No sooner had the UofT and Apple announce a new, horrific vulnerability, Apple announces new products.
Now, I don't want to say that a lot of these tech people are paid-off to pump
new Apple products...

https://www.dpreview.com/

In article <1538d621-8041-45bc-a673-2bb00bd411den@googlegroups.com>,
RichA <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:

> Now, I don't want to say that a lot of these tech people are paid-off to pump
> new Apple products...

they aren't

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> asked
>> Now, I don't want to say that a lot of these tech people are paid-off to pump
>> new Apple products...
>
> they aren't

And yet, you claim DXOMark was "bribed" to rate iPhones lower than others...

In article <shrvdd$u3o$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Robin Goodfellow
<Ancient-of-Days@Heaven.Net> wrote:

> >> Now, I don't want to say that a lot of these tech people are paid-off to
> >> pump new Apple products...
> >
> > they aren't
>
> And yet, you claim DXOMark was "bribed" to rate iPhones lower than others...

no, what i said was those who pay dxomark get better ratings than those
who don't.

On Tuesday, 14 September 2021 at 18:49:42 UTC-4, nospam wrote:
> In article <1538d621-8041-45bc...@googlegroups.com>,
> RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Now, I don't want to say that a lot of these tech people are paid-off to pump
> > new Apple products...
> they aren't

Sure they are. All underpaid tech reporters are. A long time ago, a writer for a Toronto paper exposed massive junkets held by movie studios for critics (back when their opinions mattered). They were ALL on the take. Some of them are truly enthusiastic about the product, owing to its performance for them. But it's a fine line between that and weird loyalties.

In article <355a17f9-9194-40b5-b308-7f18364e1029n@googlegroups.com>,
RichA <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > Now, I don't want to say that a lot of these tech people are paid-off to
> > > pump new Apple products...
> > they aren't
>
> Sure they are.

nope

> All underpaid tech reporters are.

dpreview journalists are not underpaid.

> A long time ago, a writer
> for a Toronto paper exposed massive junkets held by movie studios for critics
> (back when their opinions mattered). They were ALL on the take. Some of
> them are truly enthusiastic about the product, owing to its performance for
> them. But it's a fine line between that and weird loyalties.

whatever may have happened there has absolutely nothing whatsoever to
do with apple.

apple doesn't need to pay people to write about them.

everyone wants to write about apple because it brings in the clicks,
especially when the stories are false and misleading, as they often
are.

On Wednesday, 15 September 2021 at 02:51:33 UTC-4, nospam wrote:
> In article <355a17f9-9194-40b5...@googlegroups.com>,
> RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Now, I don't want to say that a lot of these tech people are paid-off to
> > > > pump new Apple products...
> > > they aren't
> >
> > Sure they are.
> nope
> > All underpaid tech reporters are.
> dpreview journalists are not underpaid.
> > A long time ago, a writer
> > for a Toronto paper exposed massive junkets held by movie studios for critics
> > (back when their opinions mattered). They were ALL on the take. Some of
> > them are truly enthusiastic about the product, owing to its performance for
> > them. But it's a fine line between that and weird loyalties.
> whatever may have happened there has absolutely nothing whatsoever to
> do with apple.
>
> apple doesn't need to pay people to write about them.

Those who don't advertise are doomed to perish.
>
> everyone wants to write about apple because it brings in the clicks,
> especially when the stories are false and misleading, as they often
> are.

Anything technical that's false is easily disproven.

On Sep 14, 2021, nospam wrote
(in article<150920210158588819%nospam@nospam.invalid>):

> In article<shrvdd$u3o$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Robin Goodfellow
> <Ancient-of-Days@Heaven.Net> wrote:
>
> > > > Now, I don't want to say that a lot of these tech people are paid-off to
> > > > pump new Apple products...
> > >
> > > they aren't
> >
> > And yet, you claim DXOMark was "bribed" to rate iPhones lower than others...
>
> no, what i said was those who pay dxomark get better ratings than those
> who don’t.

It is also worth noting that DxO is limited in its testing methodology, and as a result excludes products that they do not have the capability to test. Just look to their inability to test Fujifilm X- series cameras.

--
Regards,
Savageduck

In article <29f11567-cfe8-4579-86f7-4930a1e93e4fn@googlegroups.com>,
RichA <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:

> >
> > apple doesn't need to pay people to write about them.
>
> Those who don't advertise are doomed to perish.

advertising is not the same as paying journalists to write puff pieces.

apple does *not* pay journalists. full stop.

there is no need to do that. people want to write about apple, and will
do so for free.

meanwhile, other companies resort to sleazy tactics, notably samsung,
who has been caught doing so:

<https://www.theverge.com/2013/10/24/5023658/samsung-fined-340000-for-po
sting-negative-htc-reviews>
After being caught paying for false praise and negative comments
about competitors, Samsung has been fined just over $340,000. The
issue first arose internationally in April, when Taiwan's Fair Trade
Commission (FTC) announced it was opening an investigation into the
allegations. That investigation found the allegations were true: the
FTC says Samsung used a "large number of hired writers and designated
employees" to post in Taiwanese forums. The commission does add that
the company did this through a third-party marketing company, just as
Samsung originally claimed. Two local marketing firms were fined a
combined total of over $100,000 for their part in the marketing ploy.

> > everyone wants to write about apple because it brings in the clicks,
> > especially when the stories are false and misleading, as they often
> > are.
>
> Anything technical that's false is easily disproven.

you haven't disproven anything.

In article <0001HW.26F22B4A012A0CCA700009F2238F@news.giganews.com>,
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> > > > > Now, I don't want to say that a lot of these tech people are paid-off
> > > > > to
> > > > > pump new Apple products...
> > > >
> > > > they aren't
> > >
> > > And yet, you claim DXOMark was "bribed" to rate iPhones lower than
> > > others...
> >
> > no, what i said was those who pay dxomark get better ratings than those
> > who don¹t.
>
> It is also worth noting that DxO is limited in its testing methodology, and
> as a result excludes products that they do not have the capability to test.
> Just look to their inability to test Fujifilm X- series cameras.

that too.

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> asked
>>> no, what i said was those who pay dxomark get better ratings than those
>>> who don�t.
>>
>> It is also worth noting that DxO is limited in its testing methodology, and
>> as a result excludes products that they do not have the capability to test.
>> Just look to their inability to test Fujifilm X- series cameras.
>
> that too.

*Nobody lies like Apple lies.*
(See reference cites in the sig.)

It's worth noting that there is nothing better than DXOMark for
comprehensive testing of _smartphone_ camera quality of results.

If there were, the apologists would have scoured the net to find it.
(The apologists blame everyone but Apple for Apple's poor camera QOR.)

Apple's lies about camera QOR are like Apple's lies about battery life.
No independent outfit has _ever_ reproduced even close to what Apple's
outlandish claims are on battery life (even Apple won't say how they do it.)

Nobody lies like Apple lies.
--
Nobody lies like Apple lies.

*Apple significantly overstates iPhone battery life*
<https://press.which.co.uk/whichpressreleases/apple-significantly-overstates-iphone-battery-life-compared-to-which-tests/>

*Apple significantly overstates iPhone battery life*
<https://betanews.com/2019/05/03/apple-significantly-overstates-iphone-battery-life/>

*iPhone battery life is half of what Apple claims it is*
<https://tech.co/news/iphone-xr-battery-life-claims-2019-05>

*Phone battery life significantly overstated by Apple*
<https://www.mirror.co.uk/tech/iphone-battery-life-significantly-overstated-14992961>

*Apple Is Vastly Exaggerating iPhone Battery Life Claims*
<https://hothardware.com/news/apple-overselling-iphone-battery-life-uk-advocacy-group>

In article <shtg6s$sa4$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Robin Goodfellow
<Ancient-of-Days@Heaven.Net> wrote:

>
> *Nobody lies like me.*

ftfy

> It's worth noting that there is nothing better than DXOMark for
> comprehensive testing of _smartphone_ camera quality of results.

those who actually use cameras know this to be very much false.

dxomark's *tests* are interesting, but their scores are worthless.

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> asked
> people want to write about apple, and will
> do so for free.

*The problem with new iPhone 12 cameras is they're always dead*, nospam.

And yes, I bought the new iPhone 12 mini recently - and with our almost
daily PG&E power outages, that damn piece of shit iPhone is always dead.
<https://i.postimg.cc/YC1B906F/tmopromo01.jpg>

Meanwhile, my handful of free 5 Amp Hour Android Samsungs can't be killed.
<https://i.postimg.cc/Xq5SpS4D/tmopromo02.jpg>

The fact that the truth about Apple's expensive poor quality is well
reported still doesn't stop you ignorant apologists from being ignorant.

Case in point is that you refuse to understand Apple puts expensive cheap
batteries in the iPhone 12 - along with cheaping out by removing chargers.

The only iOS-based cameras that can last a PG&E outage are my old iPads:
<https://i.postimg.cc/nhpbcP50/tmopromo04.jpg>
--
*Apple put cheap batteries and boards into the iPhone 12 purely for profit*
https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/21/21394985/apple-iphone-12-battery-cost-5g-kuo
https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/08/21/apple-to-offset-cost-of-5g-iphone-components-with-cheaper-battery-tech
https://www.maticstoday.com/2020/08/21/why-apple-is-using-cheap-battery-parts-in-iphone-12/
https://9to5mac.com/2020/08/21/kuo-iphone-12-5g-component-cost/
https://www.pcmag.com/news/report-iphone-12-to-use-smaller-cheaper-battery
https://www.macrumors.com/2020/08/20/kuo-iphone-12-battery-board/
https://www.timesnownews.com/technology-science/article/apple-opting-for-cheaper-battery-parts-to-cut-costs-on-5g-iphone-12-analyst-ming-chi-kuo/640657
https://techlog360.com/apple-will-use-cheaper-parts-in-the-iphone-12/

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> asked
>> *Nobody lies like me.*
>
> ftfy

It's telling that nospam has no _adult_ response to facts about Apple.

>> It's worth noting that there is nothing better than DXOMark for
>> comprehensive testing of _smartphone_ camera quality of results.
>
> those who actually use cameras know this to be very much false.
> dxomark's *tests* are interesting, but their scores are worthless.

Name an available comprehensive smartphone camera QOR outfit that is better.
--
The apologists always prove their belief system is based on zero (0) facts.

In article <shth24$1a8l$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Robin Goodfellow
<Ancient-of-Days@Heaven.Net> wrote:

> Case in point is that you refuse to understand Apple puts expensive cheap
> batteries

better than using a 'cheap cheap battery'.

> The only iOS-based cameras that can last a PG&E outage

why are you taking photos during an outage?

On Sep 15, 2021, Robin Goodfellow wrote
(in article <shtg6s$sa4$1@gioia.aioe.org>):

>
> It's worth noting that there is nothing better than DXOMark for
> comprehensive testing of _smartphone_ camera quality of results.

Does "nothing better" make something good?

On Wednesday, 15 September 2021 at 21:13:46 UTC+1, Robin Goodfellow wrote:
> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> asked
> >> *Nobody lies like me.*
> >
> > ftfy
> It's telling that nospam has no _adult_ response to facts about Apple.
> >> It's worth noting that there is nothing better than DXOMark for
> >> comprehensive testing of _smartphone_ camera quality of results.
> >
> > those who actually use cameras know this to be very much false.
> > dxomark's *tests* are interesting, but their scores are worthless.
> Name an available comprehensive smartphone camera QOR outfit that is better.

Why would anyone bother unless there was money to be made from 'testing'
What do the testers or the company get out of it ?

I've always wondered why watches aren't tested to see which is best, and I'm talking about the old style
not smat watches, most I've ever paid for a watch is £40, why spend thousands, do the tell the time better ?

> --
> The apologists always prove their belief system is based on zero (0) facts.

In article <f42ad7c1-84b5-4b09-a9f0-66835d15553cn@googlegroups.com>,
Whisky-dave <whisky.dave@gmail.com> wrote:

> most I've ever paid for a watch is £40, why spend
> thousands, do the tell the time better ?

it's jewelry.

On 2021-09-14 18:39, RichA wrote:
> No sooner had the UofT and Apple announce a new, horrific vulnerability, Apple announces new products.
> Now, I don't want to say that a lot of these tech people are paid-off to pump
> new Apple products...

Meanwhile Apple announced a marked increase in people granting them free
rent in their heads.

--
"...there are many humorous things in this world; among them the white
man's notion that he is less savage than the other savages."
-Samuel Clemens

On Friday, 17 September 2021 at 14:37:44 UTC+1, nospam wrote:
> In article <f42ad7c1-84b5-4b09...@googlegroups.com>,
> Whisky-dave <whisk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > most I've ever paid for a watch is £40, why spend
> > thousands, do the tell the time better ?
> it's jewelry.

I guess so and a watch is macho where as a diamond encrusted bangle would be 'gay'