Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus)

[sms]

Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off)

<https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16875209541&cm_re=moto_x4-_-75-209-541-_-Product>

This phone is in high demand. Most places are selling it for $300 or
$350
<https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1357016-REG/motorola_pa8s0006us_moto_x_4th_gen.html>
or
<https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1357016-REG/motorola_pa8s0006us_moto_x_4th_gen.html>.

It's the closest Android phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus). There are very
few quad-carrier Android phones that are not 5.5" or larger. Some people
prefer a smaller screen phone, and only the really junky GSM-only phones
are typically available in smaller screen sizes anymore.

Here is part of a spreadsheet I put together, these columns compare the
iPhone 8 (non-plus) to the Moto X4, see
<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HI-ejgQF5-OfJdS7yj-YL_we-v1PiMG0_JM8nGAlN38>.
Each has some areas where they are better. The X4 has a higher
resolution screen, more RAM, a front flash, better cameras, Micro SD
Card Slot, 3.5mm Headphone Jack, FM radio, USB OTG, Adobe Flash Support,
and is IP68 rather than just IP67. However the CPU in the X4 is
significantly slower than the one in the iPhone 8, and the iPhone 8 has
a few more LTE bands, and has less ROM built-in.

[nospam]

In article <plvq97$uhl$1...@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> Adobe Flash Support,

android hasn't supported flash in *years*.

[Arlen Holder]

While nospam always finds the *worst* comparisons (which takes zero brains
to find a terrible comparison), you found a pretty good comparison here.

In our last honest hardware comparison, together, we determined anyone in
the USA could buy five (5) far more functional Android phones for the price
of a single far less functional iPhone 7 Plus:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/HDI8moW_4Pw/fFqp2LudAQAJ>

Similarly, depending on the price of the 64GB 8-core MotoX, it seems that
not only is the MotoX far more functional than the 5-core iPhone 8, but you
can buy about two (2) of the far more functional Android Moto X4 phones for
the price of a single far less functional iPhone 8.

Here's your spreadsheet in terms of what's better:
*MotoX4 wins* on Resolution functionality
*MotoX4 wins* on Screen Size functionality
*MotoX4 wins* on Pixels Per Inch functionality
iPhone wins on Geekbench functionality
*MotoX4 wins* on Battery functionality (even with the "courageous" jack)
*MotoX4 wins* on RAM functionality (with 3 or 4GB being the two options)
*MotoX4 wins* on Front Camera Pixels functionality
*MotoX4 wins* on Front Flash functionality
*MotoX4 wins* on NFC functionality
*MotoX4 wins* on SDcard functionality (up to 2TB storage)
*MotoX4 wins* on "courageous" headphone jack functionality
*MotoX4 wins* on FM radio functionality
*MotoX4 wins* on USB OTG functionality
*MotoX4 wins* on Adobe Flash Support
*MotoX4 wins* on Waterproofing (even with the "courageous" headphone jack)
*MotoX4 wins* on Price-to-performance/features/functionality (by far

As with the last test of the 8-core $130 LG Stylo 3 Plus against the 3-core
Resolution: iPhone8 is 750x1334 vs MotoX4 is 1080x1920
Screen Size: iPhone 8 is 4.7inches vs MotoX4 is 5.2 inches
Pixels Per Inch: iPhone8 is 326ppi vs MotoX4 is 424ppi
Geekbench Multi-Core: iPhone 8 is 10118 vs MotoX4 is 4098
Quad-Carrier: Both are quad carrier
LTE Bands: iPhone 8 is 1,2,3,4,5,7,8,12,13,17,18,19,20,25,26,28,29,30,66
vs MotoX4 1,2,3,4,5,7,8,12,13,17,20,25,26,28,66
Battery Capacity: (mAH) iPhone8 is 1821 vs Moto X4 is 3000
RAM: iPhone8 is 2GB vs MotoX4 is 3GB (with 4GB being optionally available)
ROM: iPhone is 64GB minimum, MotoX4 minimum is 32GB
Rear Camera: Both are 12 Mpixels
Front Camera: iPhone 8 is 7 Mpixels vs MotoX4 is 16MPixels
Front Flash: iPhone 8 has no functionality vs MotoX4 front flash
Wi-Fi: Both are 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
NFC: iPhone8 is Apple Pay Only vs MotoX4 has NFC
Face ID: Neither phone has Face ID
Iris Scan: Neither phone has Iris Scan
Fingerprint Reader: Both phones have a fingerprint reader
Micro SD Card Slot: iPhone8 lacks basic functionality vs MotoX has it
3.5mm Headphone Jack: iPhone8 lacks basic functionality vs MotoX has it
FM radio: iPhone8 lacks basic functionality vs MotoX has it
USB OTG: iPhone8 lacks basic functionality vs MotoX has it
Adobe Flash Support: iPhone8 lacks basic functionality vs MotoX has it
Waterproof: iPhone8 is IP67 vs MotoX is IP68
Street Price $699 (64GB) $200-300 (periodically on sale)

In summary, the 8-core far more functional Android Moto X4 is about half
the price of the far less functional 5-core iPhone 8.

Plus: There's no way of knowing yet if Apple will throttle the iPhone 8 to
half the originally tested CPU speeds in just about a year anyway.

[Arlen Holder]

On 27 Aug 2018 03:56:25 GMT, Arlen Holder wrote:

> *MotoX4 wins* on Adobe Flash Support

https://www.gsmarc.com/motorola/moto-x4/reviews/

This says "browser also supports Adobe Flash", which is strange given that
Flash Support was mutually removed by Google/Adobe in Android 4.0.

So this bears more scrutiny - but it's not a critical feature since,
apparently, people who really want flash can add flash by side loading
(according to this article on the Moto X):
<http://motoxhub.com/how-to-add-flash-player-support-on-moto-x-especially-after-kitkat-update/>

[SC Tom]

"sms" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:plvq97$uhl$1...@dont-email.me...

> Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off)
>
> <https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16875209541&cm_re=moto_x4-_-75-209-541-_-Product>
>

Not anymore :-(

[sms]

Flash works fine on Android devices. It's no longer included on the
Chrome browser that ships with Android. You have to install Flash
support from the Google Play store.

There are two browsers for Android that I know of where you can run
Flash by installing the Flash extension:
1. Firefox
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=mobi.browser.flashfox>
2. Dolphin
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.dolphin.browser.engine>.

The reason why I included Flash support in my little comparison
spreadsheet
<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HI-ejgQF5-OfJdS7yj-YL_we-v1PiMG0_JM8nGAlN38>
is because everyone occasionally ends up on sites that require Adobe
Flash support, and it's annoying to not be able to view the site. As
9to5Mac stated: "Despite a long list of technological disadvantages and
better technology emerging, Adobe’s Flash Player has refused to die on
its own." Even though Adobe has said that it will stop distributing its
Flash player in 2020, Flash will live on for many years after that.

I went back and put in a footnote on the spreadsheet, "*Install Firefox
or Dolphin Browser and Flash Extension from Google Play Store"

[sms]

Oh well, looks like it was only for one day. It comes and goes. It's a
phone from last year but it is still selling well and apparently they're
not going to do an X5.

Amazon seems to always have it for $250, but they will only sell it to
Amazon Prime members, and it has some Amazon stuff on it
<https://www.amazon.com/dp/B077RNH9HT>.

[nospam]

In article <pm146v$ral$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> Flash works fine on Android devices.

flash has never worked fine on android. it was intolerably slow and a
major battery drain when it was included ago, two key reasons why
support for it was removed.

flash is dead.

[Arlen Holder]

On 27 Aug 2018 08:09:18 GMT, sms wrote:

> I went back and put in a footnote on the spreadsheet, "*Install Firefox
> or Dolphin Browser and Flash Extension from Google Play Store"

It works in other browsers too, but it's a minor point so I wouldn't let
nospam derail the overall topic, which is that the Moto X4 seems to be
about half the price of the far less functional iPhone 8.

The last time we did an apples-to-apples detailed comparison, the 64GB $130
8-core LG Stylo 3 Plus was five times less expensive than a far less
functional $640 64GB 3-core iPhone 7 Plus.

To obtain a more accurate comparison, do you have a price for the 8-core
64GB Moto X4 so we can make a more accurate comparison on price than just
"about half" for the 5-core 64GB iPhone 8?

Also, does Apple also throttle the iPhone 8 to half the CPU speeds after
about a year (I haven't looked at the throttling since I initially broke
the news to this newsgroup earlier in the year - where - the world will
note that nospam and the other Apple Apologists essentially blamed Android
for Apple's secret, drastic, and permanent throttling of the iPhone 7 Plus
such that it was even a worse comparison than the one we made in December
to the five-times-less-expensive but far-more-functional Android equivalent
phone.

[Arlen Holder]

On 27 Aug 2018 08:33:00 GMT, nospam wrote:

> flash has never worked fine on android. it was intolerably slow and a
> major battery drain when it was included ago, two key reasons why
> support for it was removed.

What nospam is trying to do is deflect the main focus that the half as
expensive 8-core Android Moto X4 is a far more functional device in almost
all respects (both hardware and software) than the twice-as expensive
5-core iPhone 8.

We found nospam similarly deflecting the overall hardware/software
comparison when we proved beyond a doubt that you can buy five (5) far more
functional 8-core Android LG Stylo 3 Plus phones for the price of just one
far less functional 3-core iPhone 7 Plus.

As always, nospam is trying to deflect the focus off this point, where his
utter lack of credibility is due mostly to his imaginary belief system
leaving no room for actual factual reality such that everything in nospam's
make-believe walled garden world is exactly as Steve Jobs had wished it
would be.

Nonetheless, flash exists, and can be added to Android phones, if the user
so desires. And plenty want it - just as even more don't want it. But as
always with all things Android, the intelligent user has the choice.
<https://duckduckgo.com/html?q=add%20adobe%20flash%20to%20android%207>

The Adobe Flash software is here:
http://download.macromedia.com/pub/flashplayer/installers/archive/android/11.1.115.81/install_flash_player_ics.apk

Always remember that the Apple user makes almost every decision based on an
inordiant utterly all encompassing *fear* of technology combined with a
slavish desire to follow someone elses' feeling of style (e.g., that's why
colors and emoji's are a "big deal" to many Apple buyers).

The Apple owner is an Apple owner due mainly to three inbred forces:
a. Utter abject fear
b. Slavish adherance to style
c. Lack of any concept of logical price-to-performance comparisons
(for the two reasons above)

Just watch.
Everything nospam says fits into one of those three categories.

[sms]

On 8/27/2018 9:12 AM, Arlen Holder wrote:
> On 27 Aug 2018 08:09:18 GMT, sms wrote:
>
>> I went back and put in a footnote on the spreadsheet, "*Install Firefox
>> or Dolphin Browser and Flash Extension from Google Play Store"
>
> It works in other browsers too, but it's a minor point so I wouldn't let
> nospam derail the overall topic, which is that the Moto X4 seems to be
> about half the price of the far less functional iPhone 8.

There are almost no quad-carrier, smaller screen, mid-range or high-end
Android phones available anymore, so the Moto X fills a niche. What's
also nice is that they do full Android upgrades, they pushed out Oreo a
while back. There are a few smaller GSM/LTE models but they tend to be
very low end. Not everyone wants a phablet. My wife could have chosen an
iPhone Plus, instead of a non-Plus, from work, but didn't want a larger
phone.

It will be interesting to see what the next iPhone generation has in
terms of screen sizes. They are predicted to introduce a 5.8", 6.1", and
6.5" model, but whether or not their is a smaller one, similar to the
current non-plus models, remains to be seen. You may have to go down to
an SE to get a smaller screen. They could do a bezel-less 5.2" to 5.3"
in the same form factor as the current iPhone non-plus.

> The last time we did an apples-to-apples detailed comparison, the 64GB $130
> 8-core LG Stylo 3 Plus was five times less expensive than a far less
> functional $640 64GB 3-core iPhone 7 Plus.
>
> To obtain a more accurate comparison, do you have a price for the 8-core
> 64GB Moto X4 so we can make a more accurate comparison on price than just
> "about half" for the 5-core 64GB iPhone 8?

Counting cores is meaningless, You need to look at actual
performance.The Stylo 3 Plus has a dismal Geekbench multicore result of
2578, the iPhone 8 is at 10178. That said, I've never found the Stylo 3
Plus to lag, but I don't play games that would use a lot of CPU power. I
also don't have full-encryption turned on, which is a big CPU drain.

> Also, does Apple also throttle the iPhone 8 to half the CPU speeds after
> about a year

Unlikely. If you look at the iPhone 8 design, the power section has been
significantly upgraded from the iPhone 7/6s/6, with the addition of
third PMIC
<http://techinsights.com/about-techinsights/overview/blog/apple-iphone-8-teardown/#06>

The root cause of the throttling was not an aged battery, but a new
battery did mitigate the issue. When doing power management design you
need to account for the reduced capacity of Li-Ion batteries as they age
and ensure that your power solution can deliver sufficient current even
from an older battery.

[nospam]

In article <pm1dpm$1eo$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> The root cause of the throttling was not an aged battery,

yes it very definitely was.

[sms]

On 8/27/2018 9:12 AM, Arlen Holder wrote:

> On 27 Aug 2018 08:33:00 GMT, nospam wrote:
>
>> flash has never worked fine on android. it was intolerably slow and a
>> major battery drain when it was included ago, two key reasons why
>> support for it was removed.
>
> What nospam is trying to do is deflect the main focus that the half as
> expensive 8-core Android Moto X4 is a far more functional device in almost
> all respects (both hardware and software) than the twice-as expensive
> 5-core iPhone 8.

He's simply incorrect about Flash not working well. It works just fine.

I'm sure he could find a $40 Android Tracfone, or a $59 tablet, with 1GB
of ROM and a slow CPU, where Flash is flaky.

It was back in the day of Froyo (2010), when hardware was much slower,
that Flash didn't work well, which is why Google removed it from the
Chrome browser for Android. With Ice Cream Sandwich and greater the
hardware was fast enough for Flash to run perfectly.

On any current mid-range to high-end phone or tablet Flash is not a
problem. Software decoding does require a lot of CPU cycles, so it does
drain the battery faster, but there are many apps that have high battery
drain, so that's a senseless excuse to not provide functionality.

[nospam]

In article <pm1ee9$ecf$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> >
> >> flash has never worked fine on android. it was intolerably slow and a
> >> major battery drain when it was included ago, two key reasons why
> >> support for it was removed.
> >
> > What nospam is trying to do is deflect the main focus that the half as
> > expensive 8-core Android Moto X4 is a far more functional device in almost
> > all respects (both hardware and software) than the twice-as expensive
> > 5-core iPhone 8.
>
> He's simply incorrect about Flash not working well. It works just fine.

it doesn't work just fine and never has, even on desktop computers.
flash has always been a cpu hog full of security exploits. adobe ceased
development of mobile flash long ago.

flash is dead.

> Software decoding does require a lot of CPU cycles, so it does
> drain the battery faster,

in other words, it doesn't work just fine.

[Arlen Holder]

On 27 Aug 2018 10:52:51 GMT, sms wrote:

> Not everyone wants a phablet. My wife could have chosen an
> iPhone Plus, instead of a non-Plus, from work, but didn't want a larger
> phone.

As you know, I give out about a half dozen or so phones a year as gifts to
my relatives (they all come to me for phone advice) which is why I have
plenty of Android and iOS devices on hand at any one time (although the
iPhones tend to be kept longer than the Android devices as those recipients
are far more brand loyal).

For me, the phablet ($130 LG Stylo 3 Plus) is a good size for my tired old
eyes, but as a gift to technically inclined boys, the Moto X4 you speak of
seems to be a *great* competitor to the far less functional iPhone 8 (which
costs about twice as much for about half as much hardware functionality).

The RAM alone on the Moto X4 is up to double that of the less functional
iPhone 8, and that's before we even begin to count that there is no app
functionality on iOS that isn't already on Android while the amount of app
functionality on Android literally makes iOS app functionality look
downright primitive.

The *only* advantage of the iPhone 8 over the Moto X seems to be the
benchmark scores - which - are important - but - it's hard to compare since
they're run on different operating systems - and - in the past - Apple has
secretly, drastically, and permanently *halved* the CPU performance of its
recent phones.

So a key question to look up (which I haven't looked up) is whether Apple
will halve the CPU performance of the iPhone 8 in about a year?

If it does, then there is _nothing_ hardwarewise that the iPhone 8 has that
isn't already in the Moto X4 and there is still plenty of hardware
functionality in the Moto X that isn't in the iPhone 8 (nor in any iPhone
ever built).

> It will be interesting to see what the next iPhone generation has in
> terms of screen sizes.

When I give out gifts, I find out from the parents what the kids want,
where most of the non technical girls want iPhones while the technical boys
generally want whatever works best.

The boys aren't necessarily against Apple equipment - they're just not so
driven by fear and style as are the girls, in my experience.

> Counting cores is meaningless, You need to look at actual
> performance.The Stylo 3 Plus has a dismal Geekbench multicore result of
> 2578, the iPhone 8 is at 10178. That said, I've never found the Stylo 3
> Plus to lag, but I don't play games that would use a lot of CPU power. I
> also don't have full-encryption turned on, which is a big CPU drain.

As you know, I have iOS and Android equipment, where my current iOS device
is the $300 Costco WiFi-only 128GB iPad and my current Android device is
the $130 LG Stylo 3 Plus.

I find neither of them "lags". I don't run Spice simulations on them, nor
do I use AutoCAD vector graphics CAD programs. I don't play silly games
either.

I use the phones for the typical stuff (talking, texting, emailing, videos,
automatic call recording, automatic SMS texting, calendaring, minimal web
browsing, mapping, traffic, routing, wifi debugging, cellular debugging,
etc.), where I find the Android device far more functional overall with
respect to software applications.

I'm sure "gaming" stresses the device - but it's the last thing from my
mind, and, I might add, I've asked the kids who get the phones as gifts,
where the older ones (teens and up) do their gaming on desktops with NVidia
graphics cards, and the youngish ones (elementary school) are the only ones
"gaming" on the mobile devices.

While CPU performance is always a "good thing", you have to remember that
Apple secretly, drastically, and permanently *halved* the CPU performance
of the iPhone 7 Plus I'm comparing my LG Stylo 3 Plus to ... where almost
all the hardware on the LG was *better* than the iPhone other than the two
important factors of CPU speed and RAM.

So I agree that the CPU & RAM are important, but since Apple is going to
permanently halve the iPhone 7 Plus CPU after about a year, then the iPhone
7 Plus benchmark scores are completely bogus.

> Unlikely. If you look at the iPhone 8 design, the power section has been
> significantly upgraded from the iPhone 7/6s/6, with the addition of
> third PMIC
> <http://techinsights.com/about-techinsights/overview/blog/apple-iphone-8-teardown/#06>
>
> The root cause of the throttling was not an aged battery, but a new
> battery did mitigate the issue. When doing power management design you
> need to account for the reduced capacity of Li-Ion batteries as they age
> and ensure that your power solution can deliver sufficient current even
> from an older battery.

I am well aware that the real problem with the current generation of iPhone
is simply stated as a "defective design", which Apple tried to secretly
mask by drastically and permanently throttling the CPU speeds such that all
benchmark scores are bogus for the affected set of iPhones.

If we had faith that Apple wasn't going to secretly, drastically, and
permanently throttle the iPhone 8, then at least we can trust its benchmark
scores to be about what you get after about a year of use.

The problem with comparing benchmark scores is that they don't necessarily
translate between operating systems - and - benchmarks aren't necessarily a
good test of what the user actually does - but - it's likely the best we
have.

Hence, as logical sentient adults, we can hand the 5-core iPhone 8 a
benchmark win on hardware (which is important) but we have to weigh that
one factor against the fact that the hardware of the twice-as-expensive
iPhone 8 appears to be inferior to all the other hardware features you
noted in your spreadsheet.
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/HDI8moW_4Pw/fFqp2LudAQAJ>

For the money you spend on the iPhone, you can get two better Android
phones, it seems, not only based on hardware features alone but on software
(where even a five year old Android phone has far more app functionality
than any iPhone ever made).

[Arlen Holder]

On 27 Aug 2018 11:19:39 GMT, nospam wrote:

> flash is dead.

As always, less function iPhone hardware is usually from two to five times
more expensive than the more functional Android hardware.

You, nospam, desperately want the focus of this thread to NOT be on what it
is intended to be, which is a decent hardware comparison of these phones:
a. 8-core 64-bit Moto X4 (with 3 or optionally 4GB RAM)
b. 6-core 64-bit iPhone 8 (with 2GB RAM only available) [actually 5 cores]

Based on this chart:
<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HI-ejgQF5-OfJdS7yj-YL_we-v1PiMG0_JM8nGAlN38>

The Moto X4 is "about half the price", and the Moto X4 has the following
hardware advantages over the iPhone 8.

*MotoX4 wins* on Resolution functionality
*MotoX4 wins* on Screen Size functionality
*MotoX4 wins* on Pixels Per Inch functionality
iPhone wins on Geekbench functionality
*MotoX4 wins* on Battery functionality (even with the "courageous" jack)
*MotoX4 wins* on RAM functionality (with 3 or 4GB being the two options)
*MotoX4 wins* on Front Camera Pixels functionality
*MotoX4 wins* on Front Flash functionality
*MotoX4 wins* on NFC functionality
*MotoX4 wins* on SDcard functionality (up to 2TB storage)
*MotoX4 wins* on "courageous" headphone jack functionality
*MotoX4 wins* on FM radio functionality
*MotoX4 wins* on USB OTG functionality

*MotoX4 wins* on Adobe Flash Support

*MotoX4 wins* on Waterproofing (even with the "courageous" headphone jack)

*MotoX4 wins* on Price (by a whopping 100%)

While you deprecate the "adobe flash support" of the Android phone, an
Android user can at least choose to use it or not - whereas - for example -
for the iPhone user, the lack of battery functionality, screen resolution,
screen size, "courageous" jack, FM radio, waterproofing, camera flash,
sdcard, radio, OTG, etc., hardware functionality cannot be easily added by
the consumer.

As always, you _hate_ a logical price-to-performance comparison between
Android and iOS which is witnessed by the fact that you _always_ come up
with the absolute worst comparisons (which takes zero brains).

What sms came up with is, apparently, at least to logical adult thinkers, a
pretty good price to performance comparison.

Do you deny any of sms' facts in his spreadsheet (other than Flash)?
<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HI-ejgQF5-OfJdS7yj-YL_we-v1PiMG0_JM8nGAlN38>

[sms]

On 8/27/2018 12:24 PM, Arlen Holder wrote:

> While you deprecate the "adobe flash support" of the Android phone, an
> Android user can at least choose to use it or not

Adobe has said that in 2020 they will stop distributing Flash plug-ins.
AS to how long Flash remains popular after that, it could take another
five years before Flash enabled sites remove most Flash content.

As 9to5Mac writes "the death of Flash will have no consequences for iOS
devices which never supported the desktop <sic> plug-in." Of course it
was not just a desktop plug-in, portable devices running Android and
Windows also supported it.

I like the fact that Android still supports Flash. Even though the
amount of Flash content is decreasing, there is still a huge amount of
it out there and it's useful to be able to access it.

[nospam]

In article <pm1ml9$g92$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

>
> Adobe has said that in 2020 they will stop distributing Flash plug-ins.

that's desktop flash. mobile flash was discontinued more than six years
ago.

> AS to how long Flash remains popular after that, it could take another
> five years before Flash enabled sites remove most Flash content.

nonsense. it's almost entirely gone already, certainly on mobile where
flash is not supported.

as usual, you're fixated on an extreme edge case and pretending it's
common.

[David Higton]

In message <270820181133002452%nos...@nospam.invalid>

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

>In article <pm146v$ral$1...@dont-email.me>, sms
><scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Flash works fine on Android devices.
>
>flash has never worked fine on android.

Wrong, as is usual for nospam.

>flash is dead.

Wrong, as is usual for nospam.

Dave

[Alan Baker]

Odd then that Adobe agrees that Flash is dead:

'Given this progress, and in collaboration with several of our
technology partners – including Apple, Facebook, Google, Microsoft and
Mozilla – Adobe is planning to end-of-life Flash. Specifically, we will
stop updating and distributing the Flash Player at the end of 2020'

<https://theblog.adobe.com/adobe-flash-update/>

[sms]

On 8/27/2018 2:10 PM, Alan Baker wrote:

<snip>

> Odd then that Adobe agrees that Flash is dead:
>
> 'Given this progress, and in collaboration with several of our
> technology partners – including Apple, Facebook, Google, Microsoft and
> Mozilla – Adobe is planning to end-of-life Flash. Specifically, we will
> stop updating and distributing the Flash Player at the end of 2020'
>
> <https://theblog.adobe.com/adobe-flash-update/>

There is still a tremendous amount of Flash content out there. Stuff
that really should be updated but isn't. A lot of instructional videos
are old, but the content hasn't changed so they aren't updated.

I recall when my tenant wanted to show me a video on laminate flooring
that he wanted me to install. He grabbed his iPad. No dice. I grabbed by
Google Nexus 7 tablet. The video played perfectly. I ribbed him since he
works for Apple. Even back then, with Jelly Bean (Android 4.3) Flash ran
just fine.

The end of 2020 is still 2.4 years away. For 10 years Android has had
the advantage of not limiting the web content its users can view. Flash
will be around long after Adobe stops distributing it.

[David Higton]

In message <pm1pc9$a1b$1...@gioia.aioe.org>

So it's not dead yet.

I wish it were, and it will be at some point, just not yet.

Dave

[nospam]

In article <pm1qci$nru$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> There is still a tremendous amount of Flash content out there. Stuff
> that really should be updated but isn't. A lot of instructional videos
> are old, but the content hasn't changed so they aren't updated.

nonsense.

flash is used on less than 5% of all sites (desktop+mobile) and
dropping fast, most of which are abandoned or desktop-centric, so the
real impact to mobile users is *much* smaller. anyone designing a
mobile site would not be using flash in the first place.

<https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/software/flash-used-on-5-percent-
of-all-websites-down-from-285-percent-seven-years-ago/>
With Flash usage numbers going down, by the time the end of 2020
comes around and Adobe stops all Flash support, the technology would
be an afterthought for most users, except the few sysadmin souls
trapped into supporting the aging tech on desperately outdated
corporate networks and apps.

> I recall when my tenant wanted to show me a video on laminate flooring
> that he wanted me to install. He grabbed his iPad. No dice. I grabbed by
> Google Nexus 7 tablet. The video played perfectly. I ribbed him since he
> works for Apple. Even back then, with Jelly Bean (Android 4.3) Flash ran
> just fine.

except that flash support was dropped in 4.1, making your story very
suspect and completely irrelevant today.

> The end of 2020 is still 2.4 years away. For 10 years Android has had
> the advantage of not limiting the web content its users can view. Flash
> will be around long after Adobe stops distributing it.

both google and adobe dropped support for mobile flash more than six
years ago.

[Alan Baker]

It's effectively dead already.

Lots of tech products are dead long before they finally go completely EOL.

[Arlen Holder]

On 27 Aug 2018 15:00:15 GMT, Alan Baker wrote:

> Lots of tech products are dead long before they finally go completely EOL.

Notice how the Apple Apologists Alan Baker & nospam can't dispute that you
can buy from two to five far more capable in most respects Android phones
for the price of a single far less capable in most respects iPhone.

[Arlen Holder]

On 27 Aug 2018 14:27:44 GMT, sms wrote:

> The end of 2020 is still 2.4 years away. For 10 years Android has had
> the advantage of not limiting the web content its users can view. Flash
> will be around long after Adobe stops distributing it.

While Alan Baker is a well known Apple Apologist who lives in the same
Apple-prescribed imaginary world that nospam lives in, it's a fact that you
can pick up, today, the APK for Flash from the official web site.

Hence, as always, the Apple Apologists are dead wrong on their facts.

Why are these two Apple Apologists always dead wrong on facts?
I don't know why.

It seems they live in a make-believe world of imaginary circumstances
that Apple MARKETING fed to them but which don't fit into the real world.

When the Apple Apologists step away from playing their silly semantic
games, there's no getting around the fact that you can buy from two (Moto
X4) to five (LG Stylo 3 Plus) far more functional Android phones (both in
most of the hardware and app software functionality) for the price of a
single iPhone (iPhone 8 & iPhone 7 Plus respectively).

Those are facts that even the Apple Apologists don't dare dispute.

If the Apple Apologists dare dispute the facts - they will be shown to be
the fools that they are - simply by their own words since those are facts
that all reasonable adults easily agree upon.

Facts re funny that way.

[Arlen Holder]

On 27 Aug 2018 13:34:52 GMT, nospam wrote:

> nonsense. it's almost entirely gone already, certainly on mobile where
> flash is not supported.

As always, not only is nospam's world completely black and white, but his
guesses are always wrong, which simply prove yet again that he lives in an
imaginary world.

Besides, the point of this thread isn't nospam's silly semantic games, but
the fact that the Moto X4 is a better phone in almost all respects than the
iPhone 8, at half the price.

It seems nospam can't refute that fact with facts in his imaginary world.

[joe]

On 8/27/2018 5:24 PM, Arlen Holder wrote:
> On 27 Aug 2018 14:27:44 GMT, sms wrote:
>
>> The end of 2020 is still 2.4 years away. For 10 years Android has had
>> the advantage of not limiting the web content its users can view. Flash
>> will be around long after Adobe stops distributing it.
>
> While Alan Baker is a well known Apple Apologist who lives in the same
> Apple-prescribed imaginary world that nospam lives in, it's a fact that you
> can pick up, today, the APK for Flash from the official web site.

How old is that apk and how many unpatched vulnerabilities does it have?

[Arlen Holder]

On 27 Aug 2018 15:33:49 GMT, joe wrote:

> How old is that apk and how many unpatched vulnerabilities does it have?

This is a *great* question from the Apple side of the house becuase the
Apple user typically would rather forgo functionality for safety.

The fact that the Apple user makes most of their decisions based on three
commonly held traits is why you ask that question.
1. Utter abject fear.
2. Slavish following of style
3. Lack of reasonable adult logic (see the two reasons above)

The fact you ask that question is why I'm often found quoting the fact that
Apple gives you a butterknife to cut down a tree because a chain saw is
"too dangerous" for you Apple users.

Often, sms says that the iOS equipment isn't really a butterknife, since it
is functional - so we have agreed that using iOS is like using a hand saw
to cut down a tree instead of a chain saw.

Those who are in abject fear of saws would use the iOS handsaw.
Those not in abject fear would use a chainsaw (if that's what's needed).

Apple users are Apple users precisely because of their abject fear.
Android users are Android users precisely because they don't have abject
fear.

Having said that, the answer to your 1/2 your question is logically simple.
https://helpx.adobe.com/flash-player.html
http://download.macromedia.com/pub/flashplayer/installers/archive/android/11.1.115.81/install_flash_player_ics.apk
January 20, 2016

iOS = hand saw
Android = chainsaw

Notice that Apple iOS mobile devices are always far less functional than
Android mobile devices simply because Apple limits what iOS mobile devices
can do which the Apple users *love* because they fear the power and
flexibility that Android users simply do not fear.

[nospam]

In article <pm1u89$i14$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, joe <no...@domain.invalid>
wrote:

> >, it's a fact that you
> > can pick up, today, the APK for Flash from the official web site.
>
> How old is that apk

it will be 5 years in two weeks.

> and how many unpatched vulnerabilities does it have?

850 known exploits listed, going back to september 24, 2013 (page 17):
<https://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-53/product_id-6
761/Adobe-Flash-Player.html>

and that's assuming something that old will even work on recent
versions of android.

<https://helpx.adobe.com/flash-player/kb/archived-flash-player-versions.
html>
On September 10 2013, Adobe released Flash Player 11.1.111.73 for
Android 2.x and 3.x and 11.1.115.81 for Android 4.0.x in keeping with
statements made in Adobe's publicly available Flash Roadmap. This
release is the final update release of Flash Player for the Android
operating system.

<http://blogs.adobe.com/flashplayer/2012/06/flash-player-and-android-upd
ate.html>
Devices that don¹t have the Flash Player provided by the manufacturer
typically are uncertified, meaning the manufacturer has not completed
the certification testing requirements. In many cases users of
uncertified devices have been able to download the Flash Player from
the Google Play Store, and in most cases it worked. However, with
Android 4.1 this is no longer going to be the case, as we have not
continued developing and testing Flash Player for this new version of
Android and its available browser options.  There will be no
certified implementations of Flash Player for Android 4.1.
...
If a device is upgraded from Android 4.0 to Android 4.1, the current
version of Flash Player may exhibit unpredictable behavior, as it is
not certified for use with Android 4.1.  Future updates to Flash
Player will not work.  We recommend uninstalling Flash Player on
devices which have been upgraded to Android 4.1.

[nospam]

In article <pm1vtg$r67$1...@news.mixmin.net>, Arlen Holder

<arlen...@nospam.net> wrote:

> > How old is that apk and how many unpatched vulnerabilities does it have?

> Having said that, the answer to your 1/2 your question is logically simple.

so simple, yet you still got it wrong.

> https://helpx.adobe.com/flash-player.html

no mention of android. fail.

> http://download.macromedia.com/pub/flashplayer/installers/archive/android/11.1.
> 115.81/install_flash_player_ics.apk
> January 20, 2016

wrong date. fail.

the correct answer is 5 years old:

[joe]

Why are the dates on the files in the apk from September 2009?

[sms]

On 8/27/2018 2:52 PM, David Higton wrote:

<snip>

> So it's not dead yet.
>
> I wish it were, and it will be at some point, just not yet.
>
> Dave

Exactly. Still very widely used, and a pain when a device is unable to
display valid web content.

“The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated.”

[Arlen Holder]

On 27 Aug 2018 17:46:47 GMT, joe wrote:

> Why are the dates on the files in the apk from September 2009?

See the detailed response with quotes and cites just sent moments ago to
nospam.

I relize your point is that you're afraid of Flash.
I get that.
I understand that.

I really do.
My wife and kids are afraid of the chain saw when I start it up.
It makes noise. It cuts things. It tasks skill to use. It's dangerous.

But it's also very functionally powerful.

From what you write, you seem to be very much like my wife & kids.
You're afraid of Flash just like they're afraid of the chain saw.

The fact is that trees exist in the real world.
They just do.

You can wish them away like nospam does with Flash.
But only in nospam's imaginary world do trees not exist.

For him, everything is inside the manicured flowers of the walled garden.
He and you apparently live in a fantasy world, that doesn't actually exist.

So when you run into a tree that needs to be cut down, you "just give up".
I understand.

It's what most Apple users do when they confront things in the real world.
All Apple users "just give up" all day, every day.

*It's a very common daily trait of the Apple user to "just give up".*

The tradeoff is they *feel safe* by "just giving up".
(No dangerous chain saws to deal with - but they live in a walled garden.)

[Arlen Holder]

On 27 Aug 2018 16:19:12 GMT, nospam wrote:

>> https://helpx.adobe.com/flash-player.html
>
> no mention of android. fail.

That link was provided as a courtesy to "joe" so that "joe" could click on
the link to ascertain the current version.

>> http://download.macromedia.com/pub/flashplayer/installers/archive/android/11.1.
>> 115.81/install_flash_player_ics.apk
>> January 20, 2016
>
> wrong date. fail.

That information was cut and pasted verbatim out of this web page:
<https://www.androidapksfree.com/apk/adobe-flash-player-apk-latest-download/>
Which says, verbatim:
"Flash Player is available on AndroidAPKsFree since its release on
January 20, 2016. The current version is 11.1.115.81 and the
cumulative downloads from our platform are more than 87,690."

As you an see, I cut and pasted the date verbatim from that second URL as
the answer to "joe", who, let's be clear, was only asking because his point
is that he's afraid of any Flash version other than the most current flash
version (which is why I gave "joe" the first URL).

> the correct answer is 5 years old:
> <https://helpx.adobe.com/flash-player/kb/archived-flash-player-versions.
> html>
> On September 10 2013, Adobe released Flash Player 11.1.111.73 for
> Android 2.x and 3.x and 11.1.115.81 for Android 4.0.x in keeping with
> statements made in Adobe's publicly available Flash Roadmap. This
> release is the final update release of Flash Player for the Android
> operating system.

Thank you for that link of:
<https://helpx.adobe.com/flash-player/kb/archived-flash-player-versions.html>
Which says, verbatim:

"On September 10 2013, Adobe released Flash Player 11.1.111.73 for
Android 2.x and 3.x and 11.1.115.81 for Android 4.0.x"

Hence, either the original URL comments are wrong, or, what they meant most
likely was that they copied the APK from Adobe on January 20, 2016.

Hence, I agree with your facts since all sentient adults agree on facts.
(Facts are funny that way.)

So I publicly agree that the 11.1.115.81 Flask APK was originally released
on September 10 2013 and apparently hosted on AndroidAPKsFree
"since its release on January 20, 2016".

The main point is threefold:
a. The Apple Apologists are driven by abject fear.
b. The Apple Apologists would rather go without functionality.
c. Hence, to the Apple Apologists, the release date is a "big deal".

While I don't disagree with the release date correction (facts are funny in
that all logical adults agree on facts), the actual date doesn't change
that the Apple Apologists would fear the APK the same whether it was
released on September 10 2013 or January 20, 2016 since they fear anything
that isn't the latest release, and, even for flash, they fear flash so much
that even the latest release won't work on iOS.

Still - the topic of this thread isn't Flash, despite the desperate
attempts by the Apple Apologists to make it so.

The topic is that it's been proven before that a far more functional in
most ways Android phone (e.g., the 8-core LG Stylo 3 Plus) is five times
less expensive than a far less functional in most ways iPhone 7 Plus ...
and ... a far more functional in most ways Android Moto X4 is about half as
expensive as a far less functional in most ways iPHone 8.

Those are facts any sentient logical adult will immediately agree with.

[Arlen Holder]

On 28 Aug 2018 07:18:28 GMT, sms wrote:

> Exactly. Still very widely used, and a pain when a device is unable to
> display valid web content.
>

> ´The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated.¡

Any reasonable adult who isn't driven insane by an inordinate fear would
agree with your logical assessments, as do I.

I don't like Flash. I'm glad it's on its way out.
But it still exists in droves (despite the denials by the apologists).

And, what I'm for is freedom of choice and functionality.
Being able to use a chainsaw when I need a chainsaw is a good thing.

Power and flexibility are always going to involve a bit of danger.

What's interesting is that the Apple Apologists are so scared of power and
flexibility that they deny actual facts such as the obvious fact that Flash
is still widely used.

The fact that the Apple Apologists have no room in their belief system for
obvious facts is one of the strange traits of the Apple Apologists all.

They're driven by:
a. Fear
b. Style

[joe]

On 8/28/2018 6:16 PM, Arlen Holder wrote:
> On 27 Aug 2018 17:46:47 GMT, joe wrote:
>
>> Why are the dates on the files in the apk from September 2009?
>
> See the detailed response with quotes and cites just sent moments ago to
> nospam.

Obviously,you can't answer the question. Neither here nor in that
"detailed" response.

[Arlen Holder]

On 28 Aug 2018 16:56:31 GMT, joe wrote:

> Obviously,you can't answer the question. Neither here nor in that
> "detailed" response.

*You, "joe", have yet again proven you possess the intellect of a child.*

You fear Flash so much that your brain can't comprehend simple facts.
You're like a small child who insists there's a monster in the closet.

Notice that *only* the Apple Apologists said what you said.
Only the Apple Apologists can't comprehend even the _simplest_ of facts.

*No normal sentient adult would ever say anything like what you said.*
They just wouldn't.

You prove, in every post, "joe", that you possess the intellect of a child.
Only you Apple Apologists are incapable of comprehending facts.

In this case, I will *repeat* the facts, as corrected by nospam:
1. The Flash latest Android APK version is 11.1.115.81
2. It was last released by Adobe on September 10, 2013
3. It was also hosted by androidapksfree.com on January 20, 2016
(which was the date I erroneously previously quoted)

These dates are clearly what are listed on the associated web sites.
Any sentient adult would agree that those dates are listed at those sites.

That's because those are facts.
Facts are funny that way.

If you _still_ can't comprehend those simple facts ... then ...
you have simply proven to all that you possess the intellect of a child.

Or, that you Apple Apologists constantly revel in playing childish games.
a. You Apple Apologists are either incomprehensibly stupid, or,
b. You're simply playing a game that you're incomprehensibly stupid.

Pick one.

[sms]

On 8/28/2018 4:16 PM, Arlen Holder wrote:
> On 28 Aug 2018 07:18:28 GMT, sms wrote:
>
>> Exactly. Still very widely used, and a pain when a device is unable to
>> display valid web content.
>>
>> ´The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated.¡
>
> Any reasonable adult who isn't driven insane by an inordinate fear would
> agree with your logical assessments, as do I.
>
> I don't like Flash. I'm glad it's on its way out.
> But it still exists in droves (despite the denials by the apologists).

Workarounds for Flash on iOS devices:
<https://www.wondershare.com/convert-apple-device/flash-player-for-iphone-ipad.html>

[Arlen Holder]

On 28 Aug 2018 20:34:13 GMT, sms wrote:

> Workarounds for Flash on iOS devices:
> <https://www.wondershare.com/convert-apple-device/flash-player-for-iphone-ipad.html>

Thanks for that useful information on how to play Flash on iOS!

What's great about sentient logical adults like you, is that you don't
subject us to the silly games that the Apple Apologist incessantly play.

However, when you look at the next level of the list, it isn't as great as
it seems.
A. Some are apparently dead already, which is common with powerful Apple
Apps (look what happened to the initial screen recorders for example)
B. And some are crippleware (which I have found to be far more common on
iOS than on Android since choices tend to abound on Android so you can very
easily shun crippleware)
C. And some are payware (which is ridiculous for a browser, where I posit
that there's nothing that I want to do that isn't free on Android but there
are plenty of those same things I want to do that don't exist on iOS (e.g.,
Youtube Red clones) or that aren't free on iOS (e.g., Youtube Red Clones).

But that list is still a good start toward adding flexibility &
functionality to iOS.

Browsers:
a) Play (FLV, F4V, SWF) on iOS using any Flash compatible browser:
1. Puffin Browser supports the latest Flash & has full-page display.
<https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/puffin-web-browser-free/id472937654?mt=8>
b. Photon Safari Alternative (has a special flash mode button)
<https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/photon-flash-player-for-iphone/id453546382?mt=8>
c. Skyfire Web Browser (for watching flash video only) [Is it dead?]
<http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/skyfire-web-browser-for-ipad/id409153623?mt=8>
<https://discussions.apple.com/thread/7350113>
<https://www.macrumors.com/2010/11/03/skyfire-web-browser-now-available-in-app-store/>
d. iSwifter browser (not a free app) [Is it dead?]
<http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/iswifter/id388857173?mt=8>
<https://discussions.apple.com/thread/7350113>
<https://9to5mac.com/2011/03/10/iswifter-puts-flash-videos-apps-and-games-on-your-ipad-ads-too/>
e. CloudBrowse (seems to only give 10 minutes for free?)
<https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/cloud-browse-web-browser-for/id394418635?mt=8>
f. Browse2go (Is it dead?]
<https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/browse2go-web-browser/id458627018?mt=8>
<http://browse2go.net/en/Support.aspx>
g. VirtualBrowser for Firefox (not free)
<https://itunes.apple.com/app/id609289360?mt=8>

Realistically, that list boils down to these effective apps:
1. Puffin
2. Photon

This is getting long so I'll cover the next set of "Downloaders/Converters"
separately.

[Arlen Holder]

On 29 Aug 2018 12:56:02 GMT, Arlen Holder wrote:

> I'll cover the next set of "Downloaders/Converters" separately.

The second option on iOS is to download & convert flash into something that
iOS can play.

Again, logical sentient adults can discuss logically the merits of this
approach, where I posit that the authors chose to describe a payware
solution (supposedly for the Mac and Windows) where I currently do easily
with freeware on Windows & Linux (there's apparently much less freeware for
the Mac - at least not this freeware as shown below).

The authors described:
a. Video Converter Ultimate for Mac [Is it dead?]
<https://www.wondershare.com/mac-video-converter-ultimate/>
b. Video Converter Ultimate for Windows
<https://videoconverter.wondershare.com/>
The authors also suggested (but did not elaborate upon)
b. Youtube downloader (there are many - beware - I have entire threads on
which are the best ones for Windows - where the only one I recommend is
this command-line tool):
<https://youtube-dl.org/downloads/latest/youtube-dl.exe>
Which requires FFMPEG to do the conversion of "some" audio formats:
<http://ffmpeg.zeranoe.com/builds/win64/static/ffmpeg-20170711-0780ad9-win64-static.zip>

Use model on Windows/Linux for downloading the entire video:
youtube-dl.exe https://youtu.be/VuNIsY6JdUw
Use model on Windows/Linux for downloading & stripping out just the audio:
youtube-dl.exe -f 140 https://youtu.be/VuNIsY6JdUw

What the authors didn't suggest was an iOS-based free open-source
downloader/converter that works directly on iOS such as what New Pipe Open
Source freeware provides for Android (where, for those who don't know,
NewPipe is basically the mobile YouTube app on steroids):
<https://newpipe.schabi.org/>

As always, the functionality, power, and flexibility on all platforms not
Apple utterly dwarfs that on Apple products - which is one easy proof that
Apple users arguably don't buy Apple products for sheer functionality.

Apple users arguably buy the Orwellian restricted Apple products due to
a. Inordinately mind-bending all-consuming fear of the real world, and,
b. Slavish adherence to style or to their walled garden conveniences

[sms]

On 8/29/2018 6:30 AM, Arlen Holder wrote:
> On 29 Aug 2018 12:56:02 GMT, Arlen Holder wrote:
>
>> I'll cover the next set of "Downloaders/Converters" separately.
>
> The second option on iOS is to download & convert flash into something that
> iOS can play.

Actually, the option I see the most, if the user really has a compelling
need to view Flash content, is for them to view it on their Windows PC
or Mac.

I doubt if many iOS users are going to install these other apps, which
apparently don't work perfectly, to view Flash content. Nor are they
aware that Flash works fine on Android devices by installing a Flash
capable browser, and even if they were aware they are not likely to move
to the dark side just to get Flash.

In five years or so this won't even be an issue anymore, but for now,
there's still a tremendous amount of content that requires Flash.

[nospam]

In article <pm6e58$tlj$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

>
> I doubt if many iOS users are going to install these other apps, which
> apparently don't work perfectly, to view Flash content. Nor are they
> aware that Flash works fine on Android devices by installing a Flash
> capable browser, and even if they were aware they are not likely to move
> to the dark side just to get Flash.

flash does *not* work fine on android.

*both* platforms require installing an app, some of which are from the
same developers.

the two android apps you linked had *horrible* reviews, particularly
this one:
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=mobi.browser.flashfox>
An app that is so slow that it almost seems to go backwards. Does a
great job of heating up a computer tablet before crashing. Heck, I
could just start up this FlashFox app and then use my tablet as a
deep muscle heater, no hot water bottle needed. An incredibly rare
one star review from me.

Janky, buggy mess, crashes constantly and has a flashing, potentially
seizure-inducing bar at the bottom for some reason. Does play Flash
to its credit, but is slower than molasses at simple page loading.

Works as a normal browser but the whole purpose of downloading this
app instead of just Firefox is to look at flash content and whenever
I open a page with flash content the whole thing just crashes. If you
want a browser that actually works try the Puffin Web Browser. That's
what I have switched to...

so no, it doesn't 'work fine'.

> In five years or so this won't even be an issue anymore, but for now,
> there's still a tremendous amount of content that requires Flash.

nonsense.

you're trolling, as usual.

[Arlen Holder]

On 29 Aug 2018 08:41:28 GMT, nospam wrote:

> flash does *not* work fine on android.

Despite the Apple Apologist's attempt to derail the thread, the fact is
that Flash exists in the real world - and no amount of Apple Apologist
incantations that the real world doesn't exist will wish that fact away.

Facts are funny that way.

Meanwhile, this thread isn't about Flash.

This thread is about the facts in this chart kindly compiled by sms:
<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HI-ejgQF5-OfJdS7yj-YL_we-v1PiMG0_JM8nGAlN38>

Where it appears that the Moto X4 vs iPhone 8 hardware comparison is thus:
*MotoX4 wins* on Resolution functionality
*MotoX4 wins* on Screen Size functionality
*MotoX4 wins* on Pixels Per Inch functionality
iPhone wins on Geekbench functionality
*MotoX4 wins* on Battery functionality (even with the "courageous" jack)
*MotoX4 wins* on RAM functionality (with 3 or 4GB being the two options)
*MotoX4 wins* on Front Camera Pixels functionality
*MotoX4 wins* on Front Flash functionality
*MotoX4 wins* on NFC functionality
*MotoX4 wins* on SDcard functionality (up to 2TB storage)
*MotoX4 wins* on "courageous" headphone jack functionality
*MotoX4 wins* on FM radio functionality
*MotoX4 wins* on USB OTG functionality
*MotoX4 wins* on Waterproofing (even with the "courageous" headphone jack)
*MotoX4 wins* on Price (by a whopping 100%)

Do the Apple Apologists have *any* adult comments about *those facts*?

[Arlen Holder]

On 29 Aug 2018 08:29:40 GMT, sms wrote:

> Actually, the option I see the most, if the user really has a compelling
> need to view Flash content, is for them to view it on their Windows PC
> or Mac.

Again, you're speaking like a logical sentient adult, where it's clear that
on iOS, the user is forced daily to "just give up".

The iOS user "just gives up" so often, it's basically a habit at this time.
They "just give up" so often that they don't even realize it.

The ones who realize it are those who have Android, where the simplest
things on Android are either miserable, expensive, or impossible on iOS.

[Arlen Holder]

On 29 Aug 2018 08:41:28 GMT, nospam wrote:

> If you want a browser that actually works try the Puffin Web Browser.

...
> so no, it doesn't 'work fine'.

Hehhehheh....

Does anyone else notice that the Apple Apologist nospam relied on a
verbatim quote, which said, literally, that the Puffin Browser works to
display flash content.

And then, nospam concludes that flash doesn't work fine on Android.

The funny thing about Apple Apologists is that they use a child's logic.

The Apple Apologist quotes first that flash works fine.
And then the Apple Apologist guesses that flash doesn't work fine.

These Apple Apologists are not like normal sentient logical adults.

[sms]

On 8/29/2018 9:05 AM, Arlen Holder wrote:

> The iOS user "just gives up" so often, it's basically a habit at this time.
> They "just give up" so often that they don't even realize it.

Sometimes they will ask in a forum "how do I do XYZ?" and perhaps
someone will point out that it is not possible, and several others will
insist that no one would ever want to do what the original poster
clearly DOES want to do.

What I have run into personally are the following:

1. Displaying GPS satellite locations. Not possible on iOS because there
is no way for an app to access the NMEA data in iOS. Not sure why there
is this limitation. The workaround is to use an external GPS device. See
<https://stackoverflow.com/questions/46550131/is-it-possible-to-obtain-nmea-data-from-ios>.

2. Aoos that require the Bluetooth Serial Port Profile (SPP). Torque
(popular Andriod app) is one such app. iOS does not support the
Bluetooth Serial Port Profile (SPP) which is required for Torque to work
with a Bluetooth ELM327 transceiver. There is no real workaround. There
are some similar OBD-II apps on the App Store, but they are not nearly
as good as Torque, plus they require either a BLE ELM327, which is too
slow, or a Wi-Fi ELM327. Not sure why there is this limitation, since
iOS does support the BT LE profile.

3. Flash video. Flash is available on Android devices by using a browser
that supports Flash. Ironically, the reason Google removed Flash from
shipping with Android, is no longer applicable. On old devices, with
slow CPUs, low amounts of RAM, and smaller batteries, Flash had the
issue of not running well. But ever since Jelly Bean, Flash has run just
fine except on the lowest end devices. While it's true that the amount
of Flash content has been decreasing, there is still a tremendous amount
of Flash content on the web. The workaround to view Flash video on iOS
is imperfect and hokey. See
<http://www.androidtipsandhacks.com/android/still-need-flash-android-device-heres-install/>.

4. Audio profiles. Ran into this one just a couple of months ago. On the
iPhone, there is no straightforward way to have different volume
settings for ringtones and notifications. The Genius Bar knows the
workaround, since the question comes up frequently, but it's a bit hokey
(create a very low volume or silent ringtone so even when notification
volume is at the max the ring volume is low or silent). Android supports
different audio profiles

5. SMS Forwarding. Apple does not allow this type of App for security
reasons. You can forward SMS only to another Apple device on the same
Apple account. This is a common question on forums, since you CAN
forward calls (a feature of the carrier) but not SMS. Android supports
SMS forwarding.
<http://supportz.com/5-sms-forwarding-apps-for-your-android-device/>
lists five such Android apps, but there are many more. There is no real
workaround for iOS. But for the times that you need SMS forwarding you
can stick your SIM card into a cheap Android phone.

6. Data transfer. Other than a very few file formats, transferring data
into an iOS device via the Lightning port, is difficult. There is a
rather clever workaround that someone came up with, but it's not
straightforward. It requires zipping the files to transfer, changing the
file name extension of the ZIP file to NEF (Nikon Raw Format) so the iOS
device thinks that it's a Nikon raw file, importing the file into the
iOS device, renaming .NEF to .ZIP, and unzipping it on the iOS device.
See <https://discussions.apple.com/thread/3422226>.

Despite these issues, I still prefer my iPad to my Android tablet. I
like the Apple Pencil, and I like the keyboard connection which doesn't
require the use of Bluetooth. there are just some things that aren't
possible on the iPad.

[nospam]

In article <pm6m4n$lrg$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> 2. Aoos that require the Bluetooth Serial Port Profile (SPP). Torque
> (popular Andriod app) is one such app. iOS does not support the
> Bluetooth Serial Port Profile (SPP) which is required for Torque to work
> with a Bluetooth ELM327 transceiver. There is no real workaround.

no workaround needed.

there are shitloads of ios obd apps that do not use spp, many of which
use bluetooth le, which is even easier to use than outdated spp.

> There
> are some similar OBD-II apps on the App Store, but they are not nearly
> as good as Torque,

some might not be, however, there are numerous ios obd apps that are as
good and even better than torque.

> plus they require either a BLE ELM327, which is too
> slow, or a Wi-Fi ELM327. Not sure why there is this limitation, since
> iOS does support the BT LE profile.

nonsense. bluetooth le is not a profile. it's an entirely new protocol
which is *far* more reliable and much easier to use than spp. it's also
much faster than obd, so no issues whatsoever with speed.

the btle obd adapters work exceptionally well.

> 6. Data transfer. Other than a very few file formats, transferring data
> into an iOS device via the Lightning port, is difficult.

more nonsense. *anything* the user wants to transfer can *easily* be
done via via the lightning port or more easily via wifi.

just because *you* can't figure out how doesn't mean it's impossible.

> There is a
> rather clever workaround that someone came up with, but it's not
> straightforward. It requires zipping the files to transfer, changing the
> file name extension of the ZIP file to NEF (Nikon Raw Format) so the iOS
> device thinks that it's a Nikon raw file, importing the file into the
> iOS device, renaming .NEF to .ZIP, and unzipping it on the iOS device.

that's not clever at all. in fact, that's so ridiculously convoluted
that it's almost funny that someone would even consider it a solution.

[I R A Darth Aggie]

On Sun, 26 Aug 2018 23:56:15 -0400,
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>, in
<260820182356158545%nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <plvq97$uhl$1...@dont-email.me>, sms
> <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> > Adobe Flash Support,
>
> android hasn't supported flash in *years*.

My first thought: yuck.
My second thought: flash hasn't supported android in years.

Adobe Flash was and continues to be a festering security hole.

--
Consulting Minister for Consultants, DNRC
I can please only one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow
isn't looking good, either.
I am BOFH. Resistance is futile. Your network will be assimilated.

[I R A Darth Aggie]

On Tue, 28 Aug 2018 23:16:27 -0000 (UTC),
Arlen Holder <arlen...@nospam.net>, in

<pm4l4a$9bc$1...@news.mixmin.net> wrote:

> I relize your point is that you're afraid of Flash.
> I get that.
> I understand that.

You should be, too. Adobe Flash, as implemented is a festering
security hole. To paraphrase Ralph Nader, "unsafe at any speed".

AF has been consigned to the dustbin of history. Please leave it there.

followups to comp.mobile.android

[Arlen Holder]

On 29 Aug 2018 10:45:56 GMT, sms wrote:

> Despite these issues, I still prefer my iPad to my Android tablet. I
> like the Apple Pencil, and I like the keyboard connection which doesn't
> require the use of Bluetooth. there are just some things that aren't
> possible on the iPad.

I have plenty of iPads and I have jailbroken an iPhone and I give iOS and
Android dvices as gifts all the time, where we proved long ago there isn't
a single app functionality on iOS that isn't already on Android, while
there is plenty of app functionality on Android that is not on iOS,

To flesh out your list to an even dozen, here are ones I do all the time
which can't be done on iOS by anyone (except nospam and Jolly Roger and
Lewis and Alan Baker and BK@ONRamp, etc., all of whom spout imaginary
functionality that doesn't ever come with any timely referenced proof.)

7. WiFi debugging. I have more than a dozen access points on my rather
large property of two-digit acres, and I use WISP since cable doesn't come
to our mountain even though we're essentially only a few miles as the crow
flies from Silicon Valley. Android apps abound for WiFi debugging. There
are too many freeware great apps to even enumerate them all. Yet, there are
*zero* apps on iOS, payware, freeware, or otherwise, that can do something
as simple as graph the WiFi signal strength over time for all access points
in range.
It's a fact iOS devices can't even graph Wi-Fi signal strength over time
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/PZuec56EWB0>

8. Automatic phone recording. Despite the mind-boggling inordinate fear
that nospam incessantly spews whenever we discuss iOS' lack of abilities to
do the simplest of things, it's a fact that iOS can't even automatically
record phone calls which Android does easily with freeware.
Android automatic call recording for free on Apple iOS iPhones sans jailbreaking
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/wtm8DFXuz20/IoGmkjsABwAJ>

9. Powerful utilities like the freeware open source NewPipe, which, the
Apple Apologists can only deflect with their incessant claims of imaginary
app functionality on iOS that always seems to be without any valid URLs.
What free iOS app downloads video & rips audio from YouTube?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/Sa27Y5JRvLE/jBAAk-7mCAAJ>

10. Sideloading apps from anywhere you like. (nuff said).

11. Choosing a powerful functional free app launcher. (nuff said).

12. Storage of large files (e.g., map databases) to sdcard. (nuff said).

I'll stop there, but the list "can" go on for up to 100 items, but this
list is very old so I will simply cite it and note that nospam and Jolly
Roger played their silly games on that thread as they always do.
How hard would it be to name a hundred functional things Android apps do that iOS apps just can't do?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/OAls8ZO1dCI/L2xeT4ktBQAJ>

In short, it's a well-documented fact that there is zero app functionality
on iOS that isn't already on Android, while there is plenty of app
functionality on Android that isn't on iOS.

--
Cue claims of imaginary functionality that never has a valid reference!

[Arlen Holder]

On 29 Aug 2018 11:09:40 GMT, nospam wrote:

>> 6. Data transfer. Other than a very few file formats, transferring data
>> into an iOS device via the Lightning port, is difficult.
>
> more nonsense. *anything* the user wants to transfer can *easily* be
> done via via the lightning port or more easily via wifi.
>
> just because *you* can't figure out how doesn't mean it's impossible.

The Apple Apologist nospam has yet again brazenly fabricated wholly
imaginary functionality that only exists inside his head (and also,
perhaps, in big glossy Apple M-A-R-K-E-T-I-N-G brochures).

There's an entire thread which nospam himself was on that disproves every
single word nospam said above.
Why doesn't Apple just let you manage your iOS file system natively on Windows?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/WjeGznahZwc>

*Why do Apple Apologists brazenly fabricate imaginary functionality?*
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/K_yBNZiPFYo/yekUPvIXAwAJ>

[Arlen Holder]

On 27 Aug 2018 10:59:58 GMT, nospam wrote:

>> The root cause of the throttling was not an aged battery,
>
> yes it very definitely was.

Nospam yet again guesses wrong, and even denies what Apple publicly admits.

Apple just admitted they were trying to mask defective batteries
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/BqxnrUlOkDA>

[Arlen Holder]

On 29 Aug 2018 21:32:46 GMT, I R A Darth Aggie wrote:

> You should be, too. Adobe Flash, as implemented is a festering
> security hole. To paraphrase Ralph Nader, "unsafe at any speed".
>
> AF has been consigned to the dustbin of history. Please leave it there.

You can deny that the world exists around you.

But, the fact is that the world exists outside of your desires.
It just does.

If you have iOS, you have to "just give up".
If you have Android, you can do what you want if and when you want to.

It's like handing a person an iOS butterknife to chop down a tree when the
Android user has a chainsaw to do the same job.

--
Kept the followup to c.m.a only.

[Alan Baker]

If Apple admitted something...

...why not post a direct link to it?

[Arlen Holder]

On 29 Aug 2018 15:13:00 GMT, Alan Baker wrote:

> If Apple admitted something...
>
> ...why not post a direct link to it?

Idiot Alan Baker.

You Apple Apologists incessantly play the silliest of childish games.

You, Alan Baker, *never* click on the links.
You make your claims completely *outside of facts*.

HINT: The link is within the link which you didn't even click on so you
didn't even *read* what the link pointed you to which proved beyond any
shadow of a doubt what *intelligent* logical sentient adults made out of
Apple's apology - plus - there were plenty of cross references to what the
*lawsuits* said (and soon, we hope, what the *judges* say).

[Arlen Holder]

On 29 Aug 2018 22:01:25 GMT, Arlen Holder wrote:

> 11. Choosing a powerful functional free app launcher. (nuff said).
>
> 12. Storage of large files (e.g., map databases) to sdcard. (nuff said).

For a recent example of what is trivial on Android is *impossible* on iOS
<http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=5724716mapapps.jpg>

In addition, I will be moving those map app databases to a new sdcard:
<http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=9757754sdcard01.jpg>

*None of this basic power & flexibility is ever available to iOS users.*

[sms]

On 8/29/2018 2:32 PM, I R A Darth Aggie wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2018 23:16:27 -0000 (UTC),
> Arlen Holder <arlen...@nospam.net>, in
> <pm4l4a$9bc$1...@news.mixmin.net> wrote:
>
>> I relize your point is that you're afraid of Flash.
>> I get that.
>> I understand that.
>
> You should be, too. Adobe Flash, as implemented is a festering
> security hole. To paraphrase Ralph Nader, "unsafe at any speed".
>
> AF has been consigned to the dustbin of history. Please leave it there.

While there isn't a lot of new Flash content being produced, there is
still an enormous quantity of it still out there, and it's useful to be
able to view it.

[sms]

On 8/29/2018 3:08 PM, Arlen Holder wrote:
> On 27 Aug 2018 10:59:58 GMT, nospam wrote:
>
>>> The root cause of the throttling was not an aged battery,
>>
>> yes it very definitely was.
>
> Nospam yet again guesses wrong, and even denies what Apple publicly admits.

The root cause was the PMIC.

The most accurate and succinct explanation was over at
<https://mjtsai.com/blog/2017/12/22/apple-confirms-that-it-throttles-iphones-with-degraded-batteries/>:
"the battery isn’t able to maintain a high enough voltage for the PMIC
to reliably be able to use as a source."

For the iPhone 8, they redesigned the power management circuit and added
a third PMIC. For phones already in the hands of users the user will
have to periodically change the battery. Instead of getting three or
four years out of battery, the user will be able to get one or two
years. Not a terribly big deal.

[Arlen Holder]

On 29 Aug 2018 21:16:39 GMT, I R A Darth Aggie wrote:

> My first thought: yuck.
> My second thought: flash hasn't supported android in years.
>
> Adobe Flash was and continues to be a festering security hole.

This Android thread wasn't intended to be about Flash.
The Apple Apologists nospam made it so.

Still - let's be logical adults - and not emotional creatures.

If this thread is going to be derailed into a flash thread, we should at
least strive to have the facts straight on flash, apart from the emotions.

As I recall, if you read the Google & Apple canonical explanations of why
they dropped Flash support, the "festering security hole" was *not* on top
of why they said they dropped flash.

Let's see what Apple & Google actually said before we proclaim our own
reasons for hating flash.

Here is the Apple pronouncement signed by Steve Jobs in April of 2010:
<https://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughts-on-flash/>
Which says the faults are, in this order:
1. Adobe┬ Flash products are 100% proprietary.
2. The "full web" (meaning Flash market share)
3. An extremely short paragraph on reliability, security and performance.
4. Battery life
5. Touch
6. Apps (which Steve Jobs very clearly said is the *most important reason*)

Notice in a page of about 118 sentences, only a *single sentence mentioned
reliability, with a summary sentence (a repeat) also mentioning
reliability.

That's about 1% to 2% of the sentences in Steve Jobs' extremely well-vetted
pronouncement that even mentions reliability and both sentences said the
same thing.

Meanwhile, there were 116 sentences that were NOT about reliability.

These are facts.
While the Apple Apologists are all about childish emotion - I am only about
facts.

Facts are things all logical sentient adults agree upon.
And that Steve Jobs letter is a fact.

All logical sentient adults can read the Steve Jobs letter just as well as
I can, where *intelligent* adults would, most likely, come to the same
conclusion as I - since I can comprehend what Steve Jobs actually said.

Steve Jobs clearly said the most important reason was that Adobe wanted to
develop apps for iOS using Flash. Period. That's the main reason.
Steve Jobs said it very clearly himself.

Now, the Apple Apologists tend to deny even what Apple publicly admits, so,
it wouldn't be surprising for them to make the decision into something that
it's not. (Or, Steve Jobs could have been lying, which we know Tim Cook has
been caught twice last year doing - so it's not unheard of.)

[Arlen Holder]

On 29 Aug 2018 21:32:46 GMT, I R A Darth Aggie wrote:

> You should be, too. Adobe Flash, as implemented is a festering
> security hole. To paraphrase Ralph Nader, "unsafe at any speed".
>
> AF has been consigned to the dustbin of history. Please leave it there.
>
> followups to comp.mobile.android

[Arlen Holder]

On 30 Aug 2018 01:52:10 GMT, Arlen Holder wrote:

> Steve Jobs clearly said the most important reason was that Adobe wanted to
> develop apps for iOS using Flash. Period. That's the main reason.
> Steve Jobs said it very clearly himself.

While the Steve Jobs letter dedicated a single sentence out of more than
100 sentences to "reliability" (actually two, but the second was a summary)
it's harder to find the rationale from Google.

Steve Jobs' rationale was very clearly (he said it so himself it was the
most important reason) that Adobe wanted to develop Flash apps on iOS.

Can anyone find a good summary from Google themselves as to their
rationale?

Even this article reputedly on why Google didn't support it talks a lot
about why Steve Jobs didn't support it!
<https://www.lifewire.com/android-and-flash-1616859>
"Steve Jobs declared that iOS devices not only would not support Flash
but that they would never support Flash. Why? A combination of factors.
Flash was a proprietary system created by Adobe and not an open Web
standard. A lot of the existing Flash content was old and developed
for mouse rollovers, not touch, so it would do no good for phone
users to see it. Flash performed very poorly on mobile devices
and ate battery juice like it was going out of fashion. Sure,
some of the anti-Flash talk was simply that Steve Jobs was a
stubborn man who was irritated with Adobe for foot-dragging with
their development of other Adobe products (it took Adobe years to
finally develop a 64-bit version of Photoshop for Mac.) Adobe
probably hoped that Apple would adopt Flash after Android users
got used to the idea and started eating into iPhone and iPad sales."

It's clear Steve Jobs didn't like the Adobe management or their actions.

The point is that anyone who says that flash was dropped because it was
buggy is someone who is simply proving that they can't comprehend an adult
answer

Still - I haven't found a first order Google pronouncement on why they
dropped Flash.

Here's a google pronouncement for Chrome (but that's not only Android).
<https://www.blog.google/products/chrome/saying-goodbye-flash-chrome/>
While they give only a portion of a sentence to security, they still have
it in Chrome, as this is their summary:
"We will remove Flash completely from Chrome toward the end of 2020."

We know Steve Jobs dropped flash not for its security but mainly because
Adobe wanted to develop Flash apps.

Does anyone have a good link to Google's explanation of why they dropped
Flash in Android?

[Arlen Holder]

On 29 Aug 2018 18:18:20 GMT, sms wrote:

> The root cause was the PMIC.

I understand that you're a logical educated adult, so we can reasonably
both agree and disagree on facts. (Facts being funny that way.)

I feel (as do others) that the "root cause" is fundamentally simply that
Apple didn't test their products in the real world since it appears even
Apple was horrified that their devices performed so poorly after about a
year of use in the real world.

In the thread I cited are references that back up that claim.
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/BqxnrUlOkDA/-v-Ovh41AwAJ>

Here is a verbatim quote from that thread:
The Apple white paper called them "chemically aged", as does this article:
<http://bgr.com/2017/12/29/iphone-slowdown-scandal-apple-fix/

That article points out two very important facts that I have been
saying for years, and which are proven time and again by Apple - and
which both show up in spades for anyone with a logical brain for
facts in this battery fiasco.
1. Apple never tests any of their products in the real world
2. Apple makes the users do their testing for them
Specifically, what the article says, verbatim,
*"Apple is basically telling us that it's not testing iOS updates"*
... and ...
"*Apple had to wait for user feedback* to realize that the iPhone
slowdown,*which Apple caused*, is to blame for the poorer user
experience on older iPhone 6 and iPhone 6s devices."

My point is that the PMIC may be the underlying hardware cause, as might be
the battery, or the overall design of the phone - but - the fact that Apple
had to secretly, drastically, and permanently throttle the CPU to less than
half after only about a year indicates that Apple (yet again) didn't bother
to test their products in the real world.

It's pretty clear from this experience that this is a fact.
*Apple does not test their products to actually work in the real world.*

> The most accurate and succinct explanation was over at
> <https://mjtsai.com/blog/2017/12/22/apple-confirms-that-it-throttles-iphones-with-degraded-batteries/>:

> "the battery isn┤ able to maintain a high enough voltage for the PMIC

> to reliably be able to use as a source."

Again, it's refreshing to be able to converse logically with an adult who
comprehends adult discourse.

Specifically since nospam has many times blamed Android for almost all of
the faults of the iPhones (he keeps trying to assert that it's "normal" for
a company to have to secretly, drastically, and permanently throttle a CPU
to less than half the claimed speeds after only about a year of use).

That article was informative in that it supported my position that the
overall design is bad and it was never tested in the real world so Apple
didn't realize their design was bad until it was too late. The article says
only a couple of sentences after the one above that:
*"the power delivery system was not designed sufficiently robust*
*enough to cope with such loads"*

While the Apple Apologists repeatedly screamed that Android was to blame
for all of Apple's design faults, the article clearly says otherwise:
*"This explanation might also be one of many factors as to why*
*flagship Android and other devices don┤ seem to exhibit this*
*issue, as they come with much _larger battery_ cells."*

> For the iPhone 8, they redesigned the power management circuit and added
> a third PMIC. For phones already in the hands of users the user will
> have to periodically change the battery. Instead of getting three or
> four years out of battery, the user will be able to get one or two
> years. Not a terribly big deal.

While I understand why you feel PMIC is the issue, remember that others say
that the problem would have been avoided if Apple simply *tested* the
phones in the real world before releasing them - and - the solution would
have been simple ... Put a bigger battery in!

But it also speaks to a really enormous problem with the iPhone: this $700
to $1,000-plus product, as designed, isn't able to function near its peak
after just a year of use. That should be unacceptable.
*"[Apple] could put _larger batteries_ in the iPhone in the first*
*place, so that they last longer before this kind of adjustment*
*needs to kick in.*

In the end, while the Apple Apologists blame Android for Apple having to
secretly, drastically, and permanently throttle CPUs to less than half the
original speeds after about a year of use, the real reason is clear.
*"the state of charge of a battery under otherwise normal conditions*
*should be taken into account during the design of a device*
*(Battery, SoC, PMIC, decoupling capacitors) and its operating*
*tolerances."*

Hence, any logical reasonable intelligent adult can choose between:
a. Poor design choices of Battery, SOC, PMIC, Caps, & tolerances, or,
b. Apple never tests their mobile devices in the real world

Pick one.

[Alan Baker]

On 2018-08-29 3:58 PM, Arlen Holder wrote:
> On 29 Aug 2018 15:13:00 GMT, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> If Apple admitted something...
>>
>> ...why not post a direct link to it?
>
> Idiot Alan Baker.

That doesn't answer my question.

>
> You Apple Apologists incessantly play the silliest of childish games.
>
> You, Alan Baker, *never* click on the links.
> You make your claims completely *outside of facts*.
>
> HINT: The link is within the link which you didn't even click on so you
> didn't even *read* what the link pointed you to which proved beyond any
> shadow of a doubt what *intelligent* logical sentient adults made out of
> Apple's apology - plus - there were plenty of cross references to what the
> *lawsuits* said (and soon, we hope, what the *judges* say).
>

If it was that easy, then post said link.

[Arlen Holder]

On 29 Aug 2018 19:32:34 GMT, Alan Baker wrote:

> If it was that easy, then post said link.

You Apple Apologists, Alan Baker, are experts at playing silly games.

*You didn't even _click_ on the supplied link for heaven's sake.*
*And yet you complain that it doesn't contain what it does contain.*

Idiot.

[Alan Baker]

You're the one playing the game "Arlen".

You've now expended more effort avoiding posting the link that posting
the link would have taken.

[nospam]

In article <pm7gkv$lv8$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> >>> The root cause of the throttling was not an aged battery,
> >>
> >> yes it very definitely was.
> >
> > Nospam yet again guesses wrong, and even denies what Apple publicly admits.
>
> The root cause was the PMIC.

nope.

> The most accurate and succinct explanation was over at
>
> <https://mjtsai.com/blog/2017/12/22/apple-confirms-that-it-throttles-iphones-w
> ith-degraded-batteries/>:

> "the battery isnšt able to maintain a high enough voltage for the PMIC

> to reliably be able to use as a source."

keep reading:
As batteries degrade over time and the cell impedance also rises also
in function of the state of charge and temperature, the current flow
becomes restricted and the cell is no longer able to satisfy the
power requirement at a high enough operating voltage.

in other words, the battery.

apple's own statement clearly states it's the battery:
Lithium-ion batteries become less capable of supplying peak current
demands when in cold conditions, have a low battery charge or as they
age over time, which can result in the device unexpectedly shutting
down to protect its electronic components.

unexpected shutdowns are *not* something users find acceptable,
particularly with the risk of data loss.

it's also not unique to apple. numerous android phones also randomly
shut down, for the very same reason, including the nexus 6p, which
being a large phone, had a hefty battery:
<https://www.androidpolice.com/2017/05/26/amended-complaint-filed-ongoin
g-nexus-6p-early-shutdown-bootloop-lawsuit/>
...But, for those that might not be aware, some Nexus 6P's have been
experiencing bootloops, a situation in which the phone doesn't
correctly start, but sits unresponsively on the startup animation.
The other battery-related defect manifests itself as the phone
suddenly shutting down long before the battery indicator would
predict.
...
LG recently extended warranty coverage for users suffering similar
problems with the Nexus 5X.

older batteries can't supply peak demands.

> For the iPhone 8, they redesigned the power management circuit and added
> a third PMIC. For phones already in the hands of users the user will
> have to periodically change the battery. Instead of getting three or
> four years out of battery, the user will be able to get one or two
> years. Not a terribly big deal.

also wrong.

[nospam]

In article <pm78t2$dfg$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> > Adobe Flash, as implemented is a festering
> > security hole. To paraphrase Ralph Nader, "unsafe at any speed".
> >
> > AF has been consigned to the dustbin of history. Please leave it there.
>
> While there isn't a lot of new Flash content being produced, there is
> still an enormous quantity of it still out there, and it's useful to be
> able to view it.

there isn't.

flash is currently used on less than 5% of *all* sites, down from 7%
last year, and at the rate it's dropping, it should be around 3% as
soon as early next year.

that is nowhere near 'an enormous quantity'. quite the opposite. it's
almost none.

and if you look at *only* mobile sites, which is what would be served
to a phone or tablet, it's actually much less than 5% since those sites
have already been designed to not need flash.

<https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/software/flash-used-on-5-percent-
of-all-websites-down-from-285-percent-seven-years-ago/>
Only 4.9 percent of today's websites utilize Flash code, a number
that has plummeted from a 28.5 percent market share recorded at the
start of 2011.
...
Back then, speaking at a security conference in San Diego, Parisa
Tabriz, Director of Engineering at Google, said that the percentage
of daily Chrome users who've loaded at least one page containing
Flash content per day had gone down from around 80 percent in 2014
to under 8 percent in early 2018.
Tabriz, one of the people in charge of Chrome's security, blamed the
downfall on the rise of web-based technologies like HTML5 and CSS3,
but also on configuration changes made by Chrome and other browsers,
which disabled Flash rendering and moved to an "HTML5-by-default"
experience.

note that many desktop browsers have *also* disabled flash.

it's dead.

[nospam]

In article <pm7j6t$bml$1...@news.mixmin.net>, Arlen Holder

<arlen...@nospam.net> wrote:

> Does anyone have a good link to Google's explanation of why they dropped
> Flash in Android?

they tried, but it didn't work very well and it was clear that the
future was html5. their resources were better spent elsewhere.

[Arlen Holder]

On 29 Aug 2018 20:02:27 GMT, Alan Baker wrote:

> You're the one playing the game "Arlen".
>
> You've now expended more effort avoiding posting the link that posting
> the link would have taken.

*You prove you're a child in every post, Alan Baker.*

Look at my posts to adults such as those to sms, where I do plenty of
research simply because he's not a child.

He's an adult.

You, Alan Baker, prove in every post you have the mentality of a child.

*Hence all you "can" do, Alan Baker, is play your silly childish games.*

[Arlen Holder]

On 29 Aug 2018 20:06:41 GMT, nospam wrote:

> it's also not unique to apple. numerous android phones also randomly
> shut down, for the very same reason, including the nexus 6p, which
> being a large phone, had a hefty battery:

You always blame Android for Apple's lack of testing their products.

Android batteries didn't cause Apple to secretly, drastically, and
permanently throttle CPUs to less than half their original speeds after
about a year.

Only Apple has this problem.
You try to claim that Android has this problem but no other manufacturer
but Apple has had to *secretly*, *drastically*, and *permanently* throttle
CPUs just because they didn't catch their design flaws because they didn't
do any real world testing.

This is a quote that you know about:
<http://bgr.com/2017/12/29/iphone-slowdown-scandal-apple-fix/

*"Apple is basically telling us that it's not testing iOS updates"*
... and ...

"*Apple had to wait for user feedback* to realize that the iPhone*
*slowdown,*which Apple caused*, is to blame for the poorer user*
*experience on older iPhone 6 and iPhone 6s devices."*

Also, this quote from sms' cite:
<https://mjtsai.com/blog/2017/12/22/apple-confirms-that-it-throttles-iphones-with-degraded-batteries/>

*"the power delivery system was not designed sufficiently robust*
*enough to cope with such loads"*

*"This explanation might also be one of many factors as to why*

*flagship Android and other devices don;t seem to exhibit this*

*issue, as they come with much _larger battery_ cells."*

And...

*"[Apple] could put _larger batteries_ in the iPhone in the first*
*place, so that they last longer before this kind of adjustment*
*needs to kick in.*

And...

*"the state of charge of a battery under otherwise normal conditions*
*should be taken into account during the design of a device*
*(Battery, SoC, PMIC, decoupling capacitors) and its operating*
*tolerances."*

Hence, any logical reasonable intelligent adult can choose between:

a. *Poor design choices of Battery, SOC, PMIC, Caps, & tolerances*, or,
b. *Apple never tests their mobile devices in the real world*

Pick one.

[Alan Baker]

[Arlen Holder]

On 29 Aug 2018 20:06:43 GMT, nospam wrote:

> they tried, but it didn't work very well and it was clear that the
> future was html5. their resources were better spent elsewhere.

This is one of the rare times your guesses are probably correct.

I'm not sure if there _is_ a Google pronouncement on why they don't like
Flash, and Lord knows, most of us hate flash too - but it's in the real
world whether we like it or not.

Steve Jobs clearly said that he didn't want iOS to support flash mainly
because Adobe wanted developers to code apps using flash. Notice that
security was only the tiniest of concerns in Steve Jobs' 2010 letter.

I realize most Apple buyers are consumed by fear, so, for an Apple buyer,
security is paramount (even if it wasn't paramount to Steve Jobs).

But Android buyers don't tend to be consumed by fear like Apple buyers are.

So Google's rationale, if we can find it, would be enlightening.
I can't find a google pronouncement - so maybe they never made one.

Here's Adobe's Jun 28 2012 pronouncement on Android support of Flash:
<https://blogs.adobe.com/flashplayer/2012/06/flash-player-and-android-update.html#sthash.KhY91EhD.dpbs>
"Beginning August 15th we will use the configuration settings
in the Google Play Store to limit continued access to Flash Player
updates to only those devices that have Flash Player already installed."

So maybe it wasn't Google at all that limited flash on Android.
It seems that Adobe may have unilaterally done it themselves.

Adobe doesn't seem to support Flash after Android 4.1:
"We recommend uninstalling Flash Player on devices which
have been upgraded to Android 4.1."

There is further information in this Adobe roadmap, which, confusingly,
does show Flash support well after Android 4.1 so it's a bit confusing:
<https://www.adobe.com/devnet/flashplatform/whitepapers/roadmap.html>

But it seems that maybe it wasn't Google after all that dropped Flash.
For Android, it was perhaps unilaterally only Adobe?

[Arlen Holder]

On 29 Aug 2018 21:26:22 GMT, Alan Baker wrote:

> You've now expended more effort avoiding posting the link that posting
> the link would have taken

The link was in the link that you, Alan Baker, didn't click on.
So you expended a *lot* of effort simply to avoid clicking on a link.

*Every post by you, Alan Baker, simply proves to all that you're a child.*

[Alan Baker]

You've now expended far more effort avoiding posting the link that
posting the link would have taken.

It's not my job to hunt from link to link for YOUR support for YOUR claims.

You claim there's "proof":

Quote it.

Provide the source citation.

[nospam]

In article <pm7si4$rot$1...@news.mixmin.net>, Arlen Holder

<arlen...@nospam.net> wrote:

>
> > they tried, but it didn't work very well and it was clear that the
> > future was html5. their resources were better spent elsewhere.
>
> This is one of the rare times your guesses are probably correct.

it's not a guess.

[Arlen Holder]

On 29 Aug 2018 21:55:52 GMT, nospam wrote:

>> This is one of the rare times your guesses are probably correct.
>
> it's not a guess.

You're not like a normal adult nospam, as you're much closer to the child
mindset of Alan Baker and Jolly Roger.

You're different than both though, as Alan Baker is literally an idiot,
while Jolly Roger is as dumb as Alan Baker but at least Jolly Roger has
some minor technical skills.

You don't have any technical skills but sometimes you seem up to date on
Apple but most of the time you are dead wrong. In fact, you're dead wrong
so many times that even when you might guess right, every single guess from
you has to be fact checked since you have zero credibility.

My credibility is stellar on facts simply becasue when I guess I say it's a
guess, like my guess that you're responding to - which is a guess that
maybe Google didn't announce any ending for flash on Android - maybe it was
only Adobe.

Notice my guesses are backed up by references, and notice I state that it's
a guess.

Yours are almost never backed up by any references.
You state all your guesses as if they are fact.
And yet, almost all the time, you're dead wrong.

The fact you don't care one whit about your utter lack of credibility is
what makes me feel very strongly that you lack any semblance of formal
education. I'm well educated, as is sms - where we were *taught* not to
guess on everything we write.

We were taught you speak facts and to back up our guesses with facts.
You were never taught either.

Hence, you just guess - where - almost all the time - you guess wrong.
The facts show it clearly.

You can't find a single instance in my thousand of posts where my facts are
wrong - or - where if pointed out - I don't immediately agree with the
clarifications (as I did with the Adobe release date of Flash).

All logical adults agree with facts.
Facts are funny that way.

It seems that you & the other Apple Apologists are often immune to facts.
Apple Apologists are funny that way.

[Arlen Holder]

On 29 Aug 2018 21:54:31 GMT, Alan Baker wrote:

> It's not my job to hunt from link to link for YOUR support for YOUR claims.

And yet, you flatly deny data the link contains without even clicking it!

*Alan Baker proves he has the mentality of a child every time he posts.*

[Arlen Holder]

On 27 Aug 2018 14:03:25 GMT, David Higton wrote:

>>flash is dead.
>
> Wrong, as is usual for nospam.

I agree with David Higton, as would all logical sentient adults, that,
while most of us might hate flash, it's still very much there in the real
world.

Just today, in fact, on a new Windows 10 setup, I apparently encountered it
while using Edge for the first time simply reading the news moments ago...
<http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=7612272flash01.jpg>
"Something missing on the page? To help you stay safe, we've blocked
Adobe Flash. Click here to turn it on." [Got it]

Luckily there was a popup query above and the settings below to disable:
<http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=4441186flash02.jpg>
"Adobe Flash content was blocked. Do you want to allow Adobe Flash
to run on this site?" [Allow once][Always allow]

Remember, all I was doing was reading the news from news.google.com,
and this particular page was from the Huffington Post, both of which are
normal for people to do.

My point is that despite nospam's insistence of the world being the way he
wishes it would be in his imaginary belief system, Flash is, whether we
like it or not, quite persistent in the real world.

Nonetheless, this thread never was about Flash so nospam is jumping a jig
in delight most likely, since he was singlehandedly able to turn the facts
from those of this spreadsheet into a discussion about Flash - which he
initiated simply by denying obvious facts (which is a common trick of his).
<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HI-ejgQF5-OfJdS7yj-YL_we-v1PiMG0_JM8nGAlN38>

The facts with the $130 8-core LG Stylo 3 Plus were that you can buy five
(5) far better in almost all cases Android phones for the stupendously high
price of one (1) 3-core far less functional in most ways iPhone 7 Plus ...
and ... as sms' spreadsheet shows ...

You can buy two (2) 8-core far more functional in almost all specs Moto X4
phones for the price of a single 5-core far less functional in almost all
specs iPhone 8 ... as summarized below
*MotoX4 wins* on Resolution functionality
*MotoX4 wins* on Screen Size functionality
*MotoX4 wins* on Pixels Per Inch functionality
iPhone wins on Geekbench functionality
*MotoX4 wins* on Battery functionality (even with the "courageous" jack)
*MotoX4 wins* on RAM functionality (with 3 or 4GB being the two options)
*MotoX4 wins* on Front Camera Pixels functionality
*MotoX4 wins* on Front Flash functionality
*MotoX4 wins* on NFC functionality
*MotoX4 wins* on SDcard functionality (up to 2TB storage)
*MotoX4 wins* on "courageous" headphone jack functionality
*MotoX4 wins* on FM radio functionality
*MotoX4 wins* on USB OTG functionality
*MotoX4 wins* on Waterproofing (even with the "courageous" headphone jack)
*MotoX4 wins* on Price (by a whopping 100%)

While nospam was successful in derailing this thread, these facts remain.

[nospam]

In article <pm8p5m$9i2$1...@news.mixmin.net>, Arlen Holder

<arlen...@nospam.net> wrote:

> Just today, in fact, on a new Windows 10 setup, I apparently encountered it
> while using Edge for the first time simply reading the news moments ago...
> <http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=7612272flash01.jpg>
> "Something missing on the page? To help you stay safe, we've blocked
> Adobe Flash. Click here to turn it on." [Got it]
>
> Luckily there was a popup query above and the settings below to disable:
> <http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=4441186flash02.jpg>
> "Adobe Flash content was blocked. Do you want to allow Adobe Flash
> to run on this site?" [Allow once][Always allow]
>
> Remember, all I was doing was reading the news from news.google.com,
> and this particular page was from the Huffington Post, both of which are
> normal for people to do.

that particular page works perfectly fine *without* flash, as does the
entire huffington post site.

<https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/prince-harry-sings-hamilton-meghan-
markle_us_5b879196e4b0511db3d4bf63>

if flash is installed but disabled, it will ask to enable it.

however, if flash is *not* installed at all, you *automatically* get
the html5 version of the site and without any popups to enable
anything. it actually works *better* without flash.

[Alan Baker]

On 2018-08-30 5:22 AM, Arlen Holder wrote:
> On 29 Aug 2018 21:54:31 GMT, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> It's not my job to hunt from link to link for YOUR support for YOUR claims.
>
> And yet, you flatly deny data the link contains without even clicking it!

No. I neither confirm nor deny anything.

What I stand by is that it is not MY job to go looking for YOUR support.

Present it here.

You claim Apple admitted something: YOU quote it here AND provide a
direct link.

[B...@onramp.net]

On Thu, 30 Aug 2018 08:44:43 -0700, Alan Baker <nu...@ness.biz> wrote:

>On 2018-08-30 5:22 AM, Arlen Holder wrote:
>> On 29 Aug 2018 21:54:31 GMT, Alan Baker wrote:
>>
>>> It's not my job to hunt from link to link for YOUR support for YOUR claims.
>>
>> And yet, you flatly deny data the link contains without even clicking it!
>
>No. I neither confirm nor deny anything.
>
>What I stand by is that it is not MY job to go looking for YOUR support.
>
>Present it here.
>
>You claim Apple admitted something: YOU quote it here AND provide a
>direct link.

He can't...or won't. It's easier for him to SAY he gave a link so
that he doesn't have to show it.

>>
>> *Alan Baker proves he has the mentality of a child every time he posts.*

I've known Alan for at least 20 years and can say without doubt that
his mentality is not childish.

Yours? Manifestly so.
>>

[Alan Baker]

Thanks, Bobby. Has it really been 20 years? I guess it's pretty close. :-)

>
> Yours? Manifestly so.

He's a tedious twit, and I mostly ignore him, but some times I just
can't stop myself.

[B...@onramp.net]

I kill filed him some time ago.

[Arlen Holder]

On 30 Aug 2018 06:36:28 GMT, nospam wrote:

> that particular page works perfectly fine *without* flash, as does the
> entire huffington post site.

I never said it didn't work fine - so you're just playing your silly
semantic games again, nospam.

I said flash *existed* at that web site.

No amount of your imaginary claims from inside your imaginary world can
wish that fact away.

> <https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/prince-harry-sings-hamilton-meghan-
> markle_us_5b879196e4b0511db3d4bf63>
>
> if flash is installed but disabled, it will ask to enable it.
>
> however, if flash is *not* installed at all, you *automatically* get
> the html5 version of the site and without any popups to enable
> anything. it actually works *better* without flash.

The point is that flash *exists* in the real world.

Only in your imaginary world do you deny facts that all *adults* agree on.

[Arlen Holder]

On 30 Aug 2018 09:03:36 GMT, B...@Onramp.net wrote:

> I've known Alan for at least 20 years and can say without doubt that
> his mentality is not childish.

Hehhehheh ....

A testimonial from BK@OnRamp supporting the genius of Alan Baker no less!

Thanks for making my day.

Two of the *dumbest* humans on the planet - backing each other up in their
idiocy.

I do very much appreciate the humor.

Thanks!

[Arlen Holder]

On 30 Aug 2018 10:47:09 GMT, B...@Onramp.net wrote:

> I kill filed him some time ago.

The absolute *beauty* of you killfiling me, is that I never have to read
what you write, which we long ago proved has *never* once added even a
single iota of on-topic value to *any* thread, ever ... in your entire
life!

You're _that_ dumb, BK@ONRAmp.

It's remarkable, actually, that a human can be as dumb as you consistently
prove yourself to be - and still survive.

Please continue to killfile me - so that neither I - nor anyone else - has
to be subjected to your idiotic drivel.

The canonical half-dozen Apple Apologists are (in this order):
1. nospam
2. Jolly Roger
3. Lewis
4. *BK@OnRamp*
5. Alan Baker
6. Savageduck

[Alan Baker]

On 2018-08-30 6:55 PM, Arlen Holder wrote:
> On 30 Aug 2018 09:03:36 GMT, B...@Onramp.net wrote:
>
>> I've known Alan for at least 20 years and can say without doubt that
>> his mentality is not childish.
>
> Hehhehheh ....
>
> A testimonial from BK@OnRamp supporting the genius of Alan Baker no less!

You never can play it straight, can you?

Where did he suggest I'm a genius?

[Alan Baker]

On 2018-08-30 6:59 PM, Arlen Holder wrote:
> On 30 Aug 2018 10:47:09 GMT, B...@Onramp.net wrote:
>
>> I kill filed him some time ago.
>
> The absolute *beauty* of you killfiling me, is that I never have to read
> what you write, which we long ago proved has *never* once added even a
> single iota of on-topic value to *any* thread, ever ... in your entire
> life!

No. His killfiling you has literally no relationship to whether or not
you "have to read" anything of his aside from the fact that you won't
see any direct replies from him... ...because he won't make anyone.

>
> You're _that_ dumb, BK@ONRAmp.

Says the guy who just said, "I never have to read what you write"...

...immediately after reading and replying to something he wrote!

[Arlen Holder]

On 30 Aug 2018 19:08:08 GMT, Alan Baker wrote:

> Where did he suggest I'm a genius?

You're so incomprehensibly stupid that you don't even get obvious sarcasm.

[nospam]

In article <pma73m$l98$1...@news.mixmin.net>, Arlen Holder

<arlen...@nospam.net> wrote:

>
> > that particular page works perfectly fine *without* flash, as does the
> > entire huffington post site.
>
> I never said it didn't work fine

you said flash was needed to view the site.

it isn't.

[Alan Baker]

No. I get that it's a ridiculous overreach...

...and that you clipped all the very salient rebuttals I made to the
rest of your post.

:-)

[Arlen Holder]

On 30 Aug 2018 19:57:07 GMT, nospam wrote:

> you said flash was needed to view the site.
> it isn't.

As always, you nospam live in an imaginary world of your own concoction.
Not only do you fabricate quoted content but you can't comprehend words.

I said, verbatim:

"while most of us might hate flash, it's still very much there
in the real world."

"I apparently encountered it .. simply reading the news moments ago...
<http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=7612272flash01.jpg>

"Luckily there was a popup query above and the settings below to disable:
<http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=4441186flash02.jpg>

"all I was doing was reading the news from news.google.com,
and this particular page was from the Huffington Post"

Notice I never once said that flash was needed to view the site.

As always, everything nospam posts proves that he lives in his own
childishly imaginary world outside of the actual realities of real world.

[Lewis]

In message <pm3ljl$v76$1...@dont-email.me> sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 8/27/2018 2:52 PM, David Higton wrote:

> <snip>

>> So it's not dead yet.
>>
>> I wish it were, and it will be at some point, just not yet.
>>
>> Dave

> Exactly. Still very widely used, and a pain when a device is unable to
> display valid web content.

You can claim this, but the actual numbers are against you. Use has
dropped significantly at is now under 5%, and the vast majority of that
is ancient pages that are not being maintained or sites that are
actively lying about requiring Flash from Desktop users because it is a
simple malware injection path.

> “The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated.”

Flash is dead, deal with it, It's been feature-frozen for awhile and the
only updates it gets is critical security patches (and these are still
coming fast and furious).


--
If I were you boys, I wouldn't talk or even think about women. 'T'ain't
good for your health.

[I R A Darth Aggie]

On Wed, 29 Aug 2018 22:11:46 -0000 (UTC),
Arlen Holder <arlen...@nospam.net>, in
<pm75n1$i7e$1...@news.mixmin.net> wrote:
> On 29 Aug 2018 21:32:46 GMT, I R A Darth Aggie wrote:
>
> > You should be, too. Adobe Flash, as implemented is a festering
> > security hole. To paraphrase Ralph Nader, "unsafe at any speed".
> >
> > AF has been consigned to the dustbin of history. Please leave it there.
>
> You can deny that the world exists around you.
>
> But, the fact is that the world exists outside of your desires.
> It just does.
>
> If you have iOS, you have to "just give up".
> If you have Android, you can do what you want if and when you want to.
>
> It's like handing a person an iOS butterknife to chop down a tree when the
> Android user has a chainsaw to do the same job.

Except that the Adroid user with the assualt chainsaw will end up
hacking off his feet.

I'll say this one more time. ADOBE FLASH IS DEAD ON
ANDROID. DEAD. DEAD. DEAD.

That is the realtiy of the world. And even if it weren't dead, it was
a festering shithole of a security breach waiting to happen.

But don't take my word for here. Ask google about these search terms

drive by adobe flash breaches from advertising networks

--
Consulting Minister for Consultants, DNRC
I can please only one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow
isn't looking good, either.
I am BOFH. Resistance is futile. Your network will be assimilated.