On Sun, 29 Jan 2023 12:06:24 -0800, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

>> What you just said is an outrageous affront to all people who care about
>> cost of ownership since all you did was say I am a liar when I'm not.
>
> Not the intention at all. I just wanted to present accurate information.

No you did not "just want to present accurate information."
You called both me and badfolferman liars.

You can call today yourself and prove you are wrong.(239) 213-1229
They STILL have the iPhone $400 promo for the iPhone 11 to 14.

Don't respond until you've made that call and after you then have
apologized to both badgolferman and to me for calling us both liars.

Badgolferman - why do you put up with his outrageous behavior?

> What you have to understand is that the three nationwide carriers will
> always try to match each other's offers.

No. What you have to understand" is calling me and badgolferman liars is
outrageous behavior.

Apologize or forever lose any respect you may have had from anyone.

On 1/29/2023 12:22 PM, JAB wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jan 2023 12:06:24 -0800, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>>> What you just said is an outrageous affront to all people who care about
>>> cost of ownership since all you did was say I am a liar when I'm not.
>>
>> Not the intention at all. I just wanted to present accurate information.
>
> No you did not "just want to present accurate information."
> You called both me and badfolferman liars.
>
> You can call today yourself and prove you are wrong.(239) 213-1229
> They STILL have the iPhone $400 promo for the iPhone 11 to 14.

Sorry, I use the data from each carrier's web site. I don't really care
what one particular T-Mobile store in Florida charges. I'm sure that
they did really tell you that there was only a $400 promo, but that's
immaterial.

On Jan 29, 2023, Alan Browne wrote (in article
<news:OnyBL.379122$MVg8.368713@fx12.iad>):

>> the original poster is trying to justify /his/ choice between Android & iOS
>> but as you said, nobody else thinks about TCO when buying flagship phones.
>
> Or any phones.

I think many people do make a case for a $100 or $200 or even $300 phone
based on TCO, don't you? Not everyone wants the expense of a flagship.

> IMO the original poster is desperately attempting to find a way to make
> the one he chose shine with an arbitrarily complex process masked as a
> business case.

You put it good that he's trying to make /his/ complex antics (using many
Trump-like political lies and misbehaviors) to make his sham scenario seem
to be a general business case for the typical flagship smartphone buyer.

On 1/29/2023 12:07 PM, knuttle wrote:
> On 1/29/2023 12:49 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
>
>>> The op is being fooled into thinking a marketing trick is real value.
>>
>> Not necessarily since he is possibly comparing that against similar
>> offers from other companies - so the astute buyer measures as best he
>> can and picks the best value for him.
>
> Isn't the op's Google document static while these offers change every day?

The offers change, though not every day. I'll check back every couple of
weeks in case the offers change.

Also, apparently the in-store offers are not necessarily the same as the
on-line offers.

On 1/29/2023 12:11 PM, knuttle wrote:
> On 1/29/2023 1:36 PM, sms wrote:
>
>> It would be foolish to not take advantage of these offers, and that's
>> wy so many iPhone users do exactly that.
>
> Certainly some do but if you're telling me that most peoples stoop to trade
> in their old iPhone then you better show stats showing >50% trade them in.

I could not find any data newer than 2021.

However one report stated "Interestingly, nearly half of Android
handsets are kept, with only 29% of iPhone owners surveyed claiming the
same." So that would be 71% of iPhones that are being traded-in, resold,
given to someone else, thrown away, etc.."

On 2023-01-29 15:07, knuttle wrote:
> On 1/29/2023 12:49 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
>
>>> The op is being fooled into thinking a marketing trick is real value.
>>
>> Not necessarily since he is possibly comparing that against similar
>> offers from other companies - so the astute buyer measures as best he
>> can and picks the best value for him.
>
> Isn't the op's Google document static while these offers change every day?

I haven't looked, so don't know[1].

That too is a good point - the market offerings change, it seems,
weekly, if not daily.

My simplistic approach:
- buy the damned phone at a high (not highest) spec.
- get the cheapest plan that fits my needs even if imperfectly
- keep the phone for 5 years (at least)

(And, 'cause the shareholders love me, have the company pay for it).

[1] Don't care either.

--
“Donald Trump and his allies and supporters are a clear and present
danger to American democracy.”
- J Michael Luttig - 2022-06-16
- Former US appellate court judge (R) testifying to the January 6
committee

On 2023-01-29 15:33, Bill W wrote:
> On Jan 29, 2023, Alan Browne wrote (in article
> <news:OnyBL.379122$MVg8.368713@fx12.iad>):
>
>>> the original poster is trying to justify /his/ choice between Android & iOS
>>> but as you said, nobody else thinks about TCO when buying flagship phones.
>>
>> Or any phones.
>
> I think many people do make a case for a $100 or $200 or even $300 phone
> based on TCO, don't you? Not everyone wants the expense of a flagship.

I'm sure there are 100's of millions of people making their case for a
phone at all price points.

But very, very few are doing a TCO.

Many people buy on impulse, pushy sales types, marketing blasts, the
"package" from their provider, etc.

>> IMO the original poster is desperately attempting to find a way to make
>> the one he chose shine with an arbitrarily complex process masked as a
>> business case.
>
> You put it good that he's trying to make /his/ complex antics (using many
> Trump-like political lies and misbehaviors) to make his sham scenario seem
> to be a general business case for the typical flagship smartphone buyer.

Flagship smartphone buyers fall into three camps (in my estimation):

1) Those who can afford it (really) and get what they want and there is
little consideration to a product lifecycle expense, and

2) those who want to have the best (or the symbol thereof), damned the
expense, and load up the card (again), and

3) those who actually need specific features of those phones (camera,
etc) and it's an expense they are prepared to bear.

--
“Donald Trump and his allies and supporters are a clear and present
danger to American democracy.”
- J Michael Luttig - 2022-06-16
- Former US appellate court judge (R) testifying to the January 6
committee

On Jan 29, 2023, Alan Browne wrote (in article
<news:8xDBL.77839$5S78.27601@fx48.iad>):

>> I think many people do make a case for a $100 or $200 or even $300 phone
>> based on TCO, don't you? Not everyone wants the expense of a flagship.
>
> I'm sure there are 100's of millions of people making their case for a
> phone at all price points.

Sure. But most people don't need a phone immediately because they already
have one (unless it suddenly broke or the battery is going south on them).

> But very, very few are doing a TCO.

Certainly not formally, but if you pay $200 for a nice phone, the MOST you
can lose is the $250 or whatever it cost after taxes and accessories.

That's an informal TCO that almost everyone can instantly make on the spot.

> Many people buy on impulse, pushy sales types, marketing blasts, the
> "package" from their provider, etc.

What does a $1000 phone do that a $300 phone doesn't do, isn't much, and to
your point of buying on impulse, it isn't going to be something you need.

> Flagship smartphone buyers fall into three camps (in my estimation):
>
> 1) Those who can afford it (really) and get what they want and there is
> little consideration to a product lifecycle expense, and

Yes. If you're willing to pay $1,000 for a phone, you have the luxury of
picking what you want without being limited by whatever the "deals" are
available that disappear in the next week. You just buy what you want.

> 2) those who want to have the best (or the symbol thereof), damned the
> expense, and load up the card (again), and

I would say not many older people do this, but a lot of young people are
unduly influenced by perceptions of others - which is crazy I know - but it
happens, especially with kids in the socially vulnerable teenage years.

But how many high school teens can justify a $1000 phone when a $300 phone
does the same things that the flagship does - perhaps not as fast though.

> 3) those who actually need specific features of those phones (camera,
> etc) and it's an expense they are prepared to bear.

What does a $1000 phone do that a $300 phone doesn't do that you really
need a cell phone to do? They all do the basics that everyone needs.

On 2023-01-29 18:57, Bill W wrote:
> On Jan 29, 2023, Alan Browne wrote (in article
> <news:8xDBL.77839$5S78.27601@fx48.iad>):
>
>>> I think many people do make a case for a $100 or $200 or even $300 phone
>>> based on TCO, don't you? Not everyone wants the expense of a flagship.
>>
>> I'm sure there are 100's of millions of people making their case for a
>> phone at all price points.
>
> Sure.

<massively snipped>

So - nothing above (snipped) requires much (anything) in the form of a
TCO calculation. Everyone for themselves, some will make rational
decisions that satisfy rational people. Others won't.

Who cares?

My only care would be that people wring out the life of a thing in order
to reduce e-waste and the embodied carbon (all sources) from
manufacturing.

So when I turn in my phone to Apple for the next one, I do hope it ends
up in the hands of someone who will get at least 2 or 3 years out of it
before it is properly recycled. Per some reports that is not always the
case.

--
“Donald Trump and his allies and supporters are a clear and present
danger to American democracy.”
- J Michael Luttig - 2022-06-16
- Former US appellate court judge (R) testifying to the January 6
committee

On Jan 30, 2023, Alan Browne wrote (in article
<news:ckEBL.317396$gGD7.24369@fx11.iad>):

> So - nothing above (snipped) requires much (anything) in the form of a
> TCO calculation. Everyone for themselves, some will make rational
> decisions that satisfy rational people. Others won't.

True. If you can do with a $300 phone, the TCO is always going to be better
than that of a $1000 phone no matter what happens while you own the phone.

> My only care would be that people wring out the life of a thing in order
> to reduce e-waste and the embodied carbon (all sources) from
> manufacturing.

True. Apple made a big push toward sustainability by letting people use
their old chargers instead of giving everyone a charger they don't need.

> So when I turn in my phone to Apple for the next one, I do hope it ends
> up in the hands of someone who will get at least 2 or 3 years out of it
> before it is properly recycled. Per some reports that is not always the
> case.

This is the latest I could find about Apple's current recycling status.
https://www.makeuseof.com/apple-isnt-as-green-as-it-pretends-to-be/

It's from two months ago and it says Apple goes way out of their way to
prevent iPhones from being re-used and it concludes that Apple is lying.

On 1/29/2023 12:15 PM, knuttle wrote:
> On 1/29/2023 1:19 PM, sms wrote:
>
>> The newer models are retained by the carrier or manufacturer,
>> refurbished if necessary, and either used as warranty replacement
>> devices or are sold as refurbished.
>
> There are only three main carriers in the USA so which are you saying sell
> old beatup previously traded in or fixed broken iPhones to their customers?

Where did you get that idea from?

"A refurbished phone will have had a previous owner but, unlike a
second-hand phone sold by an individual, it is sold by a network,
manufacturer or retailer who will have repaired it, run checks and
ensured that it’s a certain standard"
<https://www.forbes.com/uk/advisor/mobile-phones/refurbished-mobile-phones/>.

When you trade in a phone there are mint condition trade-ins of recent
models, there are poor condition trade-ins of recent models, and the
same applies for older models.

The trade-ins aren't all treated the same after they're evaluated. The
mint condition ones often end up as refurbished phones sold by Apple or
by the carriers, usually the prepaid divisions of the regular carriers.
Some are used as warranty replacement phones by Apple and the carriers.
Some end up in big box stores like Best Buy.

Damaged phones, and older models are bundled up and sold to
refurbishers, usually in other countries.

On 2023-01-29 20:17, Bill W wrote:
> On Jan 30, 2023, Alan Browne wrote (in article
> <news:ckEBL.317396$gGD7.24369@fx11.iad>):
>
>> So - nothing above (snipped) requires much (anything) in the form of a
>> TCO calculation. Everyone for themselves, some will make rational
>> decisions that satisfy rational people. Others won't.
>
> True. If you can do with a $300 phone, the TCO is always going to be better
> than that of a $1000 phone no matter what happens while you own the phone.
>
>> My only care would be that people wring out the life of a thing in order
>> to reduce e-waste and the embodied carbon (all sources) from
>> manufacturing.
>
> True. Apple made a big push toward sustainability by letting people use
> their old chargers instead of giving everyone a charger they don't need.
>
>> So when I turn in my phone to Apple for the next one, I do hope it ends
>> up in the hands of someone who will get at least 2 or 3 years out of it
>> before it is properly recycled. Per some reports that is not always the
>> case.
>
> This is the latest I could find about Apple's current recycling status.
> https://www.makeuseof.com/apple-isnt-as-green-as-it-pretends-to-be/
>
> It's from two months ago and it says Apple goes way out of their way to
> prevent iPhones from being re-used and it concludes that Apple is lying.

Discernment: the article of some otherwise unheard of website aspiring
to be "news" ___ claims ___ that Apple is lying.

Proof is another thing. Sort of difficult to be a $2.3T public company
and not tell the truth about operations.

--
“Donald Trump and his allies and supporters are a clear and present
danger to American democracy.”
- J Michael Luttig - 2022-06-16
- Former US appellate court judge (R) testifying to the January 6
committee

Am 30.01.23 um 02:17 schrieb Bill W:
> On Jan 30, 2023, Alan Browne wrote (in article
> <news:ckEBL.317396$gGD7.24369@fx11.iad>):
>
>> So - nothing above (snipped) requires much (anything) in the form of a
>> TCO calculation. Everyone for themselves, some will make rational
>> decisions that satisfy rational people. Others won't.
>
> True. If you can do with a $300 phone, the TCO is always going to be better
> than that of a $1000 phone no matter what happens while you own the phone.

That is exactly the reason why this discussion is totally absurd: The
TCO is merely driven by the sticker price of the phone hardware.

--
Gutta cavat lapidem (Ovid)

On Jan 30, 2023, Alan Browne wrote (in article
<news:bJHBL.592657$9sn9.370584@fx17.iad>):

> Discernment: the article of some otherwise unheard of website aspiring
> to be "news" ___ claims ___ that Apple is lying.

It's understandable that you would not believe an article that puts Apple
in a bad light. It probably doesn't matter to you what any article says if
it contradicts in any way what Apple says. That's perfectly understandable.
I was just saying it's the latest article I could find. That's all.

> Proof is another thing.

There were other articles that were older which discussed similar issues.

Here's just one but it's from 2020 which is why I didn't provide it prior.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-10-17/maybe-apple-isn-t-as-green-as-it-claims

> Sort of difficult to be a $2.3T public company
> and not tell the truth about operations.

You can't be blamed for believing Apple is always without fault.

Some outfits even agree with your opinion of Apple recycling claims.
https://epsnews.com/2017/10/26/3-things-apple-wont-say-about-making-iphones-from-recycled-components/

On Sun, 29 Jan 2023 12:35:29 -0500, Bill W <nothing@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>On Jan 29, 2023, Alan Browne wrote (in article
><news:vsvBL.523636$vBI8.520271@fx15.iad>):
>
>>> This so called TCO-considerations are completely OT in both groups and
>>> IMHO very childish.
>>
>> Useless more than childish as practically no individual buyer considers
>> TCO in their purchase decision, least of all as a choice between iPhone
>> and Android.
>
>the original poster is trying to justify /his/ choice between Android & iOS
>but as you said, nobody else thinks about TCO when buying flagship phones.

I bought my first smart phone about 6.5 years ago. I chose Android
without thinking about TCO.

Why did I choose Android rather than an iPhone? For three reasons:
several people whose opinions I respected told me Android was a better
choice; an Android phone was less expensive; I thought there was a
bigger selection of software available for Android.

Was I right about there being a bigger selection of software? I don't
know.

Was there a bigger selection then, but not now? I don't know.

Did I make a good choice in choosing Android? I don't know.

Which is better, Android or iPhone? I don't know.

Might I switch to iPhone some day? Almost certainly not. I have no
interest in taking the time and trouble to learn how to use something
new. That's the same reason I stay with Windows and will never switch
to a Macintosh or some flavor of Linux. It's easiest to stick with
what I know, so change all the "I don't know"s above to "I don't know
and I don't care."

"Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com>" wrote in message
<news:mtqfth1b46lkhn0eqvircvneg7ptk9a9v4@4ax.com>...

> I bought my first smart phone about 6.5 years ago. I chose Android
> without thinking about TCO.

Most people don't think about the TCO directly, but of course they know
Apple iPhones are more expensive on average than Android phones are.

> Why did I choose Android rather than an iPhone? For three reasons:
> several people whose opinions I respected told me Android was a better
> choice;

Whether or not Android is a better choice is dependent upon how much other
Apple hardware you own since the walled garden is Apple's only advantage.

> an Android phone was less expensive;

You can buy an Android phone from any price range but the Apple price range
is much more limited so on average, Android will always be less expensive.

The price of iPhones is based on marketing choosing how much pain people
are willing to pay for their advertisements, where Android phones of the
"same flagship class" simply copy Apple's typical pain-point pricing.

> I thought there was a
> bigger selection of software available for Android.

The lack of software selection on the iPhone is one of its biggest
drawbacks since you can only get the apps from one place whereas with
Android that one place has many times the app selection (not just numbers,
but types of apps too) and of course, much more competition.

Even if the Google Play Store didn't have something like ten times the app
selection of the Apple App Store, with Android you're not limited to a
single closely guarded store like you are with iPhones, so there isn't any
doubt low app selection is the biggest flaw in the entire iPhone system.

> Was I right about there being a bigger selection of software? I don't
> know.

I don't know offhand but your app selection on Android is maybe ten to a
hundred times greater than it is on iOS, both in numbers & types.

And then multiply that by the number of stores, and iOS stands no chance.

> Was there a bigger selection then, but not now? I don't know.

Only in the very beginning because Apple started the modern smartphone
and the modern app store concept (which Google & Microsoft & Amazon copied
and took it to levels Apple can't compete with - and doesn't even try to).

> Did I make a good choice in choosing Android? I don't know.

The only reason to choose iOS, as far as I can tell, is if you already are
an Apple-only household because iOS plays nice only in the walled garden.

> Which is better, Android or iPhone? I don't know.

It's not even close but you have to compare similarly priced phones, where
the Android phones usually have better specs than similar priced iPhones.

Once in a while, the most expensive iPhones have _one_ feature (maybe two,
at most) which are the "best" for a short period of time - but very short.

Weeks usually, but at most, months - and even then, iPhone hardware is
always missing what Android hardware has when you look at the big picture.

> Might I switch to iPhone some day?

When you take the sum totality, the only way the iPhone hardware ever beats
Android, is on a _single_ feature (such as the camera) but only for a short
time and then Apple doesn't tell you about all the missing hardware they
never put in or removed as that's not how successful marketing works.

> Almost certainly not.

The only reason for iOS is if you already have all Apple equipment, as
iPhones do not play nice (on purpose) with Windows, Linux or Android.

> I have no
> interest in taking the time and trouble to learn how to use something
> new.

It's worse than that. Much worse. You have to learn that the iPhone is
missing almost everything basic on Android that you took for granted.

> That's the same reason I stay with Windows and will never switch
> to a Macintosh or some flavor of Linux.

All three are completely different in just as many ways that Android and
iOS are different where the Apple systems will always only be viable if you
already have only Apple equipment although the Mac plays a bit nicer with
Windows and Linux than the iPhone does with Linux, Windows or Android.

> It's easiest to stick with
> what I know, so change all the "I don't know"s above to "I don't know
> and I don't care."

Unless you already are an all-Apple household, there is no advantage.
The Apple products don't play nice with Linux, Windows or Android.
--
Regards
wasbit

On Jan 30, 2023, wasbit wrote
(in article<news:tr8tdc$3c6e9$1@dont-email.me>):

>> Was there a bigger selection then, but not now? I don't know.
>
> Only in the very beginning because Apple started the modern smartphone
> and the modern app store concept (which Google & Microsoft & Amazon copied
> and took it to levels Apple can't compete with - and doesn't even try to).

Don't forget Samsung also copied the app store concept by adding the Galaxy
Store - which multiplies Android app selection by even more than you think.

Ron, the humblest guy in town.

RonTheGuy <ron@null.invalid> wrote:

>>> Was there a bigger selection then, but not now? I don't know.
>>
>> Only in the very beginning because Apple started the modern smartphone
>> and the modern app store concept (which Google & Microsoft & Amazon copied
>> and took it to levels Apple can't compete with - and doesn't even try to).
>
> Don't forget Samsung also copied the app store concept by adding the Galaxy
> Store - which multiplies Android app selection by even more than you think.

Add to that there are some apps that compete directly with Google apps so
Google won't allow them on their app store but you can download them from
the developers web sites so that multiplies app selection by even more.

Plus you can get archives of almost every app that was ever on the Google
Play Store which multiplies the choices by thousands more than said above.

Apple can't compete on app selection having only one restricted app store.
--
Please wear your mask!
Bugs are everywhere. :)
!__!
(@)(@)
\.'||'./
-: :: :-
/'..''..'\

On 1/30/2023 9:06 AM, wasbit wrote:
> "Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com>" wrote in message
> <news:mtqfth1b46lkhn0eqvircvneg7ptk9a9v4@4ax.com>...
>
>> I bought my first smart phone about 6.5 years ago. I chose Android
>> without thinking about TCO.
>
> Most people don't think about the TCO directly, but of course they know
> Apple iPhones are more expensive on average than Android phones are.

Yes, on average that's true because you have vast quantities of
lower-end Android devices dragging down the average.

You can buy an Android smart phone for $29.99, including a year of
minimal service on Verizon's network, and 60 days after you buy it it
can be unlocked at no cost. And that includes an AC charger, a car
charger, and Bluetooth earbuds! But it's probably not a phone you really
want.

For Android flagships versus iPhone flagships, by the time you factor in
the resale/trade-in value difference, the iPhone flagship is not
significantly different in cost from the Android flagship. Which was
really the point of the document.

On 1/30/2023 9:09 AM, RonTheGuy wrote:
> On Jan 30, 2023, wasbit wrote
> (in article<news:tr8tdc$3c6e9$1@dont-email.me>):
>
>>> Was there a bigger selection then, but not now? I don't know.
>>
>> Only in the very beginning because Apple started the modern smartphone
>> and the modern app store concept (which Google & Microsoft & Amazon copied
>> and took it to levels Apple can't compete with - and doesn't even try to).
>
> Don't forget Samsung also copied the app store concept by adding the Galaxy
> Store - which multiplies Android app selection by even more than you think.

There's actually hundreds of app stores distributing Android apps, just
be careful.

The nice thing is that there are some very useful apps for Android that
are not available on iOS because Apple doesn't allow them and unlike
Android there's no easy way to side-load iOS apps.

On 1/30/2023 9:23 AM, Bugsy wrote:

<snip
..
> Apple can't compete on app selection having only one restricted app store.

Occasionally I have a relative or friend ask me how to do something on
their iPhone that I'm able to do on an Android device and I have to tell
them that it's not possible because there is no equivalent app available
on iOS.

"sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>" wrote in message
<news:tr8ver$3cemb$1@dont-email.me>...

> Yes, on average that's true because you have vast quantities of
> lower-end Android devices dragging down the average.
>
> You can buy an Android smart phone for $29.99, including a year of
> minimal service on Verizon's network, and 60 days after you buy it it
> can be unlocked at no cost. And that includes an AC charger, a car
> charger, and Bluetooth earbuds! But it's probably not a phone you really
> want.
>
> For Android flagships versus iPhone flagships, by the time you factor in
> the resale/trade-in value difference, the iPhone flagship is not
> significantly different in cost from the Android flagship. Which was
> really the point of the document.

It's not fair you compare $29.99 Android phone hardware to $1,200 flagships
even as it probably can run most of the software that those flagships can.

And your argument is missing hundreds of $300 to $600 midrange models.
Without which it's not an Android to iOS comparison in any sense at all.

Your TCO is between at most about ten phones, more than half are Android
and only about four or five are iOS and that's the totality of your survey.

Given your TCO is only between about ten phones out of thousands, why do
you bill your TCO as between "Android" & "iPhone" (when it's clearly not)?
--
Regards
wasbit

On Jan 30, 2023, sms wrote
(in article<news:tr8vip$3cemb$2@dont-email.me>):

> There's actually hundreds of app stores distributing Android apps, just
> be careful.

Sideloading doesn't prevent the automatic Google antivirus from running.
You don't have to be any more careful than you are on any other computer.

> The nice thing is that there are some very useful apps for Android that
> are not available on iOS because Apple doesn't allow them and unlike
> Android there's no easy way to side-load iOS apps.

I agree there are plenty of very useful apps for Android that are not
available on iOS & some of them I saw in your google document a while ago.

Even when Google doesn't want any given very competitive app on its app
store, the developers can publish the app anywhere (often open sourced).

As a result, there are apps for Android that Apple won't allow on iOS, and
there are apps for Android that even Google won't allow on its app store,
and there is a highly competitive open source app for every Google app.

Plus all of them will have archives going back to their original versions.
None of these Android app advantages exist with the Apple iPhone.

Ron, the humblest guy in town.

In article <tr8tdc$3c6e9$1@dont-email.me>, wasbit
<wasbitREMOVE@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > Why did I choose Android rather than an iPhone? For three reasons:
> > several people whose opinions I respected told me Android was a better
> > choice;
>
> Whether or not Android is a better choice is dependent upon how much other
> Apple hardware you own since the walled garden is Apple's only advantage.

there is no walled garden, nor is other apple hardware needed.

the vast majority of iphone owners use windows.

> > an Android phone was less expensive;
>
> You can buy an Android phone from any price range but the Apple price range
> is much more limited so on average, Android will always be less expensive.

not for the same specs, it won't.

similar spec phones cost about the same.

lesser spec phones will cost less. no surprise there.

there are very low spec android phones, but they're greatly limited in
what they can do. apple has deliberately chosen to not bother with that
tier.

> The price of iPhones is based on marketing choosing how much pain people
> are willing to pay

the price of *every* product is determined by what someone is willing
to pay.

> > I thought there was a
> > bigger selection of software available for Android.
>
> The lack of software selection on the iPhone is one of its biggest
> drawbacks

false. there is no lack of selection of apps.

> Even if the Google Play Store didn't have something like ten times the app
> selection of the Apple App Store,

false.

<https://www.businessofapps.com/data/app-stores/>
€ Apple¹s App Store has 3.59 million apps and 984,000 games
....
€ Google Play¹s App Store has 2.33 million apps and 442,000 games

there's also quality versus quantity.

what matters is which platform has the *best* apps for a user's needs.
for some that will be android, for others it will be ios and for some
it won't even be a smartphone.

>
> > Was I right about there being a bigger selection of software? I don't
> > know.
>
> I don't know offhand

yep, you don't.

> but your app selection on Android is maybe ten to a
> hundred times greater than it is on iOS, both in numbers & types.

rubbish.

for it to be 'ten to a hundred times greater', there would need to be
35-350 million apps available, which is clearly not true. it's not even
close to true. it's simply ludicrous.

>
> The only reason for iOS is if you already have all Apple equipment, as
> iPhones do not play nice (on purpose) with Windows, Linux or Android.

very much false.

again, the majority of iphone users are windows users.

> > I have no
> > interest in taking the time and trouble to learn how to use something
> > new.
>
> It's worse than that. Much worse. You have to learn that the iPhone is
> missing almost everything basic on Android that you took for granted.

false.

in fact, it's the opposite. many things are easier on ios, often
without the need of additional apps. a few esoteric things are easier
on android.

no platform does everything in every situation. choose the best tool
for the job.

In article <tr8vml$3cemb$3@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

>
> Occasionally I have a relative or friend ask me how to do something on
> their iPhone that I'm able to do on an Android device and I have to tell
> them that it's not possible because there is no equivalent app available
> on iOS.

assuming that story is even remotely true, what you fail to mention are
the many things that ios can do that android cannot do (or nowhere near
as easily).