Cross-posted to a Linux and a Win7 Newsgroup ... I don't have an iOS
newsgroup.

"US launches landmark lawsuit against Apple"

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-22/us-launches-landmark-lawsuit-against-apple/103620506

Whilst listening to the Radio (in Australia) discussing this story this
afternoon, the point was made that, on Phones, Apple's iOS has something
like a 60% market share in the U.S. of A.

However, on a Worldwide basis .....

https://www.statista.com/statistics/272698/global-market-share-held-by-mobile-operating-systems-since-2009/

Quote "Android maintained its position as the leading mobile operating
system worldwide in the fourth quarter of 2023 with a market share of
70.1 percent. Android's closest rival, Apple's iOS, had a market share
of 29.2 percent during the same period." End Quote

Why is there such a drastic difference between 'With-in U.S. of A.'
stats and 'Worldwide' stats?? i.e. almost an inversion!
--
Daniel

On 22/03/2024 in message <utjj91$2rf05$1@dont-email.me> Daniel65 wrote:

>Cross-posted to a Linux and a Win7 Newsgroup ... I don't have an iOS
>newsgroup.
>
>"US launches landmark lawsuit against Apple"
>
>https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-22/us-launches-landmark-lawsuit-against-apple/103620506
>
>Whilst listening to the Radio (in Australia) discussing this story this
>afternoon, the point was made that, on Phones, Apple's iOS has something
>like a 60% market share in the U.S. of A.
>
>However, on a Worldwide basis .....
>
>https://www.statista.com/statistics/272698/global-market-share-held-by-mobile-operating-systems-since-2009/
>
>Quote "Android maintained its position as the leading mobile operating
>system worldwide in the fourth quarter of 2023 with a market share of 70.1
>percent. Android's closest rival, Apple's iOS, had a market share of 29.2
>percent during the same period." End Quote
>
>Why is there such a drastic difference between 'With-in U.S. of A.' stats
>and 'Worldwide' stats?? i.e. almost an inversion!

Americans are naively patriotic and many of them don't understand there
are other countries in the world. There is a story that at the first
lesson of trainee airline pilots in the US about 14% (on average) of the
trainees have to be taken to a mental hospital to recover when they are
told there are other countries in the world they will need to fly to.

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
Those are my principles – and if you don’t like them, well, I have
others.
(Groucho Marx)

"Daniel65" <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote

| Whilst listening to the Radio (in Australia) discussing this story this
| afternoon, the point was made that, on Phones, Apple's iOS has something
| like a 60% market share in the U.S. of A.
|

It may be true. But those stats are from statcounter. So
it's really a record of what cellphone is used by people who visit
commercial websites with statcounter tracking and don't block
it.

Apple devotees are less likely to care about privacy, more
likely to be wealthy. That may account for part of the stats.
(I've been blocking statcounter in my HOSTS file for as long
as I can remember. Do extensions like ublock origin block it?
I don't know.)

Apple's own disciple-run website says the US share is in the
30s and generally going down:
https://9to5mac.com/2023/10/18/apples-us-smartphone-market-share-39-percent/

Where do they get their stats? I don't know. Maybe they're
counting sales, rather than cellphones visiting statcounter
websites? I don't see anyplace where they even explain their
numbers! Then again, AppleSeeds don't care. They just want
to hear that their religion is growing.

It's become common knowledge in the US that iPhone text
messages show as blue bubbles whereas if an Android sends a
text to an iPhone it's green. Ick! Gross ick factor!

Apple blocks efforts to change the bubble color because they
want to promote Apple as a status symbol. Similarly, they
deliberately interfere with anything that might mean an AppleSeed
being able to interact with non-Apple products.

On dating sites, a green bubble is often enough to disqualify
someone from consideration -- like a young man who picks up
his date in a rusted Ford Fiesta. Who wants to date an icky
Android prole?

US culture tends to be very status-conscious. People spend
big money for iPhones, BMWs, etc. The more alienated people
become, the more the person is the logos. Many people walk
around festooned with logos, on their coats, shoes, shirts,
handbags, glasses... Apple have always
pushed a "premium brand" image. People don't mind paying
through the nose. Just as with BMW, it's not so much the product
per se as it is the logo that they buy.

On the other hand, Apple does make solid products. Their products
are also relatively easy to use by people with little tech aptitude.
They're stable, dependable, beautifully built, and soprt iconss that
look like they were designed by a 12 year old girl who dots her
i's with hearts. Cute as a button and fancy as a BMW.

And as the US lawsuit indicates, Apple are vicious in their competitive,
monopolistic practices and their exploitation of both customers
and the virtual slave labor force that produces their products. So
their tech-illiterate customers are reasonable in thinking that nothing
but Mac works well. Because if it's not Mac then it doesn't work
well on a Mac.

Flaky GenZ moralists won't buy a brand if the CEO has said something
critical of "trans" people, but they'll happily share the CEO "cancel
gossip"
on their slave-built iPhone. That's a big part of the Apple mystery.
How do they manage to maintain an image as a cute company,
year after year, while arguably being one of the nastiest companies
to ever exist?

The other mystery is why it's taken over two decades for law
enforcement to look into Apple's practices. There's no secret
there. Yet suddenly everyone's worked up. Perhaps it's because
no one cared about consumer protection, but they do care if
Epic Games, PayPal and various other corporate entities that are
suffering lost profits? And why aren't they looking into Google's similar
exploitive practices? Why is it impossible to simply buy a
cellphone that's not controlled by the OS provider? My TV doesn't
force me to watch CBS TV. My car doesn't limit the supermarkets
I can drive to.

Jeff Gaines wrote on 22/3/24 9:08 pm:
> On 22/03/2024 in message <utjj91$2rf05$1@dont-email.me> Daniel65
> wrote:
>
>> Cross-posted to a Linux and a Win7 Newsgroup ... I don't have an
>> iOS newsgroup.
>>
>> "US launches landmark lawsuit against Apple"
>>
>> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-22/us-launches-landmark-lawsuit-against-apple/103620506
>>
>> Whilst listening to the Radio (in Australia) discussing this story
>> this afternoon, the point was made that, on Phones, Apple's iOS
>> has something like a 60% market share in the U.S. of A.
>>
>> However, on a Worldwide basis .....
>>
>> https://www.statista.com/statistics/272698/global-market-share-held-by-mobile-operating-systems-since-2009/
>>
>> Quote "Android maintained its position as the leading mobile
>> operating system worldwide in the fourth quarter of 2023 with a
>> market share of 70.1 percent. Android's closest rival, Apple's iOS,
>> had a market share of 29.2 percent during the same period." End
>> Quote
>>
>> Why is there such a drastic difference between 'With-in U.S. of A.'
>> stats and 'Worldwide' stats?? i.e. almost an inversion!
>
> Americans are naively patriotic and many of them don't understand
> there are other countries in the world.

Yeap ... and, as I understand it, to some U.S.A.'ians only 'the lower 48
states' count .... but I expect the vast majority of Apple iOS phones
are produced elsewhere (China/Taiwan/Mexico/where-ever) just like the
other phones so, to me, that still doesn't explain the situation.

> There is a story that at the first lesson of trainee airline pilots
> in the US about 14% (on average) of the trainees have to be taken to
> a mental hospital to recover when they are told there are other
> countries in the world they will need to fly to.
>
Could that suggest there is a problem with U.S. of A. schooling
(Geography) even at what, as I understand it, they called the Elementary
School level??
--
Daniel

Newyana2 wrote on 22/3/24 11:16 pm:
> "Daniel65" <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote
>
>> Whilst listening to the Radio (in Australia) discussing this story
>> this afternoon, the point was made that, on Phones, Apple's iOS has
>> something like a 60% market share in the U.S. of A.
>>
> It may be true. But those stats are from statcounter. So it's really
> a record of what cellphone is used by people who visit commercial
> websites with statcounter tracking and don't block it.

o are you suggesting this might be a case of "Lies, Damned Lies and
Statistics!!"??

> Apple devotees are less likely to care about privacy, more likely to
> be wealthy. That may account for part of the stats. (I've been
> blocking statcounter in my HOSTS file for as long as I can remember.
> Do extensions like ublock origin block it? I don't know.)
>
> Apple's own disciple-run website says the US share is in the 30s and
> generally going down:
> https://9to5mac.com/2023/10/18/apples-us-smartphone-market-share-39-percent/
>
> Where do they get their stats? I don't know. Maybe they're counting
> sales, rather than cellphones visiting statcounter websites? I don't
> see anyplace where they even explain their numbers! Then again,
> AppleSeeds don't care. They just want to hear that their religion is
> growing.
>
> It's become common knowledge in the US that iPhone text messages show
> as blue bubbles whereas if an Android sends a text to an iPhone it's
> green. Ick! Gross ick factor!

Could this, possibly lead to messages from Android Phones (no Blue tick)
being delayed in their 'reception' (i.e. time to being displayed) in iOS
type phones??

> Apple blocks efforts to change the bubble color because they want to
> promote Apple as a status symbol. Similarly, they deliberately
> interfere with anything that might mean an AppleSeed being able to
> interact with non-Apple products.
>
> On dating sites, a green bubble is often enough to disqualify someone
> from consideration -- like a young man who picks up his date in a
> rusted Ford Fiesta. Who wants to date an icky Android prole?
>
> US culture tends to be very status-conscious. People spend big money
> for iPhones, BMWs, etc. The more alienated people become, the more
> the person is the logos. Many people walk around festooned with
> logos, on their coats, shoes, shirts, handbags, glasses... Apple have
> always pushed a "premium brand" image. People don't mind paying
> through the nose. Just as with BMW, it's not so much the product per
> se as it is the logo that they buy.

So the Customer is paying to do the advertising for whichever company!!

> On the other hand, Apple does make solid products. Their products are
> also relatively easy to use by people with little tech aptitude.
> They're stable, dependable, beautifully built, and soprt iconss that
> look like they were designed by a 12 year old girl who dots her i's
> with hearts. Cute as a button and fancy as a BMW.
>
> And as the US lawsuit indicates, Apple are vicious in their
> competitive, monopolistic practices and their exploitation of both
> customers and the virtual slave labor force that produces their
> products. So their tech-illiterate customers are reasonable in
> thinking that nothing but Mac works well. Because if it's not Mac
> then it doesn't work well on a Mac.
>
> Flaky GenZ moralists won't buy a brand if the CEO has said something
> critical of "trans" people, but they'll happily share the CEO
> "cancel gossip" on their slave-built iPhone. That's a big part of the
> Apple mystery. How do they manage to maintain an image as a cute
> company, year after year, while arguably being one of the nastiest
> companies to ever exist?
>
> The other mystery is why it's taken over two decades for law
> enforcement to look into Apple's practices. There's no secret there.
> Yet suddenly everyone's worked up. Perhaps it's because no one cared
> about consumer protection, but they do care if Epic Games, PayPal and
> various other corporate entities that are suffering lost profits? And
> why aren't they looking into Google's similar exploitive practices?
> Why is it impossible to simply buy a cellphone that's not controlled
> by the OS provider? My TV doesn't force me to watch CBS TV. My car
> doesn't limit the supermarkets I can drive to.

Whilst reading your reply, Newyana2, I was reminded of IBM back in the
80's/90's where virtually any Interrogated Circuit producing Company was
permitted, by IBM, to produce CPU chips up through to the 486 variety
..... but then, having achieved CPU Supremacy, IBM virtually shut the
gates .... unless the other Manufacturers were willing to pay!!
--
Daniel

On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 08:16:14 -0400, Newyana2 wrote:

> "Daniel65" <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote
>
> | Whilst listening to the Radio (in Australia) discussing this story
> this | afternoon, the point was made that, on Phones, Apple's iOS has
> something | like a 60% market share in the U.S. of A.
> |
>
> It may be true. But those stats are from statcounter. So
> it's really a record of what cellphone is used by people who visit
> commercial websites with statcounter tracking and don't block it.
>
> Apple devotees are less likely to care about privacy, more
> likely to be wealthy. That may account for part of the stats.
> (I've been blocking statcounter in my HOSTS file for as long as I can
> remember. Do extensions like ublock origin block it?
> I don't know.)
>
> Apple's own disciple-run website says the US share is in the
> 30s and generally going down:
> https://9to5mac.com/2023/10/18/apples-us-smartphone-market-share-39-
percent/
>
> Where do they get their stats? I don't know. Maybe they're
> counting sales, rather than cellphones visiting statcounter websites? I
> don't see anyplace where they even explain their numbers! Then again,
> AppleSeeds don't care. They just want to hear that their religion is
> growing.
>
> It's become common knowledge in the US that iPhone text
> messages show as blue bubbles whereas if an Android sends a text to an
> iPhone it's green. Ick! Gross ick factor!
>
> Apple blocks efforts to change the bubble color because they
> want to promote Apple as a status symbol. Similarly, they deliberately
> interfere with anything that might mean an AppleSeed being able to
> interact with non-Apple products.
>
> On dating sites, a green bubble is often enough to disqualify
> someone from consideration -- like a young man who picks up his date in
> a rusted Ford Fiesta. Who wants to date an icky Android prole?
>
> US culture tends to be very status-conscious. People spend
> big money for iPhones, BMWs, etc. The more alienated people become, the
> more the person is the logos. Many people walk around festooned with
> logos, on their coats, shoes, shirts,
> handbags, glasses... Apple have always pushed a "premium brand" image.
> People don't mind paying through the nose. Just as with BMW, it's not so
> much the product per se as it is the logo that they buy.
>
> On the other hand, Apple does make solid products. Their products
> are also relatively easy to use by people with little tech aptitude.
> They're stable, dependable, beautifully built, and soprt iconss that
> look like they were designed by a 12 year old girl who dots her i's with
> hearts. Cute as a button and fancy as a BMW.
>
> And as the US lawsuit indicates, Apple are vicious in their
> competitive,
> monopolistic practices and their exploitation of both customers and the
> virtual slave labor force that produces their products. So their
> tech-illiterate customers are reasonable in thinking that nothing but
> Mac works well. Because if it's not Mac then it doesn't work well on a
> Mac.
>
> Flaky GenZ moralists won't buy a brand if the CEO has said something
> critical of "trans" people, but they'll happily share the CEO "cancel
> gossip"
> on their slave-built iPhone. That's a big part of the Apple mystery.
> How do they manage to maintain an image as a cute company,
> year after year, while arguably being one of the nastiest companies to
> ever exist?
>
> The other mystery is why it's taken over two decades for law
> enforcement to look into Apple's practices. There's no secret there. Yet
> suddenly everyone's worked up. Perhaps it's because no one cared about
> consumer protection, but they do care if Epic Games, PayPal and various
> other corporate entities that are suffering lost profits? And why aren't
> they looking into Google's similar exploitive practices? Why is it
> impossible to simply buy a cellphone that's not controlled by the OS
> provider? My TV doesn't force me to watch CBS TV. My car doesn't limit
> the supermarkets I can drive to.

Here it is

Stupid people do tend to spend a lots of money for a crap that
covers/hides theirs poverty and real social status.

--
Painters, electricians, comedians, journalists, rule the world.

"Daniel65" <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote

| > It's become common knowledge in the US that iPhone text messages show
| > as blue bubbles whereas if an Android sends a text to an iPhone it's
| > green. Ick! Gross ick factor!
| | Could this, possibly lead to messages from Android Phones (no Blue tick)
| being delayed in their 'reception' (i.e. time to being displayed) in iOS
| type phones??
|

I don't know about lag time. From what I've read it's just the
green color issue. Someone made an app to make the messages
show blue on iPhones, but Apple made sure to break it.

Newyana2 <Newyana2@invalid.nospam> wrote:
[...]

> Why is it impossible to simply buy a
> cellphone that's not controlled by the OS provider? My TV doesn't
> force me to watch CBS TV. My car doesn't limit the supermarkets
> I can drive to.

As said - also to you - before, it's perfectly possible to buy a
'cellphone' (read: mobile phone) where you - not the phone/'OS' supplier
- are in charge, but a *smart*phone indeed not so much.

Daniel65 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
> Cross-posted to a Linux and a Win7 Newsgroup ... I don't have an iOS
> newsgroup.

There probably isn't an iOS group, but there are iPhone and iPad
groups:

misc.phone.mobile.iphone
comp.mobile.ipad

BUT, tread very carefully when (cross)posting to those groups! :-)

[...]

On 3/22/2024 5:08 AM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> On 22/03/2024 in message <utjj91$2rf05$1@dont-email.me> Daniel65 wrote:
>
>> Cross-posted to a Linux and a Win7 Newsgroup ... I don't have an iOS
>> newsgroup.

individual.net carries misc.phone.mobile and misc.phone.mobile.iphone.
Daniel65 should subscribe to them to post this kind of stuff as it
always devolves into the tiresome crap like Jeff writes below. They
seem to enjoy it in those groups. It doesn't belong here

> Americans are naively patriotic and many of them don't understand there
> are other countries in the world. There is a story that at the first
> lesson of trainee airline pilots in the US about 14% (on average) of the
> trainees have to be taken to a mental hospital to recover when they are
> told there are other countries in the world they will need to fly to.
>

--
Stand With Israel!

On 22 Mar 2024 15:48:41 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:

> Newyana2 <Newyana2@invalid.nospam> wrote:
> [...]
>
>> Why is it impossible to simply buy a
>> cellphone that's not controlled by the OS provider? My TV doesn't force
>> me to watch CBS TV. My car doesn't limit the supermarkets I can drive
>> to.
>
> As said - also to you - before, it's perfectly possible to buy a
> 'cellphone' (read: mobile phone) where you - not the phone/'OS' supplier
> - are in charge, but a *smart*phone indeed not so much.

get a linux cellphone and you have more then smart

--
Painters, electricians, comedians, journalists, rule the world.

"andal" <andal@andal.org> wrote

| >> Why is it impossible to simply buy a
| >> cellphone that's not controlled by the OS provider? My TV doesn't force
| >> me to watch CBS TV. My car doesn't limit the supermarkets I can drive
| >> to.

| get a linux cellphone and you have more then smart
|

That might work for a small population of geeks. For me, it's
just not worth the trouble to work out the details. For the
average person it's not feasible at all. Personally I'd go further and
say that the culture of geek arrogance makes things worse,
as it becomes a mark of geek status to do things like run a
jailbroken cellphone. The issue is much bigger: Jailed cellphones
need to be illegal. Anyone should be able to buy a clean cellphone
and sign up with any service provider, with clearly delineated
fees.

(At one point some years ago I went to 4 different stores:
ATT, Verizon, T-Mobile, and one other that used to exist. Each
one told me service started at $40. Not one of them would tell
me the reall price. Though one woman who was there to pay
her bill was nice enought to show me: she was paying about $80.)

Slashdot ran an interesting piece today, linking to the DOJ
lawsuit against Apple: https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1344546/dl?inline
The suit explains that sleazy licensing deals, limitations set
by phone services, and Apple's deliberate blocking of interactibility,
have left only Apple, Samsung and Google as serious cellphone
makers. Microsoft, Amazon, HTC and others had to drop out
because they couldn't get market share. It's like the old days
before the Bell breakup, when people had no choice but to rent
landline phones and pay steep rates for service. Except that the
current scenario is more complicated and more difficult to
understand. So not only would it be nearly impossible for a Mac
user to use a Linux cellphone. It would likely be unrealistic for
them to even use an Android cellphone. And for a current iPhone
user to switch would be even harder.

I actually have an LTC Tracfone that cost $40. I don't know
how they can afford to sell the screen for $40. Yet it's a very
slick, handheld computer that works for web browsing. I imagine
the camera doesn't match an iPhone or Samsung camera. I haven't
used it, so I don't know. But my Tracfone is still heavily infested
with Googlism. I've managed to block or remove most of it, though
every time I turn it on I get a flurry of messages telling me that
I simply must enable Google Play Store, or Google Services, or some
such. All of that should be prosecuted for monopoly control. Google
have no business running their spyware/crapware on my private
cellphone.

Newyana2 <Newyana2@invalid.nospam> wrote:
> "andal" <andal@andal.org> wrote
>
> | >> Why is it impossible to simply buy a
> | >> cellphone that's not controlled by the OS provider? My TV doesn't force
> | >> me to watch CBS TV. My car doesn't limit the supermarkets I can drive
> | >> to.
>
> | get a linux cellphone and you have more then smart
>
> That might work for a small population of geeks. For me, it's
> just not worth the trouble to work out the details. For the
> average person it's not feasible at all. Personally I'd go further and
> say that the culture of geek arrogance makes things worse,
> as it becomes a mark of geek status to do things like run a
> jailbroken cellphone. The issue is much bigger: Jailed cellphones
> need to be illegal. Anyone should be able to buy a clean cellphone
> and sign up with any service provider, with clearly delineated
> fees.

It's not a 'jailed' mobile phone, but a (network) *locked* mobile
phone. That seems to be a US-ism, because most countries just have
unlocked phones which can use any SIM for any provider.

[...]

> Slashdot ran an interesting piece today, linking to the DOJ
> lawsuit against Apple: https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1344546/dl?inline
> The suit explains that sleazy licensing deals, limitations set
> by phone services, and Apple's deliberate blocking of interactibility,
> have left only Apple, Samsung and Google as serious cellphone
> makers. Microsoft, Amazon, HTC and others had to drop out
> because they couldn't get market share.

Probably another US-ism. In other countries, there are many, many
other brands. In our country - The Netherlands - Google phones weren't
even sold until not too long ago.

[...]

> I actually have an LTC Tracfone that cost $40. I don't know
> how they can afford to sell the screen for $40. Yet it's a very
> slick, handheld computer that works for web browsing. I imagine
> the camera doesn't match an iPhone or Samsung camera. I haven't
> used it, so I don't know. But my Tracfone is still heavily infested
> with Googlism. I've managed to block or remove most of it, though
> every time I turn it on I get a flurry of messages telling me that
> I simply must enable Google Play Store, or Google Services, or some
> such. All of that should be prosecuted for monopoly control. Google
> have no business running their spyware/crapware on my private
> cellphone.

You can keep on killfiling me - at least that's what I assume you do -
and ignoring/snipping my text when it's quoted by others - in this case
"andal" - to whom you respond, but just face it, you've bought the wrong
type of phone - for you - and now you keep on whingeing about everything
that's 'wrong' with it.

You *should* have bought a 'dumb'/feature'/'flip'/<whatever> phone,
but you *did* buy a smartphone.

In message <utml65$3lj4f$1@dont-email.me> at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 09:24:12,
Newyana2 <Newyana2@invalid.nospam> writes
>"andal" <andal@andal.org> wrote
>
>| >> Why is it impossible to simply buy a
>| >> cellphone that's not controlled by the OS provider? My TV doesn't force
>| >> me to watch CBS TV. My car doesn't limit the supermarkets I can drive
>| >> to.
>
>| get a linux cellphone and you have more then smart
>|
>
> That might work for a small population of geeks. For me, it's
>just not worth the trouble to work out the details. For the
>average person it's not feasible at all. Personally I'd go further and
>say that the culture of geek arrogance makes things worse,
>as it becomes a mark of geek status to do things like run a
>jailbroken cellphone. The issue is much bigger: Jailed cellphones

I agree about the Geek atmosphere - _sometimes_ it's unconscious.

>need to be illegal. Anyone should be able to buy a clean cellphone
>and sign up with any service provider, with clearly delineated
>fees.

Ah. Well, you're conflicting two things there - the OS, and the service
provider.

In UK, we have four network providers (may soon be three) - Vodafone,
EE, and I forget the others - and about a dozen service providers (such
as GiffGaff, and some of the supermarkets such as ASDA and Tesco): apart
from the big four, the others sell access to one of the networks, though
don't make that all that obvious. All have a confusing multitude of
plans, though most are monthly, giving a certain number of minutes,
texts, and gigabytes - these days one or two of those three are often
"unlimited" on some plans. (Very few offer true pay-as-you-go.)

Most of the 'phone shops - and sales in supermarkets - _will_ try to
sell you a 'phone that is locked to one of the providers, but will sell
you an "unlocked" one if you push them. With or without a service option
(often called a "SIM-only" contract). Most towns will have one or two
small shops which will "unlock" many locked 'phones for a fee.

As for the OS, I don't know what the percentages are, but I _think_
they're about fifty-fifty iPhone and Android - possibly somewhat more
Android, as those are considerably cheaper. But buying an Android one
_doesn't_ force you to use Google as the service provider (I don't think
they actually _offer_ service provision here).

Online: I just put "DooGee" into ebay, as that was the make my last
smartphone was: the first (I have sorted by price+P&P, so cheapest) that
came up was "DOOGEE X97 Android 12 Smartphone 16GB 4G Unlocked Mobile
Phone 4200mAh" for 30 pounds with free postage; I'm sufficiently out of
touch with smartphones that I don't know if that's good or bad, but it
doesn't sound bad. (https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/364799065569 if you're
interested, but that's probably not appropriate for US.) [It says "Helio
A22 / Quad Core / 2.0GHz / 12nm, 6.0" HD+ Display, AI Double camera
(8MP+2MP), 4200mAh Large battery, 5MP Front Camera, 3GB RAM+16GB ROM,
Android 12.0".] It says "Support nano SIM+nano SIM+TF card", which
_sounds_ like it has two SIM slots (mine had two, though they were for
different sized SIMs).

The main difference between the cheaper makes like DooGee and the more
expensive ones like Samsung is support from the manufacturer: you're
unlikely to get any updates (so for example if you bought the above one,
you'd remain on Android 12.0).
>
> (At one point some years ago I went to 4 different stores:
>ATT, Verizon, T-Mobile, and one other that used to exist. Each
>one told me service started at $40. Not one of them would tell
>me the reall price. Though one woman who was there to pay
>her bill was nice enought to show me: she was paying about $80.)
>
Terrible. I think our (or it might have been EC) legislators clamped
down on them a few years ago, but I suspect it's still easy to be misled
as to what component of the monthly fee is service provision and what
component is hire purchase of the actual 'phone, unless you insist on
buying outright an unlocked 'phone. The stores have incentive to sell
you a 'phone on some sort of credit arrangement, as they get a kickback
from the credit provider (not necessarily either the 'phone manufacturer
or the service provider - may be a third company); as with anything,
_not_ buying on credit is cheaper, if you can afford the initial outlay.
Some "bundles" claim to offer update to the latest model at frequent
intervals, but I'm not sure if under those agreements you ever actually
own the 'phone - fine until it's stolen and you have to pay for it.
>
> Slashdot ran an interesting piece today, linking to the DOJ
>lawsuit against Apple: https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1344546/dl?inline
>The suit explains that sleazy licensing deals, limitations set
>by phone services, and Apple's deliberate blocking of interactibility,
>have left only Apple, Samsung and Google as serious cellphone
>makers. Microsoft, Amazon, HTC and others had to drop out
>because they couldn't get market share. It's like the old days
>before the Bell breakup, when people had no choice but to rent
>landline phones and pay steep rates for service. Except that the
>current scenario is more complicated and more difficult to
>understand. So not only would it be nearly impossible for a Mac
>user to use a Linux cellphone. It would likely be unrealistic for
>them to even use an Android cellphone. And for a current iPhone
>user to switch would be even harder.
>
> I actually have an LTC Tracfone that cost $40. I don't know
>how they can afford to sell the screen for $40. Yet it's a very

I don't know LTC - is that a service provider? If it is, and it's a
'phone that's locked to them, it may have been sold at a (slight) loss,
them expecting to recoup the loss from your service charges.

>slick, handheld computer that works for web browsing. I imagine
>the camera doesn't match an iPhone or Samsung camera. I haven't

The camera in my last DooGee - though far more pixels - produced
noticeably inferior results to my (old Fuji) standalone camera. (I
notice the above one says it has a Samsung camera.)

>used it, so I don't know. But my Tracfone is still heavily infested
>with Googlism. I've managed to block or remove most of it, though
>every time I turn it on I get a flurry of messages telling me that
>I simply must enable Google Play Store, or Google Services, or some
>such. All of that should be prosecuted for monopoly control. Google
>have no business running their spyware/crapware on my private
>cellphone.
>
I agree. Though how much of that is from Google and how much from your
service provider, I'm not sure. Can you turn it on as just a computer -
i. e. not connected to either the mobile (cellular) network or wifi?
>
But certainly, what is 'phone manufacturer, what is OS manufacturer, and
what is service provider, should all be made - and _enforced_ by
legislation/regulation - much clearer.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

If a cluttered desk is characteristic of a cluttered mind, what does an empty
desk mean ?

On Sat, 23 Mar 2024 09:24:12 -0400, Newyana2 wrote:

> All of that should be prosecuted
> for monopoly control. Google have no business running their
> spyware/crapware on my private cellphone.

so again, get a linux cellphone and you have more then smart and no
spyware and other crap, controll yourself or be controlled

--
Painters, electricians, comedians, journalists, rule the world.

"J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote

| Ah. Well, you're conflicting two things there - the OS, and the service
| provider.
|

I'm talking about 3 things: hardware maker, OS maker and service.
For example, Samsung, Google, and Verizon, or Apple, Apple and Verizon.
Google doesn't provide phone service but they do greatly control
and spy on Android cellphones. Apple does the same with iPhones.
What I'm saying is that Apple and Google should have no access to
the phones except for voluntary OS updates, or perhaps for
voluntarily loaded apps. If they want to have a "store" then let
them, but it shouldn't be forced and other stores shouldn't be
restricted. That's partly what the US lawsuit is about.

Microsoft is also gradually getting in on this model, by having
their "Windows Store" where they sell UWP/Metro crap and try to
coerce Windows users to take part. For example, they're currently
discontinuing Outlook and pushing Metro Outllook through their store.
Which is odd, given that they recently announced that they'd be
coming out with non-rental MS Office again. (Though I'm not certain
that the new Office won't just be Metro crap.)

| > I actually have an LTC Tracfone that cost $40. I don't know
| >how they can afford to sell the screen for $40. Yet it's a very
| | I don't know LTC - is that a service provider? If it is, and it's a
| 'phone that's locked to them, it may have been sold at a (slight) loss,
| them expecting to recoup the loss from your service charges.
|

LTC is the hardware maker. Tracfone is the service provider,
which was bought by Verizon. We have a few smaller operations
like that, catering to people like me who only want minimal service.
I buy 60 minutes every 90 days, and probably use 5 of those minutes.

| >used it, so I don't know. But my Tracfone is still heavily infested
| >with Googlism. I've managed to block or remove most of it, though
| >every time I turn it on I get a flurry of messages telling me that
| >I simply must enable Google Play Store, or Google Services, or some
| >such. All of that should be prosecuted for monopoly control. Google
| >have no business running their spyware/crapware on my private
| >cellphone.
| >
| I agree. Though how much of that is from Google and how much from your
| service provider, I'm not sure. Can you turn it on as just a computer -
| i. e. not connected to either the mobile (cellular) network or wifi?

None of it is from the Tracfone service. It's all Google crap
pre-installed on Android. I go to a non-Google app provider, have
no Google account and use no Google apps or services, but
Google infests the whole OS. There are dozens of pre-installed
Google processes, many of which can't be uninstalled.

Tracfone just sells me minutes and provides the phone call
service.

I can use the phone as a computer, but there's nothing much
of value. I can also use it with wifi or cell minutes, with Firefox,
to go online. Occasionally that's useful.

With my last Tracfone it got too old. I decided to try to use it
as a portable PDF reader. That worked, but it was just too small
to be useful. I finally threw it out. There simply isn't much I can do
on a cellphone screen that's worth doing. They work OK for services.
But it's basically a services kiosk device.

"andal" <andal@andal.org> wrote

| > All of that should be prosecuted
| > for monopoly control. Google have no business running their
| > spyware/crapware on my private cellphone.
| | so again, get a linux cellphone and you have more then smart and no
| spyware and other crap, controll yourself or be controlled
| Yes, I can buy a cellphone that can't run Android
apps. I could then install an Android environment on
that phone and get certified by Google to install
Android apps. Maybe I can even get a phone service
provider to give me a plan... Great.

You're talking nonsense. It's not a viable solution,
and even if it were, 99% of people couldn't manage
it. This is like the people who rave about Linux desktop.
You need to be a geek to install it and once installed,
the software is lacking. Sure, you're free of Microsoft.
But it's an idiotic answer to a problem that needs to be
solved at a much higher level, by passing laws that
kick tech companies off of private devices.

This is what I as describing above. For geeks to
answer these problems with, "Then be a geek" is less
than helpful. It's obfuscating and disingenuous.

Newyana2 <Newyana2@invalid.nospam> wrote:
> "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote
>
> | Ah. Well, you're conflicting two things there - the OS, and the service
> | provider.
>
> I'm talking about 3 things: hardware maker, OS maker and service.
> For example, Samsung, Google, and Verizon, or Apple, Apple and Verizon.
> Google doesn't provide phone service but they do greatly control
> and spy on Android cellphones. Apple does the same with iPhones.
> What I'm saying is that Apple and Google should have no access to
> the phones except for voluntary OS updates, or perhaps for
> voluntarily loaded apps. If they want to have a "store" then let
> them, but it shouldn't be forced and other stores shouldn't be
> restricted. That's partly what the US lawsuit is about.

Yes, but the lawsuit is about Apple. For Google, you've always been
able to use other app stores (later in your post, you say so yurself).

As to updates, you get system/OS/app updates from the phone
manufacturer (Samsung in your example), some system/OS updates from
Google ("Google Play system updates" (note "system updates", they are
system updates, not updates to the Google Play System (note lower case
versus upper case first letter of "system'))) and app updates from
wherever you got the apps.

[...]

> None of it is from the Tracfone service. It's all Google crap
> pre-installed on Android. I go to a non-Google app provider, have
> no Google account and use no Google apps or services, but
> Google infests the whole OS. There are dozens of pre-installed
> Google processes, many of which can't be uninstalled.

That's not too dissimilar from Microsoft Windows on your PC. Windows
also contains all kinds of processes, services, etc. which you 'need'
and can't uninstall. You may be able to prevent some processes and
services from starting, but that's about all.

Android isn't all that different, but the point is you're used to and
familiar with the inner workings of Windows, but you know very little
about Android and are only/mostly whingeing, instead of willing to
learn. As I said in another response: You bought the wrong type of
phone, for you.

[...]

On 2024-03-23, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Newyana2 <Newyana2@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>> "andal" <andal@andal.org> wrote
>>
>> | >> Why is it impossible to simply buy a
>> | >> cellphone that's not controlled by the OS provider? My TV doesn't force
>> | >> me to watch CBS TV. My car doesn't limit the supermarkets I can drive
>> | >> to.
>>
>> | get a linux cellphone and you have more then smart
>>
>> That might work for a small population of geeks. For me, it's
>> just not worth the trouble to work out the details. For the
>> average person it's not feasible at all. Personally I'd go further and
>> say that the culture of geek arrogance makes things worse,
>> as it becomes a mark of geek status to do things like run a
>> jailbroken cellphone. The issue is much bigger: Jailed cellphones
>> need to be illegal. Anyone should be able to buy a clean cellphone
>> and sign up with any service provider, with clearly delineated
>> fees.
>
> It's not a 'jailed' mobile phone, but a (network) *locked* mobile
> phone. That seems to be a US-ism, because most countries just have
> unlocked phones which can use any SIM for any provider.

There are two routes one can use to buy a phone here in the states:

1. Buy Carrier-Agnostic phone for $PRICE (I dunno, let's say $500),
from any number of retailers.
2. Get Carrier-Locked "free(tm)" phone, that's paid off in 24
installments as part of the phone bill.

If you take route #2, the phone is (should be) unlocked from that
carrier upon final payment to them (end of your contract) OR upon
request during the contract (but you have to pay the remaining balance o
the phone).

>> [...]
>> The suit explains that sleazy licensing deals, limitations set
>> by phone services, and Apple's deliberate blocking of interactibility,
>> have left only Apple, Samsung and Google as serious cellphone
>> makers. Microsoft, Amazon, HTC and others had to drop out
>> because they couldn't get market share.
>
> Probably another US-ism. In other countries, there are many, many
> other brands. In our country - The Netherlands - Google phones weren't
> even sold until not too long ago.

There are a number of brands that're only selling "Cellphones" rather
than "smartphones".

Less than there used to be, but that probably comes from the hegemony of
Apple/Samsung/Google(nee Motorola) and people generally being dumb (I
have the best "camera" or whatever ... battery life? nah, that thing
dies in 6 hours of goofing around...)

--
|_|O|_|
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: DDAB 23FB 19FA 7D85 1CC1 E067 6D65 70E5 4CE7 2860

"Dan Purgert" <dan@djph.net> wrote

| > It's not a 'jailed' mobile phone, but a (network) *locked* mobile
| > phone. That seems to be a US-ism, because most countries just have
| > unlocked phones which can use any SIM for any provider.
| | There are two routes one can use to buy a phone here in the states:
| | 1. Buy Carrier-Agnostic phone for $PRICE (I dunno, let's say $500),
| from any number of retailers.
| 2. Get Carrier-Locked "free(tm)" phone, that's paid off in 24
| installments as part of the phone bill.
| | If you take route #2, the phone is (should be) unlocked from that
| carrier upon final payment to them (end of your contract) OR upon
| request during the contract (but you have to pay the remaining balance o
| the phone).
|

I think there's a confusion here with hardware vs carrier vs OS.
For any but extreme geeks, the OS is locked spyware. That's what
I'm primarily talking about as "jailed". I can't eliminate all of the
Google processes on my Android computer phone. Yet I never chose
to deal with Google. I bought a phone and get service from Tracfone.
The typical use of "jailbroken" that I've heard is with computer
phones locked into Apple's app source.

From what I can see, both Apple and Google are locking people
into their spyware services and app stores. That's largely what the
recent US lawsuit against Apple is about:
https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1344546/dl?inline

Apple are more forceful than Google, but the average person is
going through their services, regardless of which phone
they buy.

Deals with carriers, incompatibilities with SIM cards, hidden junk fees,
and so on are an additional complication. All of that is a big problem,
but it's not part of the basic lock-in by the OS from either Google or
Apple.

This is a problem that's getting worse, not better. Microsoft see
what Apple gets away with and now they also want part of the action.
We used to have hardware that we buy and software that we license.
Increasingly we have what's effectively rental of kiosk devices that
control what can be done and spy on every action. Even cars are headed
in that direction, as well as, of course, doorbells. By saying the device
incorporates coyrighted software, the companies can call on the DMCA
to justify lockdown, spyware and rental. How long before we effectively
have to rent all devices and have only kiosk-style access to their
functionality?

https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/privacynotincluded/articles/its-official-cars-are-the-worst-product-category-we-have-ever-reviewed-for-privacy/

One side aspect of that is what Tim Berners-Lee has described as
"silos" -- functionalty extending across domains by single entities.
For instance, Android computer phone, Google search, gmail, Google
Wallet, "sync" services, etc. Many people can't afford to even consider
leaving Google. Apple is the same. Which likely accounts partially
for the growing popularity of iPhones: People switched to Macs to
avoid malware. Once they do that, an iPhone makes sense.
Incompatibility and lock-in make silo living an obvious choice. The
particular genius of Google and Apple is to herd their customers into
the abattoir by making it a frictionless choice. Any other option
requires climbing the fence to get out of the abattoir chute.

On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 09:31:21 -0400, Newyana2 wrote:

> "Dan Purgert" <dan@djph.net> wrote
>
> | > It's not a 'jailed' mobile phone, but a (network) *locked* mobile
> | > phone. That seems to be a US-ism, because most countries just have |
> > unlocked phones which can use any SIM for any provider.
> |
> | There are two routes one can use to buy a phone here in the states:
> |
> | 1. Buy Carrier-Agnostic phone for $PRICE (I dunno, let's say $500),
> | from any number of retailers.
> | 2. Get Carrier-Locked "free(tm)" phone, that's paid off in 24 |
> installments as part of the phone bill.
> |
> | If you take route #2, the phone is (should be) unlocked from that |
> carrier upon final payment to them (end of your contract) OR upon |
> request during the contract (but you have to pay the remaining balance o
> | the phone).
> |
>
> I think there's a confusion here with hardware vs carrier vs OS.
> For any but extreme geeks, the OS is locked spyware. That's what I'm
> primarily talking about as "jailed". I can't eliminate all of the Google
> processes on my Android computer phone. Yet I never chose to deal with
> Google. I bought a phone and get service from Tracfone.
> The typical use of "jailbroken" that I've heard is with computer phones
> locked into Apple's app source.
>
> From what I can see, both Apple and Google are locking people
> into their spyware services and app stores. That's largely what the
> recent US lawsuit against Apple is about:
> https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1344546/dl?inline
>
> Apple are more forceful than Google, but the average person is
> going through their services, regardless of which phone they buy.
>
> Deals with carriers, incompatibilities with SIM cards, hidden junk
> fees,
> and so on are an additional complication. All of that is a big problem,
> but it's not part of the basic lock-in by the OS from either Google or
> Apple.
>
> This is a problem that's getting worse, not better. Microsoft see
> what Apple gets away with and now they also want part of the action.
> We used to have hardware that we buy and software that we license.
> Increasingly we have what's effectively rental of kiosk devices that
> control what can be done and spy on every action. Even cars are headed
> in that direction, as well as, of course, doorbells. By saying the
> device incorporates coyrighted software, the companies can call on the
> DMCA to justify lockdown, spyware and rental. How long before we
> effectively have to rent all devices and have only kiosk-style access to
> their functionality?
>
> https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/privacynotincluded/articles/its-
official-cars-are-the-worst-product-category-we-have-ever-reviewed-for-
privacy/
>
> One side aspect of that is what Tim Berners-Lee has described as
> "silos" -- functionalty extending across domains by single entities.
> For instance, Android computer phone, Google search, gmail, Google
> Wallet, "sync" services, etc. Many people can't afford to even consider
> leaving Google. Apple is the same. Which likely accounts partially for
> the growing popularity of iPhones: People switched to Macs to avoid
> malware. Once they do that, an iPhone makes sense.
> Incompatibility and lock-in make silo living an obvious choice. The
> particular genius of Google and Apple is to herd their customers into
> the abattoir by making it a frictionless choice. Any other option
> requires climbing the fence to get out of the abattoir chute.

the less freedom the better

stupid people are easier to govern

that is what my gov says

welcome to animal planet

--
Painters, electricians, comedians, journalists, rule the world.

In message <utrubi$1426l$1@dont-email.me> at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 09:31:21,
Newyana2 <Newyana2@invalid.nospam> writes
>"Dan Purgert" <dan@djph.net> wrote
>
>| > It's not a 'jailed' mobile phone, but a (network) *locked* mobile
>| > phone. That seems to be a US-ism, because most countries just have
>| > unlocked phones which can use any SIM for any provider.
>|
>| There are two routes one can use to buy a phone here in the states:
>|
>| 1. Buy Carrier-Agnostic phone for $PRICE (I dunno, let's say $500),
>| from any number of retailers.
>| 2. Get Carrier-Locked "free(tm)" phone, that's paid off in 24
>| installments as part of the phone bill.

Presumably you _could_ do route #1 and get credit from someone other
than the carrier or OS provider (bank loan, credit card, ...).
>|
>| If you take route #2, the phone is (should be) unlocked from that
>| carrier upon final payment to them (end of your contract) OR upon
>| request during the contract (but you have to pay the remaining balance o
>| the phone).
>|
So it isn't "free" really. I presume from your description that they
conceal what part of the monthly payment is paying off the 'phone, and
what part is for the service provision. (I _think_ our [UK and EU]
legislators clamped down on that.)
>
> I think there's a confusion here with hardware vs carrier vs OS.
>For any but extreme geeks, the OS is locked spyware. That's what
>I'm primarily talking about as "jailed". I can't eliminate all of the
>Google processes on my Android computer phone. Yet I never chose
>to deal with Google. I bought a phone and get service from Tracfone.

Though I don't think you actually pay anything to Google, apart from the
part of the 'phone purchase price that is for the OS, same as part of a
Windows computer purchase price is the Windows licence. (Yes, I know you
can buy Windows separately, but most people don't - certainly don't _do_
that, and probably don't _know_ that.)

>The typical use of "jailbroken" that I've heard is with computer
>phones locked into Apple's app source.
>
> From what I can see, both Apple and Google are locking people
>into their spyware services and app stores. That's largely what the
>recent US lawsuit against Apple is about:
> https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1344546/dl?inline
>
> Apple are more forceful than Google, but the average person is
>going through their services, regardless of which phone
>they buy.

Indeed - UK is similarly mostly iOS and Android for 'phones, though I
don't think the Apple share is as high (less than half, I think). Other
'phone OSs have minimal shares.
>
> Deals with carriers, incompatibilities with SIM cards, hidden junk fees,
>and so on are an additional complication. All of that is a big problem,
>but it's not part of the basic lock-in by the OS from either Google or
>Apple.
>
> This is a problem that's getting worse, not better. Microsoft see
>what Apple gets away with and now they also want part of the action.
>We used to have hardware that we buy and software that we license.

I used to have hardware that I buy and software that I buy as well. OK,
I didn't buy absolute ownership of the software - that would of course
cost millions - but the right to use it; maybe that's what you mean by
licence, but I meant right to use it indefinitely, not any sort of
agreement that had to be renewed (sometimes it was tied to the hardware,
which was fair enough as long as that was clear). These days "licence"
often means for a limited period.

>Increasingly we have what's effectively rental of kiosk devices that
>control what can be done and spy on every action. Even cars are headed
>in that direction, as well as, of course, doorbells. By saying the device
>incorporates coyrighted software, the companies can call on the DMCA
>to justify lockdown, spyware and rental. How long before we effectively
>have to rent all devices and have only kiosk-style access to their
>functionality?

Not long, I fear. If I buy a new car, I'd want to find and disconnect
(except when _I_ want to use it) the cellular connection, but I'm not
sure if they've managed to make doing that illegal.
[]
>particular genius of Google and Apple is to herd their customers into
>the abattoir by making it a frictionless choice. Any other option
>requires climbing the fence to get out of the abattoir chute.
>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9-ntiFBa08 (first part at least)
>
>
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

By most scientific estimates sustained, useful fusion is ten years in
the future - and will be ten years in the future for the next fifty
years or more. - "Hamadryad", ~2016-4-4

"J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote

| > This is a problem that's getting worse, not better. Microsoft see
| >what Apple gets away with and now they also want part of the action.
| >We used to have hardware that we buy and software that we license.
| | I used to have hardware that I buy and software that I buy as well. OK,
| I didn't buy absolute ownership of the software - that would of course
| cost millions - but the right to use it; maybe that's what you mean by
| licence, but I meant right to use it indefinitely, not any sort of
| agreement that had to be renewed (sometimes it was tied to the hardware,
| which was fair enough as long as that was clear). These days "licence"
| often means for a limited period.
|

Yes. That's the rental trend. Software is sold as copyrighted
material. So it's like a book. You have a right to do as you like
with your copy, so long as you don't distribute copies. Although
companies like Microsoft have exploited the situation to link
Windows to hardware, while others have exploited the situation
to copy software to multiple computers. No easy solution that's
entirely fair.

There's been an issue with US libraries where publishers want them
to have to buy new e-books every x number of checkouts. They make
a good point that e-books don't wear out like books do. On the other
hand, there's a great deal of money saved by not having to print
e-books, yet they typically charge about 50% of book price. Again,
neither side is really willing to find a fair compromise.

I think the software rental idea really came about because software
was getting mature. For many years people would buy new computers
and software regularly. It made sense. 300 MHz was much slower than
400 MHz, ans Photoshop 4 was primitive compared to PS5. But gradually
the technology matured and people just didn't need to upgrade so often.
Where we used to pay for image viewers and WinZip, now it's mostly
free. So companies had to do something. Companies like Adobe and
Microsoft (MS Office) were facing losses. Customers were no longer
anxxious to see the next version of their product.

So rental is the answer. MS are clearly trying to do the same with
Windows, but it's not really working. So they're taking a different
approach of trying to show ads and sell "premium content". Their
new crap trinket, Copilot, is typical. They're forcing it on people and
then advertising that a more functional version is available for $20/month.
If they could just get one hit with a product like that they'd have a
whole new industry....

Interestingly, I just read that MS are planning
to offer real MS Office software again. Though I haven't seen anything
about pricing, or whether it might just be a UWP/Metro trinket. I don't
know what their thinking is. Is O365 failing? Are businesses unwilling
to rent?

| Not long, I fear. If I buy a new car, I'd want to find and disconnect
| (except when _I_ want to use it) the cellular connection, but I'm not
| sure if they've managed to make doing that illegal.

That's a good question. The technology and politics are
moving fast. In the US people are outraged that insurance
companies are jacking up rates based on spying. So where
will that go? Historically it's mostly a case of exploitation through
obscurity. If people have to be experts to avoid spying then the
rare outliers don't matter. Most people will be exploitable. I have
seen details about some cars online, but so far it's hard to find
clear facts. So how many people will tear apart their dhasboard
or back seat to remove a transmitter? And what if that makes the
lights stop working?

In message <utset6$1861v$1@dont-email.me> at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 14:13:48,
Newyana2 <Newyana2@invalid.nospam> writes
>"J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote
[]
>| licence, but I meant right to use it indefinitely, not any sort of
>| agreement that had to be renewed (sometimes it was tied to the hardware,
>| which was fair enough as long as that was clear). These days "licence"
>| often means for a limited period.
>|
>
> Yes. That's the rental trend. Software is sold as copyrighted
>material. So it's like a book. You have a right to do as you like
>with your copy, so long as you don't distribute copies. Although

Indeed, used to be the case.

>companies like Microsoft have exploited the situation to link
>Windows to hardware, while others have exploited the situation
>to copy software to multiple computers. No easy solution that's
>entirely fair.

I had sympathy with them, and accepted the hardware tie, when Windows up
to 98SE (maybe Me) had no copy protection, so people were pirating
rather than buying. Activation, hardware tie-in, etc., aren't nice, but
we've only ourselves to blame for them being necessary. (Actually I
_have_ bought all my MS products, but some may be OEM copies bought with
a mouse, or similar.)
>
> There's been an issue with US libraries where publishers want them
>to have to buy new e-books every x number of checkouts. They make
>a good point that e-books don't wear out like books do. On the other
>hand, there's a great deal of money saved by not having to print
>e-books, yet they typically charge about 50% of book price. Again,
>neither side is really willing to find a fair compromise.

Good example.
>
> I think the software rental idea really came about because software
>was getting mature. For many years people would buy new computers
>and software regularly. It made sense. 300 MHz was much slower than
>400 MHz, ans Photoshop 4 was primitive compared to PS5. But gradually
>the technology matured and people just didn't need to upgrade so often.

Yes, not so much the speed, but the features. But as you say, it
matured: for me roughly a couple of decades ago, I reached a point where
I had all the software I needed, i. e. new versions didn't offer me
anything I actually wanted. (And also, needed more hardware.) OK, that's
a _slight_ exaggeration, but _major_ upgrades - e. g. to Word/Office,
let alone Windows itself - genuinely didn't seem to offer me anything I
wanted.

>Where we used to pay for image viewers and WinZip, now it's mostly
>free. So companies had to do something. Companies like Adobe and
>Microsoft (MS Office) were facing losses. Customers were no longer
>anxxious to see the next version of their product.
>
> So rental is the answer. MS are clearly trying to do the same with
>Windows, but it's not really working. So they're taking a different
>approach of trying to show ads and sell "premium content". Their

I'm fine with 7, and (I think more because of a hosts file than
ad-blockers) I rarely see ad.s. Except on YouTube - where, although they
irritate me, I accept them as the price I pay for getting what I
consider an excellent resource for "free".

>new crap trinket, Copilot, is typical. They're forcing it on people and
>then advertising that a more functional version is available for $20/month.
>If they could just get one hit with a product like that they'd have a
>whole new industry....

I've not heard of that one.
>
> Interestingly, I just read that MS are planning
>to offer real MS Office software again. Though I haven't seen anything
>about pricing, or whether it might just be a UWP/Metro trinket. I don't
>know what their thinking is. Is O365 failing? Are businesses unwilling
>to rent?

Interesting question! Though I thought businesses were the ones keeping
MS going (that and new-machine Windows licences) by paying
support/maintenance fees (because it's easier and possibly cheaper to do
so).
>
>| Not long, I fear. If I buy a new car, I'd want to find and disconnect
>| (except when _I_ want to use it) the cellular connection, but I'm not
>| sure if they've managed to make doing that illegal.
>
> That's a good question. The technology and politics are
>moving fast. In the US people are outraged that insurance
>companies are jacking up rates based on spying. So where
>will that go? Historically it's mostly a case of exploitation through
>obscurity. If people have to be experts to avoid spying then the
>rare outliers don't matter. Most people will be exploitable. I have
>seen details about some cars online, but so far it's hard to find
>clear facts. So how many people will tear apart their dhasboard
>or back seat to remove a transmitter? And what if that makes the
>lights stop working?
>
That's how, I think, they'll manage it, rather than legislation (though
they'll cow [and/or bribe] legislators too if they can): they'll stop
things working if not online, at least at intervals. I would _hope_ the
EC (and hopefully UK) will push against that, but ...
>
I foresee a premium growing on Model Ts ... (-: [or at least 1960s-'80s
cars.]
>
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Bother," said Pooh, as Windows crashed into piglet.

On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 18:47:27 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

>In message <utset6$1861v$1@dont-email.me> at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 14:13:48,
>Newyana2 <Newyana2@invalid.nospam> writes
>>"J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote
>[]
>>| licence, but I meant right to use it indefinitely, not any sort of
>>| agreement that had to be renewed (sometimes it was tied to the hardware,
>>| which was fair enough as long as that was clear). These days "licence"
>>| often means for a limited period.
>>|
>>
>> Yes. That's the rental trend. Software is sold as copyrighted
>>material. So it's like a book. You have a right to do as you like
>>with your copy, so long as you don't distribute copies. Although
>
>Indeed, used to be the case.
>
>>companies like Microsoft have exploited the situation to link
>>Windows to hardware, while others have exploited the situation
>>to copy software to multiple computers. No easy solution that's
>>entirely fair.
>
>I had sympathy with them, and accepted the hardware tie, when Windows up
>to 98SE (maybe Me) had no copy protection, so people were pirating
>rather than buying. Activation, hardware tie-in, etc., aren't nice, but
>we've only ourselves to blame for them being necessary. (Actually I
>_have_ bought all my MS products, but some may be OEM copies bought with
>a mouse, or similar.)
>>
>> There's been an issue with US libraries where publishers want them
>>to have to buy new e-books every x number of checkouts. They make
>>a good point that e-books don't wear out like books do. On the other
>>hand, there's a great deal of money saved by not having to print
>>e-books, yet they typically charge about 50% of book price. Again,
>>neither side is really willing to find a fair compromise.
>
>Good example.
>>
>> I think the software rental idea really came about because software
>>was getting mature. For many years people would buy new computers
>>and software regularly. It made sense. 300 MHz was much slower than
>>400 MHz, ans Photoshop 4 was primitive compared to PS5. But gradually
>>the technology matured and people just didn't need to upgrade so often.
>
>Yes, not so much the speed, but the features. But as you say, it
>matured: for me roughly a couple of decades ago, I reached a point where
>I had all the software I needed, i. e. new versions didn't offer me
>anything I actually wanted. (And also, needed more hardware.) OK, that's
>a _slight_ exaggeration, but _major_ upgrades - e. g. to Word/Office,
>let alone Windows itself - genuinely didn't seem to offer me anything I
>wanted.
>
>>Where we used to pay for image viewers and WinZip, now it's mostly
>>free. So companies had to do something. Companies like Adobe and
>>Microsoft (MS Office) were facing losses. Customers were no longer
>>anxxious to see the next version of their product.
>>
>> So rental is the answer. MS are clearly trying to do the same with
>>Windows, but it's not really working. So they're taking a different
>>approach of trying to show ads and sell "premium content". Their
>
>I'm fine with 7, and (I think more because of a hosts file than
>ad-blockers) I rarely see ad.s. Except on YouTube - where, although they
>irritate me, I accept them as the price I pay for getting what I
>consider an excellent resource for "free".
>
>>new crap trinket, Copilot, is typical. They're forcing it on people and
>>then advertising that a more functional version is available for $20/month.
>>If they could just get one hit with a product like that they'd have a
>>whole new industry....
>
>I've not heard of that one.
>>
>> Interestingly, I just read that MS are planning
>>to offer real MS Office software again. Though I haven't seen anything
>>about pricing, or whether it might just be a UWP/Metro trinket. I don't
>>know what their thinking is. Is O365 failing? Are businesses unwilling
>>to rent?
>
>Interesting question! Though I thought businesses were the ones keeping
>MS going (that and new-machine Windows licences) by paying
>support/maintenance fees (because it's easier and possibly cheaper to do
>so).
>>
>>| Not long, I fear. If I buy a new car, I'd want to find and disconnect
>>| (except when _I_ want to use it) the cellular connection, but I'm not
>>| sure if they've managed to make doing that illegal.
>>
>> That's a good question. The technology and politics are
>>moving fast. In the US people are outraged that insurance
>>companies are jacking up rates based on spying. So where
>>will that go? Historically it's mostly a case of exploitation through
>>obscurity. If people have to be experts to avoid spying then the
>>rare outliers don't matter. Most people will be exploitable. I have
>>seen details about some cars online, but so far it's hard to find
>>clear facts. So how many people will tear apart their dhasboard
>>or back seat to remove a transmitter? And what if that makes the
>>lights stop working?
>>
>That's how, I think, they'll manage it, rather than legislation (though
>they'll cow [and/or bribe] legislators too if they can): they'll stop
>things working if not online, at least at intervals. I would _hope_ the
>EC (and hopefully UK) will push against that, but ...
>>
>I foresee a premium growing on Model Ts ... (-: [or at least 1960s-'80s
>cars.]
>>

I am one of those people who understand living on the bleeding edge is
expensive. I run 2d hand hardware on obsolete software and it does all
I need to do. When you can buy Enterprise Office (a cycle or 2 old) in
a shrink wrapped box for $20 on Ebay, why would I rent 365?

My burner phone runs KaiOS. I am not sure what that is but I only use
this as a phone. I have most of the stuff turned off (location,
internet, and anything that starts with a "G").
My car doesn't seem to have GPS (no NAV) and I turned off all
reporting I could. I would cut the wire to the antenna if I knew where
it was.
I liked my 97 Prelude. It was just a car, not a spymobile.

I do think these should all be "opt out" as the default, not having to
go turn everything off.