Facts please: What would a 10X more expensive phone actually buy me that actually matters?

[arlen holder]

Facts please:
*What would a 10X more expensive phone actually buy me that matters?*

I bought a $130 cheap phone at Costco about a year ago (Christmas Eve).
After a year of use, I should be "feeling" that it's a cheap phone.
Shouldn't I?

But it feels just fine to me.
Seriously.

It doesn't feel limited in any sense that I even notice.

What am I missing that someone paying 10X gets that I don't already have?
o What do they get for that 10X price differential that I don't have?
o I'm making one huge assumption - which is a use model as shown below

The fact is that I have the el cheapo $130 T-Mobile LG Stylo 3 Plus,
and the fact is I've had other smart phones where this phone is just fine
even though it's not a "fast" phone nor does it have a ton of internal
storage and it only has a 1.4GHz octal core CPU with only 3GB of RAM.

I never use the stylus (I haven't figured out what it does that my finger
can't do that I care about), so I just use it as a basic phone, where I've
used all my previous phones the same way...
o My first "smart" phone after the Kyocera & Blackberry was the S3
o That S3 (which lasted for about 5 or 6 years before it broke) was fine
o I had a short stint with both Google Nexus 5 & Moto G until they crushed
o Now I'm on this LG Stylo 3 Plus (32GB + 32GB expansion card)

As for the LG Stylo 3 Plus...
o I love the screen size
o I like the 32GB (plus essentially infinite expandable storage)
o I love the removable battery
o I love the power & functionality of free Android apps
o And, strangely enough, the speed of the 8 cores is just fine

*So what do people get for 10X the price, that I don't already have?*

It should be noted I (essentially) _never_ pay for apps, and, I (almost)
never use an app that has ads (and where, at this moment, I have hundreds
of installed apps where I can't think of a single free app I need or use
that has ads anyway ... e.g., even YouTube doesn't have ads on my phone).

I consider myself a typical non-gamer user of a smartphone.

I mostly use the smartphone for basic stuff such as...
o Calls, sms, calendar, maps, alarms, reminders, photos, youtube, etc.

And yet, I also use it for some non-basic stuff (I presume) such as...
o WiFi/cellular debugging, call recording, Android programming, etc.

What I don't use it for are screen/keyboard/mouse intensive things like...
o Games, editing (except minor text), browsing (except emergencies), etc.

And, what I don't want to pay for are dual SIMs or non-T-Mobile carriers.
o I use second-phone line apps for free 2nd-SMS & POTS voice calls
o I've had Verizon & AT&T where I am perfectly happy with T-Mobile

Other than $130 for the phone (+ $13 sales tax), I don't pay for anything.
And, for free, I already have everything I can think of that I need.

What am I missing that a person paying 10X what I did, gets that I don't?

I'm sure there _must_ be power-hungry apps that require RAM+CPU.
But where are they?

Specifically, given my rather common use model, what stresses this phone?
What apps matter, to me, that are power hungry anyway?

If I really want gaming apps, or, if for some strange reason I wish to edit
video, I simply use the desktop for that, where, if I really wanted to use
specific Android games or apps, all the Android editors and games work just
fine on the desktop under free Android emulation, where I can assign up to
16GB of RAM to those Android images, and I get a huge (by way of
comparison) storage space, screen and keyboard and mouse, etc, out of the
deal.

*What do people get that I don't get, for their 10X purchase investment?*

Given I'm perfectly happy with the el cheapo $130 phone in my use model,
I'm curious why anyone spends more than ten times what I spent for a cell
phone if they do pretty much the same things that I do.

Assuming people actually pay 10X what I paid for a smartphone, what salient
functionality am I missing that people get who pay 10X what I paid for the
phone get out of that 10X deal (where the sales tax alone can be more than
I paid for the entire phone)?

*What do they get that I care about that I don't get by paying 10X less?*

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <puehf0$vc0$1...@news.mixmin.net>, arlen holder

<ar...@arlen.com> writes:
>Facts please:
>*What would a 10X more expensive phone actually buy me that matters?*
>
>I bought a $130 cheap phone at Costco about a year ago (Christmas Eve).

[]

>The fact is that I have the el cheapo $130 T-Mobile LG Stylo 3 Plus,

How did we get to the point where a $130 phone is considered "cheap" or
"el cheapo"?
[]

>And, what I don't want to pay for are dual SIMs or non-T-Mobile carriers.

What's a "non-T-Mobile carrier"?
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Just because you're old it doesn't mean you go beige. Quite the reverse.
- Laurence Llewelyn-Bowen, RT 2015/7/11-17

[nospam]

In article <SVE0iCbs...@255soft.uk>, J. P. Gilliver (John)

<G6JP...@255soft.uk> wrote:

> >And, what I don't want to pay for are dual SIMs or non-T-Mobile carriers.
>
> What's a "non-T-Mobile carrier"?

a carrier that isn't t-mobile, such as at&t, verizon and sprint.

[Tim]

arlen holder <ar...@arlen.com> wrote in
news:puehf0$vc0$1...@news.mixmin.net:

Some want the prestige of the latest and greatest.
Some have been brainwashed into believing they need an expensive phone to
do what they want [or think they want (or have been told they should
want)]
If they buy Apple they get the hand-holding and integration that Apple
offers [that I wouldn't mind having but won't pay their price for].
Some need or believe they need a real keyboard.

There are a lot of reasons why someone new to the industry or who haven't
the knowledge or inclination to do their research will just go with
whatever is being advertised as the 'must-have' phone this year. It's a
lot like buying a car. Some feel they need the fastest, sharpest looking,
newest style, must-have features a dealer offers. Others have a list of
their needs and look for a car that meets those needs at an acceptable
price. To each his own.

I personally carry a $30 Tracfone and pay by-the-minute, since I make or
receive very few calls and use maybe a couple hundred minutes a year. I
also carry an Android tablet, currently an Asus Zenpad S 8, that I find
far more useful than any Android or Iphone on the market.

[arlen holder]

On Fri, 7 Dec 2018 19:40:28 +0000, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

> How did we get to the point where a $130 phone is considered "cheap" or
> "el cheapo"?

Hi John,

While I've bought burner Android phones for about $35 to $45 bucks, they're
so sub standard (IMHO), that they're not in the same category as a "decent"
smartphone is.

Phones have been getting cheaper by the day, and more powerful too!

My first cell phones were the Analog-only Motorola flip phones with the
pullout antenna (remember them?) and then my first digital phone was a set
of RAZRs which, I think, cost far more at the time than this $130 phone
did.

The price has been dropping while the power has just been going up and up!

Then I bought the Kyocera under Verizon, which, at the time, I think was
around $400, but when it was replaced under the insurance plan, I got
pissed at Verizon for upping the contract so I switched to the slightly
cheaper AT&T the day that second two-year contract expired.

On AT&T I had the Blackberry, which I forget the price of as it may have
been bundled in with the service, where it eventually died when the clit
stopped responding to my ministrations.

I got mad at AT&T because they wouldn't let me have a smart phone without a
data plan (where I toyed with the idea of changing the IMEI at the time
since my Blackberry was grandfathered for no data, but a new phone would
not have been grandfathered even though AT&T is perfectly happy to put a
data block on the line - which means their pricing plan made no sense).

After complaining to the FCC and getting an AT&T marketing exec to give me
the broken record of "what good is a smart phone without data", I switched
to the (far) cheaper T-Mobile, which allowed me to have no data, and which
has been giving me "free data" ever since (including free SIM cards for my
iPads).

At this point, while on T-Mobile, it was still a contract-based industry
such that I my first T-Mobile phone was the brand new at that time Samsung
Galaxy S3, so I think I paid something like $200 as I recall, but it was
subsidized by the carrier so it's hard to say what the true cost really
was.

I've been on T-Mobile ever since where I forget the price for the Nexus 5
but it was around $350 on a T-Mobile interest-free plan (but they charge
about $50 more than you can get it on the net), and then I got the Moto-G
on the Google Play web site on the net for about $200 as I recall at that
time.

Notice the price of these phones has been falling, falling, falling...

Even so, what I hated about _both_ those "el cheapo" phones was the lack of
consumer-friendly things such as an external SIM card and removable battery
for the Moto-G, whose camera really sucked and whose WiFi was downright
primitive (no 5GHz).

Notice that I learned from the "el cheapo" phones, that you lose things
o You can't remove the battery (which sucks for the consumer)
o You can't expand the storage (which sucks for the consumer)
o You can't take good pictures or use 5GHz WiFi (for the Moto-G anyway)
etc.

And yet, capable phones are still getting cheaper and cheaper by the day!

It's now to the point where my $130 phone, which is the least expensive
smartphone I've ever purchased, has 8 cores, 1.4GHz CPU speeds, 3GB RAM,
32GB internal storage, essentially infinite expandable storage, fingerprint
sensor, phablet size, decent graphics, decent camera, stylus, removable
battery, etc.

The funny thing is that I'm expecting to be *disappointed* in this el
cheapo phone - and yet - it works just fine for what I use it for.

I don't even notice any performance hit that I'm supposed to notice.
Am I missing something here?

Why do people spend as much as 10 times more for a smart phone?
What do they get for 10x cost that I need, that I don't get for $130?

It's an "el cheapo" $130 phone for heaven's sake.
It's _supposed_ to have drawbacks since it's an "el cheapo" phone!

The main reason I call it "el cheapo" is that there are *plenty* of 3x, 4x,
5x, ... and even 10x more expensive phones (where the sales tax alone is
more than I paid for the entire phone) out there that people _must_ be
buying.

I realize for $130, 1.4GHz clock speeds and only 3GB RAM and only 8 cores
isn't anything fancy, where I'm sure benchmarks show that to be the case,
and while I can't find a DXOMark test on the camera, 13MP isn't fancy - and
yet - it works fine for me.

It's not like it's my first phone, but it _is_ the least expensive
smartphone I've ever owned.

I'm _expecting_ to be disappointed somehow.
And yet, I'm not.

Since the price of decent phones has been dropping for years,
this, the cheapest smartphone I've ever purchased.

And yet, I'm no babe in the woods, and it's still just fine (for me).
That's why I'm asking the question of others who pay far more.

*What do they get that I don't get, assuming a similar use model, for more?*

[arlen holder]

On Fri, 07 Dec 2018 14:46:22 -0500, nospam wrote:

>>>And, what I don't want to pay for are dual SIMs or non-T-Mobile carriers.
>>
>> What's a "non-T-Mobile carrier"?
>
> a carrier that isn't t-mobile, such as at&t, verizon and sprint.

The reason I bring up the carrier is that this is a T-Mobile GSM phone.

It won't work, I don't think, on Verizon, although, I think, SMS mentioned
that their may be a similar Verizon-capable phone from LG.

For me the fact it's GSM and not CDMA doesn't affect me in the least, but I
do realize that might affect others - but - if there is a Verizon-capable
variant, then that issue is moot.

I mainly brought up the carrier issue because I want to stay factual
on the good and on the bad, since this is a serious question of what I'm
missing out on that I would care about by spending as much as 10 times less
than other people do for their smartphones (where their sales tax alone is
the entire cost of my phone out the door, including my $13 in sales tax).

[nospam]

In article <puembp$6si$1...@news.mixmin.net>, arlen holder

<ar...@arlen.com> wrote:

>
> >>>And, what I don't want to pay for are dual SIMs or non-T-Mobile carriers.
> >>
> >> What's a "non-T-Mobile carrier"?
> >
> > a carrier that isn't t-mobile, such as at&t, verizon and sprint.
>
> The reason I bring up the carrier is that this is a T-Mobile GSM phone.

that only matters if it's locked to t-mobile and/or lacks the necessary
bands for another carrier.

> It won't work, I don't think, on Verizon, although, I think, SMS mentioned
> that their may be a similar Verizon-capable phone from LG.

as i recall, he was referring to cdma capability, which only matters if
there's no lte (it's used for fallback), and given lte's wide
deployment, that isn't an issue.

however, it does need at least one lte band that verizon uses.

[sms]

On 12/7/2018 11:25 AM, arlen holder wrote:
> Facts please:
> *What would a 10X more expensive phone actually buy me that matters?*

Here you go:

Galaxy Note 9 (6-10x)
---------------------
Active stylus
IP68
Much better camera
Works on all four U.S. carriers, not just AT&T and T-Mobile
More foreign LTE bands
No lag even with full encryption
Latest operating system version
Larger, higher-resolution screen
More internal memory

iPhone Xs Max (9-13x)
---------------------
IP68
Much better camera
Works on all four U.S. carriers, not just AT&T and T-Mobile
More foreign LTE bands
No lag even with full encryption
Latest operating system version
Larger, higher-resolution screen
More internal memory
Compatibility with Apple Watch

I am probably going to purchase an iPhone Xs Max. Given what happened
last night, it would be inappropriate for me not to have an iPhone.

Apple is the greatest company in the world.

[Rod Speed]

"Tim" <onely...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:XnsA9B18CB8683BEt...@69.16.179.28...

I personally use an iphone and use it for all incoming and outgoing
calls now, because its much more convenient to be able to receive
the calls anywhere I happen to be. And it only costs me $10 a month
for unlimited calls and texts and MMSs to any landline or mobile in the
country and 1GB of data which is plenty for what I do out of the house.

> I also carry an Android tablet, currently an Asus Zenpad S 8, that
> I find far more useful than any Android or Iphone on the market.

Mad to cart that thing around.

[arlen holder]

sms said:

> Here you go:
I appreciate your input, sms, particularly due to three factors:
o You're an intelligent person,
o You own both iOS & Android devices (so you know the differences)
o And, you even own an LG Stylo 3 Plus (so you know the phone)

> Galaxy Note 9 (6-10x)
> ---------------------
> Active stylus
> IP68
> Much better camera
> Works on all four U.S. carriers, not just AT&T and T-Mobile
> More foreign LTE bands
> No lag even with full encryption
> Latest operating system version
> Larger, higher-resolution screen
> More internal memory

This is a good list, which I appreciate.

o Active stylus
I don't even use the passive stylus on the LG Stylo 3 Plus, where an active
stylus would be interesting (and perhaps useful?) although having buttons
on a stylus may be a solution in want of a problem given that a tiny phone
screen is just not the place for design work given you can run any phone
software you want on a far more powerful desktop already.

o IP68
Ingress protection is also a useful feature, where the 6 is protection from
dust and the 8 being protection at least up to 1.5m under water for at
least 1/2 hour. In contrast, I don't think the LG Stylo 3 Plus even has an
IP rating (I've never been able to find any reference to one anyway).

o Works on all four major US carriers
This, as we've previously discussed, is critical for Verizon customers. For
me, it's meaningless if the phone doesn't work on Verizon, but I do agree
it's useful for others to consider.

o More foreign LTE bands
I'll take your word for it on that one, as you actually own the LG Stylo 3
Plus and you're on Verizon, so you know the bands better than I do, since,
for me, if a phone works on T-Mobile, then that's all I care about (where I
generally visit Europe once or twice a year where my phone works fine, and,
in fact, the T-Mobile basic plan I'm on is, surprisingly, *better* in that
the data in Europe becomes unlimited (not that I am ever near the limit in
the USA) with zero roaming (not that there is any roaming charges in the
USA either) and all cellular calls are 20 cents a minute(WiFi calls are
free), where that's the only additional cost.

o No lag even with full encryption
That's an interesting observation, where, as you're likely aware, I don't
put encryption on my phone, and I don't even have a pin code, nor do I use
the fingerprint sensor, since my threat model is from a Cessna flying
overhead far more than from physical contact with the phone itself.

I am well aware that nospam, in particular, has historically argued that
hardware encryption is better than software encryption, where, on Android,
the software encryption has been there for quite some time. While nospam
grasps at straws, e.g., whenever he attempts to insinuate that hardware
encryption is somehow, (magically?) "more secure", what software encryption
lacks is two clear and obvious things:
o It's usually more complex for the user to set up (so they don't), and,
o It is usually slower than hardware encryption.

Whether or not hardware or software is faster is moot if both are now, at
least on the higher end phones, "fast enough" that people will use it.

If what you're implying is that the "Galaxy Note 9 (6-10x)" software
encryption is far more usable than that of the LG Stylo 3 Plus, then, for
most people, that would be a 'good thing'. It's not meaningful to me,
except as a curiosity, since my threat model is "over the air" snooping,
but still, if the phone is always encrypted, that's a good thing even in my
book.

More facts about that "no lag" observation would be very interesting.

> Latest operating system version

o Latest Android operating system
I'm not sure this is any advantage to Oreo 8.1 of the Note 9 versus the
Nougat 7.0 of the LG Stylo 3 Plus, since what matters to most people are
the apps that they run, which, in general, for Android, work on almost
everything, and, in fact, as I develop my own apps, I can easily see that
targeting the lower releases ensures the apps work on more devices.

A quick look up of Oreo versus Nougat shows PIP is new (but I've had PIP
for years, at least with NewPipe I have). AutoFill Framework is something
others may care about who use their phone with web browsers. Likewise, some
may like the Oreo sharing preferences, but I don't see any value in it.

I guess it's nice that Oreo has a "per app disk quota" where it first
clears the cache of apps that exceeded their quotas, but I wouldn't call
that a deal killer.

Likewise, I guess it's nice that Oreo has "Wi-Fi Aaware" neighbor-awareness
networking, for point to point ad-hoc networking, which, if I had it, I
might find a use for it somehow.

Lumping the rest together, I don't seem much value yet in that Oreo apps
don't have a default maximum aspect ratio, there is support for multiple
displays, they get somewhat better battery life, they have additional
bluetooth codecs, bluetooth 5, audio focus, & font kerning,

As you're aware, I've been using the freeware Android Studio integrated
development environment where Oreo handles notifications a bit better than
did Nougat.

Overall, that seems to be the major differences between Oreo and Nougat,
where, realistically, I don't see any of them as being earth shattering ...
do you?

> Larger, higher-resolution screen

A bigger screen is almost always a good thing in a phone, where the LG
Stylo 3 Plus is much smaller and has a far lower pixel density;
Screen type: Stylo is IPS LCD while the Note 9 is Super AMOLED
Pixel density: Stylo is 386ppi while the Note 9 is 514ppi
Screen size: Stylo is 5.7" while the Note 9 is 6.4"
Resolution: Stylo is 1080x1920 while Note 9 is 1440x2960 pixels

This is perhaps the hugest difference between the phones, where the sheer
beauty of that screen of the Note 9 must literally kill that of the Stylo 3
Plus!

> More internal memory

It's wonderful that the Note 9 comes with 128GB of internal storage while
the el cheapo LG Stylo 3 Plus is only 32GB of internal storage, however,
that may not be as important as it sounds at first.

I'm doing fine, for example, with the 32GB internal storage and 32GB flash
cards that I got for about fifty cents per GB at Fryes (and Costco). Flash
cards, even fast flash cards, are pretty cheap nowadays, and Android is
getting better at using them for the "internal storage" jobs.

Hence, I posit that the internal memory is less important nowadays than it
used to be, now that Android can use the entire SD card (which,
technically, can be up to 2TB in size if you can find one that large) for
the internal storage mechanism.

Of course, it's one or the other, where you have a choice of
o Either use the sd card only as external storage, or,
o Use the sd card as internal storage (for all but the initial apps).

The _speed_ of that external storage will matter if you set up the sd card
for external storage though, where, personally, I don't know anyone who has
actually set up their phone to use the sd card as the internal storage.

So while the 128 GB of the Note 9 is wonderful, I'm not sure if having any
more storage than you need is of any benefit, where, unless you take a lot
of video, you could easily load hundreds of apps on a phone with just the
32GB of internal storage.

I'm not saying more storage isn't a good thing, mind you; but I am saying
that, at 50 cents per gigabyte for internal storage cards which can be set
up to act like internal storage, it might not be as important as it used to
be.

Still, it's nice to have foru times the internal storage, even if the
external storage limit is essentially the same on both phones.

========== in summary =============

In summary, for many times the price, you do get some nice things with that
Note 9, most notably a fantastic screen, lots more storage, intrusion
protection, and CPU speeds that can (if it's true) use encryption on the
entire file syste in real time without lag.

Is my summary accurate (based on your knowledge of my needs)?

[arlen holder]

On Sat, 8 Dec 2018 02:57:12 -0000 (UTC), arlen holder wrote:

> Is my summary accurate (based on your knowledge of my needs)?

Ooooooops. I missed the "much better camera" line item!
A camera is a funny thing, where, well, what matters only is the output.
Everthing else is a technical spec.

For example, the LG Stylo 3 Plus has better image resolution than the
Galaxy Note 9, according to the one-to-one comparison of specs:
o Stylo 3 Plus = 4128x3096 pixels
o Note 9 = 4000x3000 pixels
<https://www.gadgetsnow.com/compare-mobile-phones/LG-Stylo-3-Plus-vs-Samsung-Galaxy-Note-9>

Both have HDR, whereas the front selfie camera (which I find utterly
useless and obnoxious besides), is better on the Note 9 at 8MP versus only
5MP on the Stylo 3 Plus.

What matters is the quality of results, where the lens, stabilization,
electronics, etc., all play a role, but what matters, I will repeat, is the
quality of results.

The Note 9 was in second place (second only to HTC) in that recent review,
which, clearly, means the camera output is stellar.

I just wish I could find a DXOMark test for the LG Stylo 3 Plus, or, if
there is a one-to-one test of the two phones elsewhere.

Unfortunately, I can't find a DXOMark test of the LG Stylo 3 Plus camera,
but there is a nice recent (Sept 10) review of the Note 9 camera output
<https://www.dxomark.com/samsung-galaxy-note-9-review-premium-choice/>

Personally, I think a cell phone is inferior to an SLR, but there's no
better camera in an emergency than the one in your hands at that very
moment, which makes cell phone cameras important in their own right.

Even without a side-by-side review of camera output, I'm sure the output
from the Note 9 kills that of the much less expensive $130 LG Stylo 3 Plus.

[Tim]

"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:g70ong...@mid.individual.net:

>
>
> "Tim" <onely...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:XnsA9B18CB8683BEt...@69.16.179.28...
>> arlen holder <ar...@arlen.com> wrote in
>> news:puehf0$vc0$1...@news.mixmin.net:
>>
>

>> I also carry an Android tablet, currently an Asus Zenpad S 8, that
>> I find far more useful than any Android or Iphone on the market.
>
> Mad to cart that thing around.
>

It's interesting that you make such a concrete judgment call when you don't
even know what I use the tablet for.

I like to play games like Freecell, Scrabble, chess, etc., that work much
better on a 8" tablet screen then they do on a much smaller phone screen.
One of my major uses is to keep my grocery shopping list, which is usually
long enough that I would be scrolling back and forth forever on a phone
screen, but almost never on my tablet. And last but not least, I use it as
my primary ereader, where again I get a lot more page displayed on one
screen than I would on a phone. Of course, when you start talking about
phones with 7" screens, my arguement is that you really have a tablet with
a built-in phone. :-)

[Rod Speed]

"Tim" <onely...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:XnsA9B1E2B8E443Et...@69.16.179.28...

> "Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:g70ong...@mid.individual.net:
>
>>
>>
>> "Tim" <onely...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:XnsA9B18CB8683BEt...@69.16.179.28...
>>> arlen holder <ar...@arlen.com> wrote in
>>> news:puehf0$vc0$1...@news.mixmin.net:
>>>
>>
>>> I also carry an Android tablet, currently an Asus Zenpad S 8, that
>>> I find far more useful than any Android or Iphone on the market.
>>
>> Mad to cart that thing around.
>>
> It's interesting that you make such a concrete judgment call

It isnt a judgement call, it’s a statement of fact.

> when you don't even know what I use the tablet for.

I know that regardless of what you use the tablet for, it makes no sense.

> I like to play games like Freecell, Scrabble, chess, etc.,

Stupid to be carting a tablet around so you
can do that when you are out and about.

> that work much better on a 8" tablet screen
> then they do on a much smaller phone screen.

> One of my major uses is to keep my grocery shopping list,

That works fine on a phone screen.

> which is usually long enough that I would be scrolling
> back and forth forever on a phone screen,

Bullshit when its sorted by store and aisle so you go thru
the list in the order than you pick up the stuff in the store.

> but almost never on my tablet.

Only because you don’t have enough of a clue to do it
the right way. Stupid to be carting a tablet around the store.

> And last but not least, I use it as my primary ereader,

Anyone with even half a clue uses an ereader that keeps
the phone in synch with what you read one when at home
and work and so doesn't need to cart a tablet everywhere.

> where again I get a lot more page displayed
> on one screen than I would on a phone.

But you don’t need the maximum amount on the
screen when reading when not at home or work.

[arlen holder]

On Fri, 7 Dec 2018 15:27:23 -0800, sms wrote:

> I am probably going to purchase an iPhone Xs Max. Given what happened
> last night, it would be inappropriate for me not to have an iPhone.

OK. I'll bite.
What happened last night that made it easier to buy the iPhone XS MAX?

[arlen holder]

On Fri, 7 Dec 2018 15:27:23 -0800, sms wrote:

> iPhone Xs Max (9-13x)

Hi sms,

Thanks for bringing up those three phones, where this link has specs:
<https://www.gadgetsnow.com/compare-mobile-phones/Apple-iPhone-XS-Max-vs-LG-Stylo-3-Plus-vs-Samsung-Galaxy-Note-9-512GB>

On the iPhone Xs Max & Note 9, it must be observed, the cost of the sales
tax alone on the more expensive phones is as much as the Android phone
costs (where sms & I live).

That makes the "protection" specs, such as IP68, less valid, so we should
concentration on the "performance" specs instead.

> IP68

As previously noted, while intrusion protection against dust (6) and 1.5m
of water for 1/2 hour is good, if you fall in a lake and stay underwater
for a half hour, then IP68 alone makes the 10X cost only 9x.

After falling into the lake nine times, you break even if that's all you
wanted; but it's still very nice to have IP68.

IP68 is just not a useful comparison point when you can purchase 10 non
IP68 replacement phones for the price of the one phone with IP68.

> Much better camera

Cameras on mobile devices are funny things, where an SLR is the way to go
if you need a "real" camera - but the old adage applies that the best
camera for the job is the one in your hands when it's time to snap a photo.

Also, cameras are funny in that mere specs don't tell the whole story, in
that, for example, the el cheapo $130 LG Stylo 3 Plus main camera is 13MP
while both the iPhone XS Max & Note 9 are lesser, at only 12MP.

Unfortunately, DXOMark didn't test the el cheapo $130 LG Stylo 3 Plus, but
they did test the Apple IPhone XS Max in early October of this year.
<https://www.dxomark.com/apple-iphone-xs-max-review-flagship-imaging-power/>

While I'd use an SLR if I cared about photos, and while the LG Stylo 3 Plus
13MP pictures seem to be ok with me, I'm ok with the assumption that the
12MP pictures coming out of the 10x more expensive iPhone will be far
better than those from the LG 13MP camera output.

> Works on all four U.S. carriers, not just AT&T and T-Mobile

As noted, carrier compatibility only matters for T-Mobile for me, even as I
travel to Europe yearly, but I do understand that those on Verizon would be
stuck unable to take advantage of a phone that costs 10x less (in addition
to a far cheaper service plan, last I had checked - admittedly long ago).

I do realize that the Verizon lovers sometimes claim superior coverage
(even within my own family), where there is reasonable debate on that,
where what matters, in the end, is coverage where you are, not coverage
overall on the map.

> More foreign LTE bands

I'm not sure how important this is, but it's a nice thing to have.

However, if you don't travel extensively (which I don't), then having more
foreign LTE bands wouldn't likely be critical since we're talking a 10x
cost delta - where the advantages have to be generally useful to be worth
the cost difference.

> No lag even with full encryption

THIS COULD BE IMPORTANT - if only we had real factual details!

For the iPhone, doesn't it take an entire dedicated CPU (leaving only 5
available CPUs) for this hardware encryption (while, for the two Android
phones, it's software encryption using any or all of the 8 CPUs).

That means the lack of lag on the two types of phones has DIFFERENT cons
o Apple phones lose an entire CPU (when they're normally short on CPUs)
o Android phones lose some of their CPUs (when they have lots of CPUs)

It would be interesting to have some hard independent facts on this "lag".

For iPhone, the cost of permanently losing an entire CPU for this "no lag"
is appreciable, as the user permanently loses 16% of their CPUs.

For Android, the cost might still be appreciable, but that cost is borne
completely differently, in that even if one CPU were dedicated to the
software encryption, it would only be 13% of the CPUs - but even so - it's
probably spread among all 8 of the CPUs (or maybe just 4).

In the end, since the systems are completely different, the huge cost of
losing an entire CPU on an iPhone may or may not be meaningful in terms of
overall performance, where the perhaps-also-huge cost of using the 8 CPUs
on the Android phones may or may not be meaningful.

Does anyone have actual tested independent facts (i.e., not from Samsung or
Apple or LG Marketing) to flesh out what the difference might be in
reality?

but the gain is the no lag, where it would be interesting to test the lag
on full-system encryption for the three devices.

Does anyone have any independent test numbers for the "lag" on each phone?

> Latest operating system version

This is far less of a useful feature for iOS than it would be for Android
because of a few salient facts that I suspect very few people rationally
comprehend.
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/yE4uQCmjBvY>

I currently own and have owned for years both Android & iOS devices, where
the entire model of operating system updates is so different that only a
fool would make a one-to-one comparison between them.

In general, an iOS update is to be avoided at all costs, for a huge variety
of reasons which we've covered in the past in gory detail (e.g.,
throttling, broadcom bugs, lockscreen bugs, breaking connectivity in the
real world, breaking jailbreak methods, etc.).

I realize that the average Apple user is made to _feel_ safe with the
incessant iOS releases, but even Apple Engineering upper-level management
has decried that Apple Marketing makes them ship releases that they just do
not want to ship - but they have to anyway - just to meet the frequent
schedule that makes Apple users _feel_ so safe (so it's important to
Marketing for there to be a _lot_ of iOS releases, often only weeks apart,
usually because of the bugs that Engineering doesn't have time to test for
that the users fine in use).

On Android, having the latest release is completely different than on iOS.

On Android, there's usually nothing of great value in the release, just
like with iOS, but on Android, what's different mostly is that the release
schedule isn't incessant like it is with iOS, so the releases tend to be
far less buggy than the always-buggy iOS releases tend to be.

In addition, on Android, Google distinguishes between "apps" and "operating
system" changes, where on iOS, it's about half (or sometimes 75%) apps that
have changed with the iOS updates, with the operating system being only
half to 1/4 of the changes. (Apple Marketing realizes the customers, in
general, don't seem to notice that an app and an OS are different things,
where all the customer seems to care about is the _feeling_ of being taken
care of - which simple frequency seems to suffice for).

While the Apple Apologists will likely hate that I spoke the facts, above,
the fact is that Android releases don't apply to all that many devices, so
the model is completely different.

On Android, you're pretty much stuck (more or less) with the release you
have, which is actually fine because in neither Android nor in iOS is the
release version all that important anyway.

> Larger, higher-resolution screen

I do very much love the 5.7" IPS LCD 386ppi 1080x1920 screen of the LG
Stylo 3 Plus, but I'm sure the 6.5" OLED 456ppi 1242x2688 screen of the
iPhone XS Max will put the Stylo to shame!

Clearly, for 10X the cost, you get a far better screen, of that there
should be no doubt.

> More internal memory

As stated in the Android assessment, more internal memory is good, but it's
not as important, IMHO, as it used to be, given that more memory costs only
about fifty cents per gigabyte in Android phones.

And, it's less important now that the Android version of the LG Stylo 3
Plus can use the external card as the internal memory.

Apple users may not know this, so I simply summarize the basics:
o You can use the external card for application data, or,
o You can use the external card "as" your internal storage.

There are pros and cons to the choice above, and, of course, you'd want to
use a fast card in either case, but the good news is that fast cards are
getting cheaper by the day - so it's almost to the point where the internal
memory size isn't an issue - since the external card can function as
internal memory.

Also, while 64GB is nice, for 1/10th the price, I find that the 32GB of the
Stylo work fine for me, even with hundreds of apps installed, particularly
since the Stylo offloads data storage to an external sd card that is
essentially unlimited in size (in that you can't afford to max it out,
given the max is 2TB, where the card alone would cost more than the phone).

> Compatibility with Apple Watch

While the el cheap $130 LG Stylo 3 Plus does not have NAN (because it's on
Nougat and not on Oreo), it's "probably" still compatible with most Android
watches, is it not?

And, while compatibility with the Apple Watch may or may not be important
to others, it should be noted that the Android that comes with the Samsung
Note 9 has NAN which allows it to interface with any nearby compatible
Android device over a local ad-hoc WiFi network (faster and further than
bluetooth) - which means data transfer will be stellar.

Even so, if you own an Apple Watch, then you sure as hell better own an
Apple iPhone, where, I'm sure the iPhone XS Max interfaces beautifully with
that Apple Watch.

In summary, it seems that the key advantage of the iPhone XS Max over the
el cheapo $130 LG Stylo 3 plus boils down to almost the same three main
things as it did with the Note 9.
o Better screen
o Better pictures
o Full encryption

==== summary ===

In summary, for many times the price, you do get some nice things with that

iPhone XS Max, most notably a fantastic screen, stellar camera output, lots
more internal storage, intrusion protection, and hardware encryption on the
entire file system in real time without lag.

[sms]

On 12/8/2018 3:53 PM, arlen holder wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Dec 2018 15:27:23 -0800, sms wrote:

>> IP68
>
> As previously noted, while intrusion protection against dust (6) and 1.5m
> of water for 1/2 hour is good, if you fall in a lake and stay underwater
> for a half hour, then IP68 alone makes the 10X cost only 9x.
>
> After falling into the lake nine times, you break even if that's all you
> wanted; but it's still very nice to have IP68.
>
> IP68 is just not a useful comparison point when you can purchase 10 non
> IP68 replacement phones for the price of the one phone with IP68.

The typical submersion is not into a lake for half an hour. It's the
phone falling into a swimming pool, sink, or toilet, or being in a heavy
rainstorm.

>> Much better camera
>
> Cameras on mobile devices are funny things, where an SLR is the way to go
> if you need a "real" camera - but the old adage applies that the best
> camera for the job is the one in your hands when it's time to snap a photo.

One of my friends is a professional photographer. He was in line for the
Xs Max the day it came out. And BTW, increasingly, professionals are
switching to mirrorless cameras like the Fujifilm X-H1 unless they need
the long Canon sports lenses. Of course the X-H1 is more expensive than
a lot of SLRs.

>
> Also, cameras are funny in that mere specs don't tell the whole story, in
> that, for example, the el cheapo $130 LG Stylo 3 Plus main camera is 13MP
> while both the iPhone XS Max & Note 9 are lesser, at only 12MP.

Counting megapixels is a very very bad way to judge a digital camera,

>> Works on all four U.S. carriers, not just AT&T and T-Mobile
>
> As noted, carrier compatibility only matters for T-Mobile for me, even as I
> travel to Europe yearly, but I do understand that those on Verizon would be
> stuck unable to take advantage of a phone that costs 10x less (in addition
> to a far cheaper service plan, last I had checked - admittedly long ago).

Where I spend a great deal of time, a couple of miles from Apple's
headquarters, it's Verizon or nothing. We've tried, in vain, to get
microcells from other carriers. AT&T has been supposed to share an
already operating Verizon fake tree for about a year, but hasn't done so
yet.

> I do realize that the Verizon lovers sometimes claim superior coverage
> (even within my own family), where there is reasonable debate on that,
> where what matters, in the end, is coverage where you are, not coverage
> overall on the map.

There is no debate that Verizon provides the best coverage, by far. And
what matters is not just coverage where you are, it's also coverage
where you expect to be.

>
>> More foreign LTE bands
>
> I'm not sure how important this is, but it's a nice thing to have.

It's unimportant until you go to countries where it's vital.

>> No lag even with full encryption

> It would be interesting to have some hard independent facts on this "lag".

I tried full encryption on a lower-end Android phone and it was
unbearable. I have not tried it on the Stylo 3 because to unencrypt an
encrypted phone requires a factory reset. Given the low performance
benchmarks of the Stylo 3 I would not even attempt it.

>> More internal memory
>
> As stated in the Android assessment, more internal memory is good, but it's
> not as important, IMHO, as it used to be, given that more memory costs only
> about fifty cents per gigabyte in Android phones.

I bought a 256GB card for $35. That's about 13.7¢ per gigabyte.

>
> And, it's less important now that the Android version of the LG Stylo 3
> Plus can use the external card as the internal memory.

> In summary, for many times the price, you do get some nice things with that
> iPhone XS Max, most notably a fantastic screen, stellar camera output, lots
> more internal storage, intrusion protection, and hardware encryption on the
> entire file system in real time without lag.

For many people, the extra cost is not an issue.

[sms]

It didn't make it easier to buy the Xs Max, it made it inappropriate for
me to be using an Android phone. I'll still have to pay full price, or
at least the friends and family price.

[nospam]

In article <pun4jo$25n$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

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

> Where I spend a great deal of time, a couple of miles from Apple's
> headquarters, it's Verizon or nothing.

bullshit.

all four carriers have excellent coverage in cupertino and the rest of
the south bay and has for many, many years.

in fact, at&t installed numerous towers all over cupertino and the
surrounding area when the original iphone was being developed for
testing purposes. coverage in and around apple's campus was
particularly good, as well as up the peninsula, where many apple
employees lived.

> There is no debate that Verizon provides the best coverage, by far.

oh yes there is.

<https://opensignal.com/blog/2018/03/15/the-4g-battle-continues-between-
t-mobile-and-verizon/>
In our national report, released in January, we saw T-Mobile win our
4G availability award by just a hair: while its users were able to
access 4G connections an average 93.1% of the time, Verizon was close
on its heels with scores of 92.7%.

<https://opensignal.com/reports/2018/07/usa/state-of-the-mobile-network>
Verizon has caught up to T-Mobile in our 4G availability metrics. The
two weren't just statistically tied, their scores were numerically
tied. Our T-Mobile and Verizon users on average were able to find an
LTE signal 93.7% of the time.

> And
> what matters is not just coverage where you are, it's also coverage
> where you expect to be.

that part is true.

and since coverage among the big four is comparable everywhere other
than rural areas, it's rarely an issue.

> >> More foreign LTE bands
> >
> > I'm not sure how important this is, but it's a nice thing to have.
>
> It's unimportant until you go to countries where it's vital.

and irrelevant if you don't.

[arlen holder]

On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 17:48:26 -0800, sms wrote:

> It didn't make it easier to buy the Xs Max, it made it inappropriate for
> me to be using an Android phone. I'll still have to pay full price, or
> at least the friends and family price.

I still don't know what you're talking about.

I have to guess.

Googling, I had already seen this fictitious Apple marketing trick
(which is just about as classic as marketing tricks get):
<https://www.apple.com/shop/trade-in>

Is _that_ fake Apple MARKETING deal what is swaying your decision?

*iOS users enjoy an astoundingly atrocious overall cost of ownership.*
Just do the math.

The fine print says "Trade-in values vary based on the condition, year, and
configuration of your trade-in device, and may also vary between online and
in-store trade-in", so I typed in the serial number of the 128GB iPad I
bought on March 08, 2018 (I've had it only for 8 months).
<https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-ipad/ipad-9-7/128gb-space-gray-wifi>

Current price for my 8-month old iPad is $429 on the Apple web site.
Price Apple will give me is $130 for that exact same 8-month old iPad.

Mine is in absolutely perfect condition as I almost never use it except to
test iOS to prove when nospam or Jolly Roger incessantly fabricate
fictitious iOS functionality.

*That 128GB WiFi iPad _lost 70% of its original value_ in only 8 months!*

It's in perfect condition, and it's only 3/4 of a year old, and yet, it's
nearly worthless in that it's only worth 30% of the original Apple price.

The sales tax alone on a new iPad could easily overwhelm that astoundingly
atrocious trade-in value.

Just do the math.

In summary, you haven't said why it's inappropriate for you to be using an
Android phone where, my only other guess is you got a job in Cupertino,
which, if you did, I applaud, and will leave it at that (as Apple is a
great company to work for, where my neighbors are execs there, and at
Google).

[The Real Bev]

On 12/10/2018 05:41 PM, sms wrote:
> On 12/8/2018 3:53 PM, arlen holder wrote:

...

>> As stated in the Android assessment, more internal memory is good, but it's
>> not as important, IMHO, as it used to be, given that more memory costs only
>> about fifty cents per gigabyte in Android phones.
>
> I bought a 256GB card for $35. That's about 13.7¢ per gigabyte.
>>
>> And, it's less important now that the Android version of the LG Stylo 3
>> Plus can use the external card as the internal memory.

Still, some/many/most/all apps take up at least some space on the
internal memory, and many use ONLY internal memory. I bought the
MotoG5+ with 64GB internal and put a 64GB external in. Plenty of room now!

>> In summary, for many times the price, you do get some nice things with that
>> iPhone XS Max, most notably a fantastic screen, stellar camera output, lots
>> more internal storage, intrusion protection, and hardware encryption on the
>> entire file system in real time without lag.
>
> For many people, the extra cost is not an issue.

I'd like a sharper camera that will focus closer. So does everybody :-)

--
Cheers, Bev
When cryptography is outlawed, only outlaws will
qwertzuio asdfghjk pyxcvbnml -- M. O'Dorney

[sms]

On 12/10/2018 8:09 PM, arlen holder wrote:

> In summary, you haven't said why it's inappropriate for you to be using an
> Android phone where, my only other guess is you got a job in Cupertino,
> which, if you did, I applaud,

You're close, but no cigar. And a great many people applauded, not just you.

[arlen holder]

On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 21:46:36 -0800, The Real Bev wrote:

> Still, some/many/most/all apps take up at least some space on the
> internal memory, and many use ONLY internal memory. I bought the
> MotoG5+ with 64GB internal and put a 64GB external in. Plenty of room now!

Perhaps your information (or mine) is dated?

From memory, Android swapping of internal with external storage
has had a convoluted history...

We probably should make a summary chart, if one doesn't exist.

From memory (which means it's likely not completely correct)...
o In the olden days of Android, you could "run" apps from the sdcard
o Then pretty much you couldn't do that anymore (Android 4.3?)
o Then, you could only do that if the developer allowed it (Android 5?)
o Then they relaxed that restriction a bit (Android 6)?
o Then, they removed it altogether (Android 7) under one condition
o I don't know if Android 8 has any changes to that Android 7 condition

In Android 7, I think you can choose to do one of these with your sdcard
o You can use sdcard1 for data
o You can use sdcard1 for data & some apps (that allow it)
o Or, you can literally use sdcard1 for your internal storage

If you do use sdcard1 for internal storage, then your real internal storage
contains, AFAIK, only two things:
o The original carrier-installed apps, and,
o I'm not sure, but I hope you can use sdcard0 also for data

Has anyone actually taken advantage of the Nougat capability to define the
external sdcard1 as the internal storage location?

>>> In summary, for many times the price, you do get some nice things with that
>>> iPhone XS Max, most notably a fantastic screen, stellar camera output, lots
>>> more internal storage, intrusion protection, and hardware encryption on the
>>> entire file system in real time without lag.
>>
>> For many people, the extra cost is not an issue.
>
> I'd like a sharper camera that will focus closer. So does everybody :-)

You bring up a good point about "macro" focusing.
I don't know if the 10x more expensive cameras have better macro or not.

From what sms provided, for 10x the price, you get
o Much larger screen with much prettier graphics
o Probably a much better camera (even though it has fewer pixels)
o The ability to decrypt the whole device on the fly

Those are good things, mind you - but they come at a high cost.
Only you can determine if those 3 things are worth the 10x price.

While the intrusion protection is stellar in the 10x more expensive phones,
it's worthless (mathematically) to pay 10x for that intrusion protection
since you'd have to destroy 9 less-expensive phones just to break even.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <puopl5$5rd$1...@news.mixmin.net>, arlen holder
<ar...@arlen.com> writes:
[]

>We probably should make a summary chart, if one doesn't exist.
>
>From memory (which means it's likely not completely correct)...
>o In the olden days of Android, you could "run" apps from the sdcard
>o Then pretty much you couldn't do that anymore (Android 4.3?)
>o Then, you could only do that if the developer allowed it (Android 5?)
>o Then they relaxed that restriction a bit (Android 6)?
>o Then, they removed it altogether (Android 7) under one condition
>o I don't know if Android 8 has any changes to that Android 7 condition

I don't think it's 4.3: on my 4.2.2, some app.s would only run from
internal storage. I do have an app. which can move more of them out, but
not all. So the restriction came in before 4.3. (Maybe 4.0?)

(Why _did_ they introduce the restriction? Surely not pressure from
manufacturers?)

>
>In Android 7, I think you can choose to do one of these with your sdcard
>o You can use sdcard1 for data
>o You can use sdcard1 for data & some apps (that allow it)
>o Or, you can literally use sdcard1 for your internal storage
>
>If you do use sdcard1 for internal storage, then your real internal storage
>contains, AFAIK, only two things:
>o The original carrier-installed apps, and,
>o I'm not sure, but I hope you can use sdcard0 also for data
>
>Has anyone actually taken advantage of the Nougat capability to define the
>external sdcard1 as the internal storage location?

(I'd be interested in the reply to that, too.)
[]

>>>> more internal storage, intrusion protection, and hardware encryption on the
>>>> entire file system in real time without lag.

[]

>From what sms provided, for 10x the price, you get
>o Much larger screen with much prettier graphics
>o Probably a much better camera (even though it has fewer pixels)
>o The ability to decrypt the whole device on the fly
>
>Those are good things, mind you - but they come at a high cost.
>Only you can determine if those 3 things are worth the 10x price.
>
>While the intrusion protection is stellar in the 10x more expensive phones,
>it's worthless (mathematically) to pay 10x for that intrusion protection
>since you'd have to destroy 9 less-expensive phones just to break even.

(Well, there's the _time_ to restore and set up as well.)

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

There's not an app for that.

[The Real Bev]

I did that with Android 6. It didn't work anywhere near as well as it
was supposed to, and I didn't implement that with the Android 7 Moto G5+
I don't know whether they even kept that feature for Android 7.

With A7 you can move some/many apps to the card, but until I start
worrying about space I'm not going to do that.

--
Cheers, Bev
"Dammit I'm Mad" is "Dammit I'm Mad" spelled backwards.

[Frank Slootweg]

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JP...@255soft.uk> wrote:

> In message <puopl5$5rd$1...@news.mixmin.net>, arlen holder
> <ar...@arlen.com> writes:
> []
> >We probably should make a summary chart, if one doesn't exist.
> >
> >From memory (which means it's likely not completely correct)...
> >o In the olden days of Android, you could "run" apps from the sdcard
> >o Then pretty much you couldn't do that anymore (Android 4.3?)
> >o Then, you could only do that if the developer allowed it (Android 5?)
> >o Then they relaxed that restriction a bit (Android 6)?
> >o Then, they removed it altogether (Android 7) under one condition
> >o I don't know if Android 8 has any changes to that Android 7 condition
>
> I don't think it's 4.3: on my 4.2.2, some app.s would only run from
> internal storage. I do have an app. which can move more of them out, but
> not all. So the restriction came in before 4.3. (Maybe 4.0?)
>
> (Why _did_ they introduce the restriction? Surely not pressure from
> manufacturers?)

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, but 'they' (I assume
you mean Google or/and the manufacturers) did not introduce any
'restriction'. It's the other way around: *App developers* had/have to
write their app in such a way that part of the code can be moved to the
SD-card. I.e. 'lazy' developers just don't bother to make their apps
(partly) movable. Example: Google's Chrome browser.

If an app is written such that part of the code can be moved to the
SD-card, you will see a 'Move to SD card' button on its 'App info'
page (Settings -> Manage apps -> tap on app).

This 'Move to SD card' button - if enabled by the app - exists at
least from 4.1.1 to 5.1.1.

So if there's a 'restriction', it's a restriction in the *app*(s), not
in the OS/Android.

FYI, I use 'AppMgr III' [1] to easily see which apps can/cannot be
(partly) moved to the SD-card, which apps have already been moved, do
the actual moving, etc..

[1] <https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.a0soft.gphone.app2sd>

[...]

[sms]

On 12/10/2018 5:41 PM, sms wrote:

> I bought a 256GB card for $35. That's about 13.7¢ per gigabyte.

Correction, it was $40 or 15.6¢/GB. I had a credit at Best Buy so I was
charged only $35. They had a 400GB card for $80, or 20¢/GB.

When I look at a phone like the 128GB Note 9 ($800-900) versus the 512GB
model ($1149) that extra 384GB is about 78¢/GB. Of course with the 512GB
model you can end up with a lot more total memory.

I guess if I were storing a lot of high resolution video on the device
then so much memory might be necessary.

[Davoud]

arlen holder:
> > Facts please...

Arlen, old friend, I don't owe you any facts. But here's a throwaway
for you. The highest-priced iPhone that Apple sells is not expensive to
me. Sorry.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

[sms]

On 12/11/2018 1:12 PM, Davoud wrote:
> arlen holder:
>>> Facts please...
>
> Arlen, old friend, I don't owe you any facts. But here's a throwaway
> for you. The highest-priced iPhone that Apple sells is not expensive to
> me. Sorry.

Also remember that a lot of people are not paying for their phones.
Their employer either provides the phone or provides a certain amount
for the employee to spend. In the San Francisco Bay Area, you're pretty
much limited to Verizon if you're on an employer provided plan so your
choices of phones are further limited.

I get $4000 for "technology" and I can spend it on laptops, phones,
tablets, etc.. I can no longer tolerate being on AT&T and I have to be
reachable all the time. This policy just began on 12/1/2018, prior to
that the old policy was $350 for a phone, $3000 for a laptop, and they
provided an iPad. Clearly a very outdated policy in terms of amounts.

So even though spending $900-1000, or more on a phone, seems outrageous
to me, I want a large screen phone that works on Verizon. There aren't a
lot of choices. An Xs Max or a Note 9 are what I've narrowed it down to.

[arlen holder]

On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 11:47:38 -0800, sms wrote:

> When I look at a phone like the 128GB Note 9 ($800-900) versus the 512GB
> model ($1149) that extra 384GB is about 78￠/GB. Of course with the 512GB
> model you can end up with a lot more total memory.

Thanks for that correction on the fact that sdcard memory is inexpensive.
The *speed* (and size) of the memory might matter greatly though.

Particularly since the latest Android versions allow the sdcard to be the
internal storage (for all but the carrier-included default apps).
How to format MicroSD cards as internal memory
<https://www.androidpit.com/how-to-format-microsd-cards-as-internal-storage>

I love external sdcards so much I'll never buy a phone without them again!
Just look at the number of map apps alone I store on my phone:
<http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=5724716mapapps.jpg>

Looking up the half dozen external sdcards I recently bought (from Fryes &
Costco) as gifts for the Android phones that I recently gave as gifts, I
see I paid 25 cents per gigabyte for the 64GB cards I bought:
<http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=1450594sdcard02.jpg>
They are apparently on sale now, at only a buck more than what I had paid:
<https://www.frys.com/product/9172438>

Advise me (& everyone) about the use of inexpensive $16 64GB flash cards on Android 7.0 Nougat phones
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/SM1XWLJb_RY/nfqHc40yAwAJ>

Here are the 64GB Frys cards I bought three of as gifts:
<http://s1.bild.me/bilder/110417/9757754sdcard01.jpg>
And a few more I bought at Costco as gifts (for the same price):
<http://s1.bild.me/bilder/110417/3526788flash04.jpg>

At roughtly twenty-five cents a Gigabyte, those 64GB cards are fantastic!
<http://s1.bild.me/bilder/110417/2449004flash03.jpg>

My phone has only 32GB of internal storage, but it has 64 additional GB of
sdcard storage, where most of the apps I choose allow you to save data
where it belongs (e.g., in a specific directory tree that I set up on the
sd card).

For example, see this thread:
Is there an free app that will change settings for /Pictures/Screenshots to the external SD Card?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/comp.mobile.android/pe4pB3oAZ0E/feou8QI_BwAJ>

In summary, internal storage is great, and it's still better than SD card
storage, but, internal storage comes at a cost when you can get an el
cheapo $130 phone with 32GB of internal storage plus essentially infinite
external storage (it can hold a card up to 2TB if you had one).

Moving forward, the fact that Android 6.0 and up (mine is on 7.0) can use
the internal sdcard as the internal storage will just make things even more
tuned to the sdcard and less to paying through the nose for internal
storage.

I haven't tried it, but it's available: it's called "Adoptable Storage"...

How to Format SD Card to Use as Internal Storage on Android
<https://www.teamandroid.com/2017/04/26/format-sd-card-internal-storage-android/>

How To Use SD Card As Internal Storage
<https://fossbytes.com/android-sd-card-internal-storage-adoptable-storage/>

How to Format an SD Card As Internal Storage on Android
<https://www.wikihow.tech/Format-an-SD-Card-As-Internal-Storage-on-Android>

Android 6.0 can treat SD cards as internal storage… at a cost
<https://liliputing.com/2015/10/android-6-0-can-treat-sd-cards-as-internal-storage-at-a-cost.html>

Tips for Android 6.0 SD Card as Internal Storage
<https://tunesgo.wondershare.com/android-6-0/tips-for-abdroid-6-0-sd-card-as-internal-storage.html>

[nospam]

In article <pupa1r$dtd$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

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

> > arlen holder:
> >>> Facts please...
> >
> > Arlen, old friend, I don't owe you any facts. But here's a throwaway
> > for you. The highest-priced iPhone that Apple sells is not expensive to
> > me. Sorry.
>
> Also remember that a lot of people are not paying for their phones.

most people pay for their phones.

> Their employer either provides the phone or provides a certain amount
> for the employee to spend.

most employers don't do either.

> In the San Francisco Bay Area, you're pretty
> much limited to Verizon if you're on an employer provided plan so your
> choices of phones are further limited.

nonsense.

you really need to stop shilling for verizon.

[arlen holder]

On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 13:26:19 -0800, sms wrote:

> Also remember that a lot of people are not paying for their phones.

Hi sms,
The question really isn't about price, but what you GET for that 10x cost.

What perplexes me is that I _expect_ my el cheapo $130 phone to be "slow".
But it's not slow. It's just fine.

Why?
It's a serious question why I don't "feel" slowness in this cheap phone.

[Lloyd]

I was going to do that on my Likebook Mars e-ink Android tablet, but
reading in the forums about that unit indicated that if you do, it won’t do
upgrades. Since I primarily use the Likebook for ebooks and they don’t take
much space, I decided it wasn’t worth doing.

--
Lloyd

[arlen holder]

On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 16:36:46 -0500, nospam wrote:

> you really need to stop shilling for verizon.

*This thread is about what PERFORMANCE you get when you pay 10X.*

To nospam's point though, both sms and I are in the Silicon Valley where
I've had Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile (in series) and where I found them all
"about the same" in terms of coverage overall (at least at the switchover
points they were).

They all had great service in San Jose & spotty service in the mountains.

I only left Verizon when they upped my 2-year corporate plan when I had a
Kyocera replaced under the company-paid "insurance", and I left AT&T when
they wouldn't let me have no data on the "family plan" when I retired my
corporate Blackberry for my first "smartphone" when I left the corporate
world.

As sms said, in the corporate world, at least last I worked in it years
ago, they paid for EVERYTHING (they paid for my phones, they paid my
Internet bill, they paid my phone bill, they paid my cellphone bill, etc.).
I suspect they pay less and less for such things now that everyone has a
cellphone though.

Nonetheless this thread is about what PERFORMANCE you get when you pay 10X.

It's a valid question, particularly since I'm EXPECTING the phone to "feel"
that it's an "el cheapo" phone, much like my Moto_G did, for example.
o The $200 Google Moto-G was limited to a puny 8GB of memory
o The $200 Moto G had a puny display
o The $200 Moto G took horrid (and I mean horrid) photos
o The $200 Moto G didn't have a removable battery (never do that again!)
o The $200 Moto G didn't have an expansion slot (never do that again!)
o The $200 Moto G didn't even have 5GHz WiFi for heaven's sake

Notice at $200, the Moto G *felt* like an el cheapo phone.
And yet, at $130, the LG Stylo 3 Plus feels just fine in use.

Why?
Why don't I feel the performance hit that I'm supposed to feel?

If I pay 10X, I'm supposed to get something valuable for that 10x, right?

We've ascertained that, for 10X, I get:
o A better screen (but my screen is just fine, to me)
o A faster CPU & more RAM (by my octacore 1.4GHz 3GB seems fast enough)
o Perhaps a better camera (but mine, of greater pixels, is just fine)
o More than a puny 32GB of memory (but mine expands almost infinitely)
o Intrusion protection (but I can destroy 9 phones for the cost of IP68)

All those things above are certainly nice - but they come at a 10x cost.

In fact, if it's an Apple phone, the costs are even greater in that
o You lose the expansion memory
o You lose the headphone jack
o You lose the removable battery (although most Androids do that too)
o You lose the FM radio
o You lose the stylus
o You lose tons of app functionality

For 1/10th the price, the phone seems fine.
Which surprises me.

Hence my question of what we get by way of performance for 10X the price?

[Ammammata]

Il giorno Fri 07 Dec 2018 08:25:22p, *arlen holder* ha inviato su
misc.phone.mobile.iphone il messaggio news:puehf0$vc0$1...@news.mixmin.net.
Vediamo cosa ha scritto:

> so I just use it as a basic phone

IMHO this is the reason you can't understand/appreciate the difference
and, please note, I confirm your thoughts

--
/-\ /\/\ /\/\ /-\ /\/\ /\/\ /-\ T /-\
-=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- - -=-
>>>>> http://www.bb2002.it :) <<<<<
........... [ al lavoro ] ...........

[sms]

On 12/11/2018 9:47 AM, The Real Bev wrote:

<snip>

> I did that with Android 6.  It didn't work anywhere near as well as it
> was supposed to, and I didn't implement that with the Android 7 Moto G5+
>  I don't know whether they even kept that feature for Android 7.
>
> With A7 you can move some/many apps to the card, but until I start
> worrying about space I'm not going to do that.

According to
<https://www.androidpit.com/how-to-format-microsd-cards-as-internal-storage>
it isn't just the OS version that is the issue, it's also whether the
device manufacturer allows the MicroSD card to be used as internal memory.

[sms]

On 12/7/2018 11:25 AM, arlen holder wrote:

> I never use the stylus (I haven't figured out what it does that my finger
> can't do that I care about), so I just use it as a basic phone, where I've
> used all my previous phones the same way...

When you start using a flagship phone with an active stylus (or an iPad
with the Apple Pencil) then you'll understand the advantages of a
stylus. Even the LG Stylo phone stylus is very useful.

Since you've used all your phones as "a basic phone" you clearly don't
appreciate the advantages of a flagship phone, so you're not the target
market for such devices.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <pup64t...@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg

<th...@ddress.is.invalid> writes:
>"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JP...@255soft.uk> wrote:
>> In message <puopl5$5rd$1...@news.mixmin.net>, arlen holder
>> <ar...@arlen.com> writes:
>> []
>> >We probably should make a summary chart, if one doesn't exist.
>> >
>> >From memory (which means it's likely not completely correct)...

***

>> >o In the olden days of Android, you could "run" apps from the sdcard

***

>> >o Then pretty much you couldn't do that anymore (Android 4.3?)
>> >o Then, you could only do that if the developer allowed it (Android 5?)
>> >o Then they relaxed that restriction a bit (Android 6)?
>> >o Then, they removed it altogether (Android 7) under one condition
>> >o I don't know if Android 8 has any changes to that Android 7 condition
>>
>> I don't think it's 4.3: on my 4.2.2, some app.s would only run from
>> internal storage. I do have an app. which can move more of them out, but
>> not all. So the restriction came in before 4.3. (Maybe 4.0?)
>>
>> (Why _did_ they introduce the restriction? Surely not pressure from
>> manufacturers?)
>
> Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, but 'they' (I assume
>you mean Google or/and the manufacturers) did not introduce any
>'restriction'. It's the other way around: *App developers* had/have to
>write their app in such a way that part of the code can be moved to the
>SD-card. I.e. 'lazy' developers just don't bother to make their apps
>(partly) movable. Example: Google's Chrome browser.
>
> If an app is written such that part of the code can be moved to the
>SD-card, you will see a 'Move to SD card' button on its 'App info'
>page (Settings -> Manage apps -> tap on app).
>
> This 'Move to SD card' button - if enabled by the app - exists at
>least from 4.1.1 to 5.1.1.
>
> So if there's a 'restriction', it's a restriction in the *app*(s), not
>in the OS/Android.

I was going by Arlen's statement above (which he conceded was from
memory and thus might be wrong) that 'In the olden days of Android, you
could "run" apps from the sdcard'. _Maybe_, in the early days, it just
happened that all available app.s _were_ well-written.

>
> FYI, I use 'AppMgr III' [1] to easily see which apps can/cannot be
>(partly) moved to the SD-card, which apps have already been moved, do
>the actual moving, etc..
>
>[1] <https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.a0soft.gphone.app2sd>
>
>[...]

Thanks - looks interesting (though I think I may already have it as
APP2SD; I have something with that or a similar name).

JPG
-

[UK only:]
Visit 255soft.uk if you find petitions unfair (and please *pass it on*, too).

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Veni Vidi Visa [I came, I saw, I did a little shopping] - Mik from S+AS Limited
(m...@saslimited.demon.co.uk), 1998

[sms]

On 12/10/2018 8:09 PM, arlen holder wrote:

> Current price for my 8-month old iPad is $429 on the Apple web site.
> Price Apple will give me is $130 for that exact same 8-month old iPad.

As with used cars, the amount that a dealer will give you is far less
than you can get if you sell it yourself.

> Mine is in absolutely perfect condition as I almost never use it except to
> test iOS to prove when nospam or Jolly Roger incessantly fabricate
> fictitious iOS functionality.

Wow, you spent all that money just for that? Since no one takes them
seriously anyway, why are you so obsessed with the fabrications?

> *That 128GB WiFi iPad _lost 70% of its original value_ in only 8 months!*

Only as a trade-in. You could probably sell it for 50% of the original
price. Used electronics, like used furniture or appliances, don't retain
a lot of value, though Apple devices are better than most in this regard.

[sms]

On 12/11/2018 1:30 PM, arlen holder wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 11:47:38 -0800, sms wrote:
>
>> When I look at a phone like the 128GB Note 9 ($800-900) versus the 512GB

>> model ($1149) that extra 384GB is about 78¢F/GB. Of course with the 512GB

>> model you can end up with a lot more total memory.
>
> Thanks for that correction on the fact that sdcard memory is inexpensive.
> The *speed* (and size) of the memory might matter greatly though.

<snip>

Samsung is currently including a 512GB MicroSD card with the 512GB Note
9, so you end up with 1TB total. They don't specify the speed, but I
only see one 512GB MicroSD card from Samsung and it's UHS3 (100MB/s
read, 90MB/s write).

I've been researching this because I need to purchase a phone very soon
as I have to move to Verizon quickly. I've narrowed down my choices
between the iPhone Xs Max 512GB and the Samsung Galaxy Note 9 512GB. The
price difference is not that significant, the iPhone is only $168 more.
Each has its pros and cons
<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/14Ynff93vQwKbQ93icejLZ3JwOUfSNFIsZxFikVIZxcA>.

Spending so much on a phone is painful, even though it's not my money, I
am naturally frugal.

[The Real Bev]

On 12/12/2018 06:47 AM, sms wrote:

> between the iPhone Xs Max 512GB and the Samsung Galaxy Note 9 512GB.
> The price difference is not that significant, the iPhone is only $168
> more. Each has its pros and cons

> ...

> Spending so much on a phone is painful, even though it's not my
> money, I am naturally frugal.

Am I the only one who sees a contradiction here? :-)

[arlen holder]

On Wed, 12 Dec 2018 09:15:28 -0800, wrote:

> Am I the only one who sees a contradiction here? :-)

I never wasted the company's money when I had all my expenses paid.
o Street price is about 1/5th cheaper for the Samsung than for the Apple
o And yet, it's clear the Samsung overwhelms the Apple on functionality

Based on experience, sms is one of the most reasonable Apple users on this
newsgroup, where he can actually comprehend the differences in the two
types of devices.

He's even helped me get the best pool acid and chlorine at the best prices
locally, since we both live, essentially, in Silicon Valley (we're in the
mountains surrounding the valley).

It's good that sms looks at specs, which is, in general, too complicated
for most of the Apple posters here (of the frequent Apple posters, only
nospam and David Empson seem to also have the capability to comprehend a
spec, for example).
o Street price is about 1/5th cheaper for the Samsung than for the Apple
o And yet, it's clear the Samsung overwhelms the Apple on functionality

While sms noted the 100MB/s UHS3 speed of the Samsung 512GB card, we need
to compare that speed with whatever the speeds are for local RAM if we can
reasonably consider, on Android, turning the SD card into the internal
storage.

In my case (32GB internal storage, 64GB of external sd card), it may make
sense to run that experiment - but in sms' case of 512GB of internal
storage + 512GB of external storage, it would not make sense to use the
sdcard as the "internal storage" location even if the speeds are close to
comparable.

Looking at sms' spreadsheet...
<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/14Ynff93vQwKbQ93icejLZ3JwOUfSNFIsZxFikVIZxcA>.
o On screen resolution, the Samsung kills the Apple phone
o On screen size, the Apple is 1/10" diagonally longer than the Samsung
o They are the same on screen type
o On pixel density, the Samsung kills the Apple phone
o On display area the Samsung is about 0.4 square inches better
o On the stated benchmark the Apple performed better than Samsung
Always factor in that Apple can and will unilaterally throttle those
results to something like less than half the reported values, so you can
reasonably call these speeds a wash (at best) since Apple proved they can't
be trusted.
o Both are quad carrier with the same LTE bands & 4x4 MIMO
o The Samsung battery has much more capacity than the Apple battery
o The Samsung RAM is far more than the Apple RAM
o Both have the same internal storage
o The external storage of the Samsung murders that of Apple (zero)
o The maximum flash rom of the Samsung is double that of Apple
o Both rear cameras are the same number of pixels
o The front Samsung camera has more pixels than Apple
o The Wi-Fi and NFC hardware is comparable
o Face recognition capability is comparable
o Intrusion protection from dust (6) & water (8) is comparable
o Street price is about 1/5th cheaper for the Samsung than for the Apple
o And yet, it's clear the Samsung overwhelms the Apple on functionality

What you lose completely is, perhaps, of import:
o The Samsung loses completely the dual-sim capability
o The Apple loses completely on sdcard capability
o The Apple loses completely on fingerprint capability
o The Apple loses completely on headphone jack capability
o The Apple loses completely on FM radio capability
o The Apple loses completely on USB On-the-Go capability
o The Apple loses completely on Flash capability
o The Apple loses completely on a built-in stylus capability
o Street price is about 1/5th cheaper for the Samsung than for the Apple
o And yet, it's clear the Samsung overwhelms the Apple on functionality

What's not mentioned in the spreadsheet is that there is no app
functionality on the Apple phone that isn't already on the Android phone,
while there is tons (and tons) of app functionality on the Android phone
that is not on the Apple phone (e.g., ability to add a modern launcher,
ability to side load apps sans root/jailbreak, ability to replace youtube
for free sans ads and still being able to
login/subscribe/search/download/strip, etc., ability to monitor wifi signal
strength graphically over time, ability to autorecord phone calls, ability
to torrent (if that matters to you), ability to use a sanctioned Tor app,
ability to determine cellphone towers accurately, ability to organize your
desktop as you see fit, etc.).
o Street price is about 1/5th cheaper for the Samsung than for the Apple
o And yet, it's clear the Samsung overwhelms the Apple on functionality

[arlen holder]

On Wed, 12 Dec 2018 02:52:06 -0800, sms wrote:

> When you start using a flagship phone with an active stylus (or an iPad
> with the Apple Pencil) then you'll understand the advantages of a
> stylus. Even the LG Stylo phone stylus is very useful.

That might be true, but it needs to be backed up with specifics.

For example, as you're well aware, I got the Samsung Galaxy S3 when it was
hot, on a promo from T-Mobile at the time, and it was clearly the flagship
phone, and yet, I never used NFC once.

I bought plenty of batteries with the NFC antenna embedded, but I never
needed or wanted to use the NFC. Not even once.

The stylus seems to be similar, in that it's a "selling point", but I just
don't see why I need it for "normal use". What do people _do_ with a stylus
that they don't already do on their phones?

Bear in mind I have a few rather large Wacom tabets which I used to capture
presentations in the corporate world, so I'm familiar with some of the
things you can do on them - but they're huge compared to a phone screen.

If someone could tell me what useful things I can do with the (admittedly
not active) stylus that comes with the LG Stylo 3 Plus, I'd be interested.

> Since you've used all your phones as "a basic phone" you clearly don't
> appreciate the advantages of a flagship phone, so you're not the target
> market for such devices.

Bearing in mind I had the Samsung Galaxy S3 (when I was in the corporate
world) in addition to the Blackberries and Motorola pagers before that,
I've had the "flagship" phones (in the corporate world) since phones came
out (although I never was high enough in the hierarchy to have one of those
huge early boxes that were the first cell phones).

I had a "car phone" built into my Q45, for example, in 1990, but my bimmer
a decade later had the option for the BMW phone kit, but I opted out of
that (but was stuck with that stupid "phone tray").

Interestingly, the Q45 "car phone" was a huge brick, with a mic wired to
just above the driver door opening, which worked rather well, considering
it was 1989 technology that the company paid for.

So I've had "flagship" phones ... but ... in reality ... I have an el
cheapo $130 phone now where I'm _expecting_ to be disappointed (like I was
when I bought the Nexus 4 as a gift for a college kid and had to trade it
back in to T-Mobile for the Nexus 5).

Do you see the dilemma?
o The $250 Nexus 4 sucked so badly I had to get the Nexus 5 from T-Mobile
o Even the $350 Nexus 5 disappointed that college kid who loved Apple
o She was the one I had jailbroken an AT&T iPhone to put T-Mobile on prior
o In the end, she replaced the Nexus 5 with an iPhone 6s & now a 7.

Likewise, while I was always happy with the Samsung Galaxy S3...
o I gave as a gift the $200 Google Moto G which was a huge compromise
o The price was great (at that time) but the phone turned out to suck
o You could really _feel_ how that Moto G sucked, and, in fact
o I bought a new phone for that person and I had ot use that Moto G
o That's when I really realized it sucked (the camera stinks, for example)

I was expecting the same feeling of "this phone sucks" when I paid only
$130 about a year ago for a handful of LG Stylo 3 Plus phones (one of which
came back to me when I gifted the student an Apple iPhone instead).

Now I'm using what started out as a mere el cheapo stocking stuffer.
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/ls71mnkj4jk/n0FaH2e_DQAJ>

I was _expecting_ this el cheapo phone to _feel_ cheap (like a Moto G did!)
But it feels just fine.

That's why I'm so perplexed.

[arlen holder]

On Wed, 12 Dec 2018 07:30:16 +0000 (UTC), Ammammata wrote:

>> so I just use it as a basic phone
>
> IMHO this is the reason you can't understand/appreciate the difference
> and, please note, I confirm your thoughts

I very much agree with you, if I understand what you're trying to tell us,
which is that if you use the phone as a "basic phone", then any phone will
do that job well.

For example, SMS/MMS & phone calls are essentially the same speed whether
or not you have the 3GB of RAM of my $130 el cheapo Android LG Stylo 3 Plus
phone, or the 4GB of RAM of the 5X more expensive iPhone 7 Plus hardware
equivalent.

Likewise, the five usable cores of the 5x more expensive iPhone 7 Plus
don't make much difference when the 8 cores of the 1/5th the price LG Stylo
3 Plus are directing me on my route over Google Maps to my destination.

Given the 5x more expensive iPhone has the same screen as the LG Stylo 3
Plus, you'd think at least the fantastic screen resolution of the 10x more
expensive XS Max iPhone would be of some benefit when, say, watching
YouTube, but, the fact that Android phones never see any ads on YouTube Red
clones while Apple phones can't even comprehend having that power and
functionality, outweighs, by far, any screen resolution advantages.

Assuming you ignore the entire line of last year's iPhones (all of which
are throttled to less than half their original CPU speeds within about a
year or two) you can assume that the 10X more expensive current Android
Note 9 and iPhone XS Max should, at least, "play games faster" than my el
cheapo $130 LG Stylo 3 Plus might.

But, since I don't "play games" on the phone, all that Android/iOS power
and lovely screen resolution of the 10x more expensive Android/iOS phones
is of no use to me.

Neither is the functionality of "no lag" full encryption, although, I
admit, if I thought I wanted that, or needed it, that it would be of
general use to me (although, truth be told, I don't even have a PIN nor do
I bother with the fingerprint sensor on my el cheapo $130 LG Stylo 3 Plus
phone).

The short net, unbiased as it is, is something like this:
o A normal user sees essentially no advantage to paying 10X the price
o But a gamer would likely see a "big" advantage,
o As would someone who cares about beauties of screen and/or style

Still ... I'm sincere in saying ... I *expected* the el cheapo phone to be
"slow" or "limited" (like the Google Moto G was); but I sincerely don't
"feel" the lack of speed, resolution, or camera functionality.

I just don't.
I thought I would.
But I don't.

That's why I'm perplexed.

[arlen holder]

On Wed, 12 Dec 2018 03:45:46 -0800, sms wrote:

> As with used cars, the amount that a dealer will give you is far less
> than you can get if you sell it yourself.

Understood.

I've never bothered to sell an old car (I give them away for free to kids
who need them) just like I've never bothered to sell an old phone (I used
my Samsung Galaxy S3 for about 5 years until the internal battery contacts
finally broke, which was years after the USB port finally broke).

> Wow, you spent all that money just for that?

My first few iPads were gifts, since I give Android gifts out all the time,
my friends and relatives thought I _needed_ (hehheh) to learn about iOS
since they _love_ Apple products!

My latest iPad was bought so I could help an old lady out on the phone who
lives far away. So I didn't buy the latest iPad to prove that Jolly Roger
and nospam incessantly fabricate fictional iOS funcdtionality.

I simply _use_ it to prove that the Apple Apologists make up everything.
(Their belief system is purely religious, containing 0 actual facts.)

> Since no one takes them
> seriously anyway, why are you so obsessed with the fabrications?

Hi sms,

Unfortunately, you're wrong on that, since I've seen, many times, even the
Apple lovers (e.g., Wade Garrett, Ant, and others) completely led astray
down a completely fabricated wild-goose chase where the Apple Apologists
incessantly fabricate ficdtional iOS funcdtionality.
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/K_yBNZiPFYo/aIeMjtaKAAAJ>

For decades, I've watched with amazement how the Apple Apologists don't
care even for one of their own, to lead them astray on purely fictional
capabilities that they only "claim" exist, e.g., look at this ridiculous
claim by Snit which was posted over 400 times, simply because Snit
"thought" that I had my facts wrong (which, as you know, is almost
impossible since I don't speak anything but facts in the first place).
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/PZuec56EWB0/mS4QHcOmAAAJ>

While you and I know now that the Apple Apologists incessantly fabricate
fictional functionality, the problem is that even I was fooled by them in
the beginning, where their fictional claims of non-existent iOS
functionality are so firmly stated, that you'd "think" they knew what they
were talking about (but they never do).
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/3bkestmymAA/tJXJ1m-gDAAJ>

I always wonder why Apple users are so unlike normal adults.

Why they incessantly feel the need to fabricate functionality is something
that is a particular quirk that I think is perhaps due to the fact that
almost all their decisions appear to be based on incomprehensible fear,
slavish style, and fact-free religion, none of which know the bounds of
normal adult logic.
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/18ARDsEOPzM/9CxMQ58TCAAJ>

In short, you and I know that the Apple Apologists incessantly fabricate
fictional iOS functionality, but the bulk of the people probably don't know
this until they've tried out some of their fabrications.
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/aUyeuaPI9pc/02sVHTbFBAAJ>

The good news is that, since I own plenty of iOS devices, I easily prove
almost every one of their claims of iOS functionality to be fabricated.
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/eRTC23FyVDY/2UWvx_eBAwAJ>

Long ago, we proved, beyond any doubt, that there is no app functionality
on iOS that isn't already on Android, and that there is plenty of Android
app functionality that isn't on iOS. They just hate that fact.
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/4LawQ2tN7g8/MibwfPaVDAAJ>

The Apple Apologists hate normal adults like I am, who speak in facts.
You know why?
Their biggest weakness is that they have no defense to facts.

That's why I only speak facts on this newsgroup.
Facts prove to the world what the Apple Apologists are.

>
>> *That 128GB WiFi iPad _lost 70% of its original value_ in only 8 months!*
>
> Only as a trade-in. You could probably sell it for 50% of the original
> price. Used electronics, like used furniture or appliances, don't retain
> a lot of value, though Apple devices are better than most in this regard.

The sad fact is that iOS devices have an atrocious overall cost of
ownership when you factor in the true costs (which we've discussed many
times before where you cherry picked only "some" of the costs). :)

[Arlen Holder]

On Fri, 7 Dec 2018 19:25:22 -0000 (UTC), arlen holder wrote:

> Facts please:
> *What would a 10X more expensive phone actually buy me that matters?*

UPDATE:
<https://support.motorola.com/us/en/products/cell-phones/moto-g-family/moto-g7/documents/MS137727>
<https://www.gsmarena.com/motorola_moto_g7-9357.php>

I buy budget Android devices, where I find I can do _everything_ I want to
do on those budget devices, which is why I asked what on earth we get if we
pay 10X more than the price we pay today.
<https://i.postimg.cc/136096sR/motog700.jpg>

The phone that started this thread was my two-year-old circa 2017 $130 LG
Stylo 3 Plus, where, for that price, I enjoyed a phablet with eight 1.4GHz
cores and 2GB of RAM, and 32 GB of internal storage (plus expandable
storage), NFC, stylus, removable battery, headphone jack, FM radio, etc.,
all of which I was happy with (although I never used the NFC).
o Phablet stocking stuffers: iPhone 7 versus LG Stylo 3 Plus price/performance hardware comparison
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/ls71mnkj4jk/n0FaH2e_DQAJ>

That $130 phone was as fast as I needed it to be (I don't play games on a
phone), where it's widely known the modern power of Android apps work on
almost all Android phones irrespective of the Android version (most of my
apps being sideloaded since I don't directly use the Google Play Store
because there is no System Account on my phones for privacy reasons).

UPDATE... for $100, you get all this modern hardware in 2019...
<https://i.postimg.cc/hvCx869C/keyboardg7.jpg>
o eight CPU cores, 1.8GHz & 1.6GHz, 64GB internal storage, 4GB RAM
o external SD Card slot (up to 512GB additional storage, or OS storage)
o 6.2 inches, 1080 x 2270 pixels, ~405 ppi density,
o Dual 16 MP, f/1.7, 1.22痠, Dual-pixel PDAF, OIS, 5 MP, f/2.2, depth
o Dual-LED dual-tone flash, 2160p@30fps, 1080p@30/60/120fps, gyro-EIS
o Selfie 12 MP, (wide), 1/2.8", 1.25痠, HDR, 2160p@30fps, 1080p@30fps
o Bluetooth 5.0, A2DP, LE, EDR, aptX
o Headphone jack, FM Radio, USB 2.0, Type-C 1.0 reversible connector
o Wi-Fi 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac, dual-band, Wi-Fi Direct, hotspot
o GPS with A-GPS, GLONASS, GALILEO
o Fingerprint (rear-mounted), accelerometer, gyro, proximity, compass
o Fast battery charging 27W, Quick Charge 4, USB Power Delivery 3.0
o Corning Gorilla Glass 3 curved glass front & glass back
etc.

And which _still_ runs all the apps that the old Android phone ran, so I
have all the modern app functionality of Android, at an even faster speed.

Given that all consumer electronics except highly marketed ones simply get
better, faster, and cheaper over time, I'm even _happier_ two years later
with my new $100 Moto G7 phone, with twice as much storage & RAM.
o Does the best price:performance choice in any common consumer electronics device NOT get better, faster, and CHEAPER over time?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/eSudn2SUkws/i3yWZnEcCQAJ>

Other than NFC (which I've had for years and never used it) & IP68, the
question remains unanswered to my satisfaction of what on earth I would get
for 10 times the price that I don't already have now?

That is, for the price of California sales tax on a 10X more expensive
phone, I have everything I could possibly want in a phone, right?

--
What does a 10X more expensive phone get you that this $100 phone doesn't?

[Arlen Holder]

On 11 Dec 2018 19:19:55 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:

> Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, but 'they' (I assume
> you mean Google or/and the manufacturers) did not introduce any
> 'restriction'. It's the other way around: *App developers* had/have to
> write their app in such a way that part of the code can be moved to the
> SD-card. I.e. 'lazy' developers just don't bother to make their apps
> (partly) movable. Example: Google's Chrome browser.
>
> If an app is written such that part of the code can be moved to the
> SD-card, you will see a 'Move to SD card' button on its 'App info'
> page (Settings -> Manage apps -> tap on app).
>
> This 'Move to SD card' button - if enabled by the app - exists at
> least from 4.1.1 to 5.1.1.
>
> So if there's a 'restriction', it's a restriction in the *app*(s), not
> in the OS/Android.
>
> FYI, I use 'AppMgr III' [1] to easily see which apps can/cannot be
> (partly) moved to the SD-card, which apps have already been moved, do
> the actual moving, etc..
>
> [1] <https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.a0soft.gphone.app2sd>
>
> [...]

For the record, the cheap $16 Fryes/Costco sdcards I had been using for my
old $130 LG Stylo 3 Plus were only 64GB, but they were _double_ the memory
of the internal 32GB storage of that budget phone.

But nowadays, 2 years later, it's more common to have 64GB of internal
storage (e.g., on my new $100 Moto G7), where there's even _less_ reason
now, since even budget phones have _plenty_ of internal storage nowadays.