Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

Beauty? What's that? -- Larry Wall in <199710221937.MAA25131@wall.org>


computers / comp.mobile.android / Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculation which is believable (not a sham)

SubjectAuthor
* Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculation which is believablJAB
+* Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculation which is beliebadgolferman
|+* Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculationsms
||+- Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculation which is belienospam
||`- Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculation which is belieJAB
|+* Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculation which is belieJAB
||`* Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculation which is beliebadgolferman
|| `* Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculation which is belieJAB
||  `* Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownershipbadgolferman
||   +* Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculationsms
||   |`* Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculation which is beliegtr
||   | `* Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculationsms
||   |  `* Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculation which is beliemike
||   |   +* Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculation which is belieNic
||   |   |`* Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculationsms
||   |   | +* Re: Realistic total cost of ownership calculation which is believableAJL
||   |   | |+* Re: Realistic total cost of ownership calculation which is believablesms
||   |   | ||`* Re: Realistic total cost of ownership calculation which is believableAJL
||   |   | || +- Re: Realistic total cost of ownership calculation which is believableKen Blake
||   |   | || `* Re: Realistic total cost of ownership calculation which is believablesms
||   |   | ||  +* Re: Realistic total cost of ownership calculation which is believableStefan Ram
||   |   | ||  |`- Re: Realistic total cost of ownership calculation which is believablesms
||   |   | ||  `- Re: Realistic total cost of ownership calculation which is believableAJL
||   |   | |`* Re: Realistic total cost of ownership calculation which is believableKen Blake
||   |   | | `- Re: Realistic total cost of ownership calculation which is believableAndy Burnelli
||   |   | `- Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculationsms
||   |   `- Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculationsms
||   `* Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculation which is belieJAB
||    `* Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculation which is beliebadgolferman
||     +- Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculationsms
||     +* Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculationsms
||     |`* Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownershipbadgolferman
||     | +- Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculationsms
||     | +* Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculation which is belieJAB
||     | |`* Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculationsms
||     | | `* Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculation which is belienospam
||     | |  `- Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculation which is belieAndy Burnelli
||     | `* Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculation which is belienospam
||     |  +- Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculation which is belieAndy Burnelli
||     |  `* Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculation which is beliebadgolferman
||     |   +* Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculationsms
||     |   |+* Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculation which is belieFromTheRafters
||     |   ||`- Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculationSMS
||     |   |`- Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownershipChris
||     |   +* Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculationAlan Browne
||     |   |`* Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownershipbadgolferman
||     |   | `- Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculationAlan Browne
||     |   +* Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownershipChris
||     |   |`* Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculation which is belienospam
||     |   | `- Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculation which is belieAndy Burnelli
||     |   +* Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculation which is belienospam
||     |   |+- Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculation which is belieAndy Burnelli
||     |   |`* Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownershipbadgolferman
||     |   | `* Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculationSMS
||     |   |  +* Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculation which is belieFromTheRafters
||     |   |  |+* Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownershipbadgolferman
||     |   |  ||`- Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculationsms
||     |   |  |`* Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculationsms
||     |   |  | +- Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculation which is belienospam
||     |   |  | `- Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculation which is belieFromTheRafters
||     |   |  +- Re: Realistc total cost of ownership calculation which is believableAJL
||     |   |  `* Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownershipChris
||     |   |   `* Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculationsms
||     |   |    +- Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculation which is belienospam
||     |   |    +* Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownershipChris
||     |   |    |`* Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculationsms
||     |   |    | +* Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculationAJL
||     |   |    | |+* Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculationsms
||     |   |    | ||+- Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculation which is belienospam
||     |   |    | ||`- Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculationAJL
||     |   |    | |`* Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculationAlan Browne
||     |   |    | | `- Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculationAJL
||     |   |    | +* Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculation which is belienospam
||     |   |    | |`- Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculation which is belieAndy Burnelli
||     |   |    | `* Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculationJolly Roger
||     |   |    |  +* Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculation which is belienospam
||     |   |    |  |`* Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculation which is belieFreethinker
||     |   |    |  | `- Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculationsms
||     |   |    |  `* Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculation which is belieKen Blake
||     |   |    |   +* Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculation which is belienospam
||     |   |    |   |`- Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculation which is belieKen Blake
||     |   |    |   `* Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculation which is beliebadgolferman
||     |   |    |    +* Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculation which is belienospam
||     |   |    |    |`- Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculation which is belieAndy Burnelli
||     |   |    |    +- Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculation which is belieAndy Burnelli
||     |   |    |    `* Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculationsms
||     |   |    |     `- Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculation which is belieAndy Burnelli
||     |   |    `* Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculation which is belieJerry Friedman
||     |   |     +* Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculationAlan Browne
||     |   |     |+* Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculation which is belienospam
||     |   |     ||+* Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculationAlan Browne
||     |   |     |||`* Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculation which is belienospam
||     |   |     ||| `* Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculationAlan Browne
||     |   |     |||  +- Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculationJolly Roger
||     |   |     |||  `* Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculation which is belienospam
||     |   |     |||   +* Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculationAlan Browne
||     |   |     |||   |+* Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculation which is belienospam
||     |   |     |||   ||+* Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculationAlan Browne
||     |   |     |||   |||`* Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculation which is belieHeron
||     |   |     |||   ||| `* Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculationsms
||     |   |     |||   |||  `- Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculation which is belienospam
||     |   |     |||   ||`- Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculation which is belieAndy Burnelli
||     |   |     |||   |`- Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculation which is belieAndy Burnelli
||     |   |     |||   `- Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculation which is belieAndy Burnelli
||     |   |     ||`* Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculation which is beliegrinch
||     |   |     |`* Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculation which is belieMartin Brown
||     |   |     `* Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculationsms
||     |   +* Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculation which is belieAndy Burnelli
||     |   `* Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculationsms
||     `- Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculation which is belieJAB
|+* Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculationsms
|`* Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculation which is belieJAB
+- Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculation which is belieAndy Burnelli
`* Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculation which is belieAndy Burnelli

Pages:12345678
Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculation which is believable (not a sham)

<tqbu85$13i1$1@gioia.aioe.org>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=36604&group=comp.mobile.android#36604

  copy link   Newsgroups: misc.phone.mobile.iphone comp.mobile.android
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!v3a9snVbXY/eXs8vPxHaoQ.user.46.165.242.75.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: scharf.s...@geemail.com (sms)
Newsgroups: misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.mobile.android
Subject: Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculation
which is believable (not a sham)
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2023 09:22:13 -0800
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <tqbu85$13i1$1@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <tps669$1qe2$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<xn0nwsvo2x0brqg008@reader443.eternal-september.org>
<tps90d$153r$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<xn0nwsx4ex2ab3400a@reader443.eternal-september.org>
<tpsk8p$9d$1@gioia.aioe.org> <tpslp3$jcp$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<tpushv$953$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<xn0nwucckyioho600d@reader443.eternal-september.org>
<tpv54n$238p0$3@dont-email.me> <tpvdbo$1k5i$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<140120232123074973%nospam@nospam.invalid>
<xn0nwvjtg5v77x00e@reader443.eternal-september.org>
<tq38sp$9s9$1@gioia.aioe.org> <tq76cs$3cr$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<tq7h50$1l2e$1@gioia.aioe.org> <tq7o84$1iuf$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<tqb66o$v83$1@gioia.aioe.org> <tqbp87$f1o$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="36417"; posting-host="v3a9snVbXY/eXs8vPxHaoQ.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org";
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/102.6.1
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
Content-Language: en-US
 by: sms - Thu, 19 Jan 2023 17:22 UTC

On 1/19/2023 7:57 AM, JAB wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 02:31:52 -0800, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>>> The Samsung charger is both.
>>
>> It is not. Or at least Samsung never states that their chargers support QC.
>>
>> I've added to the document to explain that the Apple and Samsung
>> chargers are USB-PD only.
>>
>> I added references to three chargers that are USB-C PD/QC.
>
> I apologize for being wrong on the charger.
> And I appreciate that you are adding that charger data to your spreadsheet.
>
> I will accept that you are right, especially since I had assumed without
> checking myself that the Apple charger was PD and the Samsung was PD/QC.
>
> What I knew was the Samsung supports both and when I checked in the Florida
> store badgolferman selected they emphatically told me their Samsung charger
> fit the phone's charging specs to charge the phone to half in half an hour.
>
> Therein lies the danger of me making that assumption, even though it's
> fully correct that Samsung supports both and the iPhone only supports PD.
> https://switchchargers.com/best-fast-chargers-samsung-galaxy-s/
>
> Moving forward, it makes no sense for a buyer to purchase a charger that
> only supports half the standards, which makes both chargers infeasible.

Perhaps, but AFAIK, nearly all new name-brand Android devices are now
USB-C PD. Remember, you were saying that most people that buy a phone at
a carrier's store will also buy a charger there (if they buy a charger
at all). It's unlikely that any carrier store employee will tell them to
buy a charger somewhere else so it will also work with a device that
they probably don't own or never use if they do own it.

Personally, I have both a flagship Android device and a mid-range
iPhone. I got the flagship Android device because I wanted a phone with
a very good camera, and the Pixel 7 Pro camera has definite advantages
over the iPhone 14 Pro Max camera.

The other major reason I chose the Pixel 7 Pro was the lack of a
physical SIM card on the iPhone 14 Pro Max—that was an absolute
deal-breaker because I travel a lot outside the U.S. (or used to
pre-pandemic and plan to again) and it’s much better, and cheaper, to be
able to buy a local SIM card (that may change someday, but right now,
nearly every foreign eSIM card is data-only and you don’t get a phone
number in the country or region you’re traveling in).

Lightning versus USB-C was another factor, though not a major one, as
was the lack of a fingerprint reader. The Pixel 7 Pro disadvantage was
minor: no HDMI out (there is a workaround, but shame on Google for
disabling that feature).

When I buy a big-ticket item my goal is not to give the manufacturer as
much money as possible. Apple, Samsung, and Google have plenty of money.
I’d rather give less to them, or to a carrier, have more money to spend
foolishly on bicycles, travel, dining, whatever. But I realize that many
people are not cost-sensitive and just don't care.

Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculation which is believable (not a sham)

<tqjtdk$1dc5$1@gioia.aioe.org>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=36882&group=comp.mobile.android#36882

  copy link   Newsgroups: misc.phone.mobile.iphone comp.mobile.android comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!KtmkZSqdLPPY4Fy5g629jg.user.46.165.242.75.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: spa...@nospam.com (Andy Burnelli)
Newsgroups: misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.mobile.android,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculation which is believable (not a sham)
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2023 17:57:19 +0000
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <tqjtdk$1dc5$1@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <tps669$1qe2$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="46469"; posting-host="KtmkZSqdLPPY4Fy5g629jg.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org";
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.6.1
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
Content-Language: en-GB
 by: Andy Burnelli - Sun, 22 Jan 2023 17:57 UTC

sms wrote:

> There's another big issue with wired charging as well, one that you
> personally have run into with iPhones (and my son ran into as well):
> failure of the Lightning port as the result of two many cycles of
> insertion/removal, or other stress. This is the third biggest repair on
> iPhones after screen replacement and battery replacement and is so
> expensive that most people just trade in their phone.

Am I the only intelligent adult on this newsgroup or not?

Did anyone else notice that what Steve said above DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS
virtually everything Steve _previously said_ about total ownership cost?

Point 1: Steve ignored repairs in his total ownership cost spreadsheet.
Point 2: Steve said Android costs were higher than iPhone costs.
Point 3: And yet, for repairs, Steve implies iPhone repair costs are high.

So high, that people trade in their iPhones instead of fixing them.

Is it just me or are there any other intelligent adults on this ng who also
notice that virtually everything from either the iKooks or Steve directly
contradicts their own (usually lame) excuses they've used in the past when
they're desperately fabricating nonsensical excuses for Apple products?

Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculation which is believable (not a sham)

<tqjufe$36taj$3@dont-email.me>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=36883&group=comp.mobile.android#36883

  copy link   Newsgroups: misc.phone.mobile.iphone comp.mobile.android comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: nuh...@nope.com (Alan)
Newsgroups: misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.mobile.android,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculation
which is believable (not a sham)
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2023 10:15:10 -0800
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <tqjufe$36taj$3@dont-email.me>
References: <tps669$1qe2$1@gioia.aioe.org> <tqjtdk$1dc5$1@gioia.aioe.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2023 18:15:10 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader01.eternal-september.org; posting-host="76714fa9fee2f205925df7537c46ba7e";
logging-data="3372371"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX194LoRYAOURJilbr1G+63w8vJaGWPtf70s="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:102.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.6.1
Cancel-Lock: sha1:rV2JvGsqJ9saFchdPk+Y2qxeSZQ=
In-Reply-To: <tqjtdk$1dc5$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Content-Language: en-CA
 by: Alan - Sun, 22 Jan 2023 18:15 UTC

On 2023-01-22 09:57, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> sms wrote:
>
>> There's another big issue with wired charging as well, one that you
>> personally have run into with iPhones (and my son ran into as well):
>> failure of the Lightning port as the result of two many cycles of
>> insertion/removal, or other stress. This is the third biggest repair
>> on iPhones after screen replacement and battery replacement and is so
>> expensive that most people just trade in their phone.
>
> Am I the only intelligent adult on this newsgroup or not?
>
> Did anyone else notice...

....that you insist on posting the same bullshit multiple times?

Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculation which is believable (not a sham)

<220120231332383522%nospam@nospam.invalid>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=36884&group=comp.mobile.android#36884

  copy link   Newsgroups: misc.phone.mobile.iphone comp.mobile.android comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: nos...@nospam.invalid (nospam)
Newsgroups: misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.mobile.android,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Realistc (not ficticious) total cost of ownership calculation which is believable (not a sham)
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2023 13:32:38 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 7
Message-ID: <220120231332383522%nospam@nospam.invalid>
References: <tps669$1qe2$1@gioia.aioe.org> <tqjtdk$1dc5$1@gioia.aioe.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader01.eternal-september.org; posting-host="19be3b026e7c8d68605227ed08acca87";
logging-data="3385368"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18aYbl598KK5ZaweG2ans6I"
User-Agent: Thoth/1.9.0 (Mac OS X)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:bRaJa2zZzZjF9L/99cWXJH6fgXk=
 by: nospam - Sun, 22 Jan 2023 18:32 UTC

In article <tqjtdk$1dc5$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
<spam@nospam.com> wrote:

>
> Am I the only intelligent adult on this newsgroup or not?

do not ask a question for which you do not want to hear the answer.

Pages:12345678
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.8
clearnet tor