I added another comparison table, this time for flagship devices, to the
document, on page 4. It compares the iPhone 14 Pro Max versus the
Samsung S22 Ultra versus the Google Pixel 7 Pro.

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

Assumptions
-----------
1. Trading in an iPhone 11 64GB without a cracked screen
2. 18% depreciation of the iPhone after 12 months
3. 32% depreciation of the Android devices after 12 months
4. Resale prices from Swappa, adjusted for how long the phone has been
on the market
5. 33.6 months between upgrades for the iPhone 14 Pro Max
6. 24.7 months between upgrades for the Android devices

Summary
-------
1. The iPhone 14 Pro Max had the highest initial price.
2. The Google Pixel 7 Pro had the lowest initial price.
3. The price (including the initial trade-in) minus the 12 month resale
value, had the iPhone 14 Pro Max with a net monthly cost of -$3.24. The
Samsung S22 Ultra was at $3.32 per month and the Pixel 7 Pro was at $7
per month.
4. The low depreciation of the iPhone, with the resulting high resale
value, caused it to have the lowest cost of ownership despite its higher
initial price.

On 1/6/2023 9:21 AM, chop wrote:

<snip>

> 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.

It hasn't shut down, but it is warmer under use than my other phones.

Are you going to make a case for total cost of ownership, or not?

BIG PICTURE
(1) People at the high end act differently than do people at the low end.
(2) For one, they don't let the coupon deal determine the iPhone they own.
(3) For another, they're not enduring extreme machinations for an iPhone.

(1) Apple designed iPhones to be more expensive in total operating costs.
(2) You appear to think you can outsmart Apple's strategic marketing plan.
(3) You can't. Nobody can. You're not that smart. Neither am I. Nobody is.

(1) Even so, your entire argument hinges on a single resale value amount.
(2) Instead of only resale, you must calculate ALL the myriad costs.
(3) Even your resale value is bogus as most people don't sell/trade it in.

(1) You haven't made a case for a single apples to apples comparison.
(2) You claim that half buy from carriers and half buy off a web site.
(3) So why don't you pick a Samsung & an iPhone from one locale & do it.

Why won't you pick either any carrier store or any outlet and compare the
best deal today on a Samsung (with all normal accessories) and an iPhone?

(1) You pick the single store, web site, or carrier.
(1) Samsung being most Androids sold, you pick the Samsung & an iPhone.

(2) Price at that location of that Samsung (128GB, 6GB RAM & phablet size).
(2) Price at that location of that comparative iPhone (similar specs).

(3) Price at that location of accessories that fit that specific phone.
(3) If it's a PD and/or QC phone, then price the PD and/or QC charger.

(4) Price for tax and shipping and/or handling to obtain the phone.
(4) Use the tax (if any) at whatever location you currently reside in.

(5) Price for insurance (if you want to include the insurance).
(5) Use the costs from that same location - do not cherry pick please.

(6) Cost for one major repair by the manufacturer or official repair shop.
(6) You pick the repair (screen, battery, whatever) using genuine parts.

(7) Estimated resale/tradein after 3 years handed back to THAT location!
(7) Multiply that value by 0.35% to get statistically valid residual value.

Do you want to make a case for total cost of ownership, or not?
Why won't you do that so you can make your case of total cost of ownership?

On Fri, 6 Jan 2023 08:49:49 -0800, sms wrote:

>> 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!

Will you please stop using insults when you have no sensible answer to my
observation that even you won't change carriers just to get a free iPhone.

Every time you are boxed into a logical corner of your own making, you
retort with an insult insinuating you're smarter than either I am or Apple.

You're not.
You think I didn't know you wouldn't change carriers when I asked you that?

People like you are trying to outsmart Apple with extreme machinations.
You're a low end mentality trying to purchase a high end iPhone.

There's nothing wrong with you being a low end mentality in terms of what
market you belong in (I'm in the same market for example) - but there is
something wrong with you using low end market machinations for the high end
market segment.

1. Apple designed the iPhone to be more expensive to operate.
2. Apple does not target the vast low end market segment.

The low end market segment will endure all the extreme machinations you
propose they suffer but the high end market will not tolerate them.

You are erroneously employing low end market logic for the high end market
to make a bogus claim that the iPhone costs less in total costs to operate.

> 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.

I'm aware that people at the low end will endure all sorts of crazy carrier
and plan machinations just to get a good deal on a low end smart phone.

However your argument is bogus (IMHO) that people at the high end also
endure those extreme machinations just to get a lower cost on an iPhone.

They don't.
It's a different market the low end from the high end.

All those extreme carrier and plan machinations are what low end people do.
People at the high end tend to stick to the same carrier.

Specifically they wouldn't change carriers just to get a free iPhone.
For your entire argument to require that they do is an insane assumption.

>
> 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).

I am aware that you are aware as is everyone in the USA (where I presume
you live) that there are essentially only three major carrier choices.

All the rest are crazy deals that people in the low end put up with, but
your argument ignores the low end so you can't be using low end
calculations for people in the high end - as that's patently absurd.

Most people in the high end market segment don't endure the extreme
machinations you require them to put up with just to get a free iPhone.

Your argument only works if you assume people at the high end think exactly
like people at the low end do. And that's why your argument is bogus.

>
> The bottom line is that you need to learn to look at the big picture

Please stop attempting to insult me by assuming that you know more about
the "big picture" than I do since I have been discussing that all along.

It's YOU who needs to understand your argument is that you use the logic of
low-end market segments to steer the actions of the high end market.

The "big picture" is that people at the low end will endure the extreme
machinations you suggest they withstand but people at the high end do not.

> taking into account all the facts regarding cost of ownership, not make
> up fantastic stories that don't represent how most people normally behave.

Again, stop trying to insult me because YOU make the absurd argument that
the ONLY cost of ownership is the resale value of the phone after long use.

For one, that's NOT the only cost of ownership during the lifetime of the
phone, and for another, your own figures show MOST PEOPLE just keep it.

I'm sorry for you that your argument is so easily lambasted, but I can't
let you make these claims without bringing up the logical observations of

BIG PICTURE
(1) People at the high end act differently than do people at the low end.
(2) For one, they don't let the coupon deal determine the iPhone they own.
(3) For another, they're not enduring extreme machinations for an iPhone.

(1) Apple designed iPhones to be more expensive in total operating costs.
(2) You appear to think you can outsmart Apple's strategic marketing plan.
(3) You can't. Nobody can. You're not that smart. Neither am I. Nobody is.

(1) Even so, your entire argument hinges on a single resale value amount.
(2) Instead of only resale, you must calculate ALL the myriad costs.
(3) Even your resale value is bogus as most people don't sell/trade it in.

(1) You haven't made a case for a single apples to apples comparison.
(2) You claim that half buy from carriers and half buy off a web site.
(3) So why don't you pick a Samsung & an iPhone from one locale & do it.

Why won't you pick either any carrier store or any outlet and compare the
best deal today on a Samsung (with all normal accessories) and an iPhone?

Are you going to make a case for total cost of ownership, or not?

BIG PICTURE
(1) People at the high end act differently than do people at the low end.
(2) For one, they don't let the coupon deal determine the iPhone they own.
(3) For another, they're not enduring extreme machinations for an iPhone.

(1) Apple designed iPhones to be more expensive in total operating costs.
(2) You appear to think you can outsmart Apple's strategic marketing plan.
(3) You can't. Nobody can. You're not that smart. Neither am I. Nobody is.

(1) Even so, your entire argument hinges on a single resale value amount.
(2) Instead of only resale, you must calculate ALL the myriad costs.
(3) Even your resale value is bogus as most people don't sell/trade it in.

(1) You haven't made a case for a single apples to apples comparison.
(2) You claim that half buy from carriers and half buy off a web site.
(3) So why don't you pick a Samsung & an iPhone from one locale & do it.

Why won't you pick either any carrier store or any outlet and compare the
best deal today on a Samsung (with all normal accessories) and an iPhone?

(1) You pick the single store, web site, or carrier.
(1) Samsung being most Androids sold, you pick the Samsung & an iPhone.

(2) Price at that location of that Samsung (128GB, 6GB RAM & phablet size).
(2) Price at that location of that comparative iPhone (similar specs).

(3) Price at that location of accessories that fit that specific phone.
(3) If it's a PD and/or QC phone, then price the PD and/or QC charger.

(4) Price for tax and shipping and/or handling to obtain the phone.
(4) Use the tax (if any) at whatever location you currently reside in.

(5) Price for insurance (if you want to include the insurance).
(5) Use the costs from that same location - do not cherry pick please.

(6) Cost for one major repair by the manufacturer or official repair shop.
(6) You pick the repair (screen, battery, whatever) using genuine parts.

(7) Estimated resale/tradein after 3 years handed back to THAT location!
(7) Multiply that value by 0.35% to get statistically valid residual value.

Do you want to make a case for total cost of ownership, or not?
Why won't you do that so you can make your case of total cost of ownership?

nospam 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.

Below is an adult response (imho) to the conversation above...

Here, nospam is "more correct" than is Steve, given competition exists.

Smartphone competition is huge if you consider all market segments.
For example, Samsung tries to play in all the market segments.
Google. Not so much. Apple, even less so.

If you consider only the high end segment, the market is smaller.
But the profits are higher because TCO isn't a major concern there.

And if you consider only the technically inclined wealthy USA, the TAM is
even smaller but even higher profit margins overall, again, becase TCO is
not a major determining factor for people in the USA in that market.

Having said that, Apple has slightly more than half the phones in the US.
It's still huge but it's not the world market - which is mostly Android.

>
>> It is true that they've delayed moving to USB-C because
>> of the royalties on Lightning devices,
>
> that is very much not true.

Again, I assess nospam to be "more correct" than is Steve in this case.

Apple put lightning in the iPhone for one reason alone, imho, but nospam
will try to convince us that Apple did it for our own good - which is fine.

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

While royalties were likely not a major rationale for the non standard
cord, it won't matter soon because the EU forced Apple to fit to standards.

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

Even so, Apple's intense resistance to fitting to common standards wasn't
due to the royalty fees, imho, and I doubt you believe it was either.

>
> 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.

It's nice you believe Apple does everything it does for the common good.

Luckily, the EU didn't believe what you believe, and therefore all of us
can sooner ditch the now-worthless lightning cables for our new devices.

>
>> 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.

The fact the now-worthless lightning cables will be ditched sooner than
Apple would have allowed is the best thing that the EU did in a while.

>
>> 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.

I concur, again, with nospam, since I agree with any sensible statement.

As a real world example, my grandfathered T-Mobile plan _added_ unlimited
data in April of 2021 - without changing my plan in any manner at all.
<https://i.postimg.cc/YC1B906F/tmopromo01.jpg> A32-5G & iPhone 12 contract

In fact, as Steve _must be aware_ (is he not?), T-Mobile gave EVERY SINGLE
CUSTOMER on a post-paid plan that had _any_ data, free unlimited data.

Is Steve actually not aware of this well-published fact, nospam?
<https://i.postimg.cc/nhpbcP50/tmopromo04.jpg> $100 for 6 lines + $16 tax

In addition, T-Mobile gave everyone a free Android phone (with very minor
hassles), and about a half-priced iPhone (with another iPhone tradein)
which, interestingly, shows that the Android is astromically less expensive
than the iPhone (as will almost always be the case in most situations).
<https://i.postimg.cc/Xq5SpS4D/tmopromo02.jpg> $15 iPhone, $0 Android phone

Note those are _real_ numbers, where the iPhone costs, alone, before you
calculate the astromical price for accessories and AppleCare, $15/month
while Android is $0/month which _includes_ Steve's vaunted resale value!

>
> 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.

Again, I agree with any logical statement made by nospam (or anyone else).

In fact, T-Mobile is constantly asking me to "upgrade" my grandfathered
unlimited data plan, which, see below, is $100 for six devices plus tax.
<https://i.postimg.cc/L6dFGXVd/tmopromo03.jpg> $100 for 6 lines + $16 tax

>
>> 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.

It's my observation that, on this newsgroup, more so than on the adult OS
newsgroups, when people like you, nospam, or Steve are asked sensible
questions to back up their data, ad hominem attacks instantly result.

You'll note that I acted like an adult in my response to you above.

Most of the time, your main goal appears to be as simple as you will defend
everything Apple to the death, where you do so using only 7 responses, one
of which is the ad hominem attack (e.g., your thousands of ftfy posts).

Usually you resort to those thousands upon thousands of (ftfy) ad hominem
attacks when you have no more excuses for why Apple did what Apple did.

For Steve, it's different.

Steve is claiming he's figured out how to outwit Apple's marketing plan.

He does so using one-off here-today-gone-tomorrow crazy maneuvers which,
while they may exist, they only prove a theoretical TOC difference.

What Steve doesn't seem to realize is that most people don't do what he
does, e.g., most won't jump here and there from carrier to MVNO and back to
carrier, just to get a good deal on an iPhone that they can't really
afford.

In Steve's case, he can't afford that iPhone so he resorts to all these
crazy cliff-jumping maneuvers, and in the end, after an intense series of
death-defying leaps from one overhang to another, he _may_ manage to end up
with an iPhone that costs less than an equivalent Samsung phone.

But even then, after all those crazy maneuvers, I would like to ask you,
nospam, if you believe Steve believes the average person will do all that?

Would you go through all the crazy MVNO leaps that Steve goes through to
just to get the cost of a good iPhone to be less than a good Samsung?

I certainly won't. (see above proof of iPhone & Samsung prices of my own)
Would you?

On Sat, 07 Jan 2023 05:28:00 +1100, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> I added another comparison table, this time for flagship devices, to the
> document, on page 4. It compares the iPhone 14 Pro Max versus the
> Samsung S22 Ultra versus the Google Pixel 7 Pro.
>
> The document is at: <https://tinyurl.com/iOS-Android-Features> or
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JznrWfGJDA8CYVfjSnPTwfVy8-gAC0kPyaApuJTcUNE>
>
> Assumptions
> -----------
> 1. Trading in an iPhone 11 64GB without a cracked screen
> 2. 18% depreciation of the iPhone after 12 months
> 3. 32% depreciation of the Android devices after 12 months
> 4. Resale prices from Swappa, adjusted for how long the phone has been
> on the market
> 5. 33.6 months between upgrades for the iPhone 14 Pro Max
> 6. 24.7 months between upgrades for the Android devices
>
> Summary
> -------
> 1. The iPhone 14 Pro Max had the highest initial price.
> 2. The Google Pixel 7 Pro had the lowest initial price.
> 3. The price (including the initial trade-in) minus the 12 month resale
> value, had the iPhone 14 Pro Max with a net monthly cost of -$3.24. The
> Samsung S22 Ultra was at $3.32 per month and the Pixel 7 Pro was at $7
> per month.
> 4. The low depreciation of the iPhone, with the resulting high resale
> value, caused it to have the lowest cost of ownership despite its higher
> initial price.

I doubt any but a microscopic minority care about the cost per
month with top of the range phones.

On Sat, 07 Jan 2023 05:29:32 +1100, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> On 1/6/2023 9:21 AM, chop wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> 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.
>
> It hasn't shut down,

But its winter there. Its summer here.

> but it is warmer under use than my other phones.

On Sat, 07 Jan 2023 05:45:17 +1100, Jerry <Jerry@jerrythinks.com> wrote:

> Are you going to make a case for total cost of ownership, or not?
>
> BIG PICTURE
> (1) People at the high end act differently than do people at the low end.
> (2) For one, they don't let the coupon deal determine the iPhone they
> own.
> (3) For another, they're not enduring extreme machinations for an iPhone.
>
> (1) Apple designed iPhones to be more expensive in total operating costs.
> (2) You appear to think you can outsmart Apple's strategic marketing
> plan.
> (3) You can't. Nobody can. You're not that smart. Neither am I. Nobody
> is.

That's bullshit. You are free to use any iphone the same way
you would an android with an sd card slot if you want to.

> (1) Even so, your entire argument hinges on a single resale value amount.
> (2) Instead of only resale, you must calculate ALL the myriad costs.

Not when they a trivial part of the TOC.

> (3) Even your resale value is bogus as most people don't sell/trade it
> in.
>
> (1) You haven't made a case for a single apples to apples comparison.
> (2) You claim that half buy from carriers and half buy off a web site.
> (3) So why don't you pick a Samsung & an iPhone from one locale & do it.
>
> Why won't you pick either any carrier store or any outlet and compare
> the best deal today on a Samsung (with all normal accessories) and an
> iPhone?
>
> (1) You pick the single store, web site, or carrier.
> (1) Samsung being most Androids sold, you pick the Samsung & an iPhone.
>
> (2) Price at that location of that Samsung (128GB, 6GB RAM & phablet
> size).
> (2) Price at that location of that comparative iPhone (similar specs).
>
> (3) Price at that location of accessories that fit that specific phone.
> (3) If it's a PD and/or QC phone, then price the PD and/or QC charger.
>
> (4) Price for tax and shipping and/or handling to obtain the phone.
> (4) Use the tax (if any) at whatever location you currently reside in.
>
> (5) Price for insurance (if you want to include the insurance).
> (5) Use the costs from that same location - do not cherry pick please.
>
> (6) Cost for one major repair by the manufacturer or official repair
> shop.
> (6) You pick the repair (screen, battery, whatever) using genuine parts.
>
> (7) Estimated resale/tradein after 3 years handed back to THAT location!
> (7) Multiply that value by 0.35% to get statistically valid residual
> value.
>
> Do you want to make a case for total cost of ownership, or not?
> Why won't you do that so you can make your case of total cost of
> ownership?

In article <tp9slg$bjc$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
<spam@nospam.com> wrote:

>
> Even so, Apple's intense resistance to fitting to common standards wasn't
> due to the royalty fees, imho, and I doubt you believe it was either.

except that apple was first to adopt usb-c with the retina macbook,
more than 7 years ago, transitioning other products over time.

so much for 'intense resistance'.

Andy Burnelli wrote:

> In fact, as Steve _must be aware_ (is he not?), T-Mobile gave EVERY SINGLE
> CUSTOMER on a post-paid plan that had _any_ data, free unlimited data.
>
> Is Steve actually not aware of this well-published fact, nospam?
> <https://i.postimg.cc/nhpbcP50/tmopromo04.jpg> $100 for 6 lines + $16 tax

Correction... T-Mobile gave everyone unlim data on a post-paid plan who had
any data *in the USA* only (the rest of the world fends for themselves).

Unlike Steve's always phony numbers, my iPhone/Android numbers are real.
<https://i.postimg.cc/YC1B906F/tmopromo01.jpg> A32-5G & iPhone 12 contract
<https://i.postimg.cc/Xq5SpS4D/tmopromo02.jpg> $15/mo iPhone,$0/mo Android
<https://i.postimg.cc/L6dFGXVd/tmopromo03.jpg> $100 for 6 lines + $16 tax
<https://i.postimg.cc/nhpbcP50/tmopromo04.jpg> $100 for 6 lines + $16 tax
<https://i.postimg.cc/zf9w1tGZ/speedtest07.jpg> *255Mbps* 5G home speed

Steve is desperately trying to outwit Apple's strategic marketing plan.
As you can see above, for my iPhones, I don't even bother to try to outwit.

Clearly my iPhones cost me astronomically more than my Samsungs cost me.

Even _with_ a vaunted iPhone tradein Steve claims is how he outwits Apple's
marketing plan, my iPhone is $15/month for two years more than my Androids.

Of course, my iPhone 12 is in a different market segment than my Android,
but that also makes the point that for the people in the lower end market,
the Android phone will always be exponentially less expensive in TOC.

Steve's insanely complex cherry picked TOC assumptions are, in a nutshell,
his way of desperately attempting to outwit Apple's basic marketing plan.

nospam wrote:

>> Even so, Apple's intense resistance to fitting to common standards wasn't
>> due to the royalty fees, imho, and I doubt you believe it was either.
>
> except that apple was first to adopt usb-c with the retina macbook,
> more than 7 years ago, transitioning other products over time.

And yet, we're on an iPhone newsgroup talking about iPhone ownership cost.

Not macbooks. Not iPads. But iPhones.

> so much for 'intense resistance'.

If you're desperately trying to claim that Apple _willingly_ and _easily_
decided to make all their future iPhones USB in the upcoming year (which is
what most people expect Apple to do even as they're not legally obligated),
then you're not going to get agreement from sensible logical people like I.

Apple did have USB-C on "some" devices, but not in iPhones.

You think I am like you are, nospam, with nary a synapse devoted to memory,
where I'm well aware you claimed umpteen times iPhones are different.

Now you claim they're the same.

It's isn't an ad hominem attack to make the clear observation that you
can't even keep your own excuses consistent, nospam.

It's one way I know you have a low IQ and almost zero education.

An educated intelligent person would own the synaptic equivalen of
remembering what their own excuses for Apple's behavior is.

It happens every day where the iKooks have been told their whole lives that
they're stupid, so they suffer from self esteem issues such that they can
_never_ simply be man enough to admit they were wrong.
**
<>

In that case, nospam was oh so very confident in being oh so very wrong.
And yet, he can't man up to simply admit what everyone else already knows.

It's what makes iKooks, ikooks, after all.
a. Low IQ and no education
b. Low self esteem (everyone tells them they're stupid)
c. Adores Apple (Apple loves them & as a result, iKooks love Apple back!)

To wit...

nospam wrote:

> nice bit of projection.
>
>> Look up the extent of Los Gatos, you idiot.
>
> 'the extent of los gatos' ?? you're moving the goalposts. the store is
> downtown, not on the outskirts of town, which is largely uninhabited.\

Look nospam, I live in the Santa Cruz mountains. My kids went to school
there, and my grandkids are about to enter into the system.

I don't know where you live but you don't have a clue that Los Gatos is a
huge area, the unincorporated area dwarfing that which is incorporated.

It's all Los Gatos and for you claim otherwise is patently absurd.

HINT: Common school districts, for example. Same library system too.
Same almost everything (95032 is the same post office as 95033).

> but if you insist:

It's amazing that you are desperate not to just be a man and admit
you were oh so very confident in being oh so very dead wrong, nospam.

>
> <https://www.losgatosca.gov/515/About-Los-Gatos>
> The Town of Los Gatos is nestled at the base of the Sierra Azules,
> and is located approximately 60 miles south of San Francisco, in the
> southwestern portion of Santa Clara County where the Santa Clara
> Valley meets the lower slopes of the Santa Cruz Mountains.

Look nospam, I know the exact borders of Los Gatos, so for you to bring up
an "about" page that _only_ looks at a small portion, is just ridiculous.

What shows that you have low self esteem, in addition to a low IQ and no
education, is that you're unable to simply admit when you're dead wrong.

It's something badgolferman has often noted about all of you iKooks.
*Why can't iKooks admit when they're wrong* by badgolferman, May 30, 2019
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/BjiM9DsVXj8/m/CiSykWPPBwAJ>

> 'nestled at the base of' and 'where the santa clara valley meets the
> lower slopes' is quite clear, even for stupid people.

Again, the way I know you have low self esteem (because your whole life
everyone has told you that you're stupid), and because you have a low IQ
and no education, you can't comprehend that Los Gatos is a huge area that
comprises both an unincorporated and an incorporated town, which share
taxation, school districts, many utilities, post offices, etc.

It's _all_ Los Gatos when it's _named_ Los Gatos (incorporated or not).
95022 & 95033 for example

> this is further confirmed with a topographic map:
> <https://en-us.topographic-map.com/map-sr7b3/Los-Gatos/>

I'm not going to play this game with you nospam, other than to observe
that all you low IQ uneducated ill-educated iKooks suffer from the same set
of common abnormal problems, which are...

a. All the iKooks have a low IQ and almost no formal education to speak of
b. And as a result, all iKooks have extreme confidence in their ignorance,
c. But what's worse, you all suffer from extremely low self esteem.

In a way, I feel sorry for you nospam, because your whole life people have
been telling you that you're stupid - so you can't admit when you're wrong.

But what makes you the iKook you are is you are oh so very confident in
being so very dead wrong - and - you will never be man enough to admit it.

It seems badgolferman is write about uneducated people like you, nospam.]
*Updating the "wrong - by badgolferman" thread from May 29, 2019*
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/Pg9fi_sV3CU>

You _remain_ ignorant _because_ you don't have the capacity to learn.

Andy Burnelli wrote:

> It happens every day where the iKooks have been told their whole lives that
> they're stupid, so they suffer from self esteem issues such that they can
> _never_ simply be man enough to admit they were wrong.
> **
> <>
>
> In that case, nospam was oh so very confident in being oh so very wrong.
> And yet, he can't man up to simply admit what everyone else already knows.
>
> It's what makes iKooks, ikooks, after all.
> a. Low IQ and no education
> b. Low self esteem (everyone tells them they're stupid)
> c. Adores Apple (Apple loves them & as a result, iKooks love Apple back!)

I accidentally omitted the references, where, since my credibility is my
most valuable asset, I belatedly provide for the permanent Usenet record.

This is the original badgolferman thread on why iKooks can't act like men.
*Why can't iKooks admit when they're wrong* by badgolferman, May 30, 2019
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/BjiM9DsVXj8/m/CiSykWPPBwAJ>

A later update adding proof child-like iKooks can't admit being wrong.
*Updating the "wrong - by badgolferman" thread from May 29, 2019*
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/Pg9fi_sV3CU>

This is the sequence of posts which prove, yet again, the iKooks can never
be men and simply admit that they're oh so very confident in being oh so
very ignorant - such that it's impossible for iKooks to admit being wrong.
*Total Cost of Ownership - iPhone Versus Android*
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/K82eSYA64Y4/m/Q0INGFg2CgAJ>

In summary, the strange iKooks own a confluence of common odd traits which
are a combination of low IQ, lack of education, and low self esteem such
that they believe everything Apple feeds them, and can't admit when they're
wrong.

That's what makes iKooks different from normal people after all.

Andy Burnelli wrote:

> It seems badgolferman is write about uneducated people like you, nospam.]
> *Updating the "wrong - by badgolferman" thread from May 29, 2019*
> <https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/Pg9fi_sV3CU>

That's funny... "write". Mea culpa!

I made a mistake.

I admit it.

I'm a man after all. Not an iKook.

In article <tpa1gk$c37$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
<spam@nospam.com> wrote:

>
> >> Even so, Apple's intense resistance to fitting to common standards wasn't
> >> due to the royalty fees, imho, and I doubt you believe it was either.
> >
> > except that apple was first to adopt usb-c with the retina macbook,
> > more than 7 years ago, transitioning other products over time.
>
> And yet, we're on an iPhone newsgroup talking about iPhone ownership cost.
>
> Not macbooks. Not iPads. But iPhones.

your claim is that apple has 'intense resistance to fitting to common
standards'.

if that were at all true, then they would not be first to adopt usb-c
on anything.

you are wrong. again.

Correction:

While the mobile phone kiosk in Costco closed when the company operating
them went out of business, Costco is now selling unlocked iPhones,
bundled with Apple Care. The iPhone Pro Max is 128GB is $1169 with Apple
Care. It is out of stock.

Also, the cell phone kiosk inside the store, at least the one I was in
today, has reopened, selling only T-Mobile service.

On 1/6/2023 11:55 AM, chop wrote:

<snip>

> I doubt any but a microscopic minority care about the cost per
> month with top of the range phones.

I included that metric because of the significant difference in the
length of the upgrade cycle. When calculating the cost of ownership it
makes sense to factor in how often a new phone will be purchased.

On 1/6/2023 11:56 AM, chop wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Jan 2023 05:29:32 +1100, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 1/6/2023 9:21 AM, chop wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> It hasn't shut down,
>
> But its winter there. Its summer here.

Yes, but the phone is inside a heated house.

Last summer, my iPhone 11 frequently overheated when I was outside by
the pool and iPhone was not in the shade.

On Sat, 07 Jan 2023 11:11:36 +1100, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> On 1/6/2023 11:55 AM, chop wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> I doubt any but a microscopic minority care about the cost per
>> month with top of the range phones.
>
> I included that metric because of the significant difference in the
> length of the upgrade cycle. When calculating the cost of ownership it
> makes sense to factor in how often a new phone will be purchased.

But its less clear that there is a significant difference in the upgrade
cycle time between the three you compared. I have never seen any
reliable stats on that, paticularly with the android/iphone choice.

On Sat, 07 Jan 2023 11:12:58 +1100, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> On 1/6/2023 11:56 AM, chop wrote:
>> On Sat, 07 Jan 2023 05:29:32 +1100, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/6/2023 9:21 AM, chop wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> It hasn't shut down,
>> But its winter there. Its summer here.
>
> Yes, but the phone is inside a heated house.
>
> Last summer, my iPhone 11 frequently overheated

But did it SHUT DOWN like the Pixels do ?

> when I was outside by the pool and iPhone was not in the shade.

He wasnt in the sun and we haven't even
had real summer weather until Xmas eve
due to 3 La Ninas in a row.

In article <tpadec$39r1j$4@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> Last summer, my iPhone 11 frequently overheated when I was outside by
> the pool and iPhone was not in the shade.

doubtful.

nospam wrote:

>> Not macbooks. Not iPads. But iPhones.
>
> your claim is that apple has 'intense resistance to fitting to common
> standards'.

Hi nospam,
I realize your whole life everyone has called you stupid, and I'm saddened
by that, but you need to begin at some point to break away from all that.

For you to insinuate Apple planned on converting all the newly upcoming
iPhones to USB-C all along, without the EU making them do it, is a farce.

> if that were at all true, then they would not be first to adopt usb-c
> on anything.

Again, it's only you, and nobody else who is insinuating that Apple is
moving their next iPhones to USB-C completely on their own volition.

>
> you are wrong. again.

What's interesting is that you are the one who is bucking what everyone
else believes, and even more so, since nobody knows for sure EXACTLY what
Apple will do with the next iPhones, you thinking I'm wrong is dead wrong.

Everything you write, unfortunately, shows you have a low IQ, nospam.
I'm sorry to be blunt, but you argue purely for argument's sake.

Always defending to the death everything Apple, no matter what.
Let's get back to the topic, please, of total cost of ownership.

The iPhone will (almost) always have a higher total cost of ownership.
Do you dispute that?

On what grounds?

On Fri, 6 Jan 2023 16:07:58 -0800, sms wrote:

> While the mobile phone kiosk in Costco closed when the company operating
> them went out of business, Costco is now selling unlocked iPhones,
> bundled with Apple Care. The iPhone Pro Max is 128GB is $1169 with Apple
> Care. It is out of stock.
>
> Also, the cell phone kiosk inside the store, at least the one I was in
> today, has reopened, selling only T-Mobile service.

That you bring up the unnecessary Apple Care package is important because
the iPhone is so expensive to own that people feel forced to buy that.

Very few people who own Androids need an unnecessary expense like that.

While there may be stupid Android owners who feel they need to buy
expensive insurance on something as cheap as a hand held phone, it's mostly
the Apple owners who need this expensive insurance because of the high
total cost of ownership of Apple products.

This Apple Care just adds to the high total cost of iPhone ownership.
Nobody on Android carries any insurance at all if they're at all smart.

Buying insurance for a hand held phone is an expensive losing proposition.

On Fri, 6 Jan 2023 16:11:36 -0800, sms wrote:

>> I doubt any but a microscopic minority care about the cost per
>> month with top of the range phones.
>
> I included that metric because of the significant difference in the
> length of the upgrade cycle. When calculating the cost of ownership it
> makes sense to factor in how often a new phone will be purchased.

If the upgrade cycle for Android is any different than that of the iPhone,
it's more likely due to the availability of new exciting phones than not.

There's zero evidence that iPhone hardware or software lasts longer than
Android does.

That you think there is evidence of that is something you just made up
because the update cycle is the same five years and the hardware is made by
essentially the same companies using essentially the same technology.

So you should STOP saying the iPhone lasts longer than Android.
It does not.

They both last about the same.

On Fri, 6 Jan 2023 16:07:58 -0800, sms wrote:

> While the mobile phone kiosk in Costco closed when the company operating
> them went out of business, Costco is now selling unlocked iPhones,
> bundled with Apple Care. The iPhone Pro Max is 128GB is $1169 with Apple
> Care. It is out of stock.
>
> Also, the cell phone kiosk inside the store, at least the one I was in
> today, has reopened, selling only T-Mobile service.

So why don't you take that iPhone and take an equivalent Samsung, and
compare the prices at Costco for the two phones, accessories, and anything
else like the sales tax in your area (if any) and let us know what it is?

It doesn't matter to us if it's out of stock.
Just that they sell it.

Assume two people walk into that Costco and one buys the iPhone & normal
accessories, while someone else buys the Samsung with the accessories.

What's the cost of each at that Costco?