On 2/28/2023 6:21 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:

<snip>

> What's a "Secure Folder"?

For Samsung it's a folder where you can place apps and date that you
want to require biometric or passcode/pattern protection even when the
phone is unlocked. You'd want this for banking, shopping, social media,
etc..

"Folder" is a bit of a misnomer since it implies that it's only to store
files securely.

Beginning with iOS 16, you can store data in the Hidden and Deleted
folders which are locked by default, see
<https://tech.hindustantimes.com/mobile/news/iphone-gets-secure-folder-with-ios-16-in-a-still-weird-way-71654578631042.html>.
But there is no way to password protect apps without jailbreaking.

On 2023-02-28 09:24, badgolferman wrote:
> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>> On 2023-02-27 23:38, Nil wrote:
>>> On 28 Feb 2023, Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote in
>>> misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.mobile.android:
>>>
>>>> It's desperate.
>>>
>>> Why do you call someone an it?
>>
>> It deserves it...
>>
>> ...and we don't know its gender.
>>
>
> That’s childish.

Yes it is.

> You know full well.

And yet still entirely deserved.

On 2/28/2023 6:46 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:

<snip>

> When I get the typical nospam assertion of saying that nobody does
> something as if he really knew, yes.

When someone claims nobody does something, or that it's "extremely rare"
that's the time to check if there's a jailbreak tweak that provides that
functionality.

When someone takes the time and expends the effort on writing a tweak
you can be sure that there's a lot of users that want the capability
that the tweak provides.

Here is a list of iOS 15 jailbreak tweak:
<https://github.com/itsnebulalol/ios15-tweaks>.

Not just for phones, but it's rather odd that there are some people that
get so upset when someone points out that a product that they own lacks
a feature that a competing product has that they resort to lying. It
would be better if they said, "yeah, that's useful, I wish the product I
use could do that."

In article <ope1djxnup.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

>
> Personal experience of knowing users that use the feature.

the plural of anecdote is not data.

> I say neither
> "extremely rare" or "extremely used". I say that it is used.

it's nowhere near enough to justify adding it as a feature.

there are many other features that are in far higher demand.

companies prioritize which features they think are most important.

no device can do everything for everyone in every situation, nor is
that even a good idea. in fact, it's an incredibly *bad* idea.

In article <ttldfa$3llhd$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> Here's the reality: if there's a jailbreak tweak to add functionality
> that already exists on Android, then the desire for that functionality
> is not "extremely rare," it's significant.

rubbish.

jailbreak tweaks are because someone wrote it for themselves.

it's *not* a metric of commercial viability.

> Some of the tweaks provide critical functionality,

none do.

if it was 'critical functionality', it would be part of ios itself.

>
> Shutdown protection

that not needed because find my iphone works when the phone is shutdown.

what's worse is preventing shutdown makes it *easier* for bad guys to
access the contents of the phone.

> Separate audio volume controls for different functions

that's under the control of individual apps.

> GPS Spoofing
> File System Browsing
> Battery Charge Limit
> Disable internet access for individual apps, including Wi-Fi
> On Screen Call Rejection when Screen is Locked

all of those exist already.

In article <ttlduo$3llhd$2@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> Beginning with iOS 16, you can store data in the Hidden and Deleted
> folders which are locked by default,

there were secure folder apps before there was an ios.

> But there is no way to password protect apps without jailbreaking.

for very good reasons.

In article <ttles2$3llhd$3@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> When someone takes the time and expends the effort on writing a tweak
> you can be sure that there's a lot of users that want the capability
> that the tweak provides.

rubbish. the existence of a jailbreak tweak is not a metric of
commercial viability. it's little more than a bored hacker who wrote
something for himself.

On 2023-02-28, badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>> On 2023-02-27 23:38, Nil wrote:
>>> On 28 Feb 2023, Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote in
>>> misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.mobile.android:
>>>
>>>> It's desperate.
>>>
>>> Why do you call someone an it?
>>
>> It deserves it...
>>
>> ...and we don't know its gender.
>
> That’s childish. You know full well.

The fact that you are offended by this says more about you than the
troll being discussed.

--
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

badgolferman wrote:

>>>> It's desperate.
>>>
>>> Why do you call someone an it?
>>
>> It deserves it...
>>
>> ...and we don't know its gender.
>>
>
> That's childish. You know full well.

Come to think of it, only "Ant" (& "TheRealBev", who mostly posts on the
Android side of things), claims to be female as far as I can recall.

Michelle Steiner, of course, might be added to that list, but, as we prior
discussed, she started the iPad newsgroup but has long ago left us alone.

So most of us would be "he's", when we bother to explicitly think of it.

I don't see most of the posts you're responding to, badgolferman, but it's
simply indicative of the low-IQ and low class mentality of Alan Baker, Alan
Browne & Jolly Roger (as I see who responded in Google Groups archives).
<http://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone>

It doesn't matter.

The only frequent adults on this newsgroup, as far as I can ascertain
anyway, are badgolferman, Ant, Steve, and I... and that's about it.

It doesn't bother me that the iKooks hate me, badgolferman.

They hate me because I tell them what they don't want to know about Apple.

An example is that I informed them (with cites) that Apple only fully
patches the single latest release (i.e., iOS 16).

They hate me for informing them of the facts with cites.
They refute all facts they hate about Apple, out of hand.

What can I do about it.

They hate me for informing them (again, always with cites) the iPhone has
the most zero day bugs of any smartphone on the planet.

They won't even read the cites before refuting that fact out of hand.
Without cites, of course, since they refute it only because they hate it.

What can I do about them hating facts, and therefore hating me.
Because I tell them (with cites) facts they don't want to ever hear.

What's interesting is if I then repeat the fact, without the cite, they
will instantly jump on it and claim there are no cites.

Which is how I know they are so low in IQ they can't comprehend anything.
What am I supposed to do about it?

All i can do is what i do, which is this I provide facts about Apple,
whether or not iKooks hate those facts.

Hell, Alan Browne insists that the walled garden doesn't exist, and then,
when you ask him how to do something, his answer shows the walled garden is
preventing him from doing it - and yet he can't fathom the walls do exist.

What can I do about it.
All I can do, badgolferman, is continue to state facts about Apple stuff.

And all the iKooks can do is call me childish names because they _hate_
that they have no defense to any facts other than their childish taunts.

So be it.
--
My goals on this Apple newsgroup are simply to learn from others and to
tech them, and, to prove for the permanent record, what the iKooks are.

sms wrote:

> It's worth noting that every time that a feature that's available on
> Android, but not yet available on iOS, the "extremely rare" excuse is
> trotted out by "those who must not be named."

Being an adult, I agree with anyone who states a sensical opinion which is
based on facts, where I agree with Steve that if google or app developers
bothered to create the functionality, the "extremely rare" excuse is bogus.
> Here's the reality: if there's a jailbreak tweak to add functionality
> that already exists on Android, then the desire for that functionality
> is not "extremely rare," it's significant.

Again, I agree with anyone who makes a sensible assessment of the facts.

> Some of the tweaks provide critical functionality, some add useful but
> not critical functionality, some increase convenience, and some are just
> nice to have. Tweaks often stop working when iOS is updated since Apple
> tries to prevent that functionality for various reasons.

What's hugely different about iOS is Apple _prevents_ functionality.
Google can't.

That's why iOS will _always_ have far less functionality than Android.

It's two simple concepts:
*Developers make available app functionality that people want*
*Apple prevents app functionality; Google can't*
--
Posted out of the goodness of my heart to disseminate useful information
which, in this case, is to agree with Steve on his sensible claims above.

nospam wrote:

>> Here's the reality: if there's a jailbreak tweak to add functionality
>> that already exists on Android, then the desire for that functionality
>> is not "extremely rare," it's significant.
>
> rubbish.
> jailbreak tweaks are because someone wrote it for themselves.
> it's *not* a metric of commercial viability.

The problem with your belief system is you assume Apple has your back.
The advantage of Android is you don't have to assume Google has your back.

That's _why_ Android will always have more app functionality than iOS can.
>> Some of the tweaks provide critical functionality,
> none do.
> if it was 'critical functionality', it would be part of ios itself.

While I'll let you define what "critical functionality" means, but even you
can't deny there is not a single app functionality you have ever listed
that is in iOS that isn't already (usually years ago) in Android, nospam.

And yet, Steve listed a dozen or so app functionalities in Android not in
iOs, which is _always_ going to be the case no matter how much you hate it.

>> Shutdown protection
>
> that not needed because find my iphone works when the phone is shutdown.

For you to always claim that anything the iPhone can't do because Apple
restricts it from doing it is "not needed" is simply one of your excuses.

> what's worse is preventing shutdown makes it *easier* for bad guys to
> access the contents of the phone.

If Apple truly cared about not "making it easier for the bad guys" to
access your phone, the iPhone wouldn't consistently, year after year, after
year, have far more zero day holes than any other smartphone, nospam.
>> Separate audio volume controls for different functions
>
> that's under the control of individual apps.
>
>> GPS Spoofing
>> File System Browsing
>> Battery Charge Limit
>> Disable internet access for individual apps, including Wi-Fi
>> On Screen Call Rejection when Screen is Locked
>
> all of those exist already.

What's no longer shocking is you _hate_ the lack of app functionality on
iOS so much that you brazenly fabricate imaginary apps that don't exist.
--
Posted out of the goodness of my heart to disseminate useful information
which, in this case, is to point out how much iKooks hate their iPhones.

In article <ttm7hr$1co0g$1@paganini.bofh.team>, Andy Burnelli
<nospam@nospam.net> wrote:

> >> Shutdown protection
> >
> > that not needed because find my iphone works when the phone is shutdown.
>
> For you to always claim that anything the iPhone can't do because Apple
> restricts it from doing it is "not needed" is simply one of your excuses.

it's not an excuse.

what you fail to understand is that the sole purpose of that feature is
already part of ios.

some (not all) android devices have the ability to prevent being shut
down so that a thief can't turn off the phone to prevent the owner from
locating it. with android, once it's off, it stops reporting to the
network.

apple's solution is that it doesn't matter if it's shut down or not
because ios devices can still be located even when they are off, which
would also include phones that are already off prior to being stolen,
before such a feature would even be an option. that's a *much* better
solution.

adding such a feature to ios is literally worthless because the
functionality it offers *is* *already* *there*.

except it's worse than that, because by preventing an android phone
from being shut down, the bad guy can retain full access to everything
on it, potentially causing far more damage.

nospam wrote:

>> For you to always claim that anything the iPhone can't do because Apple
>> restricts it from doing it is "not needed" is simply one of your excuses.
>
> it's not an excuse.

I'm going to try to converse with you as if you're an adult, nospam. OK?
> what you fail to understand is that the sole purpose of that feature is
> already part of ios.

I saw what you wrote about it and I understood your argument for it.
> some (not all) android devices have the ability to prevent being shut
> down so that a thief can't turn off the phone to prevent the owner from
> locating it. with android, once it's off, it stops reporting to the
> network.

I understand that. Apple does things differently than does Android.

> apple's solution is that it doesn't matter if it's shut down or not
> because ios devices can still be located even when they are off, which
> would also include phones that are already off prior to being stolen,
> before such a feature would even be an option. that's a *much* better
> solution.

I'm not going to disagree with you nospam, since what you're trying to do
is deflect the dozen things Steve mentioned to only one of those dozen.

I will never disagree with a sensible argument which is based on facts,
nospam, so I'm not even going to disagree that Apple did it for your good.

> adding such a feature to ios is literally worthless because the
> functionality it offers *is* *already* *there*.

It's transparent to me that what you are trying to do is choose _one_ of
the claims Steve made and make _my_ whole point that one claim.

> except it's worse than that, because by preventing an android phone
> from being shut down, the bad guy can retain full access to everything
> on it, potentially causing far more damage.

While I don't live in the slums like you apparently do, nospam, I get what
you're saying about this _one_ feature, which is not so much that iOS has
it, but that iOS does things differently such that iOS can't have it.

Fine. I'll not disagree with you on that _one_ app.

My point was you brazenly fabricated app functionality that doesn't exist
for about a half dozen or more of the functionality that Steve had listed.

It's a simple related set of concepts:
*App developers make available app functionality that people want*
*Apple prevents app functionality; Google can't*
*Hence, Android will _always_ have more app functionality than iOS*

You _hate_ that assessment of fact above, nospam. I get it. I really do.
That's why you brazenly fabricated imaginary iOS apps that don't exist.

On 2/28/2023 12:49 PM, sms wrote:

>> How many of those Apple or Android password pin protection schemes will
>> work on the phone without requiring an account on some internet server?
>
> Samsung doesn't require it, however if you need to reset your password
> (or pin or pattern) then you have to sign into your Samsung account to
> reset it.

Isn't that the same as saying GMail doesn't require you to create or sign
into an account to read & send email "however if you need to reset your
password then you have to sign into your Google mail account to reset it?"

The way you are going about it ignores that there is a much simpler method.
> iOS does not yet offer Secure Folder for apps. Hopefully we'll see it in
> a future version of iOS and iPadOS. For now, there are jailbreak tweaks
> that add both biometric protection for individual apps and multi-user
> capability. However jailbreak tweaks tend to stop working as iOS is
> updated and Apple figures out how to prevent the tweaks. It's also
> become much more difficult to jailbreak iOS and iPadOS devices.

Why not just use encrypted folders (which have existed for decades)?

An encrypted folder will work on any platform including Android & iOS.
https://alternativeto.net/software/veracrypt/?platform=iphone#
https://alternativeto.net/software/veracrypt/?platform=android

Then you won't need to log into Google, Apple or Samsung to create the
encrypted folder, and to store and retrieve your data on any platform.

On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 21:12:05 -0500, Big Dog wrote:

> An encrypted folder will work on any platform including Android & iOS.
> https://alternativeto.net/software/veracrypt/?platform=iphone
> https://alternativeto.net/software/veracrypt/?platform=android

The encrypted folder will work great for data but not for your apps.
For apps, you can use a dedicated app locker to prevent unauthorized use.

For example, none of these have ads & all handle typical biometric unlocks.
Applock
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.superluck.applock

Lock App - Smart App Locker
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.hideitpro.app.protect

2020AppLock
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.unfoldlabs.applock2020

App Lock - Secure Your Apps
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.systweak.applocker

Private Zone - AppLock, Video
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.htwk.privatezone

AppLock Face/Voice Recognition
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.sensory.tsapplock
--
[I filter out all Google Groups posts so if I don't reply, that may be why]

In article <ttmbdn$1d57a$1@paganini.bofh.team>, Andy Burnelli
<nospam@nospam.net> wrote:

>
> > what you fail to understand is that the sole purpose of that feature is
> > already part of ios.
>
> I saw what you wrote about it and I understood your argument for it.

the evidence does not support that.

>
> I understand that. Apple does things differently than does Android.

the evidence does not support that either.

nospam wrote:

> no device can do everything for everyone in every situation, nor is
> that even a good idea. in fact, it's an incredibly *bad* idea.

You always say that whenever you try to defend why the iPhone can't do even
the most basic of app functionalities that _every_ other consumer OS does.

But what you're missing is that the score is lopsided, with iOS getting 0.

That is, *there is _zero_ app functionality on iOS not already on Android*.
And there are very logical reasons for why that will always be the case.

In article <ttmd7k$1dbf9$1@paganini.bofh.team>, Andy Burnelli
<nospam@nospam.net> wrote:

> You always say that whenever you try to defend why the iPhone can't do even
> the most basic of app functionalities that _every_ other consumer OS does.

except that it does, by your own admission.

In article <ttmbdn$1d57a$1@paganini.bofh.team>, Andy Burnelli
<nospam@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> I understand that. Apple does things differently than does Android.

nospam wrote:

>> I understand that. Apple does things differently than does Android.
>
> the evidence does not support that either.

What you're desperate to do, nospam, which is transparent to any adult, is
_deflect_ the conversation from you brazenly fabricating imaginary iOS apps
for much of the functionality that Steve showed is on Android but not iOS.

You _hate_ that the score is lopsided with Android overwhelming iOS.

There are, oh, I can name a dozen easily and so can Steve so let's say
there are at least 25 distinct app functionalities on Android that are not
on iOS, and yet, there are 0 distinct app functionalities on iOS that are
not on Android.

*iOS 0* vs *Android 25*

Just _some_ of those 25 distinct app functionalities Steve noted...
Separate audio volume controls for different functions
App launcher functionality
Media Players apps
GPS Spoofing apps
File System Browsing apps
Message Scheduling apps
Multiple Users functionality
Home Screen Layout functionality
Home Screen Rotation functionality
App Extraction and Backup functionality
Custom Keyboards functionality
Remote Management functionality
Torrent apps
Individual Application Locking apps
Analog Clock apps
Battery Charge Limit apps
Disable internet access for individual apps, including Wi-Fi functionality
On Screen Call Rejection when Screen is Locked functionality
etc.

I could list a few more, such as
Ability to set the default messaging app
Ability to set the default phone app
Ability to set the default calendar app
Ability to set the default web browser
Ability to extract & re-install any app on the device
Ability to use that extracted app on any similar device on the planet
Automatic call recording apps
Graphical wi-fi signal strength debugging apps
Graphical cellular signal strength debugging apps
Sideloading functionality
etc.

That's 27 to 0 Android versus iOS nospam, and that's just off the top of my
head, where you will never be able to name an app functionality on iOS not
already (usually years ago) on Android for the very simple reasons stated.

1. App Developers provide most of the app functionality on computers.
2. Apple restricts what apps iOS users can install; Google can't.
3. Hence, iOS will _never_ have app functionality not already on Android.
--
I'm always talking about typical non-rooted non-jailbroken devices.

In article <ttme38$1debj$1@paganini.bofh.team>, Andy Burnelli
<nospam@nospam.net> wrote:

>
> Separate audio volume controls for different functions
> GPS Spoofing apps
> File System Browsing apps
> Message Scheduling apps
> Multiple Users functionality
> Home Screen Rotation functionality
> App Extraction and Backup functionality
> Custom Keyboards functionality
> Remote Management functionality
> Torrent apps
> Battery Charge Limit apps
> Disable internet access for individual apps, including Wi-Fi functionality
> On Screen Call Rejection when Screen is Locked functionality

those are possible on ios.

> Ability to set the default web browser
> Ability to extract & re-install any app on the device
> Ability to use that extracted app on any similar device on the planet
> Automatic call recording apps
> Graphical wi-fi signal strength debugging apps
> Graphical cellular signal strength debugging apps
> Sideloading functionality

those are also possible on ios.

just because you're unable to figure out how doesn't mean it's
impossible.

what's worse is that many of them are shockingly easy to do and without
needing any additional apps as is the case on android. in other words,
it's part of ios.

nospam wrote:

> except that it does, by your own admission.

I'm well educated, so I can easily believe what others can prove to me.

Luckily, you have a golden opportunity to prove your fabrications here:
*Android 27 versus iPhone 0 (in terms of app functionality)*
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/Z1jN2MbY4AE>

nospam wrote:

> those are possible on ios.

I'm well educated, so I can easily believe what others can prove to me.

Luckily, you have a golden opportunity to prove your fabrications here:
*Android 27 versus iPhone 0 (in terms of app functionality)*
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/Z1jN2MbY4AE>

Just point to the existing app on the Apple App Store for your claims.

On 2/28/2023 1:10 PM, nospam wrote:

>> iOS does not yet offer Secure Folder for apps.
>
> you're backpedaling again.

The Samsung Secure Folder and anything on Apple suffers from the problem
that you have to beg them to give your data back if you break their rules.

Nobody wants that, which is why it's critical to work without the account.

An encryption app for data or applock MUST work without requiring you to
beg either Samsung or Apple or Google for your own data or apps back.

The key sentence about begging Apple or Samsung for your files is the last
sentence in this description. No encryption should ever require an account.

https://alternativeto.net/software/cryptomator/about/

"As you don't need an account, you will never stand in front of locked
doors" like you must with the likes of Apple, Google, Samsung or Microsoft.

On 2/27/2023 8:58 PM, sms wrote:

> This is not the same thing as being able to individually password
> protect specific applications.

If you think that an app which requires an account to protect your
sensitive data or your apps is useful, then you don't understand it.

No app which holds your sensitive data or encryption passwords should EVER
require an account which can and may stand in the way of your own data.

Nobody wants to beg the likes of Apple or Google or Samsung for their data.

Read the last line of this description to understand how it needs to be.
https://alternativeto.net/software/cryptomator/about/

Any app that requires you to beg for your data or password is trash.

On 2023-02-28 18:34, sms wrote:
> On 2/28/2023 6:21 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> What's a "Secure Folder"?
>
> For Samsung it's a folder where you can place apps and date that you
> want to require biometric or passcode/pattern protection even when the
> phone is unlocked. You'd want this for banking, shopping, social media,
> etc..
>
> "Folder" is a bit of a misnomer since it implies that it's only to store
> files securely.

Ah, a folder on the desktop, in computer parlance. It doesn't seem I can
create any "empty" folder in the screen of my motorola g52. I have to
create them by joining to icons, and then I don't have access to folder
properties, only rename.

>
> Beginning with iOS 16, you can store data in the Hidden and Deleted
> folders which are locked by default, see
> <https://tech.hindustantimes.com/mobile/news/iphone-gets-secure-folder-with-ios-16-in-a-still-weird-way-71654578631042.html>. But there is no way to password protect apps without jailbreaking.

--
Cheers, Carlos.