demanding
that for weeks now and last night said that he will likely to
for a Google Pixel 7 Pro to see if that is just as bad. Lots
of reports of overheating in normal temps using google.

> which offered the best price. But the previous Android flagship I
> purchased, a Samsung Note 9, came from the carrier who charged $300 less
> than Samsung was charging, but it was locked for 12 months (the lock
> time is now only 60 days on phones purchased directly from my carrier).

> I also know people that like upgrading their phones much more often than
> the average person and are willing to pay much higher monthly wireless
> bills in order to get a "free" or heavily discounted iPhone.

>>> We travel all over the Bay Area, all over California, and all over the
>>> U.S.. T-Mobile would not work for us. It also has terrible coverage at
>>> our house. I can see the fake tree AT&T and Verizon tower from my
>>> upstairs windows and coverage is excellent. Also, the "free" iPhones
>>> are not really free, but you knew that already.
>> I knew everything you would say & I know that your entire premise is
>> bogus.
>
> LOL. T-Mobile even gave my IT director some SIM cards because he was
> trying to get two hundred lines moved from Verizon. We tried them out,
> including me. It would have saved about $4000 per month but the coverage
> was unacceptable.
>
> I currently have a T-Mobile eSIM in my iPhone, with my Verizon/Total
> Wireless physical SIM.
> Here's a SpeedTest I did just now (a little before 8 a.m. 6 Jan 2023):
> <https://i.imgur.com/oriUFJP.jpeg>. This is actually a big improvement
> for T-Mobile, since in December 2022 I got 13.1 Mb/s down, 0.24Mb/s up,
> and 39ms ping. And remember, Verizon's Total prepaid service is
> deprioritized, but T-Mobile's trial with an eSIM is not.
>
>> What I don't know is why you are so determined to "prove" that under the
>> most oddly insane of conditions, the iPhone has a lower cost of
>> ownership.
>
> I never claimed that the cost of ownership of an iPhone was lower, just
> that the cost of comparable Android phones and iPhones was not very
> different.
>
>> The iPhone is designed by Apple to have a higher total cost of
>> ownership.
>> You think you're smarter than Apple?
>
> Apple is able to sell at higher margins because they have no competition
> for iOS devices. It is true that they've delayed moving to USB-C because
> of the royalties on Lightning devices, but the Lightning connector
> preceded USB-C and was much better than Micro-USB.
>
> <snip>
>
>> At least you admit they stay on the same carrier becasue if you denied
>> that, it would be just another one of your bogus arguments intent on
>> trying
>> to prove that the iPhone is NOT the most expensive smartphone to own.
>
> There is churn between carriers, you can look at the churn figures, and
> remember that they report _monthly_ churn for the quarter, it's not
> three months of churn. It's way down from the past where postpaid churn
> rates of 2-3% were common, now it's around 1% churn. But that still
> means that about 12% of subscribers change carriers each year.
>
> <snip>
>
>> That I wasn't speaking to, and I, myself, have been grandfathered, as
>> you
>> must know the carriers OFTEN change their plans but they almost always
>> grandfather the existing customers.
>
> Often people on "grandfathered" plans actually pay a lot more than they
> have to because those old plans often have very low data amounts, but
> they don't realize that they're paying much more than they have to
> because they assume that prices are always going to go up.
>
>>> You should look at the monthly churn rates for each carrier which
>>> indicates those who change carriers. They don't publish statistics on
>>> who changes plans.
>> No. YOU should look at the monthly churn rate. Not me.
>
> LOL, I already have. But I can understand that you don't like what those
> churn rates prove!
>
> You need to learn to look at the big picture and base your statements on
> factual data that you can back up with references and citations. That
> will enable you to gain the credibility that you presently lack.

On Sat, 07 Jan 2023 03:42:26 +1100, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> On 1/5/2023 9:03 PM, chop wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Easy to be smart enough to get a sd card adapter for
>> your iphone if you want to have the same low cost
>> as you can get with some androids and end up better
>> off with the higher trade in or resale value.

> It's a hassle and one more thing to carry.

Sure, I wasn't suggesting it makes any sense to go that
route, but it is something someone who wants to go that
route can do. And you don't have to carry anything with
most people, just copy stuff off the phone when you are
at home etc and its perfectly possible to have that happen
completely automatically with an iphone.

> Of course most flagship Android devices have dropped the MicroSD card as
> well. Sony has retained the MicroSD card slot on the Sony Xperia 1 IV,
> Sony Xperia Pro-I, and Sony Xperia 1 III.

Yeah, its rare for the top of the range phones to have one
now, because the buyers of those don't care about the
lower cost but less convenient place to store their photos.

Most love the convenience of the automatic cloud instead.

> However it goes beyond just transferring photos. If you’re using a real
> camera instead of the phone’s camera, and want to send photos using
> e-mail or Facebook, or other programs, you can stick the memory card
> from the camera into your phone to transfer photos.

The best real cameras do lots of internal storage and automatic
backup to the cloud now, just like the top of the range phones.

> If you’re using an offline mapping program the maps can take vast
> amounts of storage space and can be stored on the MicroSD card.

Sure, but most dont botther with offline anymore.

In article <tp9hb2$370n8$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> Apple is able to sell at higher margins because they have no competition
> for iOS devices.

nonsense. the competition is huge, including countless android devices
and dumbphones.

> It is true that they've delayed moving to USB-C because
> of the royalties on Lightning devices,

that is very much not true.

mfi licensing revenue is a negligible part of apple's revenue.

also note that there are usb licensing fees, which apple would need to
pay, versus not paying for using their own lightning connector.

you also fail to understand the impact switching to usb-c will have by
forcing existing iphone owners to replace their existing cables and
accessories. that is why apple has been carefully transitioning to
usb-c to minimize the impact, rather than suddenly doing so across all
products.

> but the Lightning connector
> preceded USB-C and was much better than Micro-USB.

wow! you got something correct again.

one out of three isn't bad.

> Often people on "grandfathered" plans actually pay a lot more than they
> have to because those old plans often have very low data amounts, but
> they don't realize that they're paying much more than they have to
> because they assume that prices are always going to go up.

nope. generally people stay on grandfathered plans because those plans
have benefits that the carrier no longer offers, such as unlimited
data.

carriers try to get people to switch off of those plans using all sorts
of promos. some do, while some prefer to retain their grandfathered
plan because it better fits their needs.

> You need to learn to look at the big picture and base your statements on
> factual data that you can back up with references and citations. That
> will enable you to gain the credibility that you presently lack.

there you go resorting to ad hominem attacks again.

On Fri, 6 Jan 2023 10:00:33 -0700, AJL wrote:

>> I generally buy phones direct from my carrier because they usually,
>> but not always, offer lower prices than purchasing from the
>> manufacturer or at a big box store.
>
> Verizon gave me a $300 discount off my Galaxy S10. BUT... I only got the
> discount if I used their 2 year payment plan and the discount was
> deducted monthly. So if I left early I lost the discount. Sneaky, huh.
>
> But since I've been with Verizon since the beginning and don't plan to
> change I thought why not. Now that it's 3 1/2 years later I'm glad I did
> it. And the phone is still working great...

What AJL wrote is common, which is that people on any given carrier can get
"coupon clipping" discounts (figuratively speaking) where I use the word
"coupon clipping" to indicate that the deal determines the phone you get.

Normally, those "coupon clipping" deals also determine terms & conditions.

As I already stated, but which the op denies, most people stay on the same
carrier so, as with AJL (and as with myself), these "terms & conditions"
for those coupon deals aren't onerous since you're already on the carrier.

The OP said the "plan" might change as a result of those "coupon clipping"
"terms and conditions", but the carrier generally remains the same, and, as
I noted (and as AJL seems to have noted), if you stay with the carrier,
nothing really changes since you were going to be on that carrier anyway.

Contrast that sensible set of expectations to the original poster's claim
that people who are coupon clipping (figuratively speaking) on a high end
phone (such as a high end Galaxy or iPhone) are going to _change_ carriers
just to get a slightly better deal with all those new terms & conditions.

They're not.
Only the op endures those kinds of extreme hassles for a high end phone.

People at the high end do not let the deal determine the phone.
People at the low end do that all the time.

The op is trying to make a bogus case that people at the high end endure
the kinds of hassles even the op won't endure (for example, switching to
T-Mobile to get a free iPhone is out of the question for the op).

The whole case the op is trying to make is bogus for many reasons, but they
can be summarized succinctly in one statement, where the op thinks he's
smarter than Apple is (and he's not, neither am I, nobody is).

Apple designed the iPhone ecosystem to cost more in almost every way.
And so it does.

On Fri, 6 Jan 2023 08:42:26 -0800, sms wrote:

>> Easy to be smart enough to get a sd card adapter for
>> your iphone if you want to have the same low cost
>> as you can get with some androids and end up better
>> off with the higher trade in or resale value.
>
> It's a hassle and one more thing to carry.

Carrying around an sd card adapter just to get access to inexpensive memory
is an example of people thinking they can outsmart Apple design decisions.

These people think they're smarter than Apple.

They're not.
Nobody is.

Apple designed the iPhone to cost more in almost every way where this
choice of using inexpensive sd card memory is just one of those ways.

>
> Of course most flagship Android devices have dropped the MicroSD card as
> well. Sony has retained the MicroSD card slot on the Sony Xperia 1 IV,
> Sony Xperia Pro-I, and Sony Xperia 1 III.

Nobody sensible doubts Apple designed the iPhone to limit choices, and by
doing so, Apple makes money because they'll supply the remaining choice.

For a fee.

Nobody would doubt that Samsung & Google would like to also make money off
its customer by limiting choices and then supplying the remaining choice.

For a fee.

But that only works with high end customers who don't care about the fee.

Which is why the op's main argument that high end customers make all their
phone decisions based on the total cost of ownership is preposterous.

>
> However it goes beyond just transferring photos.

Of course it does.
Apple designed the entire ecosystem to cost more to operate.
In almost every way.

You think you're smarter than Apple with all your extreme TCO machinations.
You're not.
Nobody is.

The iPhone will almost always cost far more in TCO than equivalent Android.
Apple designed it to be that way.

> If you're using a real
> camera instead of the phone's camera, and want to send photos using
> e-mail or Facebook, or other programs, you can stick the memory card
> from the camera into your phone to transfer photos. If you're using an
> offline mapping program the maps can take vast amounts of storage space
> and can be stored on the MicroSD card.

The op is correct that internal sd cards provide an inexpensive storage
portability and hardware compatibility that no other method can match.

Anyone who thinks they can "replace" the sd card portability with anything
else that's not another sd card is thinking they're smarter than Apple is.

Apple eliminated the chance of inexpensive internal sd card portability in
the iPhone for one reason and one reason alone - which was to increase the
costs of storage by steering its customers to the solutions Apple provides.