On 1/6/2023 4:33 PM, chop wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Jan 2023 11:12:58 +1100, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

<snip>

>> Last summer, my iPhone 11 frequently overheated
>
> But did it SHUT DOWN like the Pixels do ?

Depends what you mean by "shut down." It did not turn off. It displayed
a message on the screen that it could not be used until it cooled down,
see <https://i.imgur.com/7NXYDLb.jpeg>.

I haven't used the Pixel 7 Pro much yet so I don't know how it will be
in the summer but I expect that it will also overheat if left in direct
sunlight.

It's sometimes hard for people to fathom just how much older used
iPhones actually sell for, generally to users that don't know much about
phones, other than they want an iPhone. It is beyond all reason.

Here's the basic 64GB iPhone 11 <https://i.imgur.com/MJ5VJLc.png>. At
three used sites, a mint condition unlocked device sells for between
$308 and $369, plus fees. Total by Verizon sells it new, locked, for
$249.99. You then have to pay $30 for one month of service, and at 60
days (whether you keep service for a second month or not) the phone
automatically unlocks.

It reminds me when we've been car shopping a couple of times. The street
price of a new vehicle was significantly less than the price of a
year-old same generation model, at the same dealer. When I asked them
why anyone would buy a vehicle that was a year old, had less warranty,
and that cost more, the answer was along the lines of "many buyers just
assume that used cars are always less expensive." What some buyers don't
take into account are all the incentives (factory to buyer, factory to
dealer, new graduate, military) that are available on new cars (or at
least used to be prior to the supply chain issues).

On Sat, 07 Jan 2023 13:23:36 +1100, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> On 1/6/2023 4:33 PM, chop wrote:
>> On Sat, 07 Jan 2023 11:12:58 +1100, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
>> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> Last summer, my iPhone 11 frequently overheated
>> But did it SHUT DOWN like the Pixels do ?

> Depends what you mean by "shut down."

Refuses to operate and in the case of the phone call, drops the call.

> It did not turn off. It displayed a message on the screen that it could
> not be used until it cooled down, see <https://i.imgur.com/7NXYDLb.jpeg>.

That's what the pixels do.

> I haven't used the Pixel 7 Pro much yet so I don't know how it will be
> in the summer but I expect that it will also overheat if left in direct
> sunlight.

He never had it in direct sunlight when it howled about overheating.

On 1/5/2023 9:26 AM, chop wrote:

<snip>

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

It's not all that different if you ignore any trade-ins. Google inflates
the trade-in values to try to get more sales.

For 128GB models with no trade-in:

Apple iPhone 7 Pro Max: $1099
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra: $949.99
Google Pixel 7 Pro: $899

But TCO needs to look at more than just the initial price.

On Fri, 6 Jan 2023 19:51:52 -0800, sms wrote:

>> That's not true of the iphone 14 Max Pro and Pixel 7 pro or the
>> iphone 14 Max Pro and the Samsung S22,
>
> It's not all that different if you ignore any trade-ins. Google inflates
> the trade-in values to try to get more sales.

Why would it matter that Google "inflates" the trade in?
Apple does the same?

So do the carriers when they want to?
For example, some carriers ask for a trade in of ANY working phone.
Even a flip phone.

They're only using the trade in as a "clipped coupon" mechanism.
Just like the grocery store does when they sell coupons for milk.

Do you really think a paper coupon is at all meaningful to the store?

> For 128GB models with no trade-in:
>
> Apple iPhone 7 Pro Max: $1099
> Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra: $949.99
> Google Pixel 7 Pro: $899

To get the total cost of ownership, you need more than just the
cost of the phone. You need to add up the true initial cost.

And then you need to add the expected costs over the lifetime.
You should add the cost of a single repair of your own choice.

Maybe a screen repair or a battery replacement perhaps?

> But TCO needs to look at more than just the initial price.

And TCO needs to look at more than just an imputed resale value.
Particularly given the vast majority never sell or trade it in.

I've pondered: Why is Steve bothering to make his crazy TCO claims anyway?

What do you think about my hypothesis as to why Steve is making his crazy
claims and using the wackiest set of assumptions to skew the outcome?

I think I figured out why Steve is coming up with these absolutely wacko
TCO assumptions, which is that he's desperately trying to find a clever way
to circumvent Apple's basic policy of making iPhones cost more to operate.

Think of it as his own personal "clickbait" to get his friends and family
(and maybe a few Apple compatriots in the town of Cupertino) to turn heads.

Steve needed a section of his document that astounded people because, of
course, everyone knows how expensive it is to operate an iPhone overall.

But what if it wasn't?
What if Steve was the only guy on the planet who could beat Apple?

What if Steve could beat Apple at its own game?
Now _that_ would be worthy of reading Steve's document - would it not?

In order to beat Apple at what Apple does best, Steve has to find crazy
ways to purchase the phone, and even crazier ways to get back some value.

Since what Apple does best is mark up the price of accessories, what Steve
did was completely ignore that accessories are a thing with smartphones.

Accessories like a charger and a case for example, aren't NEVER in any of
Steve's total ownership cost calculations. It's the only way to beat Apple.

The crazy assumptions Steve is forced to make just to get the cost of the
iPhone down was to assume a ridiculously long period of use for the iPhone
and then a ridiculously shorter period of use for Android. It's just wrong.

Then Steve had to assume the Android owners throw their phones away and
yet, the iPhone owner ALWAYS (100% of the time!) gets a fantastic tradein
deal from Apple on the next iPhone (which, of course, is yet another
fantastic deal in Steve's crazed system of skewing all the numbers).

In summary, I suspect Steve needed a "clickbait" section of his document.
I think he needed that clickbait to lure people into reading his document.

The clickbait Steve arrived at is as simple as crafting completely
unrealistic figures for the total cost of ownership, and showing that
everyone on the planet is wrong to think iPhones cost more than Android.

What do you think about my hypothesis as to why Steve is making his crazy
claims and using the wackiest set of assumptions to skew the outcome?

On 1/6/2023 4:12 PM, sms 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 when I was outside by
> the pool and iPhone was not in the shade.

Actually it was my iPhone Xr that overheated last summer. I didn't have
the 11 until summer was over.

On 1/3/2023 2:25 PM, Chris Schram wrote:

<snip>

> You'd have to cherry pick to find one iPhone whose high cost of ownership
> isn't many fold that of the total ownership cost of most Android phones.

That is demonstrably false. Don't cherry pick. Choose comparable phones,
whether flagships or mid-range (there are no low-end iPhones so
comparing low-end devices is not possible).

In the comparison tables for TCO for mid-range phones (page 3 of the
document
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JznrWfGJDA8CYVfjSnPTwfVy8-gAC0kPyaApuJTcUNE>)
I used realistic prices, that anyone can obtain, without a long-term
contract.

Here's a link to an image of the two comparison tables:
<https://i.imgur.com/WUKiSu8.jpeg>

Often it does make sense to buy a carrier-discounted phone that requires
60 days before being unlocked (Verizon and their own prepaid services
are required to do the 60 day unlock). For example, Total by Verizon is
currently offering the Apple iPhone 11 for $249.99 and the Samsung A53
5G for $199.99. This requires activation on a $30 plan for one month,
then the phones are unlocked after 60 days (a second month of service is
not required). But this is still less than buying the phone, unlocked,
directly from the manufacturer.

For flagship phones, the rather crazy resale value of a used flagship
iPhone significantly skews the TCO, as does the longer average number of
months between upgrades.

The tables in the document use actual trade-in values, from the
manufacturers and carriers, and realistic resale values from reputable
resale sites (actual resale values are higher if you sell it yourself on
craigslist, eBay, OfferUp, Facebook Marketplace, or Nextdoor).

So far what we’ve seen is the narrative that because you can buy an
Android device for less than a comparable Apple device, that the TCO of
the Android device _must_ be lower, but that's not looking at the big
picture.

I’ve got no dog in this fight. I use both Apple and Android devices for
both phones and tablets and each has their pros and cons (as the
document points out
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JznrWfGJDA8CYVfjSnPTwfVy8-gAC0kPyaApuJTcUNE>.

On 2023-01-08, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> That is demonstrably false.

No. You haven't demonstrated anything.
Pick an outlet, whether that's a store or carrier which is where almost
everyone gets their phones from, and pick a Samsung & an iPhone.

List how much it costs.
Add up the accessories, shipping, tax, whatever.
Add up the cost of one repair of your choosing.
Take 1/3rd of the tradein/resale value that you impute after a few years.

The two hypothetical buyers would walk into one store like most people do
and walk out of that one store with everything they need for the above.
(Repairs can be done later through that same store if it does repairs.)

Until you do that, you haven't demonstrated anything.

> Don't cherry pick.

Do NOT try to paint me with what you're doing.
You haven't demonstrated anything.
And you cherry picked everything.

Pick a store.
Pick two phones, one Samsung and one iPhone.
Add up the costs.

Do it.

> Choose comparable phones,
> whether flagships or mid-range (there are no low-end iPhones so
> comparing low-end devices is not possible).

Duh. Instead of spewing idiot platitudes, just pick two phones.
Pick a Samsung because they're most of the Androids.
Pick an iPhone.

Make them with about the same storage & RAM & size.
In your "demonstration" of true costs, two customers walk into that store
(say it's a Verizon outlet) and they buy the phone & all the necessary
common accessories for that phone at that store and they walk out of the
store with whatever insurance plan is normal for that kind of phone (if
any).

Then you have two more things to deal with, one of which is a repair (pick
either a battery or a screen for example) and then choose a resale value
and chop it down by 2/3rds because your own research shows that to be the
case.

Until you do that, you have demonstrated nothing.
All you've done is cherry pick bogus numbers which demonstrates nothing.

> I used realistic prices, that anyone can obtain, without a long-term
> contract.

Bullshit. You're a cherry picker.

You did NOT do what a normal person would have done & what millions do.
All you did was post bogus cherry picked numbers. Nothing else.

I'm letting you choose almost everything and you STILL can't make the
numbers work because what you're doing by cherry picking is bogus.

Do what I said which is pick an outlet of your own choosing that sells both
the Samsung and iPhone you want to compare and do the math at that store.

Anything NOT that is bogus.

On 1/8/2023 6:35 PM, Chris Schram wrote:
> On 2023-01-08, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>> That is demonstrably false.
>
> No. You haven't demonstrated anything.
> Pick an outlet, whether that's a store or carrier which is where almost
> everyone gets their phones from, and pick a Samsung & an iPhone.

That's exactly what I did.

On 2023-01-09, Chris Schram <chrispam1@me.com> wrote:
> On 2023-01-08, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>> That is demonstrably false.
>
> No. You haven't demonstrated anything.
> Pick an outlet, whether that's a store or carrier which is where almost
> everyone gets their phones from, and pick a Samsung & an iPhone.

Someone is still forging my name and real email address in these endless
flame wars, and it seems to have been going on for awhile now. I
subscribed to m.p.m.i just yesterday, so was unaware this was going on
here.

Bottom line: If you see a posting from Chris Schram expressing a
preference for one platform over another, please do not reply to it.
Then maybe the bastard will find another handle. Thank you.

--
chrispam1@me.com is a filtered spam magnet. Email replies may be lost.
You're better off replying to this newsgroup.

In article <tpgolk$mbr$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Chris Schram
<chrispam1@me.com> wrote:

> On 2023-01-09, Chris Schram <chrispam1@me.com> wrote:
> Someone is still forging my name and real email address in these endless
> flame wars, and it seems to have been going on for awhile now. I
> subscribed to m.p.m.i just yesterday, so was unaware this was going on
> here.

it's not just you. he is forging many different people. it's also not
that difficult to tell it's a forgery.

On 2023-01-09, Chris Schram <chrispam1@me.com> wrote:
> On 2023-01-09, Chris Schram <chrispam1@me.com> wrote:
>> On 2023-01-08, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> That is demonstrably false.
>>
>> No. You haven't demonstrated anything. Pick an outlet, whether
>> that's a store or carrier which is where almost everyone gets their
>> phones from, and pick a Samsung & an iPhone.
>
> Someone is still forging my name and real email address in these
> endless flame wars, and it seems to have been going on for awhile now.

Yes, the resident nym-switching troll we call "Arlen" has been forging
other regular poster's names for a long time now - a despicable behavior
along with all of his other juvenile behaviors, all designed to disrupt.
He seems to have no life outside of these 24/7 activities, so buckle up
and get used to it.

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

JR

On 1/3/2023 11:24 AM, Someone Posing as Chris Schram wrote:

<snip>

> Only if the original poster severely constrains the data does it work out.

Even if you are unrealistic, and don't consider trade-in or resale
value, or average time between obtaining a new phone, or the cost and
difficulty of repairs, or the cost of accessories, iPhones are not
considerably more expensive, as the table on page 4 shows. Those prices
are purchasing the device unlocked, directly from the manufacturer.

But since you believe that retail store prices should be used, here are
the prices from Best Buy for comparable flagship phones:

Samsung - Galaxy S22 Ultra 128GB (Unlocked) - $1099
Google - Pixel 7 Pro 128GB (Unlocked) - $899
Apple - iPhone 14 Pro Max 128GB - $1099 (locked, Best Buy doesn't sell
it unlocked)

Bottom line, the TCO for comparable Android and iPhone devices is not
very different, even when you don't take into account other factors.

On 2023-01-09 06:37, nospam wrote:
> In article <tpgolk$mbr$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Chris Schram
> <chrispam1@me.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2023-01-09, Chris Schram <chrispam1@me.com> wrote:
>> Someone is still forging my name and real email address in these endless
>> flame wars, and it seems to have been going on for awhile now. I
>> subscribed to m.p.m.i just yesterday, so was unaware this was going on
>> here.
>
> it's not just you. he is forging many different people. it's also not
> that difficult to tell it's a forgery.

Literally the only person who's fooled is himself for thinking he's
fooling anyone else.

On Mon, 9 Jan 2023 08:42:47 -0800, sms wrote:

> Samsung - Galaxy S22 Ultra 128GB (Unlocked) - $1099
> Google - Pixel 7 Pro 128GB (Unlocked) - $899
> Apple - iPhone 14 Pro Max 128GB - $1099 (locked, Best Buy doesn't sell
> it unlocked)
>
> Bottom line, the TCO for comparable Android and iPhone devices is not
> very different, even when you don't take into account other factors.

That's only the sales price.
What about the other costs of ownership?
Where are they?

On Jan 6, 2023, nospam wrote
(in article<060120231724072811%nospam@nospam.invalid>):

> 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.

Apple was also early to USB 1, with the original iMac, more than 20 years
ago. And early to USB 2. And FireWire. And Thunderbolt. And were pioneers in
the move away from floppies. And the move to SSDs.

Arlen’s an idiot.

On 2023-01-09 10:34, WolfFan wrote:
> On Jan 6, 2023, nospam wrote
> (in article<060120231724072811%nospam@nospam.invalid>):
>
>> 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.
>
> Apple was also early to USB 1, with the original iMac, more than 20 years
> ago. And early to USB 2. And FireWire. And Thunderbolt. And were pioneers in
> the move away from floppies. And the move to SSDs.
>
> Arlen’s an idiot.
>

Yup.

What people don't get is that Apple is very happy to use GOOD standards.

Before there was a USB-C connector, Apple realized that their initial
connector for iPhones and iPads needed to be something better, and so
they invented the Lightning connector.

Then USB-C came along and was better than the USB-Mini and USB-Micro
standards that preceded it, and Apple was happy to use it.

In article <0001HW.296C95B1001A137E70000F37738F@news.supernews.com>,
WolfFan <akwolffan@zoho.com> wrote:

>
> Apple was also early to USB 1, with the original iMac, more than 20 years
> ago.

true. i forgot about that.

going back even further, the gui itself (and no, the xerox star doesn't
count, as it was a huge market failure).

> And early to USB 2.

actually, they were a little slow for that.

> And FireWire. And Thunderbolt. And were pioneers in
> the move away from floppies. And the move to SSDs.

all true.

> Arlen¹s an idiot.

very true.

nospam wrote:

>> Apple was also early to USB 1, with the original iMac, more than 20 years
>> ago.
>
> true. i forgot about that.

If Apple loves USB as much as you desperate revisionists would want it to
be, then why is Apple only now just beginning to replace the completely
non-standard now-worthless POS iPhone lightning connector with USB-C?

In article <tphsmt$d8e$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
<spam@nospam.com> wrote:

>
> If Apple loves USB as much as you desperate revisionists would want it to
> be, then why is Apple only now just beginning to replace the completely
> non-standard now-worthless POS iPhone lightning connector with USB-C?

apple started moving to usb-c *eight* years ago, with the first laptop
in the industry to have usb-c.

On 2023-01-09 12:16, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> nospam wrote:
>
>>> Apple was also early to USB 1, with the original iMac, more than 20
>>> years ago.
>>
>> true. i forgot about that.
>
> If Apple loves USB as much as you desperate revisionists would want it
> to be, then why is Apple only now just beginning to replace the completely
> non-standard now-worthless POS iPhone lightning connector with USB-C?

It's not "non-standard": it's just a standard you don't like.

It's worth quite a bit to the people who have Lightning accessories.

And like in times past, Apple is transitioning to USB-C now that it is
as good (basically) as Lightning is.

On 1/9/2023 10:34 AM, WolfFan wrote:

<snip>

> Apple was also early to USB 1, with the original iMac, more than 20 years
> ago. And early to USB 2. And FireWire. And Thunderbolt. And were pioneers in
> the move away from floppies. And the move to SSDs.

Yes, all that's true for computers.

However for smart phones it's not the case. Just look at the history.
The iPhone was later than Android with 3G, 4G, 5G, NFC, IP68, OLED
screens, multi-lens cameras, phablets, wireless charging, 120Hz LTPO
displays, reverse wireless charging (except for the MagSafe battery
pack), hole punch cameras, USB-C, folding displays, active styluses,
under-screen fingerprint readers, and eSIMs. These all came later than
Android phones (or are all likely coming on future iPhones).

Even when the technology is ready, Apple tends to carefully meter out
the inclusion of new features in order to create continuous demand for
upgrades.

For Android, there's competition among Android device makers to bring
out new features to not be left behind, but there's not the similar
pressure on Apple. Few users are going to move from iPhone to Android in
order to get a new feature a year or two sooner, they'll just wait for
Apple to bring out that feature.

On 1/9/2023 2:01 AM, Chris Schram wrote:
> On 2023-01-09, Chris Schram <chrispam1@me.com> wrote:
>> On 2023-01-08, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>>> That is demonstrably false.
>>
>> No. You haven't demonstrated anything.
>> Pick an outlet, whether that's a store or carrier which is where almost
>> everyone gets their phones from, and pick a Samsung & an iPhone.
>
> Someone is still forging my name and real email address in these endless
> flame wars, and it seems to have been going on for awhile now. I
> subscribed to m.p.m.i just yesterday, so was unaware this was going on
> here.
>
> Bottom line: If you see a posting from Chris Schram expressing a
> preference for one platform over another, please do not reply to it.
> Then maybe the bastard will find another handle. Thank you.

Noted.

If I follow up I will now use "Someone Posing as Chris Schram...," but I
think that just ignoring the troll is a better option.

I don't want to filter out the troll since it would also filter you out,
since he or she is spoofing your e-mail address.

On 2023-01-09 13:41, sms wrote:
> On 1/9/2023 10:34 AM, WolfFan wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Apple was also early to USB 1, with the original iMac, more than 20
>> years ago. And early to USB 2. And FireWire. And Thunderbolt. And
>> were pioneers in the move away from floppies. And the move to
>> SSDs.
>
> Yes, all that's true for computers.
>
> However for smart phones it's not the case. Just look at the history.
> The iPhone was later than Android with 3G, 4G, 5G, NFC, IP68, OLED
> screens, multi-lens cameras, phablets, wireless charging, 120Hz LTPO
> displays, reverse wireless charging (except for the MagSafe battery
> pack), hole punch cameras, USB-C, folding displays, active styluses,
> under-screen fingerprint readers, and eSIMs. These all came later
> than Android phones (or are all likely coming on future iPhones).

And entirely misses the point.

>
> Even when the technology is ready, Apple tends to carefully meter out
> the inclusion of new features in order to create continuous demand
> for upgrades.
>
> For Android, there's competition among Android device makers to bring
> out new features to not be left behind, but there's not the similar
> pressure on Apple. Few users are going to move from iPhone to
> Android in order to get a new feature a year or two sooner, they'll
> just wait for Apple to bring out that feature.