In article <207gpjxnd8.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

>
> Nay. There is nothing like Google's Call Screen, which is only available
> on Pixel phones.

the goal is to filter out spam calls, with various methods of
accomplishing that, each with advantages and disadvantages.

google's call screen actually answers the call, which means the called
number is flagged as active, resulting in future calls.

other methods send it to a reorder, which flags it as not in service,
thereby removing it from the call lists, reducing future calls.

On 2023-07-29 22:29, nospam wrote:
> In article <207gpjxnd8.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.
> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>
>>
>> Nay. There is nothing like Google's Call Screen, which is only available
>> on Pixel phones.
>
> the goal is to filter out spam calls, with various methods of
> accomplishing that, each with advantages and disadvantages.

No.

*MY* goal is exactly Google's Call Screen. I want that one. Not any other.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

In article <8qcgpjxt6t.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

> >> Nay. There is nothing like Google's Call Screen, which is only available
> >> on Pixel phones.
> >
> > the goal is to filter out spam calls, with various methods of
> > accomplishing that, each with advantages and disadvantages.
>
> No.
>
> *MY* goal is exactly Google's Call Screen. I want that one. Not any other.

it might fit *your* needs, however, others make different choices.

no method is perfect.

On 7/29/2023 12:47 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:

<snip>

> Nay. There is nothing like Google's Call Screen, which is only available
> on Pixel phones.

nospam is wrong of course™

An app can't do what Google's Call Screen does, it has to be built into
the operating system.

Given the significance and desirability of the Call Screen feature, and
the fact that no other phones, either Android or iPhone, have anything
like it, it's likely that Google has patented this system or they have
licensed it from a third party.

Unfortunately, according to Google, the Pixel's automatic call screening
is only available in the U.S. while manual call screening on the Pixel
is available in Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy,
Japan, Spain, UK, and US.

--
“If you are not an expert on a subject, then your opinions about it
really do matter less than the opinions of experts. It's not
indoctrination nor elitism. It's just that you don't know as much as
they do about the subject.”—Tin Foil Awards

In article <ua44i6$2nm22$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

>
> An app can't do what Google's Call Screen does,

nobody said it was exactly the same, liar.

there are various methods of blocking spam calls (which is the end
goal), each of which has advantages and disadvantages.

> Given the significance and desirability of the Call Screen feature, and
> the fact that no other phones,

if it's so significant and desirable, why is it that pixel phones are
not among the best selling phones?

> either Android or iPhone, have anything
> like it, it's likely that Google has patented this system or they have
> licensed it from a third party.

nope, and your patent and licensing claims are pure bullshit and you
know it.

the reason is simple: it's because there are more effective methods
that can block spam calls from ever ringing the phone in the first
place. google *can't* use those methods, so they're forced to come up
with something that sounds clever, but doesn't actually work that well
in practice.

On 2023-07-29 23:59, nospam wrote:
> In article <8qcgpjxt6t.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.
> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>> Nay. There is nothing like Google's Call Screen, which is only available
>>>> on Pixel phones.
>>>
>>> the goal is to filter out spam calls, with various methods of
>>> accomplishing that, each with advantages and disadvantages.
>>
>> No.
>>
>> *MY* goal is exactly Google's Call Screen. I want that one. Not any other.
>
> it might fit *your* needs, however, others make different choices.

I don't care about what others here say, others are simply mistaken.
Google's Call Screen is the best in existence and I want it. And I said
so, three days ago. Don't try to sell me something else as you keep doing.

Others make different choice simply because Google's Call Screen is not
available to them.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

In article <akqgpjx8n2.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

> >> *MY* goal is exactly Google's Call Screen. I want that one. Not any other.
> >
> > it might fit *your* needs, however, others make different choices.
>
> I don't care about what others here say, others are simply mistaken.

they are not mistaken in their choices.

> Google's Call Screen is the best in existence and I want it.

maybe best for you, however, others have different needs and
preferences and will choose what's best for them.

> And I said
> so, three days ago. Don't try to sell me something else as you keep doing.

i'm not selling anyone anything.

the simple fact is that there are various methods of filtering out spam
calls, each with their own advantages and disadvantages. what's best
for one person is not necessarily best for another.

a major disadvantage of google call screen is that it answers the call,
which as i said, flags it as an active number, resulting in more spam
calls overall. it also incurs airtime charges, which may be an issue
for some users.

a major advantage of spam filtering upstream is that the phone never
rings, and if it's sent to a reorder, the number will be flagged as not
in service, which then is removed from the various lists, resulting in
dramatically fewer spam calls, making a more effective long term
strategy.

more than one method is also an option. nothing guarantees zero spam
calls.

> Others make different choice simply because Google's Call Screen is not
> available to them.

nope, even those who have call screen don't necessarily use it.

On 2023-07-29 21:22, Carlos E.R. wrote:

> I don't care about what others here say, others are simply mistaken.
> Google's Call Screen is the best in existence and I want it.

You sound like the kids arguing about Matchbox v. Hot Wheels when I was 6.

--
“If you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything."
-Ronald Coase

On 7/29/2023 6:22 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:

<snip>

> I don't care about what others here say, others are simply mistaken.
> Google's Call Screen is the best in existence and I want it. And I said
> so, three days ago. Don't try to sell me something else as you keep doing

<snip>

It's hard to imagine Google adding the Pixel's Call Screen feature to
stock Android. It's a defining feature of the Pixel line, one of the few
features that set it apart from other mid-range to flagship Android
devices. Nor is it possible to add this capability using an app.

It's possible that some other Android manufacturer, or Apple, could
develop a similar feature if Google doesn't have a patent on it but this
is such a compelling feature it's hard to imagine that it isn't
patented. Patent wars are nasty, remember the Apple 5G modem fiasco
where it turned out that even if they succeed at developing a 5G modem,
there are Qualcomm patents that they need that Qualcomm won't license
(at least not at a low price), and that don't expire until 2029
<https://www.patentlyapple.com/2022/06/apple-not-releasing-their-own-5g-modem-chip-relates-to-a-long-standing-patent-battle-with-qualcomm-and-not-because-of-a-devel.html>.

Not sure about Spain, but in the U.S. the Pixel phones are perpetually
on sale. My Verizon MVNO offers the 6a for $199.99, both online and in
stores <https://www.walmart.com/ip/2551311937>, unlocked 60 days after
activation; if you're not a customer of that MVNO you'd pay $30 more to
activate it. The 6a is last year's model but it's still at the top of
mid-range Android phones (or at the bottom of flagship Android phones).

If you buy Pixel devices online from the Google Store they're more
expensive, but Google periodically offers very high trade-in values. You
could buy a used iPhone to trade in and still net $150-200 off after
subtracting the cost of the used iPhone. I traded in my iPhone Xr for
the Pixel 7 Pro and got $410 off. $410 is way more than I had paid for
my Xr new, just a year earlier.

On the other hand, one _really_ annoying thing about the Pixel phones
that Google did was to disable HDMI out through the USB-C port. Why?
Because they want you to use a Chromecast to connect wirelessly to a
television. The workaround is a $31.99 Wavlink USB to HDMI converter
(not adapter) <https://www.ebay.com/itm/234132498678> plus a USB-A to
USB-C adapter—clunky and expensive compared to a simple USB-C to HDMI
adapter.

--
“If you are not an expert on a subject, then your opinions about it
really do matter less than the opinions of experts. It's not
indoctrination nor elitism. It's just that you don't know as much as
they do about the subject.”—Tin Foil Awards

In article <ua63gv$2vq2s$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

>
> It's possible that some other Android manufacturer, or Apple, could
> develop a similar feature if Google doesn't have a patent on it but this
> is such a compelling feature it's hard to imagine that it isn't
> patented.

cite a patent number.

any time you claim patents, it's a clear indication that you are
bullshitting.

> Patent wars are nasty, remember the Apple 5G modem fiasco

that was completely different, and unlike your bogus claim above,
actually has patent numbers and lawsuits.

On 2023-07-30 18:35, sms wrote:
> On 7/29/2023 6:22 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> I don't care about what others here say, others are simply mistaken.
>> Google's Call Screen is the best in existence and I want it. And I
>> said so, three days ago. Don't try to sell me something else as you
>> keep doing
>
> <snip>
>
> It's hard to imagine Google adding the Pixel's Call Screen feature to
> stock Android. It's a defining feature of the Pixel line, one of the few
> features that set it apart from other mid-range to flagship Android
> devices. Nor is it possible to add this capability using an app.
>
> It's possible that some other Android manufacturer, or Apple, could
> develop a similar feature if Google doesn't have a patent on it but this
> is such a compelling feature it's hard to imagine that it isn't
> patented. Patent wars are nasty, remember the Apple 5G modem fiasco
> where it turned out that even if they succeed at developing a 5G modem,
> there are Qualcomm patents that they need that Qualcomm won't license
> (at least not at a low price), and that don't expire until 2029
> <https://www.patentlyapple.com/2022/06/apple-not-releasing-their-own-5g-modem-chip-relates-to-a-long-standing-patent-battle-with-qualcomm-and-not-because-of-a-devel.html>.

We'll find out in a few years :-)

>
> Not sure about Spain, but in the U.S. the Pixel phones are  perpetually
> on sale. My Verizon MVNO offers the 6a for $199.99, both online and in
> stores <https://www.walmart.com/ip/2551311937>, unlocked 60 days after
> activation; if you're not a customer of that MVNO you'd pay $30 more to
> activate it. The 6a is last year's model but it's still at the top of
> mid-range Android phones (or at the bottom of flagship Android phones).
>
> If you buy Pixel devices online from the Google Store they're more
> expensive, but Google periodically offers very high trade-in values. You
> could buy a used iPhone to trade in and still net $150-200 off after
> subtracting the cost of the used iPhone. I traded in my iPhone Xr for
> the Pixel 7 Pro and got $410 off. $410 is way more than I had paid for
> my Xr new, just a year earlier.

I'll have an open eye for pixel offerings - but my current phone is
relatively new so I don't think I will do that anytime soon.

Normally, Pixels are way above my 250€ bracket.

>
> On the other hand, one _really_ annoying thing about the Pixel phones
> that Google did was to disable HDMI out through the USB-C port. Why?
> Because they want you to use a Chromecast to connect wirelessly to a
> television. The workaround is a $31.99 Wavlink USB to HDMI converter
> (not adapter) <https://www.ebay.com/itm/234132498678> plus a USB-A to
> USB-C adapter—clunky and expensive compared to a simple USB-C to HDMI
> adapter.
Not a problem, I have a chromecast :-p

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 7/28/2023 9:41 AM, badgolferman wrote:
> sms wrote:
>
>> "Hey Siri"
>
>
> I hate the word "Siri" and also hate talking to my phone like it's a
> person. I hate talking to automated systems on the phone when you call
> a business. I barely use Siri except for when I'm driving and want to
> listen to a voicemail or send a text message.

Thinking about it, I seem to talk mostly to myself, Alexa and the squirrels
that congregate on the back deck. I figure that as long as the squirrels
don't start answering me then I'm alright...

On 7/30/2023 1:44 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:

<snip>

"Pixel Spam Screening Improved My Life"

<https://www.reddit.com/r/GooglePixel/comments/ytjfd3/pixel_spam_screening_improved_my_life/>

The robo spam calls on my iPhone are getting more frequent. About to
swap SIM cards and make my Pixel 7 Pro my main phone.

--
“If you are not an expert on a subject, then your opinions about it
really do matter less than the opinions of experts. It's not
indoctrination nor elitism. It's just that you don't know as much as
they do about the subject.”—Tin Foil Awards

On 8/4/2023 8:54 AM, sms wrote:

> "Pixel Spam Screening Improved My Life"

> <https://www.reddit.com/r/GooglePixel/comments/ytjfd3/pixel_spam_screening_improved_my_life/>

"...the spammers come face to face with the screening robot..."

I'm not sure I want my family and/or business/doctor associates being
grilled by a robot...

> The robo spam calls on my iPhone are getting more frequent. About to
> swap SIM cards and make my Pixel 7 Pro my main phone.

I just use the do not disturb function on my phone. It lets my contacts
right through as normal but won't ring the phone for anyone else (blocks
spam). And Voicemail still works for a good number not yet entered in
contacts. Surprisingly very very few spam calls wait for voicemail. I
know cause I can see them later listed as missed calls. IF I'm expecting
an important call that might be from an unexpected number on a
particular day I just temporarily turn off do not disturb and take my
chances. On my phone I can easily do it from the lock screen (locked or
not). I realize this system won't work for everybody cause as always YMMV...

Perhaps you could use do not disturb AND the robot? Contacts get through
and the rest get the robot? That seems like it might be the best of both
worlds...

On 8/4/2023 9:56 AM, AJL wrote:
> On 8/4/2023 8:54 AM, sms wrote:
>
>> "Pixel Spam Screening Improved My Life"
>
>> <https://www.reddit.com/r/GooglePixel/comments/ytjfd3/pixel_spam_screening_improved_my_life/>
>
> "...the spammers come face to face with the screening robot..."
>
> I'm not sure I want my family and/or business/doctor associates being
> grilled by a robot...

They would not be.

> I just use the do not disturb function on my phone.

DND would not be acceptable for my usage. Or for most people I suspect.

--
“If you are not an expert on a subject, then your opinions about it
really do matter less than the opinions of experts. It's not
indoctrination nor elitism. It's just that you don't know as much as
they do about the subject.”—Tin Foil Awards

On 8/4/23 10:04 AM, sms wrote:
>On 8/4/2023 9:56 AM, AJL wrote:
>> On 8/4/2023 8:54 AM, sms wrote:
>>
>>> "Pixel Spam Screening Improved My Life"
>>
>>> <https://www.reddit.com/r/GooglePixel/comments/ytjfd3/pixel_spam_screening_improved_my_life/>
>>
>> "...the spammers come face to face with the screening robot..."
>>
>> I'm not sure I want my family and/or business/doctor associates being
>> grilled by a robot...
>
>They would not be.
>
>> I just use the do not disturb function on my phone.
>
>DND would not be acceptable for my usage. Or for most people I suspect.

I guess you missed the YMMV you snipped...

In article <uajb36$1bnds$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> > "...the spammers come face to face with the screening robot..."
> >
> > I'm not sure I want my family and/or business/doctor associates being
> > grilled by a robot...
>
> They would not be.

yes they would.

> > I just use the do not disturb function on my phone.
>
> DND would not be acceptable for my usage. Or for most people I suspect.

dnd works quite well for most people.