DXOMark: Astronomincally expensive iPhone 11 Pro front selfie camera ranks in last place of the top ten in camera quality of results

[Arlen Holder]

Dateline this weekend...
o *Despite fancy improvements, iPhone 11 Pro's selfie camera still falls behind*
*Huawei Nova 6, Samsung Galaxy S10 & Google Pixel 4*
<https://www.digitalinformationworld.com/2020/02/iphone-11-pro--selfie-camera-still-falls-behind-huawei-nova-6-samsung-galaxy-s10-and-google-pixel-4.html>

"DXOMark's main focus has been on iPhone 11 Pro (the one Apple is
constantly boasting about) and as the Pro model shares the same
front-facing camera with the simpler iPhone 11, so the results of the test
had to be accepted as the same for both the phones."

"But despite all the improvements and praises, DXOMark says that the
selfie camera on iPhone 11 is not as good as its competitors. There were
issues that stood out in forms of white balance, visible noise,
out-of-focus faces at long distances, and even when faces distorted around
the edges of the frame. Besides that, the worst part is, that all of these
issues come to life as soon as there was low-light.

The same low-light problem also existed for videos as well and
theoretically, this all then puts up iPhone 11 Pro rank *10th spot* in
DXOMark's selfie camera testing with a score of 91."


See also:
o Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max front camera review
<https://www.dxomark.com/apple-iphone-11-pro-max-front-camera-review/#>\

--
Only highly marketed products don't get better, faster & cheaper over time.

[Alan Baker]

So you had to dig to find this, huh, Liar?

That's what you've got? The selfie camera comes in in 10th spot?

LOL!

How did the iPhone 11 Pro do overall in DXOMark, Liar?

Why did you never post that?

[Scott Schuckert]

In article <r1703n$ee9$1...@news.mixmin.net>, Arlen Holder

<arlen.geo...@is.invalid> wrote:

> But despite all the improvements and praises, DXOMark says that the
> selfie camera on iPhone 11 is not as good as its competitors.

(Chuckles) For something that is, at most, a tertiary function, it's
already way better than it has to be. If the photo means anything to
me, I'll use... a camera.

[Alan Baker]

You notice how he disingenuously fails to mention that the iPhone 11 has
the same front-facing camera as the Pro?

:-)

[Scott Schuckert]

In article <r17bg1$15d6$2...@gioia.aioe.org>, Alan Baker <nu...@ness.biz>
wrote:

> You notice how he disingenuously fails to mention that the iPhone 11 has
> the same front-facing camera as the Pro?

After working for Apple for many years, I was used to people
desperately searching for something to complain about. These days, it
just amuses me.

[Alan Baker]

Me too! ;-)

[Arlen Holder]

On Sun, 2 Feb 2020 11:12:32 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> How did the iPhone 11 Pro do overall in DXOMark,
>

> Why did you never post that?

Hi Alan Baker,

Why must you _always_ prove to be an utter moron, Alan Baker?
o You seem to _hate_ facts so you deny facts just because you hate them.

Do you have _any_ idea how poorly that iPhone rear camera fared?
o It's a tie in fifth, sixth, and seventh place for Christs' sake.

And yet, Apple charges an astronomical price for fifth place (at best),
and tenth place in selfie camera - all the while Apple LOUDLY touts camera
QOR that is simply bullshit.

The fact is that the selfie is in tenth place and the rear camera is tied
for fifth, sixth, and seventh place ... and yet ... the price ... is
astronomical.

Those are facts.
o You don't like facts but you not liking facts doesn't change the facts.

For an iPhone that astronomically priced and so highly touted by Apple to
have such a crappy camera Quality of Results by way of comparison to the
Android phones which are cheaper & better, is something only you would fail
to notice.

Please understand the _adult_ point which I make, and which was made in the
referenced article, is that Apple *_LOUDLY_* advertises the mere _illusion_
of camera quality of results.

*It's facts that I wouldn't be refuting if Apple didn't spew bullshit.*

Here are the facts from today's DXOMark detailed camera QOR reviews:

*TOP TEN*
o 01 Huawei Mate 30 Pro 5G (123)
o 02 Honor V30 Pro (122)
o 03 Huawei Mate 30 Pro (121)
o 04 Xiaomi Mi CC9 Pro Premium Edition (121)
o 05 Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max (117)
o 06 Samsung Galaxy Note 10+ 5G (117)
o 07 Samsung Galaxy Note 10+ (117)
o 08 Huawei P30 Pro (116)
o 09 Oppo Reno 10x Zoom (116)
o 10 Samsung Galaxy S10 5G (116)

*ALL THE REST*
o 11 OnePlus 7 Pro (114)
o 12 Honor 20 Pro (113)
o 13 Samsung Galaxy S10+ (113)
o 14 Google Pixel 4 (112)
o 15 Huawei Mate 20 Pro (112)
o 16 Xiaomi Mi 9 (110)
o 17 Apple iPhone 11 (109)
o 18 Huawei P20 Pro (109)
o 19 Apple iPhone XS Max (106)
o 20 Asus ZenFone 6 (104)
o 21 HTC U12+ (103)
o 22 Samsung Galaxy Note 9 (103)
o 23 Xiaomi Mi MIX 3 (103)
o 24 Google Pixel 3 (102)
o 25 Xiaomi Redmi K20 Pro (102)
o 26 Apple iPhone XR (101)
o 27 Google Pixel 3a (101)
o 28 Samsung Galaxy S9+ (100)
o 29 Google Pixel 2 (99)
o 30 LG G8 ThinQ (99)
o 31 Xiaomi Mi 8 (99)
o 32 OnePlus 6T (98)
o 33 Apple iPhone X (97)
o 34 Huawei Mate 10 Pro (97)
o 35 Lenovo Z6 Pro (97)
o 36 LG V40 ThinQ (97)
o 37 OnePlus 6 (96)
o 38 Asus ROG Phone II (95)
o 39 Sony Xperia 5 (95)
o 40 Apple iPhone 8 Plus (94)
o 41 Samsung Galaxy Note 8 (94)
o 42 Sony Xperia 1 (94)
o 43 Xiaomi Pocophone F1 (91)
o 44 Asus ZenFone 5 (90)
o 45 General Mobile GM9 Pro (90)
o 46 Google Pixel (90)
o 47 HTC U11 (90)
o 48 Vivo X20 Plus (90)
o 49 Xiaomi Mi Note 3 (90)
o 50 Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge (89)
o 51 Apple iPhone 7 Plus (88)
o 52 Samsung Galaxy A9 (88)
o 53 Motorola One Zoom (87)
o 54 Vsmart Live (87)
o 55 Crosscall Trekker-X4 (86)
o 56 LG G7 ThinQ (85)
o 57 Nokia 7.2 (85)
o 58 Nokia 9 PureView (85)
o 59 Samsung Galaxy A50 (85)
o 60 Black Shark 2 (84)
o 61 LG V30 (84)
o 62 Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro (84)
o 63 Motorola Moto Z2 Force (82)
o 64 Samsung Galaxy S6 Edge (82)
o 65 Motorola Moto G7 Plus (80)
o 66 Apple iPhone 6 (73)
o 67 Google Nexus 6P (73)
o 68 Meizu Pro 7 Plus (71)
o 69 Lava Z25 (70)
o 70 Samsung Galaxy S5 (70)
o 71 Motorola Moto G5S (69)
o 72 Apple iPhone 5s (68)
o 73 Nokia 8 (68)
o 74 Wiko View 3 Pro (67)
o 75 Fairphone 3 (66)
o 76 Samsung Galaxy J2 Pro (2018) (65)
o 77 Altice S61 (56)
--
Apologists actually _believe_ the bullshit Apple MARKETING spews!

[Arlen Holder]

On Sun, 2 Feb 2020 12:29:54 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> You notice how he disingenuously fails to mention that the iPhone 11 has
> the same front-facing camera as the Pro?

Alan,

Why must you prove you're an utter moron in _every_ post?

*I simply listed in the OP the facts verbatim from the cites.*

Why you feel listing cites verbatim is "disingenuous" is odd.
--
You apologists are a strange bunch and not like normal adults.

[Arlen Holder]

On Sun, 02 Feb 2020 16:08:54 -0500, Scott Schuckert wrote:

>> You notice how he disingenuously fails to mention that the iPhone 11 has
>> the same front-facing camera as the Pro?
>
> After working for Apple for many years, I was used to people
> desperately searching for something to complain about. These days, it
> just amuses me.

Hi Scott Schuckert

Simple question:
o Are you an adult? Or a child?

Adults use facts to make their point, as I did, with the original post.
o Children brazenly deny facts sans presenting a single fact in return.

FACTS:
o Adults are different from apologists in that adults comprehend fact.
o The fact is that the iPhone in question came in at tenth place.

You don't have to _like_ the fact the camera sucks; but that doesn't change
that fact simply because you _hate_ all facts about Apple products.

Do you apologists deny the facts that were presented in the two cites?
o What facts do you present to use to deny those facts?

As always, the apologists spew fact-free bullshit.
o Or do you apologists simply hate facts, simply because they _are_ facts?

All you apologists prove to despise and _hate_ facts they don't like.

Why?
I don't know why.

I think perhaps facts are threatening to apologists like Scott Schuckert
because *facts instantly _DESTROY_ Scott's purely imaginary belief system*.

FACT:
o The selfie camera on the astronomically expensive iPhone, despite the
bullshit that Apple MARKETING spews about it (which the article noted, and
which is important to note), is just that. Bullshit.

BTW, it wouldn't be a big deal that the selfie camera sucks if Apple didn't
spew all the bullshit that Apple MARKETING spews about it.

I'm here to bring facts to this newsgroup - even as apologists hate facts.

--
Facts instantly DESTROY apologists completely imaginary belief system.

[Arlen Holder]

On Sun, 2 Feb 2020 13:17:09 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

>>> You notice how he disingenuously fails to mention that the iPhone 11 has
>>> the same front-facing camera as the Pro?
>>
>> After working for Apple for many years, I was used to people
>> desperately searching for something to complain about. These days, it
>> just amuses me.
>>
>
> Me too! ;-)

Hehhehheh... thank you both for _proving_ for me, what you are.

I've studied you apologists for years; you're deathly _afraid_ of facts.
o Facts are your weakness.

Just as flat earthers have the same weakness as you apologists have
o You're literally _afraid_ of facts.

I find it interesting how you apologists call the "truth" a "complaint".
o Why are you apologists so deathly _afraid_ of the mere factual truth?*

HINT: I know why.
o *Facts instantly _DESTROY_ your entire belief system.*

--
Apologists always prove to own a belief system which is wholly imaginary.

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-02-02 8:29 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Feb 2020 11:12:32 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> How did the iPhone 11 Pro do overall in DXOMark,
>>
>> Why did you never post that?
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
>
> Why must you _always_ prove to be an utter moron, Alan Baker?
> o You seem to _hate_ facts so you deny facts just because you hate them.

I don't hate facts, Liar....

I merely note the FACT, that you carefully stopped posting DXOMark
results for two months.

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-02-02 8:29 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:

> On Sun, 2 Feb 2020 12:29:54 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> You notice how he disingenuously fails to mention that the iPhone 11 has
>> the same front-facing camera as the Pro?
>
> Alan,
>
> Why must you prove you're an utter moron in _every_ post?
>
> *I simply listed in the OP the facts verbatim from the cites.*
>
> Why you feel listing cites verbatim is "disingenuous" is odd.
>

You pick and choose the "facts" you like, Liar.

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-02-02 8:29 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:

> On Sun, 2 Feb 2020 13:17:09 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>>>> You notice how he disingenuously fails to mention that the iPhone 11 has
>>>> the same front-facing camera as the Pro?
>>>
>>> After working for Apple for many years, I was used to people
>>> desperately searching for something to complain about. These days, it
>>> just amuses me.
>>>
>>
>> Me too! ;-)
>
> Hehhehheh... thank you both for _proving_ for me, what you are.
>
> I've studied you apologists for years; you're deathly _afraid_ of facts.
> o Facts are your weakness.

I'm not in the least afraid of facts, Liar.

[Arlen Holder]

On Sun, 2 Feb 2020 11:12:32 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> That's what you've got? The selfie camera comes in in 10th spot?

All I _can_ provide, are FACTS.

1. The selfie camera is in 10th place.
2. The rear camera is tied for 7th, 6th, and 5th place.
3. Apple highly touts camera output but that touting is bullshit.

Those are the facts.
o *You apologists don't seem to like facts; but they're _still_ facts.*

The cite even said that Apple highly touts what in essence is bullshit.

--
Apple apologists always seem to believe in MARKETING instead of facts.

[Arlen Holder]

On Sun, 02 Feb 2020 15:08:00 -0500, Scott Schuckert wrote:

> (Chuckles) For something that is, at most, a tertiary function, it's
> already way better than it has to be. If the photo means anything to
> me, I'll use... a camera.

Hi Scott Schuckert,

*I think you missed the _adult_ point that the cited article made.*

Let me explain it to you in words even a small child could understand, OK?
1. Apple highly touts what amounts to the mere _illusion_ of functionality.
2. Apple highly charges for that highly touted _illusion_ of functionality.

The facts are:
1. *The selfie camera is in 10th place.*
2. *The rear camera is tied for 7th, 6th, and 5th place*

Those are the facts.
o *You apologists don't seem to like facts; but they're _still_ facts.*

What part of those facts are you "complaining" about, Scott?
--
Apologists complain when facts _DESTROY_ their imaginary belief system.

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-02-02 8:43 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Feb 2020 11:12:32 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> That's what you've got? The selfie camera comes in in 10th spot?
>
> All I _can_ provide, are FACTS.

Then you should try it more often, Liar..

>
> 1. The selfie camera is in 10th place.

OK. So?

> 2. The rear camera is tied for 7th, 6th, and 5th place.

That's not the way one states that fact. You simply say tied for 5th
unless you're trying to make your fact sound worse because of your
personal bias, Liar.

Would you have as carefully stated the

> 3. Apple highly touts camera output but that touting is bullshit.
>
> Those are the facts.
> o *You apologists don't seem to like facts; but they're _still_ facts.*
>
> The cite even said that Apple highly touts what in essence is bullshit.
>

Really? Being 5th out of all the mobiles reviewed for their camera
quality is terrible? Scoring less than 5% less than the top ranked
camera makes Apple's claims of having a really good camera bullshit,
does it, Liar?

Tell you what:

Why don't you...

...actually provide a quote of something Apple has said about the camera
on the iPhone 11 Pro that isn't true.

[Alan Baker]

How about the fact that no one who doesn't have an axe to grind would
describe being tied for 5th as being "tied for 7th, 6th and 5th place",
Liar?

[Arlen Holder]

The main _adult_ point is the same _factual_ point the cited article made.

1. Apple _highly touts_ the mere _illusion_ of camera functionality.
2. And yet, the actual facts (outside of MARKETING BULLSHIT) are:

a. *The _best_ Apple can do on selfie cameras is 10th place!*
b. *The _best_ Apple can do on main cameras is a tie at 7th place!*
(fifth sixth and seventh place being that tie)

And that's the _best_ camera on the most expensive iPhone ever made!
o Tenth place & seventh place!

The point is Apple highly MARKETS the mere _illusion_ of functionality
o The facts prove Apple Marketing on Camera QOR is utter bullshit
--
Apologists don't like facts; but they're still facts nonetheless.

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-02-03 11:57 a.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> The main _adult_ point is the same _factual_ point the cited article made.
>
> 1. Apple _highly touts_ the mere _illusion_ of camera functionality.

So if you don't finish in first place, all your functional is an
illusion, Liar?

> 2. And yet, the actual facts (outside of MARKETING BULLSHIT) are:
>
> a. *The _best_ Apple can do on selfie cameras is 10th place!*
> b. *The _best_ Apple can do on main cameras is a tie at 7th place!*
> (fifth sixth and seventh place being that tie)

No, Liar. They're in a tie for 5th place. I realize you have such hate
for Apple that you have to lie, but that's what it is.

When recording finishers in any scored event, those with the same score
are tied for (n+1)th place where n is the number of scores recorded
immediately before that place.

Your suggestion that it should be recorded as 7th place is absurd and
you know it's absurd because you cannot find a single instance anywhere
in any scored event where the results are recorded in that fashion, and
you know that.

That is why you have been accurately renamed "Liar", Liar.

>
> And that's the _best_ camera on the most expensive iPhone ever made!
> o Tenth place & seventh place!
>
> The point is Apple highly MARKETS the mere _illusion_ of functionality
> o The facts prove Apple Marketing on Camera QOR is utter bullshit

And yet you cannot produce a single quote of anything Apple says that
isn't factual.

Isn't that a little odd, Liar; for someone who touts his reliance on
facts so highly?

[sms]

I like what the Zenfone 6 and Samsung A80 have done. The rear camera
flips around so you get the high quality camera even for selfies. And
one extra great thing you get from that arrangement is "no notch."

It seems odd that selfie cameras are used more than rear cameras but the
selfie cameras are of much lower quality. I would disagree that the
selfie camera is a tertiary function.

[nospam]

In article <r1c2jf$8rk$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

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

>
> I like what the Zenfone 6 and Samsung A80 have done. The rear camera
> flips around so you get the high quality camera even for selfies. And
> one extra great thing you get from that arrangement is "no notch."

that will prevent using both cameras at the same time, it greatly
restricts what cases can be used and is something else to break. it
also takes up a significant amount of space that can be better used for
other purposes.

> It seems odd that selfie cameras are used more than rear cameras but the
> selfie cameras are of much lower quality. I would disagree that the
> selfie camera is a tertiary function.

there is no basis for that claim.

[Snit]

Who uses their selfie camera more?

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

[Savageduck]

On Feb 4, 2020, Snit wrote
(in article <h9to29...@mid.individual.net>):

> sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> > On 2/2/2020 12:08 PM, Scott Schuckert wrote:
> > > In article<r1703n$ee9$1...@news.mixmin.net>, Arlen Holder
> > > <arlen.geo...@is.invalid> wrote:
> > >
> > > > But despite all the improvements and praises, DXOMark says that the
> > > > selfie camera on iPhone 11 is not as good as its competitors.
> > >
> > > (Chuckles) For something that is, at most, a tertiary function, it's
> > > already way better than it has to be. If the photo means anything to
> > > me, I'll use... a camera.
> >
> > I like what the Zenfone 6 and Samsung A80 have done. The rear camera
> > flips around so you get the high quality camera even for selfies. And
> > one extra great thing you get from that arrangement is "no notch."
> >
> > It seems odd that selfie cameras are used more than rear cameras but the
> > selfie cameras are of much lower quality. I would disagree that the
> > selfie camera is a tertiary function.
>
> Who uses their selfie camera more?

More?

The only time I use the front (selfie) camera is for Facetime calls from/to my iPhone. The last time I used it to capture my image, was to update the photo in the Mobile Passport App.

For all other photography I have my current Fujifilm cameras, and a selection of lenses. My iPhone camera is only used occasionally as a camera of convenience, or one of last resort. I don’t buy/choose my smart phones based on the performance of their front, or rear cameras. My current phone is a 2 year old iPhone 8+ and that replaced an iPhone 6s+.

I suspect that is the sort response you will get when a thread such as this gets cross-posted to r.p.d.

--
Regards,
Savageduck

[Arlen Holder]

On Tue, 4 Feb 2020 07:28:46 -0800, sms wrote:

> I would disagree that the
> selfie camera is a tertiary function.

Steve,

Tsk. Tsk.

*You haven't learned the first rule of apologists.*
o They simply didn't like the rating - so they said it wasn't important.

Just like apologists said they Apple "wasn't at all worried" about 5G
o Simply because Apple doesn't have 5G

It's the same with every major Apple flaw, Steve.
o The batteries made Apple _secretly_ throttle CPUs in half, remember.

It wasn't Apple's fault; it was the batteries.
o Even though no other smartphone OEM _ever_ had to do what Apple did!

The Apple apologists _always_ blame everyone but Apple for Apple flaws.
o Happens all the time, particularly with nospam

The entire sordid Apple culture is to blame everyone but Apple
o For Apple's own design flaws

Basically, apologists have no adult response to facts they don't like.
o So they incessantly blame everyone but Apple for Apple's design flaws

Why do both Apple & the apologists habitually blame everyone but Apple for
Apple's poor design choices?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/Iee15bZl49I/i8xeBobOAAAJ>

--
Apple apologists & Apple blame everyone but Apple for their flaws.

[Arlen Holder]

On Tue, 04 Feb 2020 10:49:58 -0500, nospam wrote:

>> It seems odd that selfie cameras are used more than rear cameras but the
>> selfie cameras are of much lower quality. I would disagree that the
>> selfie camera is a tertiary function.
>
> there is no basis for that claim.

Hi nospam,

Which claim do you argue (always sans facts) has "no basis"?
1. Steve's claim that selfie cameras are often used?
2. Or Steve's claim that selfie cameras are important?

Which of Steve's claim do you brazenly deny has any value, nospam?

--
Apologists brazenly deny any and all facts they simply don't like.

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-02-04 10:28 a.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Feb 2020 07:28:46 -0800, sms wrote:
>
>> I would disagree that the
>> selfie camera is a tertiary function.
>
> Steve,
>
> Tsk. Tsk.
>
> *You haven't learned the first rule of apologists.*
> o They simply didn't like the rating - so they said it wasn't important.

On the contrary. Being 10th and only 9% behind the top scoring phone is
to have a very good front-facing camera.

>
> Just like apologists said they Apple "wasn't at all worried" about 5G
> o Simply because Apple doesn't have 5G
>
> It's the same with every major Apple flaw, Steve.
> o The batteries made Apple _secretly_ throttle CPUs in half, remember.

That's a lie, Liar.

>
> It wasn't Apple's fault; it was the batteries.
> o Even though no other smartphone OEM _ever_ had to do what Apple did!

That's false... ...and since you probably knew about what follows, also
you explicitly lying:

<https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/7n2s0n/apple_vs_android_and_cpu_throttling/>

<https://www.extremetech.com/computing/162717-samsung-caught-artificially-inflating-galaxy-s4-benchmark-results-fires-back-non-explanatory-explanation>

<https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/10/galaxy-note-3s-benchmarking-adjustments-inflate-scores-by-up-to-20/>

<https://www.anandtech.com/show/7384/state-of-cheating-in-android-benchmarks>

<https://www.gsmarena.com/oneplus_5_cheats_on_multicore_benchmarks-news-25730.php>

Now, you'll claim that's not the same thing, but if you're "touting" the
speed of your phone by artificially running the CPU at a higher speed
than it runs when the phone is actually in use normally, you're
throttling the CPU, aren't you, Liar?

"App loads CPU with up to 100 threads and measures performance. If phone
can handle CPU cooling (most can't) performance will stay constant
, but if it can't CPU will start to throttle and speed will decrease."
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=skynet.cputhrottlingtest&hl=en>

>
> The Apple apologists _always_ blame everyone but Apple for Apple flaws.
> o Happens all the time, particularly with nospam

It literally never happens. Pointing out that you only complain about
flaws Apple has while ignoring that other companies have those same
flaws is not blaming others.

>
> The entire sordid Apple culture is to blame everyone but Apple
> o For Apple's own design flaws

This is a lie.

>
> Basically, apologists have no adult response to facts they don't like.
> o So they incessantly blame everyone but Apple for Apple's design flaws
>
> Why do both Apple & the apologists habitually blame everyone but Apple for
> Apple's poor design choices?
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/Iee15bZl49I/i8xeBobOAAAJ>
>

Is there anywhere in the world where any score has ever been reported
when there are clear first, second, third and fourth place scores, where
the next three tie scores have been reported as "tied for 7th", Liar?

Show just one.

:-)

[nospam]

In article <r1cd48$p16$1...@news.mixmin.net>, Arlen Holder

<arlen.geo...@is.invalid> wrote:

> o Even though no other smartphone OEM _ever_ had to do what Apple did!

false.

[nospam]

In article <r1cd49$p16$2...@news.mixmin.net>, Arlen Holder

<arlen.geo...@is.invalid> wrote:

> Which claim do you argue (always sans facts) has "no basis"?

just about everything you say is sans facts.

[Arlen Holder]

On Tue, 04 Feb 2020 13:47:47 -0500, nospam wrote:

>> o Even though no other smartphone OEM _ever_ had to do what Apple did!
>
> false.

Hi nospam,

*The on-topic fact is the iPhone 11 Pro camera came in _tenth_ place.*
o That's a fact you & Savageduck, both die-hard apologists, don't like.

Apple apologists like Savageduck & you have only 7 responses to facts...
o None of them adult

One of your responses to facts is simply to brazenly deny all facts.
o We have an entire thread on what makes you & Savageduck apologists...

*What are the common well-verified psychological traits of the Apple Apologists on this newsgroup?*
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/18ARDsEOPzM/veU8FwAjBQAJ>

--
Apologists lik brazenly deny all facts, simply because they don't like 'em.

[Arlen Holder]

On Tue, 04 Feb 2020 13:47:48 -0500, nospam wrote:

> just about everything you say is sans facts.

And yet, this thread contains facts from reliable news media, nospam.
o They're facts you don't like, nospam; but they're still facts.]

FACT:
o *The iPhone 11 Pro front camera came in _tenth_ place.*

You don't _like_ that fact nospam; but it's _still_ a fact, nospam.

You apologists have only 7 responses to facts you don't like...
o None of which are adult.

Many times you've tried to impugn DXOMark results, nospam.
o Everyone on the rec.photo.digital newsgroups knows that's a fact.

The fact is that you apologists, like you & Savageduck, for example...
o Just don't like facts.
--
But the fact you apologists don't like facts doesn't change the facts.

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-02-04 6:00 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Feb 2020 13:47:47 -0500, nospam wrote:
>
>>> o Even though no other smartphone OEM _ever_ had to do what Apple did!
>>
>> false.
>
> Hi nospam,
>
> *The on-topic fact is the iPhone 11 Pro camera came in _tenth_ place.*
> o That's a fact you & Savageduck, both die-hard apologists, don't like.

That is a fact.

In one company's opinion, the iPhone 11 Pro's selfie camera came in in
10th place.

That same company ranks the iPhone 11 Pro 5th overall.

Neither is a bad showing.

[nospam]

In article <r1d7j6$doe$1...@news.mixmin.net>, Arlen Holder

<arlen.geo...@is.invalid> wrote:

>
> *The on-topic fact is the iPhone 11 Pro camera came in _tenth_ place.*

given how many cameras they've tested, that's *very* good.

and that's despite not being paid to inflate the rankings.

[Savageduck]

On Feb 4, 2020, Alan Baker wrote
(in article <r1d7qc$g30$1...@gioia.aioe.org>):

> On 2020-02-04 6:00 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> > On Tue, 04 Feb 2020 13:47:47 -0500, nospam wrote:
> >
> > > > o Even though no other smartphone OEM _ever_ had to do what Apple did!
> > >
> > > false.
> >
> > Hi nospam,
> >
> > *The on-topic fact is the iPhone 11 Pro camera came in _tenth_ place.*
> > o That's a fact you & Savageduck, both die-hard apologists, don't like.
>
> That is a fact.

The only fact in this thread is the following; I have the nymshifting AH thoroughly kill-filed/filtered, and the only reason I see any snippets of his tedious anti-Apple campaign is when others can’t resist responding to his verbose screeds. So I haven’t responded directly to him in some time. In this thread both of my responses, including this one were to Alan Baker & Snit.

>
>
> In one company's opinion, the iPhone 11 Pro's selfie camera came in in
> 10th place.
>
> That same company ranks the iPhone 11 Pro 5th overall.
>
> Neither is a bad showing.

As I said in my earlier response, since neither the rear, nor front “selfie” camera on any iPhone is for me a primary camera of any sort, I don’t give a damn where they are place on a DxOMark score sheet. I only use the cameras in my iPhone to take a handful of photos per year.

I have cameras with interchangeable lenses to fill the roll of primary and back-up cameras for my photography.

--
Regards,
Savageduck

[Arlen Holder]

On Tue, 04 Feb 2020 21:08:58 -0500, nospam wrote:

> given how many cameras they've tested, that's *very* good.
>
> and that's despite not being paid to inflate the rankings.

Hi nospam,

The main point, which any _adult_ can comprehend, nospam, is...
o *Apple LOUDLY touts what turns out to be the mere illusion of functionality.*

However, on your incessant point of "inflated rankings" you always make...

One could ask why doesn't Apple have enough money to "inflate" their
rankings, but that would just continue the childish game apologists like
you and Savageduck always play when your completely imaginary belief
systems are _DESTROYED_ by simple facts, such as DXOMark rankings.

*The fact is that Apple highly touts the mere _illusion_ of camera QOR*
o Hence when that camera comes in last place in the top ten, that's news.

*It's news because Apple loudly touts a mere _illusion_ of camera QOR*
o It's not really there; only the apologists like you believe it's there.

And yet, it's not there.
o It's imaginary functionality, nospam.

*Apologists like you & Savageduck always fall for _imaginary_ functionality.*

If Apple didn't highly tout what amounts to the mere _illusion_ of camera
QOR functionality, then it wouldn't be news when the most expensive iPhones
come in last place on the top ten list of camera quality of output.

*It's news because what Apple LOUDLY advertises, is utter bullshit, nospam!*

For example, if my $100 Moto G7, which is NOT touted for camera QOR, came
in within the top ten of camera QOR, it would be "very good"; but not if
Motorola spent who knows how many millions of dollars LOUDLY touting the
camera QOR.

Hence, the news, nospam, is that Apple lied to you (again).
--
Apple loudly touts what turns out to be the mere illusion of functionality.

[Arlen Holder]

On Tue, 4 Feb 2020 18:04:00 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> In one company's opinion, the iPhone 11 Pro's selfie camera came in in
> 10th place.

Hi Alan Baker,

What you apologists never appear to comprehend, is that Apple loudly touts
it's camera functionality, which never pans out in real world tests.
o That's the news here.

*Apple's LOUD marketing of camera QOR functionality is utter bullshit.*
o Their LOUD marketing only seem to be valid in powerpoint presentations.

In real world tests, Apple smarphone QOR is nowhere near the LOUD claims.
o that's the news here, Alan Baker.

*10th place sucks for such LOUD MARKETING as Apple constantly screams out.*
o And that's pretty much the _adult_ point of the article cited, Alan.

However, if we assume you own adult cognitive skills, we can have a
completely different conversation about your 'claims' that it's "one
company's opinion" that the camera came in at 10th place for camera QOR.

If we assume you're an adult, we ask you the simplest most basic most
obvious _adult_ question, since you & nospam _never_ seem to like how
poorly Apple smartphones far on the DXOMark mobile phone reviews.

As an adult, simply name a _better_ mobile comprehensive review site.
o Name just one.

Remember, Alan Baker, I'm assuming, for the purpose of this post, that you
own _adult_ cognitive skills, so I ask you the _simplest_ adult question
any adult would ask given you and nospam _always_ deprecate the fact that
Apple smartphones fare relatively poorly in the DXOMark comprehensive test
reviews.

*Name a comprehensive mobile smartphone test site _better_ than DXOmark*.
o Name just one.

> That same company ranks the iPhone 11 Pro 5th overall.

FACTS:

These are Android smartphones with the same or better overall scores:
o 01 Huawei Mate 30 Pro 5G (123)
o 02 Honor V30 Pro (122)
o 03 Huawei Mate 30 Pro (121)
o 04 Xiaomi Mi CC9 Pro Premium Edition (121)
o 06 Samsung Galaxy Note 10+ 5G (117)
o 07 Samsung Galaxy Note 10+ (117)

FACT:
o There are six (6) Android phones with the same or better overall scores.

You and Savageduck & nospam don't have to _like_ those facts, Alan Baker...
o But apologists hating facts doesn't change the fact they're _still_ facts.

> Neither is a bad showing.

Alan,

If my $100 Moto G7 (which is not loudly touted to have great camera output
QOR) came in last of the top ten, it would be a respectable showing, Alan.

But for one of the most expensive smartphones on the planet to come in last
place, is a big deal, Alan Baker, whether you comprehend that or not.

If we continue to assume you own adult cognitive skills, it means that you
comprehend that Apple LOUDLY touts what amounts to the mere _illusion_ of
camera QOR functionality.

If we assume you own adult cognitive skills, you'll also have to understand
that Apple _charges_ the customer a premium for those LOUDLY TOUTED
functionality claims, which apologists like you gladly pay, simply because
you clearly _believe_ those LOUD CLAIMS OF IMAGINARY FUNCTIONALITY by
Apple.

But the _adult_ point here, which was made by the reference article by the
way, is that what Apple loudly touts and charges you for is the mere
_illusion_ of functionality.

*The facts are that the Apple phone came in last place on the top ten.*
--
Apologists hate facts because facts DESTROY their imaginary belief system.

[nospam]

In article <r1dc8e$vqp$1...@news.mixmin.net>, Arlen Holder

<arlen.geo...@is.invalid> wrote:

>
> The main point, which any _adult_ can comprehend,

that rules you out.

>
> One could ask why doesn't Apple have enough money to "inflate" their
> rankings,

because it's unethical and they don't need to.

[Arlen Holder]

On Tue, 04 Feb 2020 23:12:35 -0500, nospam wrote:

>> The main point, which any _adult_ can comprehend,
>
> that rules you out.
>
>>
>> One could ask why doesn't Apple have enough money to "inflate" their
>> rankings,
>
> because it's unethical and they don't need to.

Hi nospam,

*You blame DXOMark for Apple's poor performance on camera QOR!*

Blaming everyone but Apple for Apple's poor performance, is what you do:
o *Why do both Apple & the apologists habitually blame everyone but Apple for Apple's poor design choices?*
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/Iee15bZl49I/i8xeBobOAAAJ>

Notice two things you always prove for we adults, nospam,
1. You have no adult response to facts (your response is always childish).
2. You make brazen wild-asssed claims which you _never_ back up with facts.

The fact is that Apple's iPhone 11 Pro camera is in last place, nospam.
o You can't handle facts because facts DESTROY imaginary belief systems.

So you turn into an instant child when confronted with facts:
o *Why do the apologists like nospam turn into instant children in the face of mere facts*
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/TZbkkqS3jv4/3_TTHgRpBwAJ>

*You always blame everyone but Apple for Apple's poor design choices.*
o In this situation, *you blame DXOMark for Apple's poor design choices*

Blaming everyone but Apple for Apple's poor performance is what makes
people like you and Savageduck the quintessential apologists, nospam.

--
Apologists blame everyone but Apple for real world iPhone poor performance.

[nospam]

In article <r1dh4f$hcb$2...@news.mixmin.net>, Arlen Holder

<arlen.geo...@is.invalid> wrote:

> *You blame DXOMark for Apple's poor performance on camera QOR!*

apple's performance was *excellent* and nobody blamed dxomark either.

dxomark has tested thousands of cameras. the top ten is the cream of
the crop. even the top 25 are amazingly good.

[Arlen Holder]

On Tue, 04 Feb 2020 23:50:27 -0500, nospam wrote:

> apple's performance was *excellent* and nobody blamed dxomark either.

Hi nospam,

I've studied apologists like you and Savageduck for years, nospam.

You're the one blaming everyone else but Apple for "bribing" DXOMark to
historically rate Apple iPhones poorly on camera performance, not me.

I simply report the facts of the real world comprehensive tests:
o *Camera quality of output summary scores for the top 50*
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/qSEjEFtBrJU/xCVtmRyfAwAJ>

FACT 1:
Apple's iPhones are some of the most expensive phones on the planet, and,
certainly the most LOUDLY advertised, particularly the camera QOR.

FACT 2:
Historically, Apple iPhones barely make the top-ten list, and even when
they do, they fall off quickly as they're almost never even in the top 5.

I've been reporting these adult _facts_ for some time now, nospam, e.g.,
o *DXOMark Mobile Phone Camera Quality of Results*
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/0bPpvi9EAu4/PJC0IoJsBQAJ>

You've been blaming everyone else but Apple for poor iPhone performance:
o *Why do apologists blame everyone but Apple for iPhone poor performance?*
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/Iee15bZl49I/i8xeBobOAAAJ>

You apologists have only 7 responses to fact - none of which are adult.
o Of of them is you blame everyone but Apple for iPhone poor performance
--
Apologists blame everyone but Apple for iPhone poor performance in tests.

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-02-04 7:19 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Feb 2020 21:08:58 -0500, nospam wrote:
>
>> given how many cameras they've tested, that's *very* good.
>>
>> and that's despite not being paid to inflate the rankings.
>
> Hi nospam,
>
> The main point, which any _adult_ can comprehend, nospam, is...
> o *Apple LOUDLY touts what turns out to be the mere illusion of functionality.*

In what way is it a "mere illusion of functionality", Liar?

Be specific.

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-02-04 7:39 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Feb 2020 18:04:00 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> In one company's opinion, the iPhone 11 Pro's selfie camera came in in
>> 10th place.
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
>
> What you apologists never appear to comprehend, is that Apple loudly touts
> it's camera functionality, which never pans out in real world tests.
> o That's the news here.

No. It really isn't, Liar.

Give me a single quote where Apple has declared their selfie camera to
be the best in the world.

Just one.

>
> *Apple's LOUD marketing of camera QOR functionality is utter bullshit.*
> o Their LOUD marketing only seem to be valid in powerpoint presentations.

What is this you're now claiming? Let's see a quote.

Just one.

>
> In real world tests, Apple smarphone QOR is nowhere near the LOUD claims.
> o that's the news here, Alan Baker.

Just one.

>
> *10th place sucks for such LOUD MARKETING as Apple constantly screams out.*
> o And that's pretty much the _adult_ point of the article cited, Alan.

Just one.

>
> However, if we assume you own adult cognitive skills, we can have a
> completely different conversation about your 'claims' that it's "one
> company's opinion" that the camera came in at 10th place for camera QOR.

Just one quote from Apple where they've claimed their front facing
camera is the best in the world, Liar.

Just one.

>
> If we assume you're an adult, we ask you the simplest most basic most
> obvious _adult_ question, since you & nospam _never_ seem to like how
> poorly Apple smartphones far on the DXOMark mobile phone reviews.
>
> As an adult, simply name a _better_ mobile comprehensive review site.
> o Name just one.

Right after you show an example of Apple claiming something about their
cameras that isn't true.

Just one.

>
> Remember, Alan Baker, I'm assuming, for the purpose of this post, that you
> own _adult_ cognitive skills, so I ask you the _simplest_ adult question
> any adult would ask given you and nospam _always_ deprecate the fact that
> Apple smartphones fare relatively poorly in the DXOMark comprehensive test
> reviews.
>
> *Name a comprehensive mobile smartphone test site _better_ than DXOmark*.
> o Name just one.
>
>> That same company ranks the iPhone 11 Pro 5th overall.
>
> FACTS:
>
> These are Android smartphones with the same or better overall scores:
> o 01 Huawei Mate 30 Pro 5G (123)
> o 02 Honor V30 Pro (122)
> o 03 Huawei Mate 30 Pro (121)
> o 04 Xiaomi Mi CC9 Pro Premium Edition (121)
> o 06 Samsung Galaxy Note 10+ 5G (117)
> o 07 Samsung Galaxy Note 10+ (117)
>
> FACT:
> o There are six (6) Android phones with the same or better overall scores.

So there are only 4 Android phones with better scores.

Do you agree?

>
> You and Savageduck & nospam don't have to _like_ those facts, Alan Baker...
> o But apologists hating facts doesn't change the fact they're _still_ facts.
>
>> Neither is a bad showing.
>
> Alan,
>
> If my $100 Moto G7 (which is not loudly touted to have great camera output
> QOR) came in last of the top ten, it would be a respectable showing, Alan.

Show us this alleged "touting".

>
> But for one of the most expensive smartphones on the planet to come in last
> place, is a big deal, Alan Baker, whether you comprehend that or not.

It doesn't come in in last place, Liar.

>
> If we continue to assume you own adult cognitive skills, it means that you
> comprehend that Apple LOUDLY touts what amounts to the mere _illusion_ of
> camera QOR functionality.

Just one.

>
> If we assume you own adult cognitive skills, you'll also have to understand
> that Apple _charges_ the customer a premium for those LOUDLY TOUTED
> functionality claims, which apologists like you gladly pay, simply because
> you clearly _believe_ those LOUD CLAIMS OF IMAGINARY FUNCTIONALITY by
> Apple.
>

What functionality have they claimed that they haven't delivered?

Give JUST ONE example.

> But the _adult_ point here, which was made by the reference article by the
> way, is that what Apple loudly touts and charges you for is the mere
> _illusion_ of functionality.
>
> *The facts are that the Apple phone came in last place on the top ten.*
>

So you're just making shit up, now, Liar.

They came in 10th place...

...out of HUNDREDS of phones.

[Bernd Froehlich]

On 5. Feb 2020 at 04:11:50 CET, "Savageduck"

<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> In this thread both of my responses, including this one were to Alan Baker &
> Snit.

"Don´t feed the trolls" has become "don´t feed the trollfeeders" as well.
Just filter the whole bunch and be done with it.

I hope it does not mutate to "don´t feed the feeders of trollfeeders" ;-)

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-02-02 9:15 a.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> Dateline this weekend...

Just another perspective:

"Bottom line: DxO's reviews are informative and well-researched. But
those numbered scores? Forget 'em."

[Arlen Holder]

On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 13:15:13 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> Just another perspective:
>
> "Bottom line: DxO's reviews are informative and well-researched. But
> those numbered scores? Forget 'em."

I wonder if it occurs to you apologists, Alan Baker & nospam, that...

1. Apple LOUDLY touts what amounts to a mere _illusion_ of functionality.
2. Apologists like Alan & nospam _believe_ that imaginary functionality exists.
3. When real-world tests prove out the truth, with facts, you complain.

In fact, you find _any_ excuse you can come up with (aka, an apology).
o For nospam, that excuse is everyone but Apple bribes DXOMark scores.

Why do you apologists hate real-world facts?
o I don't know why.

I think the real world functional tests conflict with your imaginary belief
system that Apple MARKETING so brilliantly fed you apologists to believe.

--
Almost every factual discussion on Usenet with Apple apologists boils down
to facts instantly DESTROYING the apologists' entire imaginary belief
system so carefully (and brilliantly) crafted for them by Apple MARKETING.

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-02-06 3:20 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 13:15:13 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> Just another perspective:
>>
>> "Bottom line: DxO's reviews are informative and well-researched. But
>> those numbered scores? Forget 'em."
>
> I wonder if it occurs to you apologists, Alan Baker & nospam, that...
>
> 1. Apple LOUDLY touts what amounts to a mere _illusion_ of functionality.

Yet you cannot actually post a single example of function that Apple has
claimed that the iPhone 11 Pro does not have.

Strange.

> 2. Apologists like Alan & nospam _believe_ that imaginary functionality exists.
> 3. When real-world tests prove out the truth, with facts, you complain.

Since you've yet to provide what this supposed missing functionality is,
that's a lie.

>
> In fact, you find _any_ excuse you can come up with (aka, an apology).
> o For nospam, that excuse is everyone but Apple bribes DXOMark scores.
>
> Why do you apologists hate real-world facts?
> o I don't know why.
>
> I think the real world functional tests conflict with your imaginary belief
> system that Apple MARKETING so brilliantly fed you apologists to believe.

Oh... ...I forgot to provide the source of that quote, didn't I?

<https://www.androidcentral.com/editors-desk-dxomark-worthless>

The title of the piece:

'From the Editor's Desk: Why DxOMark scores are basically worthless'

Hardly an "apologist" for Apple, wouldn't you agree, Liar?

:-)

[Savageduck]

Here is a little something from Android World.

<https://www.androidcentral.com/editors-desk-dxomark-worthless>
--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Arlen Holder]

On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 17:43:34 -0800, Savageduck wrote:

> Here is a little something from Android World.
> <https://www.androidcentral.com/editors-desk-dxomark-worthless>

Hi Savageduck,
Simple 3-word adult question for you to answer, Savageduck.

Find a better comprehensive smartphone camera testing outfit than DXOMark:
o Name just one.

True to form, as always, every apologist excuse can be predicted.
o Savageduck "*DXOMark testers are _fools_ for not rating Apple better!*"
o nospam "*Everyone but Apple _bribed_ DXOMark for high scores*!"
o Alan Baker "*I didn't, can't, won't, & never will see any facts*!"

The 3 canonical Apple apologists predictably always _hate_ that Apple
MARKETING fed them to believe in a wholly imaginary belief system that
never pans out the real world tests.

As _always_ with these apologists, they prove to never even comprehend
their own cites, which has been proven time and time again; they're _that_
immune to facts!
"I don't think DxO has allowed however much money... to influence
the objectivity of its testing"
<https://www.androidcentral.com/editors-desk-dxomark-worthless>

All apologists brains can do is "read headlines"; they _never_ read the
actual facts inside their own cites for heavens' sake!

Apologists are like children in that utter lack of factual comprehension.

The flaw isn't in Apple Marketing (because Apple Marketing is brilliant).
o *The flaw is apologists _believe_ in the mere _illusion_ Apple touts*.
--
Apologists always fail the simple 3 word adult test because their entire
belief system is fed to them by Apple MARKETING such that apologists
imaginary belief systems are based upon exactly zero (0) actual facts.

[Arlen Holder]

On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 16:13:18 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> Yet you cannot actually post a single example of function that Apple has
> claimed that the iPhone 11 Pro does not have.

You apologists always prove to be utterly _immune_ to facts, Alan Baker.

FACT:
o *iPhone 11 Pro front selfie camera ranks in _last_ place of the top ten*

You're immune to the fact even though that's both the title of the cite, &
of this thread!

--
Nobody but Apologists are _that_ incredibly fantastically immune to facts!

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-02-07 4:02 a.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 17:43:34 -0800, Savageduck wrote:
>
>> Here is a little something from Android World.
>> <https://www.androidcentral.com/editors-desk-dxomark-worthless>
>
> Hi Savageduck,
> Simple 3-word adult question for you to answer, Savageduck.
>
> Find a better comprehensive smartphone camera testing outfit than DXOMark:
> o Name just one.

So if their scores aren't to be trusted, that doesn't matter?

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-02-07 4:02 a.m., Arlen Holder wrote:

> On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 16:13:18 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> Yet you cannot actually post a single example of function that Apple has
>> claimed that the iPhone 11 Pro does not have.
>
> You apologists always prove to be utterly _immune_ to facts, Alan Baker.
>
> FACT:
> o *iPhone 11 Pro front selfie camera ranks in _last_ place of the top ten*

Which puts it ahead of the vast majority of smart phone front cameras.

"Last of the top ten" is a phrase you made up to sound derogative.

What is this functionality you claim apple has touted that you claim is
"illusionary", Arlen?

You remember your claim, right; the one you've now snipped?

[Arlen Holder]

On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 08:45:25 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> "Last of the top ten" is a phrase you made up to sound derogative.

What distinguishes you apologists, Alan, is you have absolutely zero
adult comprehension outside of what Apple MARKETING feeds you to believe.

Did you even _read_ the title of the cited article, for example?

--
Apologists always prove to own an imaginary belief system which is
fantastically immune to even the _simplest_ of the most basic of facts.

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-02-07 1:26 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 08:45:25 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> "Last of the top ten" is a phrase you made up to sound derogative.
>
> What distinguishes you apologists, Alan, is you have absolutely zero
> adult comprehension outside of what Apple MARKETING feeds you to believe.
>
> Did you even _read_ the title of the cited article, for example?
>

Sure. And so what?

Have you found a quote of Apple's that claims some functionality or even
standard of quality that is in fact false?

I'm guessing your answer is... ...no...

...isn't that right, Liar?

[Arlen Holder]

On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 08:42:58 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

>> Find a better comprehensive smartphone camera testing outfit than DXOMark:
>> o Name just one.
>
> So if their scores aren't to be trusted, that doesn't matter?

Do any of you apologists, Alan Baker, nospam, & Savageduck have any adult
comprehensive skills when it comes to your posting of cites that do NOT say
what you claim they say?
o Why do apologists like Alan Baker not read cites provided, and worse,
why do apologists like nospam post links that they didn't even READ
themselves?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/6MdNRtwAbaE/EnaupGnQAgAJ>

Do you even realize what that article Savageduck provided actually said?

It said, basically, that the comprehensive test scores are good but it's
hard (maybe impossible?) to gather up all those scores with a weighting
that universally ranks the devices.

Such is the fault with _every_ ranking system on the planet, Alan.
o Every single one.

That you think DXOMark has it in for Apple, and that Savageduck uses an
article that doesn't say what he thinks it says to prove a point he can't
make, and even worse, that nospam claims essentially that everyone but
Apple bribed DXOMark to give Apple terrible real world scores ... is ...
... is what you apologists do.

The fact is that Apple HIGHLY TOUTS their camera QOR...
o And even the most expensive iPhones on the planet aren't all that good.

Let alone the less expensive iPhones which don't even come close.
o These are facts you apologists don't like, so you simply deny them.

You apologists act like fourth grade children who have been told by
MARKETING all their lives that Santa Claus is real - and - you _believe_
it, simply because you apologists don't own adult comprehensive skills.

The HIGHLY MARKETING Apple PERFORMANCE bullshit extends to far more than
just the cameras, by the way (e.g., the CPUs have to be throttled to half
speed for example, or the system becomes unstable), and the batteries have
_never_ even once been tested in the real world reliable reports to be even
_close_ to what Apple MARKETING claims, etc.

What you apologists can't ever seem to do is use adult cognitive skills to
separate the HUGE MARKETING of Santa Claus from the fact he's imaginary.

--
Apologists don't have adult cognitive skills to separate fact from fiction.

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-02-07 2:01 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 08:42:58 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>>> Find a better comprehensive smartphone camera testing outfit than DXOMark:
>>> o Name just one.
>>
>> So if their scores aren't to be trusted, that doesn't matter?
>
> Do any of you apologists, Alan Baker, nospam, & Savageduck have any adult
> comprehensive skills when it comes to your posting of cites that do NOT say
> what you claim they say?
> o Why do apologists like Alan Baker not read cites provided, and worse,
> why do apologists like nospam post links that they didn't even READ
> themselves?
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/6MdNRtwAbaE/EnaupGnQAgAJ>
>
> Do you even realize what that article Savageduck provided actually said?

Do you deny it said this, Liar:

"Bottom line: DxO's reviews are informative and well-researched. But
those numbered scores? Forget 'em."

...well?

>
> It said, basically, that the comprehensive test scores are good but it's
> hard (maybe impossible?) to gather up all those scores with a weighting
> that universally ranks the devices.

It didn't use the word "comprehensive" at all, Liar. So provide an
actual quote.

>
> Such is the fault with _every_ ranking system on the planet, Alan.
> o Every single one.
>
> That you think DXOMark has it in for Apple, and that Savageduck uses an
> article that doesn't say what he thinks it says to prove a point he can't
> make, and even worse, that nospam claims essentially that everyone but
> Apple bribed DXOMark to give Apple terrible real world scores ... is ...
> ... is what you apologists do.

I never said it "has it in" for anyone, Liar.

>
> The fact is that Apple HIGHLY TOUTS their camera QOR...
> o And even the most expensive iPhones on the planet aren't all that good.

10th place out of hundreds isn't good, Liar?

5th place out of hundreds isn't good?

>
> Let alone the less expensive iPhones which don't even come close.

18th and 20th place out of hundreds isn't "coming close", Liar?

> o These are facts you apologists don't like, so you simply deny them.
>
> You apologists act like fourth grade children who have been told by
> MARKETING all their lives that Santa Claus is real - and - you _believe_
> it, simply because you apologists don't own adult comprehensive skills.

I'm still waiting for you to provide a single quote from Apple on this
subject....

>
> The HIGHLY MARKETING Apple PERFORMANCE bullshit extends to far more than
> just the cameras, by the way (e.g., the CPUs have to be throttled to half
> speed for example, or the system becomes unstable),

That's a lie.

> and the batteries have
> _never_ even once been tested in the real world reliable reports to be even
> _close_ to what Apple MARKETING claims, etc.

That's a lie.

[Arlen Holder]

FACT: *The iPhone 11 Pro front selfie camera ranked in tenth place.*

Regarding the apologists who incessantly claim all facts they don't like
are "Lies" and all bearers of facts they don't like are "liars", please see
o Why do apologists like nospam & Alan Baker incessantly call facts they
don't like "lies" and all bearers of facts they don't like "Liars"?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/nVzWBU2otC4/obuCXB1nAgAJ>

Given that calling all facts lies only works on the childish newsgroups, I
will not respond in the adult newsgroups to any response to fact containing
this childishness, except to re-post the apologists' words as further proof
in _that_ thread above, of what makes apologists what they truly are.

I'm sure apologists will continue to brazenly & incessantly deny all facts
they simply don't like, but the fact they often resort to calling all facts
they don't like to be "lies", is, in essence, the proof that their _only_
response to those facts is to deny that they exist.

Apologists often prove they have no other response to facts they don't like
than to brazenly & repeatedly deny that the facts exist.

Yet, the facts remain, whether or not those facts destroy apologists'
purely imaginary belief systems.

FACT: *The iPhone 11 Pro front selfie camera ranked in tenth place.*

--
Exposing apologists for what they are by assessing their very own words.

[Arlen Holder]

On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 18:58:43 -0800 (PST), -hh wrote:

> I asked for test specifics on how (or if) they secure to test the price
> or if they float/shake the receptor to test image stabilization system.
> That hasn┤ been answered either way.

Hi Rescuba,

I've studied you apologists for years, and you're always making wild-ass
excuses for why iPhones historically rank far lower in actual performance
in independent tests than Apple MARKETING fed you to believe they would.

*Are you insinuating that the published DXOMark testing procedure works*
*rather well for all smartphones with the sole exception of Apple iPhones?*

*What's different about iPhones, Rescuba?*

The topic is clearly that one of the most expensive iPhones on the planet
ranked in tenth place in front camera quality of results.

What you apologists _always_ do is say the comprehensive tests suck simply
because those comprehensive tests never seem to portray the Apple iPhones
anywhere near where MARKETING fed you to believe they would be in camera
quality of results.

For example, nospam claims essentially everyone but Apple bribed DXOMark to
historically rank iPhones lower than nospam feels iPhones should be ranked
based on what Apple MARKETING fed him to believe.

And yet, there's nothing better on this planet than the DXOMark tests.
o If there was, someone by now would have named it

What exactly is your excuse for why iPhones historically rank far more
poorly than Apple MARKETING fed you to believe they would rank?

*Are you insinuating that the common published known test procedure works*
*rather well for all smartphones with the sole exception of Apple iPhones?*

*What's different about iPhones, Rescuba?*
--
Apologists are always trying to make up reasons why iPhones historically
rank far lower in performance than Apple MARKETING fed them to believe.

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-02-11 10:32 a.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> FACT: *The iPhone 11 Pro front selfie camera ranked in tenth place.*

That is a fact... ...for once.

>
> Regarding the apologists who incessantly claim all facts they don't like
> are "Lies" and all bearers of facts they don't like are "liars", please see
> o Why do apologists like nospam & Alan Baker incessantly call facts they
> don't like "lies" and all bearers of facts they don't like "Liars"?
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/nVzWBU2otC4/obuCXB1nAgAJ>

Why is it you initially insisted on saying "last"?

>
> Given that calling all facts lies only works on the childish newsgroups, I
> will not respond in the adult newsgroups to any response to fact containing
> this childishness, except to re-post the apologists' words as further proof
> in _that_ thread above, of what makes apologists what they truly are.
>
> I'm sure apologists will continue to brazenly & incessantly deny all facts
> they simply don't like, but the fact they often resort to calling all facts
> they don't like to be "lies", is, in essence, the proof that their _only_
> response to those facts is to deny that they exist.
>
> Apologists often prove they have no other response to facts they don't like
> than to brazenly & repeatedly deny that the facts exist.
>
> Yet, the facts remain, whether or not those facts destroy apologists'
> purely imaginary belief systems.
>
> FACT: *The iPhone 11 Pro front selfie camera ranked in tenth place.*
>

Out of how many?

You realize that is a significant fact, right, Liar?

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-02-12 5:29 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 18:58:43 -0800 (PST), -hh wrote:
>
>> I asked for test specifics on how (or if) they secure to test the price
>> or if they float/shake the receptor to test image stabilization system.

>> That hasn¢t been answered either way.

>
> Hi Rescuba,
>
> I've studied you apologists for years, and you're always making wild-ass
> excuses for why iPhones historically rank far lower in actual performance
> in independent tests than Apple MARKETING fed you to believe they would.

Give a concrete example of how Apple marketing "fed" anyone to believe
what you claim they did.

[Arlen Holder]

Apple marketing specializes in selling a mere _illusion_ of functionality.

With respect to smartphone camera quality of results, the facts are thus:
o *7th place* Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
o *21st place* Apple iPhone 11
o *23rd place* Apple iPhone XS Max
o *30th place* Apple iPhone XR
o *37th place* Apple iPhone X
o *43rd place* Apple iPhone 8 Plus
o *54th place* Apple iPhone 7 Plus
o *69th place* Apple iPhone 6
o *75th place* Apple iPhone 5s
<https://www.dxomark.com/category/mobile-reviews/>

Those are simply the facts, which most Apple owners can't/won't comprehend.
o Flagship camera comparison between the Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max vs. Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.photo.digital/_zi9q__n_BM>
--
Adults comprehend the difference between facts & mere MARKETING illusions.

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-03-08 8:26 a.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> Apple marketing specializes in selling a mere _illusion_ of
> functionality.
>
> With respect to smartphone camera quality of results, the facts are
> thus: o *7th place* Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max o *21st place* Apple
> iPhone 11 o *23rd place* Apple iPhone XS Max o *30th place* Apple
> iPhone XR o *37th place* Apple iPhone X o *43rd place* Apple iPhone
> 8 Plus o *54th place* Apple iPhone 7 Plus o *69th place* Apple
> iPhone 6 o *75th place* Apple iPhone 5s
> <https://www.dxomark.com/category/mobile-reviews/>

What you pretend not to comprehend is that 7th place out of a list of at
least 80 is no bad thing, Liar...

...and so to is only being 5% behind the top score.

I say "pretend" because, in fact, you do comprehend it.

> Those are simply the facts, which most Apple owners can't/won't
> comprehend. o Flagship camera comparison between the Apple iPhone 11
> Pro Max vs. Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
> <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.photo.digital/_zi9q__n_BM>
>
>

That's not a camera comparison: that's a Usenet thread, Liar. Can't you
comprehend the difference?

You could have chosen to link directly to the article, but that would
have made it too easy for anyone to read the parts you left out.

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-03-08 8:26 a.m., Arlen Holder wrote:

> Apple marketing specializes in selling a mere _illusion_ of functionality.
>
> With respect to smartphone camera quality of results, the facts are thus:
> o *7th place* Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max

Released 5 months ago.

> o *21st place* Apple iPhone 11

Released 5 months ago

> o *23rd place* Apple iPhone XS Max

Released more than 1 year ago.

> o *30th place* Apple iPhone XR

Released more than 1 year ago.

> o *37th place* Apple iPhone X

Released more than 2 years ago.

> o *43rd place* Apple iPhone 8 Plus

Released more than 3 years ago.

> o *54th place* Apple iPhone 7 Plus

Released more than 4 years ago.

> o *69th place* Apple iPhone 6

Released more than 5 years ago.

> o *75th place* Apple iPhone 5s

Released more than 6 years ago.

Congratulations, Liar!

You've comprehended that newer phones get better cameras.

So let's look at the 6 phones that outscore the iPhone 11 Pro Max
(scoring 117), shall we?

Oppo Find X2 Pro (124)

Tested before it was even available and it actually became available
only just a few days ago on March 6. So it's 5 months newer.


Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro (124)

Also tested in pre-production with different firmware than it will have
when released. And it was released in December, so it's two months newer
than the iPhone.

Huawei Mate 30 Pro 5G (123)

This one was actually released at about the same time as the iPhone 11
Pro Max, but of course, its score is only a little better than the iPhone's.



Honor V30 Pro (122)

Two months newer than the iPhone.

Huawei Mate 30 Pro (121)

Hey! This is the only phone on DXOMark's list that scores better
(marginally) than the iPhone that was released prior to it.

Xiaomi Mi CC9 Pro Premium Edition (121)

One month newer than the iPhone.


So all you're showing is that newer phones get better cameras, Liar.

> <https://www.dxomark.com/category/mobile-reviews/>
>
> Those are simply the facts, which most Apple owners can't/won't comprehend.
> o Flagship camera comparison between the Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max vs. Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
> <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.photo.digital/_zi9q__n_BM>
>

Let's read what DXOMark concludes about this camera that came in 7th:

'Previous Apple iPhone generations have always been among the best
smartphones for imaging, and the iPhone 11 Pro Max is no different. It
matches our top score for Video, recording video clips with good detail,
a very wide dynamic range, and smooth stabilization in most
circumstances. Its still image results also put it among the best, ...'

<https://www.dxomark.com/apple-iphone-11-pro-max-camera-review/>

[Arlen Holder]

On Fri, 14 Aug 2020 17:26:33 +0200, Paul Carmichael wrote:

> Do either of them make telephone calls?

A phone has become a computer.

Both ecosystems do the basics rather well.

Where iOS excels is in MARKETING of imaginary functionality
o Where Android excels in, is in functionality.

The other key difference is the Apple customer base is extremely gullible.
o In fact, the infantile gullibility of Apple owners shocks belief.

Their utter gullibility is the reason, IMHO, for Apple's huge profits.
o You can't make all that profit off of an intelligent customer base.

The key difference is Apple customers tend to believe only in MARKETING BS
o Whereas Android customers steer toward intelligent price to performance.

For example, ask almost any iPhone owner and they'll claim the cameras are
"better" and yet, an iPhone is only sporadically even in the top dozen at
any given time frame, and often not at all.

To prove that fact, let's simply take a look, today, of the top dozen:
o <https://www.dxomark.com/category/smartphone-reviews/>

*Only after the 13th phone, does iPhone QOR even _begin_ to register:*
o 130 Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra
o 128 Huawei P40 Pro
o 125 Honor 30 Pro+
o 124 Oppo Find X2 Pro
o 124 Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
o 123 Huawei Mate 30 Pro 5G
o 122 Honor V30 Pro
o 122 Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
o 121 Xiaomi Mi CC9 Pro Premium Edition
o 121 Huawei Mate 30 Pro
o 120 Xiaomi Redmi K30 Pro Zoom Edition
o 119 OnePlus 8 Pro
o 118 Samsung Galaxy S20+

*Only after the 13th phone, does iPhone QOR even _begin_ to register:*
o 117 Samsung Galaxy Note 10+
o 117 Samsung Galaxy Note 10+ 5G
o 117 *Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max*

These are facts the Apple owners _hate_ because they hate what Apple is.
o They only want to believe what (stellar) MARKETING told them Apple was.
--
Apple makes a LOT of profit off of its shockingly gullible customer base.

[Arlen Holder]

On Sun, 2 Feb 2020 17:15:35 -0000 (UTC), Arlen Holder wrote:

> Dateline this weekend...

> o *Despite fancy improvements, iPhone 11 Pro's selfie camera still falls behind*
> *Huawei Nova 6, Samsung Galaxy S10 & Google Pixel 4*
> <https://www.digitalinformationworld.com/2020/02/iphone-11-pro--selfie-camera-still-falls-behind-huawei-nova-6-samsung-galaxy-s10-and-google-pixel-4.html>
>
> "DXOMark's main focus has been on iPhone 11 Pro (the one Apple is
> constantly boasting about) and as the Pro model shares the same
> front-facing camera with the simpler iPhone 11, so the results of the test
> had to be accepted as the same for both the phones."
>
> "But despite all the improvements and praises, DXOMark says that the
> selfie camera on iPhone 11 is not as good as its competitors. There were
> issues that stood out in forms of white balance, visible noise,
> out-of-focus faces at long distances, and even when faces distorted around
> the edges of the frame. Besides that, the worst part is, that all of these
> issues come to life as soon as there was low-light.
>
> The same low-light problem also existed for videos as well and
> theoretically, this all then puts up iPhone 11 Pro rank *10th spot* in
> DXOMark's selfie camera testing with a score of 91."
>
> See also:
> o Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max front camera review
> <https://www.dxomark.com/apple-iphone-11-pro-max-front-camera-review/#>\

Even the _main_ camera on the iPhone 11 Pro Max isn't even in the list of
top dozen smartphone camera quality of results in independent tests!

Top dozen smartphone camera quality of results in independent tests:
o Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra 130
o Huawei P40 Pro 128
o Honor 30 Pro+ 125
o Oppo Find X2 Pro 124
o Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro 124
o Huawei Mate 30 Pro 5G 123
o Honor V30 Pro 122
o Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra 122
o Huawei Mate 30 Pro 121
o Xiaomi Mi CC9 Pro Premium Edition 121
o Xiaomi Redmi K30 Pro Zoom Edition 120
o OnePlus 8 Pro 119

Dateline today: <https://www.dxomark.com/category/mobile-reviews/>
--
Does it seem strange to apologists Apple MARKETING never points out that
they're not even in the top dozen smartphones in terms of camera QOR?

[Alan Baker]

Newer phones come out and a phone released nearly a year ago is no
longer at the top of the rankings...