On 2023-12-02 14:08, David Higton wrote:
> In message <ukg5gs$2ggh8$1@dont-email.me>
> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2023-12-02 11:32, rocco portelli wrote:
>>>> And (Pro tip follows): If you don't like what Apple does, there is
>>>> nobody forcing you to buy their products.
>>> Pro tip to you. I didn't make the mistake of buying an Apple product that
>>> is missing basic things. You did. I'm not making up excuses. You are.
>>
>> And a very basic tip for you:
>>
>> Features exist to provide functionality. The "basic thing" is the
>> functionality, not the feature that delivers it.
>>
>> The headphone jack provides ONE functionality: connecting to audio devices
>> such as earbuds, earphones, speakers.
>
> The headphone jack used to provide two functionalities to some phones:
> connecting audio devices, and connecting an antenna for the FM radio.
> Only some phones have FM radio, and I neither know nor care whether
> iPhones do.

Most consumers aren't even aware that their phone could be used as an FM
radio...

On 2023-12-02 22:08:58 +0000, David Higton said:
> In message <ukg5gs$2ggh8$1@dont-email.me>
> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>> On 2023-12-02 11:32, rocco portelli wrote:
>>>>
>>>> And (Pro tip follows): If you don't like what Apple does, there is
>>>> nobody forcing you to buy their products.
>>>
>>> Pro tip to you. I didn't make the mistake of buying an Apple product that
>>> is missing basic things. You did. I'm not making up excuses. You are.
>>
>> And a very basic tip for you:
>>
>> Features exist to provide functionality. The "basic thing" is the
>> functionality, not the feature that delivers it.
>>
>> The headphone jack provides ONE functionality: connecting to audio devices
>> such as earbuds, earphones, speakers.
>
> The headphone jack used to provide two functionalities to some phones:
> connecting audio devices, and connecting an antenna for the FM radio.
> Only some phones have FM radio, and I neither know nor care whether
> iPhones do.

The newer Samsung phones do not have headphone jacks or FM radio
either. It has simply become a niche tech that most people do not need
and eventually the removal *will* ripple down product lines to all
models of phones from almost every maker (the exception being some
niche makers with high priced, low production models).

Those who don't like it will simply have to deal with it and no amount
of whining by the cross-posting anti-Apple nutter trolls will ever
change that fact.

Anyone who keeps whining about it will simply get put in my killfile as
the morons they are.

On 12/2/2023 7:17 PM, Your Name wrote:
>>>>> And (Pro tip follows): If you don't like what Apple does, there is
>>>>> nobody forcing you to buy their products.
>>>>
>>>> Pro tip to you. I didn't make the mistake of buying an Apple product that
>>>> is missing basic things. You did. I'm not making up excuses. You are.
>>>
>>> And a very basic tip for you:
>>>
>>> Features exist to provide functionality. The "basic thing" is the
>>> functionality, not the feature that delivers it.
>>>
>>> The headphone jack provides ONE functionality: connecting to audio devices
>>> such as earbuds, earphones, speakers.
>>
>> The headphone jack used to provide two functionalities to some phones:
>> connecting audio devices, and connecting an antenna for the FM radio.
>> Only some phones have FM radio, and I neither know nor care whether
>> iPhones do.
>
> The newer Samsung phones do not have headphone jacks or FM radio
> either. It has simply become a niche tech that most people do not need
> and eventually the removal *will* ripple down product lines to all
> models of phones from almost every maker (the exception being some
> niche makers with high priced, low production models).
>
> Those who don't like it will simply have to deal with it and no amount
> of whining by the cross-posting anti-Apple nutter trolls will ever
> change that fact.
>
> Anyone who keeps whining about it will simply get put in my killfile as
> the morons they are.

Given most Android phones have the aux port (yes, even most Samsung phones)
why is it only the Apple iPhone owners who are whining that they can't do
what most Android phones have always been able to do with the aux port?

It's their fault they bought the iPhone that lacked all the basic hardware.
Now they have to deal with that loss by buying more things to make it work.

Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:

>> What I said was you are confused by your own argument that the only thing
>> that seems to matter to you is the date something useful was invented.
>
> Not confused at all. Oceans of clarity here. And it's not the only
> thing that matters. Had you been in on this (and other discussions of
> the kind) earlier that would be clear to you.

You condescendingly claim that it's not clear to me that your entire
argument hinges singularly on the technology working for a very long time.

To you, that's bad.

>>>> You're constantly making the date alone the entirety of your argument.
>>>
>>> Not at all. The date is just a label for a point in time.
>>
>> Then stop bringing up the date as if it's the only criteria you have.
>
> Who said it was the only criteria I have. There are other reasons why
> this dated technology should go, including the bulkiness of the female
> end of it that takes up precious internal room inside the phone and of
> course newer connectors (such as Lightning and USB-C) offer far more
> versatility and data bandwidth.

There are plenty of small phones with less "internal room" than an iPhone.
And they have the connectors and ports that all the new iPhones now lack.

>>> And (Pro tip follows): If you don't like what Apple does, there is
>>> nobody forcing you to buy their products.
>>
>> Pro tip to you. I didn't make the mistake of buying an Apple product that
>> is missing basic things. You did. I'm not making up excuses. You are.
>
> No mistake. I knew it didn't have that audio jack port and I've never
> missed the audio-jack port at all. Not once.

Then why are you constantly complaining that everyone but you has it?
Just own up to the fact you have to buy stuff to replace what Apple took.

> As Alan adroitly points out: the functionality is still there. Just the
> connector changed. And now offers more functionality.

Again, your entire argument is you don't like technology that just works.
You want to have to buy things to make what Apple took away work again.

>>>> Why does the date something that works was invented matter so much to you?
>>>
>>> I'm not hung up on the date so much as the basic "technology" has been
>>> replaced by better things.
>>
>> What that excuse really means is you can't find anything wrong with it.
>
> If all that port had to do was audio, it would be acceptable.

Did you ever wonder why Apple removes standard functionality from iPhones?

> But it's not a port that does one thing anymore.

Did it ever occur to you that you now have to buy back what Apple removed?

> So discard the audio jack and put in something far more versatile.

It seems you complain only because you're sorry you bought the wrong phone.

>> So you make your entire argument that it has been working for a long time.
>>
>> To you, that's bad.
>
> The reason I bring up the "age" of it is to illustrate that it was a
> solution for a time.

The reason you bring up that it has been working for a long time is you
don't like that it "just works" and has "just worked" for a very long time.

> As things evolve we discard what is better done by something else.

You want to buy more stuff to make what Apple took away work again for you.

> And of course, if you don't like the absence of the audio jack, that
> just limits your choices.

Again you complain that the iPhone lacking the jack limited your choices,
so you're tacitly admitting your problem is you bought the wrong phone.

If you had a phone with the jack, you'd have all those choices you lack.

On 2023-12-03 00:49:38 +0000, Bradley said:
> On 12/2/2023 7:17 PM, Your Name wrote:
>>>>>> And (Pro tip follows): If you don't like what Apple does, there is
>>>>>> nobody forcing you to buy their products.
>>>>>
>>>>> Pro tip to you. I didn't make the mistake of buying an Apple product that
>>>>> is missing basic things. You did. I'm not making up excuses. You are.
>>>>
>>>> And a very basic tip for you:
>>>>
>>>> Features exist to provide functionality. The "basic thing" is the
>>>> functionality, not the feature that delivers it.
>>>>
>>>> The headphone jack provides ONE functionality: connecting to audio devices
>>>> such as earbuds, earphones, speakers.
>>>
>>> The headphone jack used to provide two functionalities to some phones:
>>> connecting audio devices, and connecting an antenna for the FM radio.
>>> Only some phones have FM radio, and I neither know nor care whether
>>> iPhones do.
>>
>> The newer Samsung phones do not have headphone jacks or FM radio
>> either. It has simply become a niche tech that most people do not need
>> and eventually the removal *will* ripple down product lines to all
>> models of phones from almost every maker (the exception being some
>> niche makers with high priced, low production models).
>>
>> Those who don't like it will simply have to deal with it and no amount
>> of whining by the cross-posting anti-Apple nutter trolls will ever
>> change that fact.
>>
>> Anyone who keeps whining about it will simply get put in my killfile as
>> the morons they are.
>
> Given most Android phones have the aux port (yes, even most Samsung phones)
> why is it only the Apple iPhone owners who are whining that they can't do
> what most Android phones have always been able to do with the aux port?
>
> It's their fault they bought the iPhone that lacked all the basic hardware.
> Now they have to deal with that loss by buying more things to make it work.

Killfiled.

On 2023-12-03 01:10:59 +0000, rocco portelli said:

> Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
>
>>> What I said was you are confused by your own argument that the only thing
>>> that seems to matter to you is the date something useful was invented.
>>
>> Not confused at all. Oceans of clarity here. And it's not the only
>> thing that matters. Had you been in on this (and other discussions of
>> the kind) earlier that would be clear to you.
>
> You condescendingly claim that it's not clear to me that your entire
> argument hinges singularly on the technology working for a very long time.
>
> To you, that's bad.
>
>>>>> You're constantly making the date alone the entirety of your argument.
>>>>
>>>> Not at all. The date is just a label for a point in time.
>>>
>>> Then stop bringing up the date as if it's the only criteria you have.
>>
>> Who said it was the only criteria I have. There are other reasons why
>> this dated technology should go, including the bulkiness of the female
>> end of it that takes up precious internal room inside the phone and of
>> course newer connectors (such as Lightning and USB-C) offer far more
>> versatility and data bandwidth.
>
> There are plenty of small phones with less "internal room" than an iPhone.
> And they have the connectors and ports that all the new iPhones now lack.
>
>>>> And (Pro tip follows): If you don't like what Apple does, there is
>>>> nobody forcing you to buy their products.
>>>
>>> Pro tip to you. I didn't make the mistake of buying an Apple product that
>>> is missing basic things. You did. I'm not making up excuses. You are.
>>
>> No mistake. I knew it didn't have that audio jack port and I've never
>> missed the audio-jack port at all. Not once.
>
> Then why are you constantly complaining that everyone but you has it?
> Just own up to the fact you have to buy stuff to replace what Apple took.
>
>> As Alan adroitly points out: the functionality is still there. Just the
>> connector changed. And now offers more functionality.
>
> Again, your entire argument is you don't like technology that just works.
> You want to have to buy things to make what Apple took away work again.
>
>>>>> Why does the date something that works was invented matter so much to you?
>>>>
>>>> I'm not hung up on the date so much as the basic "technology" has been
>>>> replaced by better things.
>>>
>>> What that excuse really means is you can't find anything wrong with it.
>>
>> If all that port had to do was audio, it would be acceptable.
>
> Did you ever wonder why Apple removes standard functionality from iPhones?
>
>> But it's not a port that does one thing anymore.
>
> Did it ever occur to you that you now have to buy back what Apple removed?
>
>> So discard the audio jack and put in something far more versatile.
>
> It seems you complain only because you're sorry you bought the wrong phone.
>
>>> So you make your entire argument that it has been working for a long time.
>>>
>>> To you, that's bad.
>>
>> The reason I bring up the "age" of it is to illustrate that it was a
>> solution for a time.
>
> The reason you bring up that it has been working for a long time is you
> don't like that it "just works" and has "just worked" for a very long time.
>
>> As things evolve we discard what is better done by something else.
>
> You want to buy more stuff to make what Apple took away work again for you.
>
>> And of course, if you don't like the absence of the audio jack, that
>> just limits your choices.
>
> Again you complain that the iPhone lacking the jack limited your choices,
> so you're tacitly admitting your problem is you bought the wrong phone.
>
> If you had a phone with the jack, you'd have all those choices you lack.

Killfiled.

On 2023-12-02 16:49, Bradley wrote:
> On 12/2/2023 7:17 PM, Your Name wrote:
>>>>>> And (Pro tip follows): If you don't like what Apple does, there is
>>>>>> nobody forcing you to buy their products.
>>>>>
>>>>> Pro tip to you. I didn't make the mistake of buying an Apple
>>>>> product that
>>>>> is missing basic things. You did. I'm not making up excuses. You are.
>>>>
>>>> And a very basic tip for you:
>>>>
>>>> Features exist to provide functionality. The "basic thing" is the
>>>> functionality, not the feature that delivers it.
>>>>
>>>> The headphone jack provides ONE functionality: connecting to audio
>>>> devices
>>>> such as earbuds, earphones, speakers.
>>>
>>> The headphone jack used to provide two functionalities to some phones:
>>> connecting audio devices, and connecting an antenna for the FM radio.
>>> Only some phones have FM radio, and I neither know nor care whether
>>> iPhones do.
>>
>> The newer Samsung phones do not have headphone jacks or FM radio
>> either. It has simply become a niche tech that most people do not need
>> and eventually the removal *will* ripple down product lines to all
>> models of phones from almost every maker (the exception being some
>> niche makers with high priced, low production models).
>>
>> Those who don't like it will simply have to deal with it and no amount
>> of whining by the cross-posting anti-Apple nutter trolls will ever
>> change that fact.
>>
>> Anyone who keeps whining about it will simply get put in my killfile
>> as the morons they are.
>
> Given most Android phones have the aux port (yes, even most Samsung phones)
> why is it only the Apple iPhone owners who are whining that they can't do
> what most Android phones have always been able to do with the aux port?
>
> It's their fault they bought the iPhone that lacked all the basic hardware.
> Now they have to deal with that loss by buying more things to make it work.

Oh, look!

Another Arlen nym!

Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:

>> Your excuse for your iPhone not being a capable phone is ridiculous because
>> anyone on any phone can add bluetooth earbuds - whether Apple or Samsung.
>
> Why did Samsung remove the jack on many of its higher end phones?

Good question.
Probably for the same reason that Apple removed the jack.

That's two reasons. The first is to make the same kind of profit off of
unsuspecting style-conscious customers and the other is to copy style.

Samsung would love to copy Apple's style and to sell to that class of
customer who doesn't care about money or function but only about style.

Anyone buying a phone like that is caring more about style than function.

If they're going to waste a thousand bucks on a phone, they need to show
others that they can waste their resources on adding the stylish earbuds.

Unstylish (but perfectly functional) wired headphones look too cheesy.
They need to show people they can afford to waste their money on earbuds.

They wouldn't be caught dead with a wired headphone simply because they're
like the Apple people who wouldn't be caught dead with green bubbles.

Don't laugh. There are people who only care about style. Not function.
https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/when-i-switched-to-iphone-blue-imessage-bubbles-made-my-friends-far-too-happy/

Apple made it stylish to have green bubbles, which people are willing to
pay for. Not because it's more functional. But only because it's stylish.

Same with people wearing earbuds. It shows to all the world they have money
enough to waste on frivous things just to replace what was already working.

But there's more to it.

Apple makes a lot of money off those earbuds, just like Apple makes a lot
of money off the iCloud from not allowing sd cards, just like Apple makes a
lot of money by not including a charger in the box by selling more
chargers, particularly "upgrades" the store personnel talk people into.

Both Apple & Samsung are making money on the people who buy Apple and
Samsung accessories just to make what would have worked, working again.

Everyone wins. Apple & Samsung make more money.
And the consumer gets to prove that they can waste money on pure style.

Don't laugh.
That's how people think in the world of buying those expensive phones.

You and I might not think that way. But that's because we don't buy purely
based on style. We are sensible. They they are not.

The people who buy those expensive phones don't care about being sensible.
They only care about looking stylish (wasting money has always been so).

I wonder if people who talk about resale value take that wasted money into
account? Do they sell their earbuds also when they're done with the phone?

Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:

> Beyond wheels I don't know of anything all that enduring that hasn't
> been replaced by something better. Although wheels themselves
> continuously evolve - haven't seen wood, tallow lubricated wheel hubs in
> a while ...

You keep using the word "replaced" as if you believe that something was
replaced. But all you've said was something was removed that was working.

The aux jack (that was working) was removed. It was replaced with nothing.

I understand your absurd thought process which is that they removed it but
they "replaced" it with earbuds but your ridiculous thought process doesn't
take into account even with the aux jack people could have used earbuds.

So nothing was replaced.
The aux jack was removed.

Assuming I missed something that wasn't absurd in your thought process,
what can you tell me was "replaced" that wasn't already there prior?

>> For some reason, they keep telling us that the only reason it was removed
>> by Apple is that it had been working just fine for a very long time.
>
> That is a silly statement.

The silly statement is any claim that Apple "replaced" it.
See above. Apple removed it. And "replaced" it with nothing.

Try this. Take two phones. Remove the aux jack from one.

Your claim that the phone without the aux jack can now do more than the
phone with it is what's silly. On what basis do you make that silly claim?

> And of course as soon as Apple broke the mold, Samsung followed. Par.

See my other response to your apropos question of why would Samsung want to
capitalize on all the marketing research Apple did for them on getting
wealthy customers to pay for the phone, the iCloud and for the chargers.

What company wouldn't want to make money off of people who care more about
style than they care about money? Samsung wants to copy Apple's marketing.

But note that Samsung sells plenty of phones that have the aux jack too.
And the sd card hardware. And the FM radio. Most of their models, in fact.

It's only the few Samsung models marketed to those who want the most
expensive (& therefore the most stylish phones) that lack basic hardware.

They have the money to compensate for the lost hardware, and they will
likely spend some of that money with Samsung buying back the lost hardware.

It's a win:win for everyone.
I'm surprised more companies don't copy everything that Apple does.

On 2023-12-02 17:14, Alan wrote:

> Most consumers aren't even aware that their phone could be used as an FM
> radio...

Esp. as many smartphones (incl. Samsung) with FM receivers had the
feature disabled, though there are apps to connect it.
--
“Markets can remain irrational longer than your can remain solvent.”
- John Maynard Keynes.

On 2023-12-02 20:10, rocco portelli wrote:
> Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
>
>>> What I said was you are confused by your own argument that the only thing
>>> that seems to matter to you is the date something useful was invented.
>>
>> Not confused at all. Oceans of clarity here. And it's not the only
>> thing that matters. Had you been in on this (and other discussions of
>> the kind) earlier that would be clear to you.
>
> You condescendingly claim that it's not clear to me that your entire
> argument hinges singularly on the technology working for a very long time.

Not at all. Only that things move forward, somethings get discarded.

Circled enough with you. Like I said, nobody is forcing you to buy
anything.

--
“Markets can remain irrational longer than your can remain solvent.”
- John Maynard Keynes.

On 2023-12-03 17:07, rocco portelli wrote:
> Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
>
>>> Your excuse for your iPhone not being a capable phone is ridiculous because
>>> anyone on any phone can add bluetooth earbuds - whether Apple or Samsung.
>>
>> Why did Samsung remove the jack on many of its higher end phones?
>
> Good question.
> Probably for the same reason that Apple removed the jack.

Because Apple removed it.

Anyway this subthread is exhausted for me.

Be well and do well!

--
“Markets can remain irrational longer than your can remain solvent.”
- John Maynard Keynes.

On 2023-12-03 17:23, rocco portelli wrote:
> Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
>
>> Beyond wheels I don't know of anything all that enduring that hasn't
>> been replaced by something better. Although wheels themselves
>> continuously evolve - haven't seen wood, tallow lubricated wheel hubs in
>> a while ...
>
> You keep using the word "replaced" as if you believe that something was
> replaced. But all you've said was something was removed that was working.

To be clear, the functionality remains, the form of it remains.

Like wheels today use steel bearings lubricated with synthetic grease
and not wood lubricated with tallow.

--
“Markets can remain irrational longer than your can remain solvent.”
- John Maynard Keynes.

Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:

>> You keep using the word "replaced" as if you believe that something was
>> replaced. But all you've said was something was removed that was working.
>
> To be clear, the functionality remains, the form of it remains.
>
> Like wheels today use steel bearings lubricated with synthetic grease
> and not wood lubricated with tallow.

In other words, your thought process was absurd because they removed it.
They didn't replace it with anything. YOU REPLACED IT WITH SOMETHING.

And that cost you time, effort & money (that went to those who removed it).

Let's give up because I've tried a half dozen times to get you to
express a thought process that wasn't absurd - and you can't do it.

You actually think that if you take a phone, and you plug up the
AUX port, then doing that somehow makes the phone more functional.

Your thought processes are absurd.

On 2023-12-03 16:23, rocco portelli wrote:
> Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
>
>>> You keep using the word "replaced" as if you believe that something was
>>> replaced. But all you've said was something was removed that was working.
>>
>> To be clear, the functionality remains, the form of it remains.
>>
>> Like wheels today use steel bearings lubricated with synthetic grease
>> and not wood lubricated with tallow.
>
> In other words, your thought process was absurd because they removed it.
> They didn't replace it with anything. YOU REPLACED IT WITH SOMETHING.

They replaced the aux port with a Lightning port that supports plugging
earbuds into it.

On 2023-12-03 19:23, rocco portelli wrote:
> Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
>
>>> You keep using the word "replaced" as if you believe that something was
>>> replaced. But all you've said was something was removed that was working.
>>
>> To be clear, the functionality remains, the form of it remains.
>>
>> Like wheels today use steel bearings lubricated with synthetic grease
>> and not wood lubricated with tallow.
>
> In other words, your thought process was absurd because they removed it.
> They didn't replace it with anything. YOU REPLACED IT WITH SOMETHING.

I didn't change the port. Apple did. And it has no effect on me - nor
many many many millions of people.

Get over yourself.

--
“Markets can remain irrational longer than your can remain solvent.”
- John Maynard Keynes.

Peter, 2023-11-26 23:58:

> Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> wrote:
>>>>> I only needed to search for 30 seconds.
>>>>
>>>> You win - 100 points! Congratulations!!!!
>>>
>>> Instead of blurting childish insults why not just apologize for being wrong
>>> and for not thinking before you posted what you posted about aux ports?
>>
>> "You win" is not enough?
>
> Whatever you say is "enough" if you get into your thick skull that most
> Android models sold today have the very useful ports, slots & radios.

Yep - USB-C is very useful ;-)

--
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de

Carlos E. R., 2023-11-27 11:53:

> On 2023-11-26 23:59, Alan wrote:
[...]
>> But what percentage of people USE those ports?
>
> What percentage uses any particular feature or app?
>
> Does a feature need to have 90% usage in order not not be removed?

Features get removed when vendors realize, that they still can sell a
product without it. The number of people who use that feature is
irrelevant as long as they still buy devices without it.

--
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de

On 4/12/2023, Arno Welzel wrote:

>> Does a feature need to have 90% usage in order not not be removed?
>
> Features get removed when vendors realize, that they still can sell a
> product without it. The number of people who use that feature is
> irrelevant as long as they still buy devices without it.

But that's not what is happening here because most Android phones have it.
So Android resale values don't have to add buying what was removed.

What's happening here is nobody who is on Android is complaining about the
loss of the functionality - it's only the Apple people who are complaining.

And that makes sense because only the Apple phones don't have it at all.
That's why Apple resale value has to account for buying what was removed.

On 2023-12-04 15:04, Larry Wolff wrote:
> On 4/12/2023, Arno Welzel wrote:
>
>>> Does a feature need to have 90% usage in order not not be removed?
>>
>> Features get removed when vendors realize, that they still can sell a
>> product without it. The number of people who use that feature is
>> irrelevant as long as they still buy devices without it.
>
> But that's not what is happening here because most Android phones have it.
> So Android resale values don't have to add buying what was removed.
>
> What's happening here is nobody who is on Android is complaining about the
> loss of the functionality - it's only the Apple people who are complaining.
>
> And that makes sense because only the Apple phones don't have it at all.
> That's why Apple resale value has to account for buying what was removed.

The Apple people have lost no functionality.

On 12/4/2023 8:32 PM, Alan wrote:

> The Apple people have lost no functionality.

Your argument that it has "lost no functionality" is absurd.
Especially given Apple removed all basic hardware (which includes
not only basic jacks, but also slots, radios, & chargers).

Try this in order to understand why your argument is ridiculous.
Take a phone that has the aux port and plug that port with cement.

How do you do what the port did for you without buying more stuff?

If you buy more stuff just to make it work, then add that to the resale
value calculations. Otherwise, the resale value is a complete farce.

An iPhone is always going to cost more than Android when you take into
account the total costs of ownership of constantly making it work again.

After Apple removes all basic hardware (jacks, slots, radios, chargers).

On 2023-12-05 00:59, Larry Wolff wrote:
> On 12/4/2023 8:32 PM, Alan wrote:
>
>> The Apple people have lost no functionality.
>
> Your argument that it has "lost no functionality" is absurd.
> Especially given Apple removed all basic hardware (which includes
> not only basic jacks, but also slots, radios, & chargers).

1. The function of a charger is to allow you to recharge the battery.
That functionality hasn't been removed. Most people already have
numerous chargers from previous purchases (I myself have at least 3 or 4).

2. iPhones never had an FM radio, so that could never have been removed.

....and...

>
> Try this in order to understand why your argument is ridiculous.
> Take a phone that has the aux port and plug that port with cement.

....3. Does the phone have a Lightning port? Because it does, then I
already have all the functionality that that 3.5mm audio jack provided.

>
> How do you do what the port did for you without buying more stuff?

I buy appropriate stuff for port I DO have, duh!

>
> If you buy more stuff just to make it work, then add that to the resale
> value calculations. Otherwise, the resale value is a complete farce.

Does every phone with a 3.5mm audio jack come with earbuds?

>
> An iPhone is always going to cost more than Android when you take into
> account the total costs of ownership of constantly making it work again.
>
> After Apple removes all basic hardware (jacks, slots, radios, chargers).

Show your work.

Do a concrete example.

I dare you.

"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote

> No matter how many
> times you insist that other people are dumb. We aren't, we just make
> different choices than you.

It's not the choices people make that show their IQ.
It's how they logically reason given the salient facts.

Take the example of the typical low-IQ iKook, Carlos.
a. They claim lower total cost of ownership, for example,
simply because Apple will buy back a recent model iPhone, '
if, they use that "credit" to buy another iPhone.
b. Yet they ignore the huge costs they incur buying what
most Android owners don't even need to purchase
(such as cloud accounts, radio subscriptions,
proprietary cabling, expensive replacement parts,
AppleCare services, extensive lack of FOSS apps,
bluetooth headsets, high-speed chargers, etc.).
c. And they limit the comparison to only expensive Androids
(where, let's be clear, my free Galaxy A32-5G has far
more app functionality than any iPhone ever sold, and it
only cost the 10% California sales tax on the $250 MSRP).

What shows their low IQ, Carlos, isn't their choices, Carlos.
It's the fact that they can't form a sensibly logical choice.

Worse, when confronted with the pertinent logical facts, Carlos.
They make endless excuses for their lack of comprehensive skills.

They sputter that the thousands of things that an iPhone can't do that
every other phone can do, must be because nobody wants or needs it.
--
Apple is no different than Big Tobacco is.

On 2023-12-06 11:57, Wally J wrote:
> "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote
>
>> No matter how many
>> times you insist that other people are dumb. We aren't, we just make
>> different choices than you.
>
> It's not the choices people make that show their IQ.
> It's how they logically reason given the salient facts.
>
> Take the example of the typical low-IQ iKook, Carlos.
> a. They claim lower total cost of ownership, for example,
> simply because Apple will buy back a recent model iPhone, '
> if, they use that "credit" to buy another iPhone.

No. That is NOT what I've seen anyone claim.

> b. Yet they ignore the huge costs they incur buying what
> most Android owners don't even need to purchase
> (such as cloud accounts, radio subscriptions,
> proprietary cabling, expensive replacement parts,
> AppleCare services, extensive lack of FOSS apps,
> bluetooth headsets, high-speed chargers, etc.).

Nope. All false.

> c. And they limit the comparison to only expensive Androids
> (where, let's be clear, my free Galaxy A32-5G has far
> more app functionality than any iPhone ever sold, and it
> only cost the 10% California sales tax on the $250 MSRP).

How cute!

You think a phone is "free" because a cellphone provider bundles the
cost into what you pay each month!

Wally J <walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote:

[...]

> Take the example of the typical low-IQ iKook, Carlos.

[...]

That's harsh, Wally J, rather harsh. ≈:o(
This is a side of your character that I haven't seen before.

--
Sn!pe, PA, FIBS - Professional Crastinator ^Ï^.
Reply-To: <snipeco.1@gmail.com>
Google Groups articles not seen unless poster whitelisted.
My pet rock Gordon just said Don't Be Evil.