Drop test confirms Apple totally lied about the glass back on the iPhone 8

[harry newton]

The Moto Z2 Force has a far stronger glass.
So Apple outright lied. Again.

https://youtu.be/unTZYFHExRs?t=89

"When Apple unveiled the iPhone 8, iPhone 8 Plus, and iPhone X during its
big September press conference a couple of weeks ago, the company said the
glass backs on the phones is the strongest glass ever to be used on a
smartphone. There¢s no reason to beat around the bush: that was a lie."
http://bgr.com/2017/09/25/iphone-8-plus-case-needed-drop-test-oof/

"The glass backs on Apple¢s new 2017 iPhone lineup might be really strong.
They might even have a copper-infused layer like Apple said on stage
earlier this month. But the claim that these phones contain the strongest
glass ever to be used on a smartphone is flat-out ridiculous."

The Moto Z2 Force has a far stronger glass.
So Apple outright lied.
Again.

[Jolly Roger]

harry newton <ha...@is.invalid> wrote:
> The Moto Z2 Force has a far stronger glass.

Moto Z2 Force displays are composed of plastic instead of glass.
#TROLLFAIL

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[JF Mezei]

On 2017-09-25 10:03, harry newton wrote:

> big September press conference a couple of weeks ago, the company said the
> glass backs on the phones is the strongest glass ever to be used on a
> smartphone.

Apple didn't lie. The *material* is the strongest ever. But make it too
thin, or build the bezel such that there is uneven support, and it can
easily break.

As the iFixit guys have shown, it's a bitch to replace.

From Apple's point of view, if the costs of replacing the glass is too
high, they may revert to iPhone 4 design (opens from the back) to lower
repair costs, or use fibre glass or other material for the back.

Also, you're expected to cover the precious iPhone with a rubber cover
and with that, the breakage issue should not happen often. (vast
majority of smartphone owners cover their phones.

(and this is one reason the ugly camera protrusion is terrible in ads,
but in real life, not a problem because it becomes flush with the cover
that is put on the phone.)

[B...@onramp.net]

On 25 Sep 2017 16:50:51 GMT, Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:

>harry newton <ha...@is.invalid> wrote:
>> The Moto Z2 Force has a far stronger glass.
>
>Moto Z2 Force displays are composed of plastic instead of glass.
>#TROLLFAIL

LOL. The article will still sell a lot of covers for the X.
The first thing I will do is get an Otterbox Defender series cover.
Hope its as good as previous ones.

[Carlos E.R.]

On 2017-09-25 19:01, JF Mezei wrote:
> On 2017-09-25 10:03, harry newton wrote:
>
>> big September press conference a couple of weeks ago, the company said the
>> glass backs on the phones is the strongest glass ever to be used on a
>> smartphone.
>
>
> Apple didn't lie. The *material* is the strongest ever. But make it too
> thin, or build the bezel such that there is uneven support, and it can
> easily break.
>
> As the iFixit guys have shown, it's a bitch to replace.
>
> From Apple's point of view, if the costs of replacing the glass is too
> high, they may revert to iPhone 4 design (opens from the back) to lower
> repair costs, or use fibre glass or other material for the back.
>
> Also, you're expected to cover the precious iPhone with a rubber cover
> and with that, the breakage issue should not happen often. (vast
> majority of smartphone owners cover their phones.

What's the point of having a beautiful glass back and cover it? :-p

--
Cheers, Carlos.

[nospam]

In article <b3vn9e-...@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.

<robin_...@es.invalid> wrote:

> > Also, you're expected to cover the precious iPhone with a rubber cover

no

> > and with that, the breakage issue should not happen often. (vast
> > majority of smartphone owners cover their phones.

that's because cases add flair.

> What's the point of having a beautiful glass back and cover it? :-p

get a bumper instead.

[Andy Burns]

Carlos E.R. wrote:

> What's the point of having a beautiful glass back and cover it? :-p

What's the point of a glass back fullstop?

I had (still do as a backup) a Nexus4 which had a patterned glass back,
slipperiest bit of technology I've ever owned, if you put it down on any
surface that was a fraction of a degree off horizontal, it would find
its way to the floor ...

[Carlos E.R.]

Indeed! :-)

Me, I prefer sturdy plastic with some rubberized covering. And have the
front glass not up to the edges, with reinforced (elastic) corners.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

[nospam]

In article <f2t192...@mid.individual.net>, Andy Burns

<use...@andyburns.uk> wrote:

>
> > What's the point of having a beautiful glass back and cover it? :-p
>
> What's the point of a glass back fullstop?

glass is radio transparent, mostly so that wireless (inductive)
charging will work, but other antennas can be behind it as well.

wireless charging does not work particularly well through metal backs
(as in not at all) and plastic is cheap and cracks.

[Frank Slootweg]

Nonsense! Not all "plastic" is the same. *If* "plastic is cheap and
cracks", then why are most phone repairs for cracked (glass) screens?

[JF Mezei]

On 2017-09-25 14:46, Andy Burns wrote:

> What's the point of a glass back fullstop?

Metal backs interfere with reception of antennas, and make wireless
charging very very very inefficient. So the glass back isn't there as a
status or cosmetic thing, it's there because of the need for
"transparency" for airwaves and magnetic fields.

[dorayme]

In article <59c9884c$0$12401$b1db1813$bfc9...@news.astraweb.com>,

True. Best would be no back at all. Which, of course, ultimately,
would mean no front. People would just have to talk to each other face
to face. The very thought of it!

--
dorayme

[Rod Speed]

"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:250920171510498404%nos...@nospam.invalid...

> In article <f2t192...@mid.individual.net>, Andy Burns
> <use...@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>> > What's the point of having a beautiful glass back and cover it? :-p
>>
>> What's the point of a glass back fullstop?

> glass is radio transparent,

So is plastic.

> mostly so that wireless (inductive) charging will
> work, but other antennas can be behind it as well.

Works fine with plastic and much harder to break with the right plastic
used.

And a case is rubber or plastic anyway. Glass is stupid for the back.

> wireless charging does not work particularly well through
> metal backs (as in not at all) and plastic is cheap

Doesn't have to be.

> and cracks.

Not if you use the right plastic. The case doesn't.

[Rod Speed]

"JF Mezei" <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote in message
news:59c9884c$0$12401$b1db1813$bfc9...@news.astraweb.com...

Stupid to do it with glass, plastic makes a lot more sense.

[nospam]

In article <oqbtp7...@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg

<th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

> > > > What's the point of having a beautiful glass back and cover it? :-p
> > >
> > > What's the point of a glass back fullstop?
> >
> > glass is radio transparent, mostly so that wireless (inductive)
> > charging will work, but other antennas can be behind it as well.
> >
> > wireless charging does not work particularly well through metal backs
> > (as in not at all) and plastic is cheap and cracks.
>
> Nonsense! Not all "plastic" is the same.

i didn't say all plastic is the same. once again, you're arguing
against what was never said.

> *If* "plastic is cheap and
> cracks", then why are most phone repairs for cracked (glass) screens?

because a phone with a broken display is difficult or impossible to use
(and potentially a safety issue), whereas a phone with a dented or
cracked case is usually just cosmetic, so no need to fix anything. add
a case and the crack or dent won't be seen.

this is what happens with phone that's mostly plastic:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYv_cYZXYbU&t=150>
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTIaUH6PIvo&t=175>

[Rod Speed]

"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message

news:250920172021236471%nos...@nospam.invalid...

Nope, the Moto Z2 Force shows that's just another lie.

[Carlos E.R.]

Nay, plastic is just as transparent for radio as glass. If you think
glass is better for that reason, they have you fooled with commercial
babletalk :-P

--
Cheers, Carlos.

[JF Mezei]

On 2017-09-25 19:34, Rod Speed wrote:

> Stupid to do it with glass, plastic makes a lot more sense.

Plastic is compatible with the image of a high end smart phone.


Personally, I would have had a metal back with a large white plsstic
Apple logo in the middle (so a cutout of the metal, allowing the
wireless charging/antennas).

[nospam]

In article <59c9c76b$0$44388$b1db1813$713c...@news.astraweb.com>, JF

Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:

>
> > Stupid to do it with glass, plastic makes a lot more sense.
>
> Plastic is compatible with the image of a high end smart phone.

incompatible, you mean.

> Personally, I would have had a metal back with a large white plsstic
> Apple logo in the middle (so a cutout of the metal, allowing the
> wireless charging/antennas).

that would look worse, assuming it even worked.

[Rod Speed]

JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote

> Rod Speed wrote

>> Stupid to do it with glass, plastic makes a lot more sense.

> Plastic is compatible with the image of a high end smart phone.

You presumably meant isnt. That’s bullshit.

> Personally, I would have had a metal back with a large
> white plsstic Apple logo in the middle (so a cutout of
> the metal, allowing the wireless charging/antennas).

Nothing like as good as the entire back
being transparent to the charging field.

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 26.09.17 um 05:26 schrieb Rod Speed:

> JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>
>>> Stupid to do it with glass, plastic makes a lot more sense.
>
>> Plastic is compatible with the image of a high end smart phone.
>
> You presumably meant isnt. That’s bullshit.

That is perfectly correct.


--
Gutta cavat lapidem (Ovid)

[Piet]

JF Mezei wrote:
> harry newton wrote:
>> big September press conference a couple of weeks ago, the company
>> said the glass backs on the phones is the strongest glass ever to
>> be used on a smartphone.
>
> Apple didn't lie.

True. They sold marketing shit.

> The *material* is the strongest ever. But make it too thin,
> or build the bezel such that there is uneven support, and it
> can easily break.

And *that* is the whole issue.

> As the iFixit guys have shown, it's a bitch to replace.

And expensive:
http://appleinsider.com/articles/17/09/22/applecare-iphone-8-back-screen-glass-replacement-99-not-screen-repair-cost-of-29

> Also, you're expected to cover the precious iPhone with a rubber
> cover and with that, the breakage issue should not happen often.

> (and this is one reason the ugly camera protrusion is terrible in ads,
> but in real life, not a problem because it becomes flush with the cover
> that is put on the phone.)

So you have to cover the "strongest material ever" with rubber
to prevent it from breaking and to hide the protruding asshole
of the most expensive phone ever.

-p

[harry newton]

He who is nospam said on Mon, 25 Sep 2017 23:23:16 -0400:

>> Plastic is compatible with the image of a high end smart phone.
>
> incompatible, you mean.

The "image" of a phone is very important to Apple.

The "glass" back seems also to be very important to Apple.

The image of a glass back being "strongest" also (apparently) is important
to Apple to maintain.

Hence ... marketing being what marketing is ... they erroneously portray
the phone back as being far less fragile than it actually is.

Why did they lie?

Could it be that the vast majority of their user base doesn't comprehend
cold hard fact?

Or is there a cold hard fact about the tradeoffs in using glass backs that
we rational people have missed that you apparently know but can't seem to
rationally explain to the rest of us?

[B...@onramp.net]

One cold, hard fact is that if the product is flawed it will fail. If
you think it is, just don't buy it.

[Snit]

On 9/26/17, 6:53 AM, in article oqdm5g$1r3$1...@gioia.aioe.org, "harry newton"

If it is very breakable there SHOULD be consequences to them. I would not
back them using a very breakable phone in any way.

But your main point is you can attack Apple non-stop over both real and
imagined wrongs. You make up claims about iPhones having no features Android
phones lack. You lie about the hardware being the same. On and on.

Your only real points: you prefer Android (which is fine) and you can troll
(which we cannot stop).

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot
use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow
superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>

[harry newton]

He who is B...@Onramp.net said on Tue, 26 Sep 2017 09:48:10 -0500:

> One cold, hard fact is that if the product is flawed it will fail. If
> you think it is, just don't buy it.

The product may or may not be flawed but that isn't the topic.

The topic is that a reputable article asserts that Apple bold faced lied.

Did Apple lie? (Why or why not?)

That's the topic.

The topic isn't whether you would buy or I would buy or anyone would buy.

The topic is all about cold hard facts.

Did Apple lie?

[harry newton]

He who is Snit said on Tue, 26 Sep 2017 08:51:09 -0700:

> If it is very breakable there SHOULD be consequences to them. I would not
> back them using a very breakable phone in any way.
>
> But your main point is you can attack Apple non-stop over both real and
> imagined wrongs. You make up claims about iPhones having no features Android
> phones lack. You lie about the hardware being the same. On and on.
>
> Your only real points: you prefer Android (which is fine) and you can troll
> (which we cannot stop).

How you completely miss the point of even the coldest hardest facts is
beyond my comprehension, I admit.

The topic is simple.
The topic is about facts.

The article asserts that Apple outright lied.

The topic is whether or not Apple lied.

Did Apple lie about the strength of the glass?

[harry newton]

He who is Carlos E.R. said on Tue, 26 Sep 2017 05:00:24 +0200:

> Nay, plastic is just as transparent for radio as glass. If you think
> glass is better for that reason, they have you fooled with commercial
> babletalk :-P

There is no doubt that, if the reason for glass is "mostly" radio
transparency, then there are other materials that work as well as glass for
radio transparency which aren't as fragile as glass is.

The question here is whether Apple lied, and why they lied if they did.

Nobody seems to be refuting that Apple lied, but I'm all ears if it
actually is a fact that Apple did not lie.

However ... if we assume that Apple lied (nobody yet has said otherwise),
then we have to ask *why* Apple lied?

I can guess why they lied, since it's Apple Marketing after all, and all
Marketing organizations 'stretch the truth' - but this stretching of the
truth seems to be more of a boldfaced lie than a simple stretching of the
truth.

The main question is why Apple Marketing felt the need to concoct such a
bold-faced lie, if a lie is what it is.

[harry newton]

He who is Rod Speed said on Tue, 26 Sep 2017 09:32:52 +1000:

> Not if you use the right plastic. The case doesn't.

The main question is why Apple Marketing felt the need to concoct such a
bold-faced lie, if a lie is what it is.

Does anyone have insight into why Apple would blatantly lie so boldly?

[harry newton]

He who is Piet said on Tue, 26 Sep 2017 10:16:57 +0200:

>> The *material* is the strongest ever. But make it too thin,
>> or build the bezel such that there is uneven support, and it
>> can easily break.
>
> And *that* is the whole issue.

JF Mezei & Piet bring up good on-topic points where the question is whether
Apple outright lied or not, and if they did outright lie, why they did so.

If it's true that the *material* is the "strongest ever" put on a
smarphone, then we'd have to look at two things that Apple said & meant:
a. What Apple literally said, and,
b. What Apple meant their mostly factually-clueless customers to perceive

It's hard to believe that one of the finest, if not the finest, marketing
organizations in the world would need to stoop to an outright lie to get
its customers to appreciate the product, so, the statement that they didn't
lie outright about the "material" holds credibility.

Is the "lie" explained as simply as:
a. The "material" is the strongest ever put in a smartphone, but,
b. The "implementation" is as weak as any (and even weaker than some).

Is that a rational explanation of Apple's statements as compared with fact?

[B...@onramp.net]

First you question IF it was a lie then you say it was a blatant lie.
Didn't you brag earlier about only telling the truth and using facts?

Trolling and shit stirring is a mental problem.

[Carlos E.R.]

It is only of importance to you, not to most of us.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

[Carlos E.R.]

On 2017-09-26 19:31, harry newton wrote:
> He who is Carlos E.R. said on Tue, 26 Sep 2017 05:00:24 +0200:
>
>> Nay, plastic is just as transparent for radio as glass. If you think
>> glass is better for that reason, they have you fooled with commercial
>> babletalk :-P
>
> There is no doubt that, if the reason for glass is "mostly" radio
> transparency, then there are other materials that work as well as glass for
> radio transparency which aren't as fragile as glass is.
>
> The question here is whether Apple lied, and why they lied if they did.

I don't care. All brands of everything lie somewhat.

However, if you think and can prove they lied, sue them, you have a
case... If nobody sues, they did not lie.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

[nospam]

In article <oqd2dq$10kh$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Piet

<www.godfatherof.nl/@opt-in.invalid> wrote:

> > Also, you're expected to cover the precious iPhone with a rubber
> > cover and with that, the breakage issue should not happen often.
> > (and this is one reason the ugly camera protrusion is terrible in ads,
> > but in real life, not a problem because it becomes flush with the cover
> > that is put on the phone.)
>
> So you have to cover the "strongest material ever" with rubber
> to prevent it from breaking

no.

> and to hide the protruding asshole
> of the most expensive phone ever.

it's definitely not the most expensive phone ever. not even close.

try one of these:

<http://wwd.com/fashion-news/fashion-scoops/newcomer-savelli-blends-jewe
lry-and-technology-7016026/>
The smartphones, which run on the Google Android platform, are priced
from 6,900 euros to 7,500 euros, or $9,040 to $9,830 at current
exchange, for the three models in the Élégante collection, rising to
90,000 euros, or $118,000, for the Black Insane model, which is set
with 75 baguette-cut diamonds.

the eclipse diamond is ¤32,800.00 (~$39,000):
<https://www.goldvish.com/product-page/eclipse-diamond-heaven-black-alli
gator>

the vertu is a relatively affordable $12,600, also in alligator:
<http://www.vertu.com/us/en/collections/signature-touch/shop-collection/
almond-alligator/602598-001-01.html?cgid=11500>

for those on a budget, the red holographic phone is $1600 for titanium
and $1200 for aluminum (add-on lenses are an additional expense):
<http://www.red.com/hydrogen>

the galaxy note 8 is $930-$960, downright cheap, depending on carrier:
<http://www.androidauthority.com/samsung-galaxy-note-8-price-release-dat
e-deals-795315/>

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 25.09.2017 um 16:03 schrieb harry newton:
> The Moto Z2 Force has a far stronger glass.
> So Apple outright lied.
> Again.

And you, Troll, get a cosy place in my Troll-Server-Killfile ...
*PLONK*

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

[harry newton]

He who is B...@Onramp.net said on Tue, 26 Sep 2017 13:17:35 -0500:

> First you question IF it was a lie then you say it was a blatant lie.
> Didn't you brag earlier about only telling the truth and using facts?

The fact is that the article referenced quoted Apple's statements verbatim,
concluding rather obviously "There's no reason to beat around the bush:
that was a lie."

So it's a fact that the article said it was a lie.

It's also a fact that both JF Mezei & Piet brought up the on-topic detail
that Apple might not have literally lied if they said that the "material"
is the strongest used in a smart phone, if not the implementation.

While your own statements consistently show you completely miss everything
anyone ever says that contains factual detail, the on-topic question
remains whether Apple Marketing was trying to stretch the truth.

Clearly the implementation fails the test.
But does the (standalone) material pass the stated test?

That's the question which remains to be supported by facts.

[harry newton]

He who is Carlos E.R. said on Tue, 26 Sep 2017 20:43:52 +0200:

> I don't care. All brands of everything lie somewhat.
>
> However, if you think and can prove they lied, sue them, you have a
> case... If nobody sues, they did not lie.

You are speaking like a highly emotional illogical Apple customer who can't
handle the slightest bit of detail inherent in factual statements.

The question at hand is simply whether Apple felt the need to lie to its
entire customer base, and how Apple could possibly have assumed that nobody
would have the technical acumen to doublecheck Apple on their "facts".

Clearly the implementation is not the "strongest ever" in a smartphone.

Perhaps, as JF Mezei & Piet intimated, Apple went a bit too far in the
normal stretching of the truth to convince their user base that glass
doesn't break under stress.

The question is WHY Apple felt the need to lie to its entire user base?
And whether Apple thought the user base was so stupid as to believe it?

The lie is so blatant that one must wonder how Apple could have thought the
entire iOS user base wouldn't notice the fib?

[harry newton]

He who is Joerg Lorenz said on Tue, 26 Sep 2017 22:20:30 +0200:

> And you, Troll, get a cosy place in my Troll-Server-Killfile ...
> *PLONK*

Everyone should take note exactly how the Apple apologists handle adult
factual discussions which are well referenced, timely, and on topic.

It should be noted that Jeorg Lorenz would apparently rather discuss with
Jolly Roger where to get pink bejeweled cases highlighted with gold trim
for his iPhone accoutrements as that's apparently his complete idea of iOS
"technical" complexity.

[harry newton]

He who is Carlos E.R. said on Tue, 26 Sep 2017 20:42:13 +0200:

>> Did Apple lie about the strength of the glass?
>
> It is only of importance to you, not to most of us.

Think about what trasnspired, if Apple did, as accused by the media,
perform a bold-faced lie to all its customers.

Two key points, that adults will notice, pop out immediately.

1. Apple *felt* the *need* to lie to its customer base.

2. Apple *assumed* it's customer base is so non technical that they
wouldn't notice the lie.

Any intelligent adult discussing this topic would have to wonder *why*
Apple felt the *need* to lie, and how Apple could have assumed that their
entire iOS user base didn't have the technical wherewithal to even *notice*
the bold-faced lie.

It's clear to me why - but I see it's not yet clear to you (and may never
be).

[harry newton]

He who is Joerg Lorenz said on Tue, 26 Sep 2017 07:05:20 +0200:

>>> Plastic is compatible with the image of a high end smart phone.
>>
>> You presumably meant isnt. That¢s bullshit.
>
> That is perfectly correct.

The question is WHY Apple felt the *need to lie* to its entire iOS user
base?

And how Apple could possibly have assumed their entire iOS user base was so
stupid as to believe such a bold-faced lie?

[Carlos E.R.]

On 2017-09-27 01:05, harry newton wrote:
> He who is Carlos E.R. said on Tue, 26 Sep 2017 20:43:52 +0200:
>
>> I don't care. All brands of everything lie somewhat.
>>
>> However, if you think and can prove they lied, sue them, you have a
>> case... If nobody sues, they did not lie.
>
> You are speaking like a highly emotional illogical Apple customer who can't
> handle the slightest bit of detail inherent in factual statements.

I don't have any Apple hardware and never had, and possibly never will.

> The question at hand is simply whether Apple felt the need to lie to its
> entire customer base, and how Apple could possibly have assumed that nobody
> would have the technical acumen to doublecheck Apple on their "facts".

I don't care at all about your "facts". You simply have an agenda, and I
can't trust you. You are simply trolling.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

[harry newton]

He who is Carlos E.R. said on Wed, 27 Sep 2017 01:19:01 +0200:

> I don't care at all about your "facts". You simply have an agenda, and I
> can't trust you. You are simply trolling

Here is an intelligent assessment of your statements...

1. You state you don't care about Apple phone facts - and yet - you post a
purely emotional dismissal of well-documented fact.

2. You state that you can't trust an agenda based on facts.

3. After stating you both refute and don't trust facts, you then state that
"I" troll...

Think about the sheer validity of the truths above, and what they say about
the possibility of you carrying on an adult intelligent conversation that
contains valid facts.

[B...@onramp.net]

On Tue, 26 Sep 2017 23:01:07 +0000 (UTC), harry newton
<ha...@is.invalid> wrote:

>He who is B...@Onramp.net said on Tue, 26 Sep 2017 13:17:35 -0500:
>
>> First you question IF it was a lie then you say it was a blatant lie.
>> Didn't you brag earlier about only telling the truth and using facts?
>
>The fact is that the article referenced quoted Apple's statements verbatim,
>concluding rather obviously "There's no reason to beat around the bush:
>that was a lie."
>
>So it's a fact that the article said it was a lie.
>
>It's also a fact that both JF Mezei & Piet brought up the on-topic detail
>that Apple might not have literally lied if they said that the "material"
>is the strongest used in a smart phone, if not the implementation.
>
>While your own statements consistently show you completely miss everything
>anyone ever says that contains factual detail, the on-topic question
>remains whether Apple Marketing was trying to stretch the truth.

Really? So you've followed all of my statements that miss everything
anyone ever says......?

I call Bullshit since I rarely post here. Maybe you can recall some
of all those supposed statements and remind me.

>
>Clearly the implementation fails the test.
>But does the (standalone) material pass the stated test?
>
>That's the question which remains to be supported by facts.

You disputed yourself and all of your babble here doesn't
clear that up.

[Rod Speed]

<B...@Onramp.net> wrote in message
news:hjpksc95ojgvgkj26...@4ax.com...

Not necessarily with something like a more fragile than it needs
to be glass instead of plastic back, you can always use one of those
rubber backs so that protects the more fragile than it should be back.

You really need one of those anyway so the phone lies flat on the
table and doesn't rock on the bulging lens anyway and in my case
I choose to have a bright yellow one so the phone is easy to find.

> If you think it is, just don't buy it.

Trouble with that approach with iphones is that if you have
decided that you want an iphone that has inductive charging,
you are stuck with Apple's stupid decision to have a glass back.

[Snit]

On 9/26/17, 10:25 AM, in article oqe2is$ogc$1...@gioia.aioe.org, "harry newton"

Did Apple lie? We do not know. We do know the iPhones do well in drop tests
compared to other phones:

<https://www.cnet.com/news/iphone-8-plus-apple-glass-samsung-note-squaretrad
e-torture-test/> OR <https://goo.gl/7d3dXZ>
-----
Crash test face-off: Will the iPhone 8 or Note 8 win?
...
Of the three phones, the iPhone 8 fared the best overall, earning a
"medium risk" designation on SquareTrade's breakability scoring
scale. The iPhone 8 Plus was given a "medium high risk" compared
with the Note 8, which the warranty outfit calls "high risk."
-----

<http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-iphone-8-drop-test-photos-video-2017-9
> OR <https://goo.gl/FwLn4X>
-----
The verdict: iPhone 8 and iPhone 8 Plus are definitely not very
durable (although both phones beat the Note 8).
-----

<https://www.cnet.com/news/iphone-8-drop-test/>
-----
Most durable glass ever made on a phone? Maybe. But it's a tough
call.
-----

[Snit]

On 9/26/17, 10:27 AM, in article oqe2me$ogp$1...@gioia.aioe.org, "harry newton"

This is not about facts for you... this is you trolling with accusations
from hand-picked sources so you can justify your preference for Android, as
if someone asked you to.

So why are you so insecure with your preference for Android?

[Snit]

On 9/26/17, 10:31 AM, in article oqe2te$p46$1...@gioia.aioe.org, "harry newton"

<ha...@is.invalid> wrote:

> He who is Carlos E.R. said on Tue, 26 Sep 2017 05:00:24 +0200:
>
>> Nay, plastic is just as transparent for radio as glass. If you think
>> glass is better for that reason, they have you fooled with commercial
>> babletalk :-P
>
> There is no doubt that, if the reason for glass is "mostly" radio
> transparency, then there are other materials that work as well as glass for
> radio transparency which aren't as fragile as glass is.
>
> The question here is whether Apple lied, and why they lied if they did.
>
> Nobody seems to be refuting that Apple lied, but I'm all ears if it
> actually is a fact that Apple did not lie.

<https://www.cnet.com/news/iphone-8-plus-apple-glass-samsung-note-squaretrad
e-torture-test/> OR <https://goo.gl/7d3dXZ>
-----
Crash test face-off: Will the iPhone 8 or Note 8 win?
...
Of the three phones, the iPhone 8 fared the best overall, earning a
"medium risk" designation on SquareTrade's breakability scoring
scale. The iPhone 8 Plus was given a "medium high risk" compared
with the Note 8, which the warranty outfit calls "high risk."
-----

<http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-iphone-8-drop-test-photos-video-2017-9
> OR <https://goo.gl/FwLn4X>
-----
The verdict: iPhone 8 and iPhone 8 Plus are definitely not very
durable (although both phones beat the Note 8).
-----

<https://www.cnet.com/news/iphone-8-drop-test/>
-----
Most durable glass ever made on a phone? Maybe. But it's a tough
call.
-----

> However ... if we assume that Apple lied (nobody yet has said otherwise),
> then we have to ask *why* Apple lied?
>
> I can guess why they lied, since it's Apple Marketing after all, and all
> Marketing organizations 'stretch the truth' - but this stretching of the
> truth seems to be more of a boldfaced lie than a simple stretching of the
> truth.
>
> The main question is why Apple Marketing felt the need to concoct such a
> bold-faced lie, if a lie is what it is.

The bigger question is why are you so insecure with your preference for
Android you feel the need to push such attacks?

[Snit]

On 9/26/17, 10:33 AM, in article oqe318$paa$1...@gioia.aioe.org, "harry newton"

<ha...@is.invalid> wrote:

> He who is Rod Speed said on Tue, 26 Sep 2017 09:32:52 +1000:
>
>> Not if you use the right plastic. The case doesn't.
>
> The main question is why Apple Marketing felt the need to concoct such a
> bold-faced lie, if a lie is what it is.

<https://www.cnet.com/news/iphone-8-plus-apple-glass-samsung-note-squaretrad
e-torture-test/> OR <https://goo.gl/7d3dXZ>
-----
Crash test face-off: Will the iPhone 8 or Note 8 win?
...
Of the three phones, the iPhone 8 fared the best overall, earning a
"medium risk" designation on SquareTrade's breakability scoring
scale. The iPhone 8 Plus was given a "medium high risk" compared
with the Note 8, which the warranty outfit calls "high risk."
-----

<http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-iphone-8-drop-test-photos-video-2017-9
> OR <https://goo.gl/FwLn4X>
-----
The verdict: iPhone 8 and iPhone 8 Plus are definitely not very
durable (although both phones beat the Note 8).
-----

<https://www.cnet.com/news/iphone-8-drop-test/>
-----
Most durable glass ever made on a phone? Maybe. But it's a tough
call.
-----

> Does anyone have insight into why Apple would blatantly lie so boldly?

The question is why you are so insecure about your preference for Android.
It is not like anyone said you were wrong to like what you like.

[Snit]

On 9/26/17, 4:18 PM, in article oqen79$1ral$1...@gioia.aioe.org, "harry newton"

The question is why are you so insecure with your obvious preference for
Android.

[Snit]

On 9/26/17, 4:10 PM, in article oqemps$1qu5$1...@gioia.aioe.org, "harry newton"

Why not actually look for data instead of pushing insults?

<https://www.cnet.com/news/iphone-8-plus-apple-glass-samsung-note-squaretrad
e-torture-test/> OR <https://goo.gl/7d3dXZ>
-----
Crash test face-off: Will the iPhone 8 or Note 8 win?
...
Of the three phones, the iPhone 8 fared the best overall, earning a
"medium risk" designation on SquareTrade's breakability scoring
scale. The iPhone 8 Plus was given a "medium high risk" compared
with the Note 8, which the warranty outfit calls "high risk."
-----

<http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-iphone-8-drop-test-photos-video-2017-9
> OR <https://goo.gl/FwLn4X>
-----
The verdict: iPhone 8 and iPhone 8 Plus are definitely not very
durable (although both phones beat the Note 8).
-----

<https://www.cnet.com/news/iphone-8-drop-test/>
-----
Most durable glass ever made on a phone? Maybe. But it's a tough
call.
-----

[Snit]

On 9/26/17, 4:13 PM, in article oqemvh$1r3p$1...@gioia.aioe.org, "harry newton"

<ha...@is.invalid> wrote:

> He who is Carlos E.R. said on Tue, 26 Sep 2017 20:42:13 +0200:
>
>>> Did Apple lie about the strength of the glass?
>>
>> It is only of importance to you, not to most of us.
>
> Think about what trasnspired, if Apple did, as accused by the media,
> perform a bold-faced lie to all its customers.
>
> Two key points, that adults will notice, pop out immediately.
>
> 1. Apple *felt* the *need* to lie to its customer base.

Unsupported claim.

> 2. Apple *assumed* it's customer base is so non technical that they
> wouldn't notice the lie.

Unsupported claim.

> Any intelligent adult discussing this topic would have to wonder *why*
> Apple felt the *need* to lie, and how Apple could have assumed that their
> entire iOS user base didn't have the technical wherewithal to even *notice*
> the bold-faced lie.
>
> It's clear to me why - but I see it's not yet clear to you (and may never
> be).

The question is why are you so insecure with your preference for Android.

[Snit]

On 9/26/17, 4:05 PM, in article oqemfb$1qcn$1...@gioia.aioe.org, "harry newton"

<ha...@is.invalid> wrote:

> He who is Carlos E.R. said on Tue, 26 Sep 2017 20:43:52 +0200:
>
>> I don't care. All brands of everything lie somewhat.
>>
>> However, if you think and can prove they lied, sue them, you have a
>> case... If nobody sues, they did not lie.
>
> You are speaking like a highly emotional illogical Apple customer who can't
> handle the slightest bit of detail inherent in factual statements.

You claim to be an Apple customer and have iOS devices, too.

> The question at hand is simply whether Apple felt the need to lie to its
> entire customer base, and how Apple could possibly have assumed that nobody
> would have the technical acumen to doublecheck Apple on their "facts".
>
> Clearly the implementation is not the "strongest ever" in a smartphone.
>
> Perhaps, as JF Mezei & Piet intimated, Apple went a bit too far in the
> normal stretching of the truth to convince their user base that glass
> doesn't break under stress.
>
> The question is WHY Apple felt the need to lie to its entire user base?
> And whether Apple thought the user base was so stupid as to believe it?
>
> The lie is so blatant that one must wonder how Apple could have thought the
> entire iOS user base wouldn't notice the fib?

What phone do you think handles drop tests better?

[Snit]

On 9/26/17, 4:01 PM, in article oqem7i$1q52$1...@gioia.aioe.org, "harry newton"

The question is why do you feel so insecure about your preference for
Android.

[nospam]

In article <D5F04C53.B9469%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>, Snit

<use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

> On 9/26/17, 4:10 PM, in article oqemps$1qu5$1...@gioia.aioe.org, "harry newton"
> <ha...@is.invalid> wrote:

...

> Why not actually look for data instead of pushing insults?

because the data shows him to be very wrong, which leaves only insults.

[Snit]

On 9/26/17, 1:20 PM, in article oqecqf$ci0$1...@news.albasani.net, "Joerg

Lorenz" <hugy...@gmx.ch> wrote:

> Am 25.09.2017 um 16:03 schrieb harry newton:
>> The Moto Z2 Force has a far stronger glass.
>> So Apple outright lied.
>> Again.
>
> And you, Troll, get a cosy place in my Troll-Server-Killfile ...
> *PLONK*

He changes names often to avoid kill filters.

[Lewis]

In message <oqen79$1ral$1...@gioia.aioe.org> harry newton <ha...@is.invalid> wrote:
> He who is Joerg Lorenz said on Tue, 26 Sep 2017 07:05:20 +0200:

>>>> Plastic is compatible with the image of a high end smart phone.
>>>
>>> You presumably meant isnt. That¢s bullshit.
>>
>> That is perfectly correct.

> The question is WHY Apple felt the *need to lie* to its entire iOS user
> base?

Apple did not lie, of course. You're a troll.

--
"His mother should have thrown him away and kept the stork." - Mae West

[Snit]

On 9/26/17, 6:29 PM, in article 260920172129022823%nos...@nospam.invalid,

He posts with various names and has little message other than he prefers
Android. Which nobody says he should not. Use what you like.

[Carlos E.R.]

Facts? Bullocks!

I simply don't care about your beloved "facts".

Nor does about anybody here.

Troll!

--
Cheers, Carlos.

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 27.09.17 um 03:29 schrieb Snit:

> On 9/26/17, 1:20 PM, in article oqecqf$ci0$1...@news.albasani.net, "Joerg
> Lorenz" <hugy...@gmx.ch> wrote:
>
>> Am 25.09.2017 um 16:03 schrieb harry newton:
>>> The Moto Z2 Force has a far stronger glass.
>>> So Apple outright lied.
>>> Again.
>>
>> And you, Troll, get a cosy place in my Troll-Server-Killfile ...
>> *PLONK*
>
> He changes names often to avoid kill filters.

That is why I said: Troll-Server-Killfile.


--
Gutta cavat lapidem (Ovid)

[Snit]

On 9/26/17, 9:04 PM, in article oqf80s$a89$1...@news.albasani.net, "Joerg

Lorenz" <hugy...@gmx.ch> wrote:

> Am 27.09.17 um 03:29 schrieb Snit:
>> On 9/26/17, 1:20 PM, in article oqecqf$ci0$1...@news.albasani.net, "Joerg
>> Lorenz" <hugy...@gmx.ch> wrote:
>>
>>> Am 25.09.2017 um 16:03 schrieb harry newton:
>>>> The Moto Z2 Force has a far stronger glass.
>>>> So Apple outright lied.
>>>> Again.
>>>
>>> And you, Troll, get a cosy place in my Troll-Server-Killfile ...
>>> *PLONK*
>>
>> He changes names often to avoid kill filters.
>
> That is why I said: Troll-Server-Killfile.
>

:)

[harry newton]

He who is Carlos E.R. said on Wed, 27 Sep 2017 05:13:37 +0200:

> I simply don't care about your beloved "facts".

Notice how many Apple iOS apologists respond to cold hard truthful fact.

[harry newton]

He who is Rod Speed said on Wed, 27 Sep 2017 11:16:27 +1000:

> Trouble with that approach with iphones is that if you have
> decided that you want an iphone that has inductive charging,
> you are stuck with Apple's stupid decision to have a glass back.

Let's look at this logically.

I'm not sure at this early point in time that we can say Apple's decision
to have a glass back is "stupid", because Apple phones will sell to their
loyal customers no matter what the quality and performance.

We can more easily say that Apple is marketing it as the "strongest" glass
backed phone ever made, where it's clearly not all that strong as compared
to other choices they could have made.

That Apple Marketing chose to even likely stretch the truth by a large
margin probably tells us a LOT about what resistance they're anticipating
from their otherwise-loyal customer base.

I wouldn't be surprised if Apple Marketing throws in a "free" case in the
future or, more to the Apple way, they *sell* a service plan, that covers
the phone.

Since most Apple customers care more about *feeling* safe, an expensive
service plan is exactly the trick that Apple may employ to placate its
loyal customer base's concerns.

Time will tell as my only claim to omnipotence is knowledge of history.

[joe]

This whole discussion is based on false statements.

A drop test is not a measure of material strength. No understanding of
the forces applied to the phone is obtained.

The comparison video of 100 phones being dropped is misleading as they
are being dropped onto a wooden deck, not concrete or granite.

[Snit]

On 9/27/17, 6:26 AM, in article oqg8t7$6g9$1...@gioia.aioe.org, "harry newton"

What they are responding to is your blabbering about your preference for
Android (which is fine) but doing so in a way that is so insecure and
uncertain you feel the need to attack others (which is trolling).

[Snit]

On 9/27/17, 6:26 AM, in article oqg8t9$6g9$2...@gioia.aioe.org, "harry newton"

<ha...@is.invalid> wrote:

> He who is Rod Speed said on Wed, 27 Sep 2017 11:16:27 +1000:
>
>> Trouble with that approach with iphones is that if you have
>> decided that you want an iphone that has inductive charging,
>> you are stuck with Apple's stupid decision to have a glass back.
>
> Let's look at this logically.

Sure!

> I'm not sure at this early point in time that we can say Apple's decision
> to have a glass back is "stupid", because Apple phones will sell to their
> loyal customers no matter what the quality and performance.

Logically, the only point you are making here is YOU prefer Android and YOU
cannot understand why others prefer iPhones so YOU feel the need to attack
others.

> We can more easily say that Apple is marketing it as the "strongest" glass
> backed phone ever made, where it's clearly not all that strong as compared
> to other choices they could have made.

Such as? What other phones are you saying have stronger glass?

Maybe some do... maybe Apple did lie. And if they did I do not condone it in
any way... but your pointing to one hand-picked article does not support
your claim.

> That Apple Marketing chose to even likely stretch the truth by a large
> margin probably tells us a LOT about what resistance they're anticipating
> from their otherwise-loyal customer base.

Back to your unsupported biases.

> I wouldn't be surprised if Apple Marketing throws in a "free" case in the
> future or, more to the Apple way, they *sell* a service plan, that covers
> the phone.

I think glass backs are a poor choice in general... and, yes, Apple is more
likely to handle weaknesses in their phones with such services than others
might be.

> Since most Apple customers care more about *feeling* safe, an expensive
> service plan is exactly the trick that Apple may employ to placate its
> loyal customer base's concerns.

This is you making things up about others to feel better about yourself. You
are insecure in your choice of Android. OK.

> Time will tell as my only claim to omnipotence is knowledge of history.

Time will show you babbling about your preference for Android and attacking
others out of insecurity.

[Snit]

On 9/27/17, 7:06 AM, in article oqgb87$ajg$1...@gioia.aioe.org, "joe"

His whole point is he prefers Android (which is fine) but is so insecure
with his own choice he feels the need to insult others and attack iPhones
based on false claims.

[nospam]

In article <D5F10C16.B9534%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>, Snit

<use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

>
> I think glass backs are a poor choice in general...

what other material would you suggest?

glass is radio transparent, metal is radio opaque, plastic is
unacceptable and transparent aluminum hasn't been invented yet.

of those, glass is the only viable option.

[Snit]

On 9/27/17, 9:15 AM, in article 270920171215304561%nos...@nospam.invalid,

I think a high quality plastic could work... it does for the iPod Touch. Or
if they insist on glass, make them slightly less thin to have a metal body
protrude slightly (even less than the camera) to offer protection.

As it is, glass phones tend to shatter when dropped. That is not a good
thing. So people pretty much need cases.

[harry newton]

He who is Snit said on Tue, 26 Sep 2017 18:28:58 -0700:

> The question is why do you feel so insecure about your preference for
> Android.

Warning: Adult conversation below.
<http://i68.tinypic.com/2zg6g7m.jpg>

You keep saying that I have a "preference" for one operating system or the
other, when it's well known that I've used them all and they all have huge
philosophical differences while the mobile devices have huge (but one-way)
functional differences.

In general, of the "common consumer" operating systems...
1. Linux is a mess, but getting better year after yet (I started with DEC
VMS, IBM Assesmbly language, Fortran before 77, etc.) so I've been through
Linux from Unix to SunOS to Solaris, etc., to Ubuntu, which is what I
mostly use now. While I use Ubuntu for standards reason, I have uses CentOS
and Redhat for industry reasons also. Same thing (yum versus apt-get), only
a little different (consumer apps are lacking on Redhat systems). Overall,
Linux gives us the most power at the ever-lessening cost of being less
"standard" than Windows when problems arise.

2. Windows gives me the most flexibility in that most problems are well
known so I don't have to be a pioneer when issues arise. The best thing
about Windows is that we've lived with it since DOS days so we're the most
familiar with it. Really, the best thing about Windows is that it runs MS
Office better than anything out there (see Mac below for example). It just
does. Funny that. I wonder if MS has anything to do with that. One beauty
of Windows is that you can organize your desktop the way you want it to be,
which was made slightly harder in Windows 10, but which still exists.

3. Mac OS I only use when I have to because of its arbitrary restrictions,
for example, MS Office on the Mac won't embed fonts and worse, won't even
respect Windows-embedded fonts or where the Mac doesn't run the common SSH
OpenVPN like every other platform does, but you can find Tunnelblick
freeware so it's just the same, in the end, only different. Lots of things
are different on the Mac just for differences sake (like the menu bar
separates from the program) but you can get used to it all if you really
want to use the Mac. The folks who love the Mac are those who both used it
for a long time (as with Windows lovers) and who do all the
desktop-publishing stuff (which I don't do).

4. iOS I use because people gave me mobile equipment and I buy mobile
phones as gifts every year, and I have jailbroken an iOS device to use
Cydia, so I'm familiar that everything common on iOS is fine but any time
you want to go off road on iOS, basically Apple restricts what you can do.
As you already know, I can list a dozen functions that iOS can't do that
*every* other platform does out of hand, so let's not go there other than
to agree that iOS is less functional than every other platform is (because
Apple limits what it can do. Suffice to say that I first easily do things
on Android (like list all my apps to an editable file) and then when I find
that iOS can't do it all by itself, I figure out how (it requires a
separate computer plus iTunes to do something as simple as that). Most of
the time the iOS device just can't do it (like automatic phone recording,
or wifi signal strength over time or listing the "real" unique cell tower
ID in any current iOS system or even having an app drawer app capability or
or loading a new launcher or just renaming a program icon for heaven's
sake, or torrenting, or something as simple as locking the rotation by
application, or just organizing the icons on the desktop the way you want
them organized).

5. Android is a mess. It's a royal mess. The version differences are a
mess. The update strategy is a mess. The default spyware situation is a
mess. The whole privacy thing is a mess. But ... Android is the most
powerful and most flexible consumer mobile phone platform out there, bar
none. It just does everything that you want it to do. Basically, it does
what Linux does, which is everything, at the cost of complexity for some
things.

As just one tiny simple powerful example, here's my well-organized desktop
on my five-year old Android device where each icon is designed to be where
it is for single-handled (left-hand in fact) operation and where *all* my
Android devices (no matter that operating system version) are set up the
same way for consistency:
<http://i68.tinypic.com/2zg6g7m.jpg>
Try to do something as trivial as organizing a desktop the way you want it
organized on any iOS device, even the latest OS or any future OS - and you
will "just give up" which is what iOS users are forced to do every day all
day forever - since the lack of functionality on iOS devices is obvious to
anyone who understands what Apple disallows the user from doing that no
other OS disallows (all in the purported guise of "feeling" safe).

Basically, iOS is crippled in what it can do, not by the hardware, but by
Apple. Perhaps the huge loss in functionality is to make people *feel*
safer, which it may do, but how is someone safer by not being able to
something as simple as organizing their desktop the way they want it
organized?
<http://i68.tinypic.com/2zg6g7m.jpg>

[harry newton]

He who is joe said on Wed, 27 Sep 2017 09:06:00 -0500:

>> Time will tell as my only claim to omnipotence is knowledge of history.
>
> This whole discussion is based on false statements.
>
> A drop test is not a measure of material strength. No understanding of
> the forces applied to the phone is obtained.
>
> The comparison video of 100 phones being dropped is misleading as they
> are being dropped onto a wooden deck, not concrete or granite.

You bring up a good point that the *test* for fragility needs to be
realistic.

I often teach in the schools as a substitute teacher, so I see kid's
phones, where a huge number of these phones have cracked screens. Clearly
phone screens are breaking at a vast rate of something like ten percent to
fifty percent in certain (young & active) populations.

I'm sure the overall breakage rate is lower among the elderly than teens,
but the fact is that phone "glass" shatters at an alarming rate. If all
automotive headlights shattered at a similar rate, you'd see from ten
percent to half the cars out there with one or no headlights.

That observation brings up two questions:
1. What *is* a good test of the resistance of the glass to shattering?
2. Why make an already fragile device even more fragile with a glass back?

[nospam]

In article <D5F1294F.B958A%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>, Snit

<use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

> >>
> >> I think glass backs are a poor choice in general...
> >
> > what other material would you suggest?
> >
> > glass is radio transparent, metal is radio opaque, plastic is
> > unacceptable and transparent aluminum hasn't been invented yet.
> >
> > of those, glass is the only viable option.
>
> I think a high quality plastic could work... it does for the iPod Touch.

the ipod touch is $199 and aimed at an entirely different demographic
than the iphone 8, which is $699.

people don't mind plastic on a $200 device but *do* mind it on a $700
device. they expect the fit and finish that plastic cannot provide.

apple tried a plastic back on the iphone 5c, and in a variety of
colours. it didn't sell as well as they had hoped. it's a mistake they
are not about to repeat.

> Or
> if they insist on glass, make them slightly less thin to have a metal body
> protrude slightly (even less than the camera) to offer protection.

that's not a good idea either.

> As it is, glass phones tend to shatter when dropped. That is not a good
> thing. So people pretty much need cases.

no. what they need is to learn not to drop their phones.

[nospam]

In article <oqgmoa$vdk$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, harry newton

<ha...@is.invalid> wrote:

> 3. Mac OS I only use when I have to because of its arbitrary restrictions,
> for example, MS Office on the Mac won't embed fonts and worse, won't even
> respect Windows-embedded fonts

that's a decision microsoft made and has nothing whatsoever to do with
mac os or apple.

microsoft could have chosen to offer those features or any other
features, but *they* chose not to.

apple had no input into that decision. none at all.

tl;dr the 'arbitrary restriction' is due to microsoft.

> or where the Mac doesn't run the common SSH
> OpenVPN like every other platform does,

nonsense. of course it does.

> but you can find Tunnelblick
> freeware so it's just the same, in the end, only different.

so it does run it. contradicting yourself so quickly?

> Lots of things
> are different on the Mac just for differences sake (like the menu bar
> separates from the program)

nope. the mac has a menubar at the top because it's significantly more
productive than having one in each window.

microsoft was forced to put the menubar in each window so that windows
looked different enough than mac os to try to claim it was not a
blatant copy.

it's the same reason the windows taskbar is at the bottom and the icons
are left justified, versus on the mac where the menubar at the top and
right justified.

> but you can get used to it all if you really
> want to use the Mac. The folks who love the Mac are those who both used it
> for a long time (as with Windows lovers) and who do all the
> desktop-publishing stuff (which I don't do).

much more than that.

[harry newton]

He who is Snit said on Tue, 26 Sep 2017 18:27:04 -0700:

> The question is why are you so insecure with your preference for Android.

WARNING: Adult observation below:

I've been on Usenet for decades (yes, that's plural) where in virtually all
cases, the "mac versus windows" style "flame wars" are almost always
started, and continued by the Apple apologists who feel hurt that facts
about their product aren't the same as the *feeling* they have about their
product.

You, Snit, keep perpetuating this same Apple-induced insecurity, where you
constantly want to force *your* personal dislike of facts about your
beloved operation system as an argument upon others who simply state the
facts as they are.

You'll notice I'm not going to play this ancient never-ending purely
emotional always Apple-apologist-perpetuated Mac-versus-Windows game with
you.

This Mac-versus-Windows iOS-versus-Andoroid emotional game is *always*
initiated, propagated, and perpetuated by the Apple apologists who can't
handle solid cold hard facts about their choice of operating systems.

As a trivial example:
That you can't organize your app icons on iOS in two places is a fact.
That you can organize app icons on Android in multiple places is a fact.

You don't like facts. I get it.
You don't like that Apple limited what you can do on iOS. I get that too.
You love iOS. I get that also.

Lots and lots and lots of people love iOS (for example, half my family is
on iOS and loves it, and, in fact, gave me iOS devices for free because
they wanted me to love it too).

There's nothing wrong with iOS for the people who love iOS.
There's nothing wrong with iOS for the people who love Android.

What's different about iOS than Android is just cold hard fact.
a. Apple mobile phone hardware, over the years, is about the same as
Android hardware.
b. Apple limits what iOS apps can do.
c. Therefore, Android apps will *always* do more than iOS apps can do.

Those are just cold hard facts.
If you don't like cold hard facts, that's fine - but that doesn't make me
an iOS hater or an Android lover any more than cold hard facts about Linux
or Windows makes me a Linux lover and a Windows hater.

The simple reason you have such a problem with cold hard facts is the same
simple reason Mac users from a decade ago had the same emotional problems
that you have with iOS and Android.

1. You have EMOTIONALLY chosen a girlfriend (in this case, iOS).
2. She has some huge flaws that you don't seem to notice or care about.
3. That's fine - but you get emotional when someone points those flaws out.

When someone tells you your girlfriend has only one leg and she can't shake
your hand because she's missing fingers, you profess to say that they don't
like your girlfriend.

All they're telling you is that your choice of girlfriends is missing all
the fingers in one hand, and she's missing a leg.

Those are just cold hard facts.
You are the reason there are flame wars because you can't handle the facts.

I know you better than you know yourself in that I've seen people like you
for decades, where you have an emotional *feeling* that trumps facts about
your beloved choice of operating systems.

Anyway, the on-topic point to bring up here are the two valid questions:

[harry newton]

He who is Snit said on Tue, 26 Sep 2017 18:22:45 -0700:

> So why are you so insecure with your preference for Android?

WARNING: I'm trying to tell you, in an adult way, what you're doing because
I know history of the Mac/Windows flame wars very well (since people like
you who love to play them abound).

For decades, the Apple apologists like you have tried to initiate flame
wars because they're emotionally wedded to their choice of OS such that any
cold hard facts to the contray of their emotions is anathema to them.

To be clear, lots and lots of people love iOS (for example, half my family

is on iOS and loves it, and, in fact, gave me iOS devices for free because
they wanted me to love it too).

These ios-versus-Android flame wars that you are trying to initiate are
always initiated, propagated, and perpeturated by the iOS apologists who
react emtitionally to cold hard facts about their beloved operating system.

What's different about iOS than Android is just cold hard fact.
a. Apple mobile phone hardware, over the years, is about the same as
Android hardware.
b. Apple limits what iOS apps can do.

c. Therefore, iOS will always be less functional than Android.

As a simple example that anyone can understand:
. That you can't organize your app icons on iOS in two places is a fact.

. That you can organize app icons on Android in multiple places is a fact.

As another of many examples that anyone can understand:
. That you can't put your icons on any grid whatsoever on iOS is a fact.
. That you can put your icons on any grid whatsoever in Android is a fact.

Another simple to understand example:
. That you can't load any desired app launcher on iOS is a fact.
. That you can load any desired app launcher on Android is a fact.

More simple to understand examples:
. That you can't get a WiFi signal strength over time on iOS is a fact.
. That you can easily get WiFi signal strength over time on Android is a
fact.

This list goes on and on and on, where, oddly, there's nothing yet anyone
on iOS can propose that is the reverse (but that's just a detail because
even if there was one thing that iOS could do that Android doesn't already
do, it wouldn't change the overall summary one bit).

It has been the same for decades with the Mac-vs-Windows flame wars, always
initiated, propagated, and perpetuated by the Mac users who, like you,
couldn't handle the cold hard facts becuase they were emotionally wedded to
the OS.

Fact is that you (emotionally) love iOS but you hate cold hard facts about
iOS.

[nospam]

In article <oqgp8m$13tv$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, harry newton

<ha...@is.invalid> wrote:

> More simple to understand examples:
> . That you can't get a WiFi signal strength over time on iOS is a fact.
> . That you can easily get WiFi signal strength over time on Android is a
> fact.

nope. as you've been repeatedly told, that's complete bullshit. it's
*trivial* to get wifi signal strength on ios.

> This list goes on and on and on, where, oddly, there's nothing yet anyone
> on iOS can propose that is the reverse (but that's just a detail because
> even if there was one thing that iOS could do that Android doesn't already
> do, it wouldn't change the overall summary one bit).

plenty of people have listed *numerous* things ios can do that android
can't, but every time, you either ignore it or fail to understand what
it means.

in any event, if android does what you want, get android. nobody gives
a shit.

[harry newton]

He who is nospam said on Wed, 27 Sep 2017 13:44:55 -0400:

>> or where the Mac doesn't run the common SSH
>> OpenVPN like every other platform does,
>
> nonsense. of course it does.
>
>> but you can find Tunnelblick
>> freeware so it's just the same, in the end, only different.
>
> so it does run it. contradicting yourself so quickly?

You, like most Apple apologists, seem to have bought too many arguments.
Your emotional attachment to the Mac trumps cold hard facts about the Mac.

Before you respond, just do this quick and simple test, taking note that
the words "OpenVPN" and "SSH" are facts that mean something, which your
answer shows you either ignored or you just don't understand the facts.

1. Install the real OpenVPN open-source software on the Mac.
NOTE: It should be obvious why the real open-source code implementation is
critical! Check the MD5 hash and all that too.

2. Then download any *.ovpn SSH-based config file from http://openvpn.net

3. Then show me that this SSH-based ovpn file works in the real OpenVPN
(open-source so it's well respected and inspected code) on the Mac.

When it fails, I already know what you'll do, which is change the
goalposts, since all you lifetime Apple Apologists play the same argument
game every time because you just don't like cold hard facts.

Your emotional attachment to the Mac trumps cold hard facts about the Mac.

[harry newton]

He who is Snit said on Tue, 26 Sep 2017 18:25:57 -0700:

> The question is why are you so insecure with your obvious preference for
> Android.

For decades, you Apple apologists have been baiting with your purely
emotional concoctions ... simply because you just don't like cold hard
facts about your beloved emotional choice of operating systems.

[harry newton]

He who is Snit said on Wed, 27 Sep 2017 08:01:15 -0700:

> What they are responding to is your blabbering about your preference for
> Android (which is fine) but doing so in a way that is so insecure and
> uncertain you feel the need to attack others (which is trolling).

It is very well known that I have used all the common consumer operating
system which have been available for decades and that I present cold hard
facts about them.

I only speak verifiable facts.

You seem to only think/speak/act in emotional diatribes.

The Apple apologists like you have been this way for decades.

[harry newton]

He who is nospam said on Wed, 27 Sep 2017 14:19:16 -0400:

>> More simple to understand examples:
>> . That you can't get a WiFi signal strength over time on iOS is a fact.
>> . That you can easily get WiFi signal strength over time on Android is a
>> fact.
>
> nope. as you've been repeatedly told, that's complete bullshit. it's
> *trivial* to get wifi signal strength on ios.

Of all the iOS ng posters, you know that I have always said you're one of
the more intelligent ones, so I realize your cleverly inserted change of my
words!

Clever you.

You should be a lawyer, as I have often told you, since you cleverly
contort the words where you actually know you're spinning a mistruth for
those who can't handle detail.

I said, and I quote verbatim:

. That you can't get a WiFi signal strength over time on iOS is a fact.
. That you can easily get WiFi signal strength over time on Android is a
fact.

Show me a single screenshot, on iOS, of a WiFi signal strength graph, over
time, from, oh, say, now, and to oh, say, five minutes from now, as you
walk about your house to analyze your WIFI strength in the various rooms.

You Apple apologists have, for decades, done this clever little trick:
1. You attack a single expample choosing one out of many to attack,
2. And then you cleverly distort what was said to imply something else.

It's the same trick the Apple apologists have been using for decades to
initiate, propagate, and perpetuate the OS-flame wars.

The only difference is that you're clever in that you know *exactly* what I
said and you know *exactly* how to contort what I said so that the hoi
polloi (who can't handle detail like you and I can) will be misled by your
clever contortion.

Kudos to you for being clever.

>> This list goes on and on and on, where, oddly, there's nothing yet anyone
>> on iOS can propose that is the reverse (but that's just a detail because
>> even if there was one thing that iOS could do that Android doesn't already
>> do, it wouldn't change the overall summary one bit).
>
> plenty of people have listed *numerous* things ios can do that android
> can't, but every time, you either ignore it or fail to understand what
> it means.

And yet, you can't list a single functionality (outside of meaningless
brand names and trademark names) that iOS devices can do that Android
devices don't already do.

What that just means is you don't like the cold hard fact that iOS is less
functional than Android, not because of the hardware, but simply because
Android will copy anything "new" that iOS can do, but, all the while, Apple
still severely limits what iOS apps can do.

I only speak verifiable fact.

[harry newton]

> When it fails, I already know what you'll do, which is change the
> goalposts, since all you lifetime Apple Apologists play the same argument
> game every time because you just don't like cold hard facts.

BTW, you Apple apologists have, for decades, done this clever little trick:
1. You attack a single example choosing the easiest out of many to attack,

2. And then you cleverly distort what was said to imply something else.

It's the same trick the rest of the Apple apologists have been using for

decades to initiate, propagate, and perpetuate the OS-flame wars.

You, and other Apple apologists, just don't like the facts that are
contrary to your emotional attachment to your beloved operating system.

[Snit]

On 9/27/17, 10:22 AM, in article oqgmoa$vdk$1...@gioia.aioe.org, "harry newton"

<ha...@is.invalid> wrote:

> He who is Snit said on Tue, 26 Sep 2017 18:28:58 -0700:
>
>> The question is why do you feel so insecure about your preference for
>> Android.
>
> Warning: Adult conversation below.
> <http://i68.tinypic.com/2zg6g7m.jpg>
>
> You keep saying that I have a "preference" for one operating system or the
> other, when it's well known that I've used them all and they all have huge
> philosophical differences while the mobile devices have huge (but one-way)
> functional differences.

You repeatedly insult users of iPhones even as you claim to be one. You make
false claims such as insisting iOS has NO features Android does not. You
make up stories about why people prefer iPhones.

In short: you show deep insecurity with your preference for Android...

I will grant that below you do MUCH better... and I thank and commend you
for it.

> In general, of the "common consumer" operating systems...
> 1. Linux is a mess, but getting better year after yet (I started with DEC
> VMS, IBM Assesmbly language, Fortran before 77, etc.) so I've been through
> Linux from Unix to SunOS to Solaris, etc., to Ubuntu, which is what I
> mostly use now. While I use Ubuntu for standards reason, I have uses CentOS
> and Redhat for industry reasons also. Same thing (yum versus apt-get), only
> a little different (consumer apps are lacking on Redhat systems). Overall,
> Linux gives us the most power at the ever-lessening cost of being less
> "standard" than Windows when problems arise.

To some extent I agree... desktop Linux is a bit of a mess. With giving the
most "power", it depends on what you mean by that. In some ways it does...
in other ways it is not. For example, if you are working with things best
done in the command line I think it is clear it is second to none (at least
when compared to Windows and macOS). When talking about other things,
though, it is not: this can include "advanced" things such as high end image
manipulation or screen-casting with the use of OS/GPU meta-data, to the
mundane such as rotating images in a word processor or having more efficient
PDF annotation workflows. The "mundane" examples I give there are possible
on Linux, but the competition makes them easier (and thus it is a "more
powerful" tool).

> 2. Windows gives me the most flexibility in that most problems are well
> known so I don't have to be a pioneer when issues arise. The best thing
> about Windows is that we've lived with it since DOS days so we're the most
> familiar with it. Really, the best thing about Windows is that it runs MS
> Office better than anything out there (see Mac below for example).

I tend to prefer macOS for most things, but sure, MS Office runs better on
Windows. No argument there.

> It just does. Funny that. I wonder if MS has anything to do with that. One
> beauty of Windows is that you can organize your desktop the way you want it to
> be, which was made slightly harder in Windows 10, but which still exists.
>
> 3. Mac OS I only use when I have to because of its arbitrary restrictions,
> for example, MS Office on the Mac won't embed fonts and worse, won't even
> respect Windows-embedded fonts or where the Mac doesn't run the common SSH
> OpenVPN like every other platform does, but you can find Tunnelblick
> freeware so it's just the same, in the end, only different.

Linux does not run MS Office at all (well, natively anyway... WINE is not
really going to cut it).

> Lots of things are different on the Mac just for differences sake (like the
> menu bar separates from the program) but you can get used to it all if you
> really want to use the Mac. The folks who love the Mac are those who both used
> it for a long time (as with Windows lovers) and who do all the
> desktop-publishing stuff (which I don't do).

I also like it for flexibility of work flows and customization. I can give
you some examples from "tasks" or "challenges" I and others have offered in
COLA (and perhaps elsewhere):

* From a single online recipe (or art project, lesson plan, online map,
whatever) save and email a PDF version with annotations. Now I know this
can be done on Linux; save, open, annotate, email. Just curious to see
how you people would generally do it and how streamlined the workflow
would be. A couple ways I might: <https://youtu.be/NPM_WldEBs0>.

* Make a screencast with cursor replacement / resizing (post
production), window highlighting, zooming, arbitrary area highlighting.
For me these were done just to show something else:
<https://youtu.be/aSNpnYpmKag>. I have many other options but picked
these because they fit the real-world example I did shortly before
coming up with the task.

* From an image of a forest, automate creation of lines showing borders of
where the trees are. Example of what I was able to do here:
<http://imgur.com/a/xdOpx>. No solution was shown for Linux.

* Getting a WayBackArchive page and getting images of all links, the
HTML validation and CSS validation from W3.org, and a active link to
the archive page, as I did here (does not have to look the exact same,
of course):
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandman/sandman-archive.pdf>.

* Starting with a spreadsheet 3D chart, have it be animated, including
with the top range expanding as needed and a color change with the
bar. More details here: <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/bar512>
(also shows Owl's solution). Marek tried but gave up and tried on a
competing system. And still failed.

* Make a video with an image appears to stay still even as the video
bounces some, and have the image disappear in a come-and-go fashion
sort of like seen on Doctor Who, and add multiple layers of sound. My
end result here: <https://youtu.be/jYqMGjGiqHg>.

There are actually quite a few more than those... but I fear that is already
too many. :)

> 4. iOS I use because people gave me mobile equipment and I buy mobile
> phones as gifts every year, and I have jailbroken an iOS device to use
> Cydia, so I'm familiar that everything common on iOS is fine but any time
> you want to go off road on iOS, basically Apple restricts what you can do.
> As you already know, I can list a dozen functions that iOS can't do that
> *every* other platform does out of hand, so let's not go there other than
> to agree that iOS is less functional than every other platform is (because
> Apple limits what it can do.

Your original claim was that iOS cannot do ANYTHING Android cannot. That was
shown to be false. As far as a count of functions I am not really
interested... I am more interested in what platform handles the functions I
want in the best way. On a more general look it would be what could
reasonably be expected that most people want. I think iOS does quite well
there, though some of your examples may be counter to it and I can add
others -- for example the way you can see and change the different volume
levels on Android is a lot easier. But Android also has inconsistencies like
sometimes having a screen-based back button and sometimes requiring you hit
the hardware back button.

> Suffice to say that I first easily do things on Android (like list all my apps
> to an editable file) and then when I find that iOS can't do it all by itself,
> I figure out how (it requires a separate computer plus iTunes to do something
> as simple as that). Most of the time the iOS device just can't do it (like
> automatic phone recording, or wifi signal strength over time or listing the
> "real" unique cell tower ID in any current iOS system or even having an app
> drawer app capability or or loading a new launcher or just renaming a program
> icon for heaven's sake, or torrenting, or something as simple as locking the
> rotation by application, or just organizing the icons on the desktop the way
> you want them organized).

I have no problem with you noting things Android does that iOS does not...
or noting where Android does it better. When you start insulting others with
a different preference than yours, though, you make yourself a fool. Here, I
am happy to see, you are doing much better.

> 5. Android is a mess. It's a royal mess. The version differences are a
> mess. The update strategy is a mess. The default spyware situation is a
> mess. The whole privacy thing is a mess. But ... Android is the most
> powerful and most flexible consumer mobile phone platform out there, bar
> none. It just does everything that you want it to do. Basically, it does
> what Linux does, which is everything, at the cost of complexity for some
> things.

I would disagree that it does everything I want it to do, and have given you
examples.

> As just one tiny simple powerful example, here's my well-organized desktop
> on my five-year old Android device where each icon is designed to be where
> it is for single-handled (left-hand in fact) operation and where *all* my
> Android devices (no matter that operating system version) are set up the
> same way for consistency:
> <http://i68.tinypic.com/2zg6g7m.jpg>
> Try to do something as trivial as organizing a desktop the way you want it
> organized on any iOS device, even the latest OS or any future OS - and you
> will "just give up" which is what iOS users are forced to do every day all
> day forever - since the lack of functionality on iOS devices is obvious to
> anyone who understands what Apple disallows the user from doing that no
> other OS disallows (all in the purported guise of "feeling" safe).

Now show how you set that up with a video showing the movement onscreen, the
sounds of the computer, and your voice as you want me through it.

Oh.

At least as far as I know Android does not allow that. But, sure, there are
things Android allows that iOS does not.

And since you compared apps, above (MS Office) compare the "same" apps on
iOS and Android. In general the apps on iOS do more and are faster.

> Basically, iOS is crippled in what it can do, not by the hardware, but by
> Apple. Perhaps the huge loss in functionality is to make people *feel*
> safer, which it may do, but how is someone safer by not being able to
> something as simple as organizing their desktop the way they want it
> organized?

I do not think you are using the word "safer" in a standard way here. Can
you explain?

> <http://i68.tinypic.com/2zg6g7m.jpg>

[nospam]

In article <oqgqt9$1765$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, harry newton

<ha...@is.invalid> wrote:

> It is very well known that I have used all the common consumer operating
> system which have been available for decades and that I present cold hard
> facts about them.

it's very well known that you're nothing more than an idiot troll.

[nospam]

In article <oqgrm3$18i2$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, harry newton

<ha...@is.invalid> wrote:

>
> Show me a single screenshot, on iOS, of a WiFi signal strength graph, over
> time, from, oh, say, now, and to oh, say, five minutes from now, as you
> walk about your house to analyze your WIFI strength in the various rooms.

been there done that. you don't want facts. you just want to rant.

> I only speak verifiable fact.

the only verifiable fact is that you're an idiot troll.

[Snit]

On 9/27/17, 10:48 AM, in article oqgo93$11v7$1...@gioia.aioe.org, "harry

newton" <ha...@is.invalid> wrote:

> He who is Snit said on Tue, 26 Sep 2017 18:27:04 -0700:
>
>> The question is why are you so insecure with your preference for Android.
>
> WARNING: Adult observation below:
>
> I've been on Usenet for decades (yes, that's plural) where in virtually all
> cases, the "mac versus windows" style "flame wars" are almost always
> started, and continued by the Apple apologists who feel hurt that facts
> about their product aren't the same as the *feeling* they have about their
> product.

Not sure why you are so excited by such "decades" of usenet use... most of
us still here have been here since the '90s or, in my case, the '80s. There
are some new-comers, of course, but being an "old timer" is pretty common on
usenet.

As far as such flame wars being pushed by Apple "apologists" that is
completely unsupported by you. It is your unsupported opinion. You are
welcome to it, of course, but do not expect me to adopt an unsupported
position that does not fit my experience.

> You, Snit, keep perpetuating this same Apple-induced insecurity, where you
> constantly want to force *your* personal dislike of facts about your
> beloved operation system as an argument upon others who simply state the
> facts as they are.

This is an unsupported claim on your part. This is YOU trying to push YOUR
flame war. While one example is not proof, it is counter to your intuition
of Mac users doing so, as is your insulting "apologists" comment.

> You'll notice I'm not going to play this ancient never-ending purely
> emotional always Apple-apologist-perpetuated Mac-versus-Windows game with
> you.

I am the one asking you to focus on evidence.

> This Mac-versus-Windows iOS-versus-Andoroid emotional game is *always*
> initiated, propagated, and perpetuated by the Apple apologists who can't
> handle solid cold hard facts about their choice of operating systems.

Your own trolling shows it is not "always" the case.

> As a trivial example:
> That you can't organize your app icons on iOS in two places is a fact.
> That you can organize app icons on Android in multiple places is a fact.

Has someone said otherwise?

> You don't like facts. I get it.

This is you trolling... a direct counter to your claims, above.

> You don't like that Apple limited what you can do on iOS. I get that too.
> You love iOS. I get that also.

This is you making things up about me and my views -- in other words, you
trolling.

> Lots and lots and lots of people love iOS (for example, half my family is
> on iOS and loves it, and, in fact, gave me iOS devices for free because
> they wanted me to love it too).
>
> There's nothing wrong with iOS for the people who love iOS.
> There's nothing wrong with iOS for the people who love Android.

Sure. Use what you prefer.

> What's different about iOS than Android is just cold hard fact.
> a. Apple mobile phone hardware, over the years, is about the same as
> Android hardware.

You claim this as a fact but offer ZERO support.

> b. Apple limits what iOS apps can do.

As does Android, sure.

> c. Therefore, Android apps will *always* do more than iOS apps can do.

A claim you have not supported... but not really interested in a check box
list.

> Those are just cold hard facts.

Nope. You make things up to push your trolling.

> If you don't like cold hard facts, that's fine - but that doesn't make me
> an iOS hater or an Android lover any more than cold hard facts about Linux
> or Windows makes me a Linux lover and a Windows hater.

See: more trolling from you.

> The simple reason you have such a problem with cold hard facts is the same
> simple reason Mac users from a decade ago had the same emotional problems
> that you have with iOS and Android.

More trolling from you.

> 1. You have EMOTIONALLY chosen a girlfriend (in this case, iOS).
> 2. She has some huge flaws that you don't seem to notice or care about.
> 3. That's fine - but you get emotional when someone points those flaws out.

More trolling from you.

> When someone tells you your girlfriend has only one leg and she can't shake
> your hand because she's missing fingers, you profess to say that they don't
> like your girlfriend.

More trolling from you.

> All they're telling you is that your choice of girlfriends is missing all
> the fingers in one hand, and she's missing a leg.

More trolling from you.

> Those are just cold hard facts.
> You are the reason there are flame wars because you can't handle the facts.

More trolling from you.

> I know you better than you know yourself in that I've seen people like you
> for decades, where you have an emotional *feeling* that trumps facts about
> your beloved choice of operating systems.

More trolling from you.

> Anyway, the on-topic point to bring up here are the two valid questions:
> 1. What *is* a good test of the resistance of the glass to shattering?

Not sure... have pointed you to multiple drop tests... most of which iPhones
do well with.

> 2. Why make an already fragile device even more fragile with a glass back?

It offers other benefits... but I think a high quality plastic would be
better... or other protection.

[Snit]

On 9/27/17, 11:05 AM, in article oqgp8m$13tv$1...@gioia.aioe.org, "harry

newton" <ha...@is.invalid> wrote:

> He who is Snit said on Tue, 26 Sep 2017 18:22:45 -0700:
>
>> So why are you so insecure with your preference for Android?
>
> WARNING: I'm trying to tell you, in an adult way, what you're doing because
> I know history of the Mac/Windows flame wars very well (since people like
> you who love to play them abound).

In other words you are warning me you are about to troll me. NOT interested.
And what follows is you trolling me. NOT interested.

When you can stop making up stories about me and trolling me I will be more
interested.

[Snit]

On 9/27/17, 11:27 AM, in article oqgqih$16gm$1...@gioia.aioe.org, "harry

newton" <ha...@is.invalid> wrote:

> He who is nospam said on Wed, 27 Sep 2017 13:44:55 -0400:
>
>>> or where the Mac doesn't run the common SSH
>>> OpenVPN like every other platform does,
>>
>> nonsense. of course it does.
>>
>>> but you can find Tunnelblick
>>> freeware so it's just the same, in the end, only different.
>>
>> so it does run it. contradicting yourself so quickly?
>
> You, like most Apple apologists,

This is you name calling -- trolling. Not interested.

And below I merely skimmed... if there is a nugget of value in your trolling
you will have to point it out.

> seem to have bought too many arguments.
> Your emotional attachment to the Mac trumps cold hard facts about the Mac.
>
> Before you respond, just do this quick and simple test, taking note that
> the words "OpenVPN" and "SSH" are facts that mean something, which your
> answer shows you either ignored or you just don't understand the facts.
>
> 1. Install the real OpenVPN open-source software on the Mac.
> NOTE: It should be obvious why the real open-source code implementation is
> critical! Check the MD5 hash and all that too.
>
> 2. Then download any *.ovpn SSH-based config file from http://openvpn.net
>
> 3. Then show me that this SSH-based ovpn file works in the real OpenVPN
> (open-source so it's well respected and inspected code) on the Mac.
>
> When it fails, I already know what you'll do, which is change the
> goalposts, since all you lifetime Apple Apologists play the same argument
> game every time because you just don't like cold hard facts.
>
> Your emotional attachment to the Mac trumps cold hard facts about the Mac.

[Snit]

On 9/27/17, 11:30 AM, in article oqgqo0$16pk$1...@gioia.aioe.org, "harry

More trolling by you.

[Snit]

On 9/27/17, 11:33 AM, in article oqgqt9$1765$1...@gioia.aioe.org, "harry

You keep lying and trolling and then saying you speak facts. Not interested.

[Snit]

On 9/27/17, 11:46 AM, in article oqgrm3$18i2$1...@gioia.aioe.org, "harry

Two seconds of searching:

<https://iphonebyte.com/wifi-signal-strength-meter-apps/>

>>> This list goes on and on and on, where, oddly, there's nothing yet anyone
>>> on iOS can propose that is the reverse (but that's just a detail because
>>> even if there was one thing that iOS could do that Android doesn't already
>>> do, it wouldn't change the overall summary one bit).
>>
>> plenty of people have listed *numerous* things ios can do that android
>> can't, but every time, you either ignore it or fail to understand what
>> it means.
>
> And yet, you can't list a single functionality (outside of meaningless
> brand names and trademark names) that iOS devices can do that Android
> devices don't already do.

I have. You ignore it.

> What that just means is you don't like the cold hard fact that iOS is less
> functional than Android, not because of the hardware, but simply because
> Android will copy anything "new" that iOS can do, but, all the while, Apple
> still severely limits what iOS apps can do.
>
> I only speak verifiable fact.

You are lying and trolling.

[Snit]

On 9/27/17, 11:50 AM, in article oqgruc$1934$1...@gioia.aioe.org, "harry

More trolling from you.

[Snit]

On 9/27/17, 10:44 AM, in article 270920171344546405%nos...@nospam.invalid,

So you have no issue with the glass back. OK.

[Snit]

On 9/27/17, 12:02 PM, in article 270920171502034135%nos...@nospam.invalid,

"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <oqgrm3$18i2$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, harry newton
> <ha...@is.invalid> wrote:
>
>>
>> Show me a single screenshot, on iOS, of a WiFi signal strength graph, over
>> time, from, oh, say, now, and to oh, say, five minutes from now, as you
>> walk about your house to analyze your WIFI strength in the various rooms.
>
> been there done that. you don't want facts. you just want to rant.

<https://iphonebyte.com/wifi-signal-strength-meter-apps>

Multiple options for him... including ones that show it over time.

>> I only speak verifiable fact.
>
> the only verifiable fact is that you're an idiot troll.

[JF Mezei]

The problem is that the vast majority of people put a cover on their phones.

But Apple never markets its phone with a cover on it, so it needs to
make the "naked" iphone look very shiny and sexy. Plastic would not fill
that need.

On the other hand, I have to wonder how many back-glass breakage happens
with a rubber cover on phone.

[nospam]

In article <D5F14961.B95F7%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>, Snit

<use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

> >
> >> As it is, glass phones tend to shatter when dropped. That is not a good
> >> thing. So people pretty much need cases.
> >
> > no. what they need is to learn not to drop their phones.
>
> So you have no issue with the glass back. OK.

neither do most people.

many android phones have a glass back, including the google pixel,
which is both glass *and* metal and must be replaced as a set.

<http://www.techlech.com/featured/google-pixel-pixel-xl-rear-glass-shatt
ered-your-options>
Repairing the shattered rear glass on a Google Pixel is possible ­
but, for a proper repair, you¹ll have to replace the entire aluminium
case, because the aluminium case and rear glass are one part.

[nospam]

In article <59cc0a7e$0$29824$b1db1813$e2fc...@news.astraweb.com>, JF

Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> The problem is that the vast majority of people put a cover on their phones.

it's not a problem at all.

> But Apple never markets its phone with a cover on it, so it needs to
> make the "naked" iphone look very shiny and sexy. Plastic would not fill
> that need.

it has less to do with shiny and sexy and more to do with the fit and
finish and manufacturing tolerances for metal or glass being much
better than plastic.

> On the other hand, I have to wonder how many back-glass breakage happens
> with a rubber cover on phone.

even without a case, it's not that common.

apple sells over 200 million phones per year, so even if just 1% of
users break their phones (mostly due to their own klutziness), that's
still a lot of people. nothing is perfect.

[Snit]

On 9/27/17, 1:41 PM, in article 270920171641271999%nos...@nospam.invalid,

Add to that, the iPhone does better in drop tests than does the competition,
at least in several tests. Still, I would personally prefer a more durable
device even if slightly thicker or heavier. But that is just my
preference...

[nospam]

In article <D5F16121.B962A%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>, Snit

<use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

> >>>> As it is, glass phones tend to shatter when dropped. That is not a good
> >>>> thing. So people pretty much need cases.
> >>>
> >>> no. what they need is to learn not to drop their phones.
> >>
> >> So you have no issue with the glass back. OK.
> >
> > neither do most people.
> >
> > many android phones have a glass back, including the google pixel,
> > which is both glass *and* metal and must be replaced as a set.
> >
> > <http://www.techlech.com/featured/google-pixel-pixel-xl-rear-glass-shatt
> > ered-your-options>
> > Repairing the shattered rear glass on a Google Pixel is possible ­
> > but, for a proper repair, you¹ll have to replace the entire aluminium
> > case, because the aluminium case and rear glass are one part.
>
> Add to that, the iPhone does better in drop tests than does the competition,
> at least in several tests. Still, I would personally prefer a more durable
> device even if slightly thicker or heavier. But that is just my
> preference...

apple still sells the iphone se, 6s and 7, all of which are metal.

the iphone 6, 5s and 5 are available on the used market, also metal.

[Snit]

On 9/27/17, 2:13 PM, in article 270920171713096132%nos...@nospam.invalid,

True... but if I was in the market for the newest AND wanted it to be the
most durable I would have to decide. Which is OK... Apple cannot make models
to please all tastes at all times. And if money was not an issue I would
likely go with the glass back... and then get a cover.

[harry newton]

He who is nospam said on Wed, 27 Sep 2017 15:02:03 -0400:

>> Show me a single screenshot, on iOS, of a WiFi signal strength graph, over
>> time, from, oh, say, now, and to oh, say, five minutes from now, as you
>> walk about your house to analyze your WIFI strength in the various rooms.
>
> been there done that. you don't want facts. you just want to rant.

Heh heh heh ... the newsgroups, as a whole, will note your complete
inability to prove *anything* of what you say after you just said it's
"trivial" to graph WiFi signal strength over time on iOS.

Here's simple verifiable valid logical proof of what I say:
<http://i64.tinypic.com/27xi5hf.jpg>

Where's your proof?
(HINT: No sputtering. No excuses. Just snap a screenshot of your proof!)

What just happened is:
a. Someone made a factual statement (listing many facts)
b. The Apple Apologist disputed one fact by cleverly distorting the words
c. When confronted with his clever distortion (he knew exactly what I said)
d. He can't prove the simplest of things that he said were true.

The fact is the newsgroup can *always* trust my statements of fact, and,
more importantly, the newsgroup can *never* trust nospam who lied in this
last instance perhaps even as bold faced as Apple Marketing did as
described in the OP.

Notice that it took a single button press inside an app to present this
WiFi signal strength graph of multiple SSIDs gathered from multiple places
in my house, over time (five minutes) on my five-year old Android device:
<http://i64.tinypic.com/27xi5hf.jpg>

To my point that all iOS devices are crippled in functionality, notice
that, even the latest iOS devices can't do something as simple as that -
and yet - nospam just said he's "proved" many times that iOS can.

And never once a single valid verified fact like this from nospam. :)

Here's my Android proof of WiFi signal strength graphs over time:
<http://i64.tinypic.com/27xi5hf.jpg>

Here's nospam's proof that it's "trivial" to do that same thing on iOS:
< ? >

[harry newton]

He who is Snit said on Wed, 27 Sep 2017 12:09:09 -0700:

> As far as such flame wars being pushed by Apple "apologists" that is
> completely unsupported by you. It is your unsupported opinion. You are
> welcome to it, of course, but do not expect me to adopt an unsupported
> position that does not fit my experience.

History doesn't repeat, but it rhymes.
Just look at what you are doing here.

You don't like the cold honest hard fact that Apple iOS mobile phones don't
have anywhere near the app functionality that Android mobile phones have.

That's OK; but you argue that it does - and - worse - you can't find a
single functionality that iOS devices can do that Android devices don't
already do (where it's important to remove brand names and trademarks to
concentrate on the actual functionality that the user gains).

You don't like these two cold hard valid verifiable facts:
1. Android devices have far more functionality than iOS devices, and,
2. There is no functionality on iOS that isn't already on Android.

Let's always be clear the *reason* for this cold hard honest fact is not
that Android is "better" but the fact is a fact because it's a fact that
Apple *limits* what iOS can do.

We can argue *why* Apple limits iOS functionality - but that's a different
discussion which we could argue would have a different answer for why Apple
doesn't allow the iOS user to torrent versus why Apple doesn't allow the
iOS user to automatically record phone calls versus why Apple doesn't allow
the iOS user to graph wifi signal strength over time versus why Apple
doesn't allow the iOS user to have an icon in multiple places for
organization versus why Apple doesn't currently allow the iOS user to
obtain the unique cell-tower ID versus why Apple doesn't allow the iOS user
to put their icons on any grid they desire versus ... (the list goes on and
on as to what functionality Apple doesn't allow iOS users to do).

The fact is that iOS will never have anywhere near the functionality of
Android, not because of the hardware functionality (which is, consistently
over the years, about the same), but because of two basic circumstances:
a. Android both invents and copies functionality at will, and,
b. Apple severely constrains what functionality iOS apps can do.

You either understand or you don't understand these two decisions result in
iOS always being far less functional than Android, where there is plenty on
Android that will never be on iOS, and where there is no functionality
whatsoever on iOS that isn't already on Android.

You don't have to like facts - but that doesn't change that they're facts.