Is there is a *single* useful photographic functionality on Apple iOS cameras that isn't already on Android?t

[Tomos Davies]

Is there *anything* useful that an Apple iOS camera* can do that Android
phone don't do already?

Just one?

BACKGROUND:
In another thread, JF Mezei noted that the $85 el cheapo HomTom HT7 Pro had
good specs on the 13MP camera but he mused that the "software" on the
iPhone side would be better than mere hardware specs show by way of
comparison. To that, nospam characteristically bleated out that "portrait
mode" is on iOS and not on Android.

Nobody yet has found any app functionality on iOS that isn't already on
Android, so I researched this portrait mode for a few seconds, and easily
found that Android has it already - they just do it differently - but the
photographic end results are the same (which is what matters).

Yet Apple usually touts their camera hardware, and even though they had to
buy the fancy portrait-mode software, even Apple engineers should be able
to produce decent camera software functionality. Shouldn't they?

So all I'm asking here is whether there is a *single* useful photographic
functionality that is on the iOS cameras* that isn't already on Android?

*By camera, we mean the whole enchilada, hardware, software, and apps but
what we care about is the end result.
*By useful we mean photogrpahically useful (like portrait mode is, but if
it's the ability to create comical photos, I'd say that's not all that
useful photographically speaking.

[Bob...@onramp.net]

On Sat, 29 Apr 2017 17:29:10 -0000 (UTC), Tomos Davies
<cariad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Is there *anything* useful that an Apple iOS camera* can do that Android
>phone don't do already?
>
>Just one?

Why do you even ask? You don't care what the answer is because you
don't use your smartphone as a camera. Any answer to your question
will certainly bring on an argument in which you'll be able to tout
your negative opinions about Apple though.

[nospam]

In article <j2o9gch07a9jp7eas...@4ax.com>,

<Bob...@Onramp.net> wrote:

> >Is there *anything* useful that an Apple iOS camera* can do that Android
> >phone don't do already?
> >
> >Just one?
>
> Why do you even ask? You don't care what the answer is because you
> don't use your smartphone as a camera. Any answer to your question
> will certainly bring on an argument in which you'll be able to tout
> your negative opinions about Apple though.

and his ignorance about all things photographic.

[Jim Robertson]

The nym "Tomos Davies" wrote:

> Newsgroups: misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.mobile.android

>
> Is there *anything* useful that an Apple iOS camera* can do that Android
> phone don't do already?

Translation:

"Tomos" is a lonely troll.

"Tomos" cross-posts his message to the iphone and android groups,
then sits back to watch the chaos.

[John McWilliams]

Pretty useless, then.

[Tomos Davies]

In <news:oe2ueb$ajc$1...@dont-email.me>, John McWilliams suggested:

>> and his ignorance about all things photographic.
>>
> Pretty useless, then.

What is your value added to the technical question?

I have owned scores (yes, scores) of SLRs, ever since the days when German
manual black metal SLRs were common (as I'm far older than most of you
here, I'm sure). My first SLR was "newish" with bumpy leather-looking
covering on the metal, for example, and it had no light meter (nobody had
them in the camera in those days, as I recall) so we kept a separate light
meter in our pockets when needed. Even the depth of field estimation wasn't
marked on the lens as it is now, as I recall.

Anyway, the answer is most likely that there is absolutely nothing in Apple
iOS phone camera functionality that isn't already in Android camera
functionality. (We're not talking about standalone non-Apple iOS cameras
here, which Savageduck loves to say exist.)

If you ask 10,000 iOS users if the iOS phone cameras are better than
Android, I'd wager that all 10,000 will say that they are, simply because
there is no better Marketing Machine than that from Apple.

But if you then ask those 10,000 iOS users *what* useful camera
functionality exists on Apple iOS phones that isn't already on Android
phones, you're met with this:

nospam --> he doesn't know of any
John McWilliams --> he doesn't know of any
BobbyK --> he doesn't know of any
Jim Robertson --> he doesn't know of any

So all of you just make this stuff up.
Not one of you can answer the question.

You know why?
I do.

[Tomos Davies]

In <news:290420171457139667%nos...@nospam.invalid>, nospam suggested:

> and his ignorance about all things photographic.

Heh heh ... notice you can't name a *single* functionality that is useful
that Apple iOS phones can do that Android doesn't already do.

Remember, you already tried, and you almost struck out:

1. Portrait mode <-- strike 1 (Android has it too)
2. Optical zoom <-- strike 2 (Android has it too)
3. ?

I'm not afraid of facts.
Tell us.

Is there *anything* that iOS phones can do by way of useful camera
functionality that Android phones don't already do.

Isn't there at least one thing?
No?

Really?

You can't name a single useful thing?

[Tomos Davies]

In <news:j2o9gch07a9jp7eas...@4ax.com>, Bob...@Onramp.net
suggested:

> Why do you even ask? You don't care what the answer is because you
> don't use your smartphone as a camera. Any answer to your question
> will certainly bring on an argument in which you'll be able to tout
> your negative opinions about Apple though.

This is a good question since I happen to have been using SLRs since the
days when they were all German and we had to use separate light meters to
set them up for each photo manually.

If you asked ten thousand iOS users, all ten thousand would likely say that
the iOS camera functionality is better than Android camera functionality,
but if you asked them to prove it, 9,999 wouldn't have a clue what to say
next.

I'm only asking here for the intelligent opinion of that 1 out of 10,000
iOS users who actually knows what they're talking about.

(Hint: That isn't you.)

If there is something (anything) that the Apple iOS phone cameras can do
functionally that Android phone cameras don't already do, then this is the
thread to point it out.

I'm not afraid of the facts.
Are you?

[Tomos Davies]

In <news:im5NA.18034$kW6....@fx21.iad>, Jim Robertson suggested:

> "Tomos" cross-posts his message to the iphone and android groups,
> then sits back to watch the chaos.

Translation:
a. You're an idiot.
b. You having NOTHING of value to say.
c. So you can only troll.

HINT: The question is apropos since most Apple users assume that the iOS
camera functionality is better than Android camera functionality (because
the Apple Marketing Machine told them so).

If it's true ... then that's fine.
If it's not true ... then we should be able to figure that out.

It's a fair question of both the android and iOS newsgroups even if it's
far too complex of a question for you to comprehend adding any value to the
answer.

[Savageduck]

On 2017-04-30 00:54:55 +0000, Tomos Davies <cariad...@gmail.com> said:

> In <news:oe2ueb$ajc$1...@dont-email.me>, John McWilliams suggested:
>
>>> and his ignorance about all things photographic.
>>>
>> Pretty useless, then.
>
> What is your value added to the technical question?
>
> I have owned scores (yes, scores) of SLRs, ever since the days when German
> manual black metal SLRs were common (as I'm far older than most of you
> here, I'm sure). My first SLR was "newish" with bumpy leather-looking
> covering on the metal, for example, and it had no light meter (nobody had
> them in the camera in those days, as I recall) so we kept a separate light
> meter in our pockets when needed. Even the depth of field estimation wasn't
> marked on the lens as it is now, as I recall.
>
> Anyway, the answer is most likely that there is absolutely nothing in Apple
> iOS phone camera functionality that isn't already in Android camera
> functionality. (We're not talking about standalone non-Apple iOS cameras
> here, which Savageduck loves to say exist.)

...and you love to lie!

I have refrained from responding to your posts because I have had it
with you, but once again you have chosed to utter a lie, and attribute
something I have never said to me. This behaviour is a part of your
M.O..

Why the fuck would I love to say "standalone non-Apple iOS cameras" exist?
There is no such animal, never has been. If you can find a single cite
where I even hinted at that, please show me.

I would appreciate it if you would exclude me from your fantasy
brainstorms, and TROLLs.

<<Snip>>

> So all of you just make this stuff up.

Don't forget all the stuff you make up, fabricate, and falsely attribute.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Bob...@onramp.net]

On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 00:54:58 -0000 (UTC), Tomos Davies
<cariad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>In <news:j2o9gch07a9jp7eas...@4ax.com>, Bob...@Onramp.net
>suggested:
>
>> Why do you even ask? You don't care what the answer is because you
>> don't use your smartphone as a camera. Any answer to your question
>> will certainly bring on an argument in which you'll be able to tout
>> your negative opinions about Apple though.
>
>This is a good question since I happen to have been using SLRs since the
>days when they were all German and we had to use separate light meters to
>set them up for each photo manually.

The thing about Usenet that is leveling is that you don't know to whom
you're addressing. I've had many cameras and most probably before you
were out of grade school. So do yourself a favor and just forego this.

>
>If you asked ten thousand iOS users, all ten thousand would likely say that
>the iOS camera functionality is better than Android camera functionality,
>but if you asked them to prove it, 9,999 wouldn't have a clue what to say
>next.

Who the fuck cares? My "good question" throws you into that category.

>
>I'm only asking here for the intelligent opinion of that 1 out of 10,000
>iOS users who actually knows what they're talking about.
>
>(Hint: That isn't you.)

Hint: Again, something else you don't know.

>
>If there is something (anything) that the Apple iOS phone cameras can do
>functionally that Android phone cameras don't already do, then this is the
>thread to point it out.
>
>I'm not afraid of the facts.
>Are you?

I'm not a lame brained troll. But you've had your trollish fun now, so
off you go.

Plonk!

[nospam]

In article <8neagchtrvsa8rno2...@4ax.com>,

<Bob...@Onramp.net> wrote:

> >> Why do you even ask? You don't care what the answer is because you
> >> don't use your smartphone as a camera. Any answer to your question
> >> will certainly bring on an argument in which you'll be able to tout
> >> your negative opinions about Apple though.
> >
> >This is a good question since I happen to have been using SLRs since the
> >days when they were all German and we had to use separate light meters to
> >set them up for each photo manually.
>
> The thing about Usenet that is leveling is that you don't know to whom
> you're addressing. I've had many cameras and most probably before you
> were out of grade school. So do yourself a favor and just forego this.

indeed.

[Tomos Davies]

In <news:290420172125548222%nos...@nospam.invalid>, nospam suggested:

>> The thing about Usenet that is leveling is that you don't know to whom
>> you're addressing. I've had many cameras and most probably before you
>> were out of grade school. So do yourself a favor and just forego this.
>
> indeed.

And yet, you can't answer the question.

You *think* that there must be something ... anything ... that an Apple iOS
phone camera can accomplish that is useful that Android doesn't already do
...

And yet ....

You can't name a single one that isn't easily proven false.

1. You named "portrait mode" which Android already has.
2. You named "optical zoom" which Android already has.
3. ?

I only speak facts.

[Tomos Davies]

In <news:8neagchtrvsa8rno2...@4ax.com>, Bob...@Onramp.net
suggested:

> I'm not a lame brained troll. But you've had your trollish fun now, so
> off you go.

And yet, you can't answer the question.

You *think* iOS has some kind of (magical?) functionality that isn't
already on Android (because the Apple Marketing Machine told you to think
that way).

And yet ... still ... after all these years.
You can't name a single one.

Not one.

[Tomos Davies]

In <news:2017042918155590396-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck
suggested:

> ...and you love to lie!

heh heh ... you, of all people, *know* what cameras are capable of doing,
and even you can't name a *single* useful camera functionality that is on
Apple iOS phones that isn't already on Android phones.

Not a single one.

That's telling in and of itself, since you are an *expert* in digital
photography.

>> So all of you just make this stuff up.
>
> Don't forget all the stuff you make up, fabricate, and falsely attribute.

Never once have I told a lie here.
Every statement is easily verifiable.

On Fri, 3 Feb 2017 19:42:19 -0800, Savageduck wrote:
> Try running this on any Android device.
> <http://www.dxo.com/us/dxo-one>

These are your very words, are they not?
BEGIN VERBATIM QUOTE FROM SAVAGEDUCK:
"I am not comparing an iPhone camera with a Android camera.
I am meeting your challenge of presenting a functionality
available to iOS which does not exist on any Android device.

> Is there a single bit of functionality on iOS that isn't already on
> Android?

Yup!
DxO-One is not supported on any Android device.
....perhaps someday.
END VERBATIM QUOTE FROM SAVAGEDUCK:

Those are your very words ... are they not?

[Savageduck]

For crying out aloud! You are truly an obtuse individual.

In terms of camera function on iOS or Android devices of similar spec
there little to no difference, particularly with current phones. What I
did was cite an extreme example of what is an auxilliary camera, a very
good and high spec camera, which is only supported by iOS. What it
isn't, other than the "Lightning" connector, is a part of iOS camera
functionality. Since I can't think of an Android device with a
"Lightning" connector, what I said back then is valid, the DxO-One is
not supported on any Android device, but plays very nicely on iOS
devices. Read about it.

Now, I am going to disengage from any further discussion with you. To
do so is too annoying and irritating.
--
Regards,

Savageduck

[tlvp]

On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 00:54:58 -0000 (UTC), Tomos Davies wrote:

> I happen to have been using SLRs since the
> days when they were all German and we had to use separate light meters to
> set them up for each photo manually.

I call BS. How old are you? Do you predate 1907, the date that the Folmer &
Schwing Graflex No. 1A (USA) (medium format roll film SLR) first appeared?
Or 1891, when A. D. Loman's Reflex Camera (Netherlands) (focal-plane
shutter SLR) first appeared? Oh, wait, you must be from before 1884, the
year Calvin Rae Smith's Monocular Duplex (USA), the first known production
SLR ever, appeared.

Or is Wikipedia, cf.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_single-lens_reflex_camera#Pre-19th_century>,
off on one of its wild pipe-dreams again?

But more likely you're thinking of cameras since 1937, and forgetting about
all the Russian, Swedish, Hungarian, French, Japanese, Swiss, Italian, and
US models available throughout those years and since (SLRs in both 35 mm
and other formats), in addition to the undeniably many German offerings.

Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

[Tomos Davies]

In <news:2017042920105676737-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck
suggested:

> In terms of camera function on iOS or Android devices of similar spec
> there little to no difference, particularly with current phones.

Since you are a digital photo expert, or, at the very least, far more
expert than anyone else here, that is an important affirmation of fact.

> What I
> did was cite an extreme example of what is an auxilliary camera, a very
> good and high spec camera, which is only supported by iOS.

I agree as I only speak verifiable fact.

> What it
> isn't, other than the "Lightning" connector, is a part of iOS camera
> functionality.

Exactly what I said.

You'll note that I noted "Apple iOS camera functionality" in my OP
specifically because I knew about your suggested camera functionality.

Here is what I said in the OP:

"Is there *anything* useful that an Apple iOS camera* can do
that Android phone don't do already?"

I didn't say this because I *knew* about that camera you spoke about!
"Is there *anything* useful that an [s]Apple[/s] iOS camera* can do

that Android phone don't do already?"

> Since I can't think of an Android device with a
> "Lightning" connector, what I said back then is valid, the DxO-One is
> not supported on any Android device, but plays very nicely on iOS
> devices. Read about it.

I *knew* about your statement and I quoted your exact statements so you
*know* I knew about it (we had conversed about this in the past), which is
why I expressly listed "Apple iOS camera" and not just "iOS camera".

I only speak verifiable facts.

[tlvp]

On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 03:44:03 -0000 (UTC), Tomos Davies wrote:

> why I expressly listed "Apple iOS camera" and not just "iOS camera".

You lost me. "iOS" *means* "Apple iOS", does it not?
So what is it in "iOS camera" that makes it *not* mean "Apple iOS camera"?

Really, you tax my patience, as much as does nospam. Cheers, -- tlvp

[Tomos Davies]

In <news:11y6rdxuyei59.utpy8kg515ne$.d...@40tude.net>, tlvp suggested:

> But more likely you're thinking of cameras since 1937, and forgetting about
> all the Russian, Swedish, Hungarian, French, Japanese, Swiss, Italian, and
> US models available throughout those years and since (SLRs in both 35 mm
> and other formats), in addition to the undeniably many German offerings.

I'm talking in the 60s when I first learned to shoot pictures using an old
German camera which I remember said on the back that it was made in
Germany.

I'm trying to remember the brand (I have the body somewhere in the attic),
but I think it even might have been the German language equivalent of "East
Germany" (which is an American invention) but I'd have to find it to be
sure.

As I recall, it was definitely all metal, with a black leathery covering
embossed to look like leather. It had a handle that you flipped with your
thumb to advance a frame (as I recall) and maybe even a windup on the other
side (it was many decades ago).

I could dig for a photo on the net to refresh my memory, but the point is
that depth of field is a useful thing to know about, which is one of the
first things anyone with an SLR learns to estimate and manipulate for best
effect.

In those days, you didn't have the option of just checking the photo
seconds later so you thought about it more when you were setting things up.

[Tomos Davies]

In <news:1u6mpaq9m9vpv.8...@40tude.net>, tlvp suggested:

>> why I expressly listed "Apple iOS camera" and not just "iOS camera".
>
> You lost me. "iOS" *means* "Apple iOS", does it not?
> So what is it in "iOS camera" that makes it *not* mean "Apple iOS camera"?

You have to be able to handle details which Savageduck brought up months
ago, which I clearly remember, and therefore is why I expressly said "Apple
iOS" phone cameras and not just "ios cameras".

Talk to Savageduck because he's the one who introduced that corner case.

BTW, here is more factual "detail" for you on quality of Apple iOS camera
images & video versus Android camera images & video quality.

https://www.dxomark.com
"DxO has extensively analyzed the image and video quality of
over 9,000 cameras, lenses and mobile phones. These analyses
are used by top camera manufacturers, media and help power
DxO software. DxOMark provides free public access to these
results to help guide your camera and lens decisions."

89
- Google Pixel
88
- HTC 10
- Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
- Sony Xperia X Performance
87
- Huawei P10
- Moto Z Force Droid
- Samsung Galaxy S6 Edge Plus
- Sony Xperia XZ
- Sony Xperia Z5
86
- Apple iPhone 7
- LG G5
- Samsung Galaxy Note V
- Samsung Galaxy S6 Edge
85
- Huawei Mate 9
- LG V20
84
- Apple iPhone 6s Plus
- Apple iPhone 6s
- Google Nexus 6P
- Moto Z Droid
- Moto G Plus
- Moto Droid Turbo 2
83
- LG G4
- Moto X Style
- Samsung Galaxy Note 4
82
- Apple iPhone 6s
- Apple iPhone 6 Plus
- Apple iPhone 6
- BlackBerry Priv
- Sony Xperia Z3+
- TCL 950
81
- Nextbit Robin
80
- Huawei P9
79
- Samsung Galaxy S5
- Sony Xperia M5
- Sony Xperia Z3
- Sony Xperia Z2
- Xiaomi Mi 5
78
- Google Nexus 6
- HTC One A9
- Xiaomi Mi 5SPlus
77
- Nokia 808 Pureview
- Nubia Z11
76
- Apple iPhone 5S
- OnePlus 2
- Sony Xperia Z1
75
- Samsung Galaxy S4
74
- Huawei P8
- Meizu Pro 6
- Nokia Lumia 1020
73
- LG G2
- Nokia Lumia 925
- Qiku Q Terra
72
- Apple iPhone 5
- Apple iPhone 4S
- Samsung Note II
- Samsung Galaxy S3
70
- GoPro HERO3
69
- Amazon Firephone
- HTC ONE M9
68
- HTC ONE M8
67
- BlackBerry Z10
66
- HTC 8X
- Nokia Lumia 920
61
- Sony Xperia Z
59
- Apple New iPad
57
- Samsung Galaxy S2
50
- Apple iPhone 4

REFERENCE: https://www.dxomark.com/Mobiles

[tlvp]

On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 05:01:45 -0000 (UTC), Tomos Davies wrote:

> I'm talking in the 60s when I first learned to shoot pictures using an old
> German camera which I remember said on the back that it was made in
> Germany.

In the '60s, eh? of the 20th century? You may have had a Leica, or an
Exacta, or a Rollei, or a Leitz/Wetzlar, or some other of the many DDR-made
cameras of that era. I had a Japanese-made one, a particularly cheap choice
fron among the many Japanese options then available (Minolta, Canon, Nikon,
Yashica, Konica, ... ). And there were Russian and Swiss and Italian and
other models available, as well, at price points no college student of my
acquaintance could possibly have afforded. But: nothing but German materiel
available then? Utter BS!

[Tomos Davies]

In <news:qwcnaijc4pb8.auy27lwzzr8n$.d...@40tude.net>, tlvp suggested:

> In the '60s, eh? of the 20th century? You may have had a Leica, or an
> Exacta, or a Rollei, or a Leitz/Wetzlar, or some other of the many DDR-made
> cameras of that era. I had a Japanese-made one, a particularly cheap choice
> fron among the many Japanese options then available (Minolta, Canon, Nikon,
> Yashica, Konica, ... ). And there were Russian and Swiss and Italian and
> other models available, as well, at price points no college student of my
> acquaintance could possibly have afforded. But: nothing but German materiel
> available then? Utter BS!

You are making an argument where there is none.
I seem to think that the camera itself, which was old, was probably made in
the fifties (I was using it in the sixties).

Exacta sounds familiar though.
Let me google for a photo to see if I recognize the body.
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/254/458930425_62de8603e9_m.jpg

Oh yeah. That's it! No doubt about it! Wow, after all these decades.
I remember the pyramid like top and the black bumpy "leather" coating.

This might not be the exact model, but it's reasonably close:
http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/exakta/_img/x/ex-60e(02)-1122196-x.jpg

As I recall, it said on the back or on the bottom that it was made in what
we call East Germany. Was it? I remember that because were were basically
at war with the Warsaw pact in those days so I thought it was odd I had a
camera from the "enemy" at the time.

Here is a picture of what it looked like, with the "bumpy leather".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exakta#/media/File:An_Exa_IIb_and_an_Exakta_Camera.jpg

[tlvp]

On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 20:45:38 -0000 (UTC), Tomos Davies wrote:

> You are making an argument where there is none.

Quite the contrary. I've been taking objection to your earlier assertion,

> I happen to have been using SLRs since the

> days when they were all German and ...

*Yours* may have been _an_ "all German" model, but SLRs in the '60s were
hardly "all German". There were Japanese ones, and Hungarian, and Italian,
and Swiss, etc. -- and German, too. *That's* what my argument's about.

[Eric Stevens]

On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 20:20:34 -0400, tlvp <mPiOsUcB...@att.net>
wrote:

>On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 20:45:38 -0000 (UTC), Tomos Davies wrote:
>
>> You are making an argument where there is none.
>
>Quite the contrary. I've been taking objection to your earlier assertion,
>
>> I happen to have been using SLRs since the
>> days when they were all German and ...
>
>*Yours* may have been _an_ "all German" model, but SLRs in the '60s were
>hardly "all German". There were Japanese ones, and Hungarian, and Italian,
>and Swiss, etc. -- and German, too. *That's* what my argument's about.
>

I think there were few other than German SLRs in the 50s and even
fewer in the 30s. The only ones I can think of off the cuff were the
Swiss Alpa and the almost defunct Graflex. Of course there will have
been others but they would have been hard to find.

One of the first SLRs was the Exacta with it's revolving door
cassettes and built in film guillotine.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Tomos Davies]

In <news:tlu3j6e12jdw.15...@40tude.net>, tlvp suggested:

> *Yours* may have been _an_ "all German" model, but SLRs in the '60s were
> hardly "all German". There were Japanese ones, and Hungarian, and Italian,
> and Swiss, etc. -- and German, too. *That's* what my argument's about.

When I was looking for my first SLR, I was under the tutelage of a
professional who only had German cameras.

In fact, at that youngish age, I don't think Japanese consumerware had yet
taken hold in the USA (we considered it recycled junk in those days, little
did Detroit know).

I think this was just before the "transistor radio" came out, or around
that time frame. I do remember the East German genesis of the camera
though, as it astounded me (at that young age) that we were buying things
from the "enemy" who was always threatening to nuke us.

[Tomos Davies]

In <news:vn2dgc1nh1vjsa0oi...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
suggested:

> I think there were few other than German SLRs in the 50s and even
> fewer in the 30s. The only ones I can think of off the cuff were the
> Swiss Alpa and the almost defunct Graflex. Of course there will have
> been others but they would have been hard to find.
>
> One of the first SLRs was the Exacta with it's revolving door
> cassettes and built in film guillotine.

Thanks for that update as my photogropahy tutelage started in those days
where I never saw any other SLR than that of a German genesis.

As tlvp says, the other brands must have existed then, as now.

But as I recall (as a youngish lad), the German SLRs were what most of us
used, that Exacta being my first SLR.

[tlvp]

On Mon, 1 May 2017 14:07:34 -0000 (UTC), Tomos Davies wrote:

> In <news:tlu3j6e12jdw.15...@40tude.net>, tlvp suggested:
>
>> *Yours* may have been _an_ "all German" model, but SLRs in the '60s were
>> hardly "all German". There were Japanese ones, and Hungarian, and Italian,
>> and Swiss, etc. -- and German, too. *That's* what my argument's about.
>
> When I was looking for my first SLR, I was under the tutelage of a
> professional who only had German cameras.

So the only cameras you met at that time were German. That just means you
got an incomplete picture of the camera supply situation then.

> In fact, at that youngish age, I don't think Japanese consumerware had yet
> taken hold in the USA (we considered it recycled junk in those days, little
> did Detroit know).

What "taken hold" means to you I don't know. Certainly Willoughby's and
Peerless (NYC camera stores then) had plenty of Japanese models -- I know,
that's where I got my first 35 mm upon starting grad school in 1958, and
those were far more favorably priced than their German or Swiss
competitors.

> I think this was just before the "transistor radio" came out, or around
> that time frame. I do remember the East German genesis of the camera
> though, as it astounded me (at that young age) that we were buying things
> from the "enemy" who was always threatening to nuke us.

Things are not always as they seem to us when we first encounter them.
But we can't begin to learn until we accept that fact. Cheers, -- tlvp

[tlvp]

On Mon, 01 May 2017 13:14:51 +1200, Eric Stevens wrote:

> I think there were few other than German SLRs in the 50s and even
> fewer in the 30s. The only ones I can think of off the cuff were the
> Swiss Alpa

Have another look at the Wikipedia history, please; refresh your memory:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_single-lens_reflex_camera#Pre-19th_century>

Thanks. (And do you think Tomos was photographing in the '30s? I doubt it.)

[Tomos Davies]

In <news:6eal6sbrpp28.1xjsluptm21xk$.d...@40tude.net>, tlvp suggested:

>> When I was looking for my first SLR, I was under the tutelage of a
>> professional who only had German cameras.
>
> So the only cameras you met at that time were German. That just means you
> got an incomplete picture of the camera supply situation then.

You're always welcome to rub it in, but yes, even the machinists I met in
those days were all German, where Der Spiegel and other magazines were my
indoctrination into the foreign press.

I worked part time in a machine shop, where I studied the men who we had
just been fighting only a few years before - and I couldn't see how they
were child killers (same happened on my first visits to Japan).

In Palermo, I looked for the mafia, and couldn't "find" it; and, much
later, in Beijing, I tried to see "communism" in action, which is similarly
all around but nowhere to be seen by tourists.

So, yeah, at that age, it seemed to me that all the SLR cameras "I" ran
into were German, even if the other brands were hiding in plain sight.

>> In fact, at that youngish age, I don't think Japanese consumerware had yet
>> taken hold in the USA (we considered it recycled junk in those days, little
>> did Detroit know).
>
> What "taken hold" means to you I don't know. Certainly Willoughby's and
> Peerless (NYC camera stores then) had plenty of Japanese models -- I know,
> that's where I got my first 35 mm upon starting grad school in 1958, and
> those were far more favorably priced than their German or Swiss
> competitors.

See above. They must have been hiding in plain sight.

>> I think this was just before the "transistor radio" came out, or around
>> that time frame. I do remember the East German genesis of the camera
>> though, as it astounded me (at that young age) that we were buying things
>> from the "enemy" who was always threatening to nuke us.
>
> Things are not always as they seem to us when we first encounter them.
> But we can't begin to learn until we accept that fact. Cheers, -- tlvp

See above with respect to seeing communism and the mafia in action where
they are everywhere, but nowhere to be seen.

[Carlos E.R.]

It doesn't matter at all.
Most of us do not care.

Which is what is making you a troll... :-(

--
Cheers, Carlos.

[Tomos Davies]

In <news:begntd-...@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R. suggested:

> It doesn't matter at all.
> Most of us do not care.
>
> Which is what is making you a troll

That's why you can't list a single thing.
Not one.

That's how crippled iOS is.
And you don't even realize it.

Everything I say is a verifiable fact.

Most of you don't even realize that iOS is completely crippled.
Why not?

Because all you know is what the Apple Mother Ship told you.
They'll never tell you the truth.

That's what I'm here for.
:-)

[Jolly Roger]

On 2017-05-03, Tomos Davies <cariad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In <news:begntd-...@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R. suggested:
>
>> It doesn't matter at all.
>> Most of us do not care.
>>
>> Which is what is making you a troll
>

> That's what I'm here for.
>:-)

That's obvious.

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

JR

[Tomos Davies]

In <news:emsoev...@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger suggested:

> That's obvious.

Since you lack in brains clever reparte, all you can do is *manufacture* a
conversation, so that you can then respond to your own sentiments.

Everything I say is verifiable fact.

You simply manufacture a conversation that never happened, which is the
only kind that you can contribute an answer to.

Do you know why you can't intelligently respond to what was actually said?
I do.

[Carlos E.R.]

On 2017-05-03 03:00, Tomos Davies wrote:
> In <news:begntd-...@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R. suggested:
>
>> It doesn't matter at all.
>> Most of us do not care.
>>
>> Which is what is making you a troll
>
> That's why you can't list a single thing.
> Not one.

I don't own every phone in the world.
I don't care what Apple iOS cameras can or can not do.

>
> That's how crippled iOS is.
> And you don't even realize it.

I don't care.

>
> Everything I say is a verifiable fact.

I don't care.

> Most of you don't even realize that iOS is completely crippled.
> Why not?

I don't care.

> Because all you know is what the Apple Mother Ship told you.
> They'll never tell you the truth.

I don't care.

> That's what I'm here for.
> :-)

Yes, to be a nuisance.

Please go to advocacy groups. There you can expostulate to your heart
content.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

[Tomos Davies]

In <news:9stotd-...@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R. suggested:

>> That's why you can't list a single thing.
>> Not one.
>
> I don't own every phone in the world.
> I don't care what Apple iOS cameras can or can not do.

The thread is a question of whether there is anything functional in Apple
iOS mobile device cameras that isn't already on Android.

Your point has been taken that you n ot only don't know the answer to the
question, but that you do you care about the answer to the question.

Given it's obvious to experts that Apple iOS mobile device cameras are
functionally no better than Android iOS cameras is a fact which you then do
not dispute.

[sms]

On 5/3/2017 6:26 AM, Tomos Davies wrote:
> In <news:9stotd-...@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R. suggested:
>
>>> That's why you can't list a single thing.
>>> Not one.
>>
>> I don't own every phone in the world.
>> I don't care what Apple iOS cameras can or can not do.
>
> The thread is a question of whether there is anything functional in Apple
> iOS mobile device cameras that isn't already on Android.

Android is an OS. Apple iOS mobile device cameras are hardware. That
statement makes no sense.

Some Android phones had a dual lens camera setup, and Apple also
recognized the advantages of such a setup and included it.

Nearly all new features of smart phones first appear on Android devices
because the market for Android devices is so competitive, and Android
users don't have the loyalty to one company that Apple users have.

Clearly being first with some new feature is not necessarily an
advantage in terms of maximizing profits. Apple is able to roll out new
features in a way that encourages iPhone owners to upgrade. While I
occasionally see someone with a two generation old iPhone, it's not that
common since they really want the new features in the newer models. For
Android, it's common to see three and four year old phones still being
used because they had the features that the buyer wanted so much sooner.

[nospam]

In article <oecrla$mif$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

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

> >>> That's why you can't list a single thing.
> >>> Not one.
> >>
> >> I don't own every phone in the world.
> >> I don't care what Apple iOS cameras can or can not do.
> >
> > The thread is a question of whether there is anything functional in Apple
> > iOS mobile device cameras that isn't already on Android.
>
> Android is an OS. Apple iOS mobile device cameras are hardware. That
> statement makes no sense.
>
> Some Android phones had a dual lens camera setup, and Apple also
> recognized the advantages of such a setup and included it.

what makes no sense is equating anything with a dual lens as being the
same.

first of all, the camera in the 7+ uses two different focal lengths,
something no android phone has done. second, apple's image processing
is well beyond anything android has. apple bought the company that
developed the 7+ camera system, so you won't see it on any android
phone at all.

> Nearly all new features of smart phones first appear on Android devices
> because the market for Android devices is so competitive, and Android
> users don't have the loyalty to one company that Apple users have.

complete nonsense.

everyone waits for apple and then copies what they do. even microsoft.

ios devices were first with a retina display, wide gamut dci-p3
display, 64-bit processor, 3d touch, apple pencil, bluetooth le, full
device encryption, applepay, airdrop, handoff & continuity, pip,
splitscreen, haptics that actually work (not just a vibrator motor),
portrait mode, and much, much more.

nougat added a couple of those and android 'o' is adding a couple more,
while several of the rest do not exist on any android device (and won't
any time soon).

> Clearly being first with some new feature is not necessarily an
> advantage in terms of maximizing profits. Apple is able to roll out new
> features in a way that encourages iPhone owners to upgrade.

nonsense.

apple rolls out features whenever they're ready.

apple does *not* hold back features to encourage upgrades at a later
time. the whole idea is ludicrous and makes *no* sense.

no company would sit on a fully functioning feature just to make a sale
in the future.

> While I
> occasionally see someone with a two generation old iPhone, it's not that
> common since they really want the new features in the newer models. For
> Android, it's common to see three and four year old phones still being
> used because they had the features that the buyer wanted so much sooner.

more nonsense.

more people use older iphones and ipads than android devices because
apple supports them *far* longer than android device makers do.

a *five* year old iphone 5 runs ios 10 (and rather well at that), while
many two year old android phones can't run nougat and some won't even
run marshmallow. don't expect 'o' at all.

android users *have* to upgrade their phones more often if they want
the new features you claim they want.

nougat is up to 7.1% of android devices as of today, which means there
aren't very many android users using those new features either.

[Tomos Davies]

In <news:oecrla$mif$1...@dont-email.me>, sms suggested:

> Android is an OS. Apple iOS mobile device cameras are hardware. That
> statement makes no sense.

You have to realize that both nospam and Savagecuck will argue semantics as
if they paid for an argument and they are going to get that argument, even
where no disagreement exists.

So, for example, it's already verified that nospam argues over the
semantics of "static" versus "dynamic" when everyone knows what we're
talking about.

Likewise, it is well known already that Savageduck brought up a corner case
of external hardware for iOS that "is" a camera.

Just as nospam purposefully convolutes "automatic call recording" to merely
"audio recording", and where Jolly Roger purposefully convolutes "sans
jailbreaking" to "with jailbreaking", and just as both nospam and Jolly
Roger repeatedly posted screenshots of software that obtained a cell tower
unique ID but that software was deprecated *years* ago by Apple (and
therefore no longer exists in a practical sense) ....

The whole reason for that ios camera stilted language is to prevent
Savageduck from bringing up the meaningless corner case, which even he
knows to be a red herring.

> Some Android phones had a dual lens camera setup, and Apple also
> recognized the advantages of such a setup and included it.

You and I speak facts, I agree.

The question is valid.

The question was whether there was anything useful that Apple iOS phones
have in terms of camera capability that Android doesn't already have.

I think the answer is obvious to all by now.

> Nearly all new features of smart phones first appear on Android devices
> because the market for Android devices is so competitive, and Android
> users don't have the loyalty to one company that Apple users have.

You speak logic, as I do.

Apple, in the end, can never compete with the functionality of Android for
a variety of reasons, some of which you noted, and which might include:
a. The Apple customer base is less likely to switch to better equipment
b. The Apple customer base believes in the Marketing Machine message.
c. The Apple customer base here seems to easily accept baseless claims.
d. The Android competition is fierce
etc.

For which the logical conclusion is that...
Nothing useful has been proposed that Apple iOS cameras have that isn't
already on Android.

In fact, a detailed assessment of the quality of results shows that there
are 9 Android mobile devices with better camera quality of results
(pictures and video) than the best that Apple has to offer consumers.

And a dozen that are better or equal in camera QOR to what Apple currently
offers.

I only state verifiable fact.

> Clearly being first with some new feature is not necessarily an
> advantage in terms of maximizing profits.

The only one who claims that "being first" is a big deal seems to be
nospam. I'm just saying there's no evidence that iOS is any better, and, in
fact, Android already has all that nospam claims iOS has that Android
doesn't have.

> Apple is able to roll out new
> features in a way that encourages iPhone owners to upgrade.

Yes. The typical iOS buyer is just a sheep in the herd.

> While I
> occasionally see someone with a two generation old iPhone, it's not that
> common since they really want the new features in the newer models.

You will never hear me deprecate the power that the Apple Marketing Machine
has over its user base.

It's almost as if they implanted an Apple Marketing Machine Interpreter in
their frontal cortex.

> For
> Android, it's common to see three and four year old phones still being
> used because they had the features that the buyer wanted so much sooner.

Indeed. My circa 2012 Android phone (top of the line at that time), has
more app functionality than the top of the line iOS phones have today.

But it's not because of the hardware that Android phones have so much more
functionality than iOS phones; it's Apple who cripples what iOS phone apps
can do.

Those are verifiable facts.
And I only speak verifiable facts.

[John McWilliams]

On 5/3/17 PDT 6:26 AM, Tomos Davies wrote:

Doucherie!

[nospam]

In article <oed0qr$92u$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Tomos Davies

<cariad...@gmail.com> wrote:

> So, for example, it's already verified that nospam argues over the
> semantics of "static" versus "dynamic" when everyone knows what we're
> talking about.

that's not semantics. static and dynamic are *very* different.

> Indeed. My circa 2012 Android phone (top of the line at that time), has
> more app functionality than the top of the line iOS phones have today.

your circa 2012 android phone does not have dual lenses, 3d touch, a
wide gamut display, 64 bit processor, hardware encryption, advanced
lte, p2p wifi, bluetooth 4.2, fingerprint sensor, along with a wealth
of apps that use that hardware.

[Tomos Davies]

In <news:030520171253273495%nos...@nospam.invalid>, nospam suggested:

>> So, for example, it's already verified that nospam argues over the
>> semantics of "static" versus "dynamic" when everyone knows what we're
>> talking about.
>
> that's not semantics. static and dynamic are *very* different.

Notice you're playing "the game" again, by convoluting what is said just so
that you can have the arguments you apparently paid for.

I'll just say that nobody was ever confused (except you) in that newsgroup
as to what we mean when we say "static IP address" versus when we say
"dynamic IP address".

Only you want to endlessly play that semantic game just so that you can
construct an argument out of thin air.

Do you really need me to prove all your shenanigans again and again and
again? It's tiresome.

The only end result is that you just make everything up, and when called
out on it, you play your silly semantic games as if nobody ever knew what a
static IP address was compared to one that was set dynamically.

[Tomos Davies]

In <news:030520171216491592%nos...@nospam.invalid>, nospam suggested:

> everyone waits for apple and then copies what they do. even microsoft.

If that's true, why do 9 Android mobile device cameras exceed the picture &
video quality of the best Apple iOS mobile device out there today?

Who's chasing whom?

[Tomos Davies]

In <news:030520171216491592%nos...@nospam.invalid>, nospam suggested:

> apple bought the company that
> developed the 7+ camera system, so you won't see it on any android
> phone at all.

That statement shows that the Apple Marketing Machine has implanted
interpreter hardware in your frontal cortex.

Just because Apple "bought a company" that has a patent or trademark,
doesn't mean that nobody else can accomplish the same results.

In fact, you made that baseless argument in the past that since Apple
bought the company that provided them the "AirDrop" ad hoc file transfer
service. Sure, nobody on Android can "call" their many ad hoc file transfer
services "AirDrop", but that silly trademark argument you made doesn't stop
Android from having plenty of ad hoc file transfer services (ShareIt,
FileDrop, AirDroid, Google Cast, Google Bump, Google Copresence,
Beam, etc.)

Likewise, you made that same illogical argument, planted in your brain, no
doubt, by the Apple Marketing Machine, that only iOS has "ApplePay"
trademarked encrypted payment services. Meanwhile, Android has plenty of
encrypted payment services ( (such as Android
Pay, Google Wallet, PayPass, Samsung Pay, Barclaycard bPay, EE Cash on Tap,
V.me, etc.)

All you can ever talk about is what the embedded interpreter in your brain
tells you to talk about, which is trademarks.

You can't ever talk about end result F-U-N-C-T-I-O-N-A-L-I-T-Y.

Fact is, we already proved with references that the quality of results from
a dozen Android device cameras exceeds or meets that of the best Apple iOS
mobile device camera that exist today.

Fully 9 Android cameras exceed the quality of results (pictures & video) of
the best that Apple has to offer today.

That is a fact that even you, hiding behind trademarks, can't avoid.

[Tomos Davies]

In <news:oed0re$8i3$1...@dont-email.me>, John McWilliams suggested:

> Doucherie!

Your inability to provide intelligent discourse is duly noted.

[Chris]

Tomos Davies <cariad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In <news:9stotd-...@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R. suggested:
>
>>> That's why you can't list a single thing.
>>> Not one.
>>
>> I don't own every phone in the world.
>> I don't care what Apple iOS cameras can or can not do.
>
> The thread is a question of whether there is anything functional in Apple
> iOS mobile device cameras that isn't already on Android.

No. This thread is simply your attempt in instigating a flame war. It's
notable that you've failed so far...

[nospam]

In article <oed3hc$j3p$1...@news.mixmin.net>, Tomos Davies

<cariad...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> So, for example, it's already verified that nospam argues over the
> >> semantics of "static" versus "dynamic" when everyone knows what we're
> >> talking about.
> >
> > that's not semantics. static and dynamic are *very* different.
>
> Notice you're playing "the game" again, by convoluting what is said just so
> that you can have the arguments you apparently paid for.

no five minute argument for me. i paid for the full half hour.

> I'll just say that nobody was ever confused (except you) in that newsgroup
> as to what we mean when we say "static IP address" versus when we say
> "dynamic IP address".

as usual, you're lying about what that thread was about.

[nospam]

In article <oed3hf$j3p$3...@news.mixmin.net>, Tomos Davies

<cariad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Likewise, you made that same illogical argument, planted in your brain, no
> doubt, by the Apple Marketing Machine, that only iOS has "ApplePay"
> trademarked encrypted payment services. Meanwhile, Android has plenty of
> encrypted payment services ( (such as Android
> Pay, Google Wallet, PayPass, Samsung Pay, Barclaycard bPay, EE Cash on Tap,
> V.me, etc.)

In article <oed0qr$92u$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Tomos Davies

<cariad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Indeed. My circa 2012 Android phone (top of the line at that time), has
> more app functionality than the top of the line iOS phones have today.

your 2012 phone, a samsung galaxy s3, does not support android pay or
samsung pay.

the rest of that list won't work in very many places so they don't
count, plus they are on both platforms anyway.

put simply, you can't walk up to a vending machine and buy a candy bar
or soda with your 2012 phone; you can't ride public transportation with
your phone; you can't buy food with your phone, either groceries or
meals in a restaurant; you can't shop online at many stores using a web
browser on your computer or an app on the phone, including b&h photo
and staples; you can't pay for home/auto insurance with your phone; you
cant pay rent/mortgage with your phone.

not only can all that be done with a phone, but it can also be done
with the apple watch. no phone required.

[Frank Slootweg]

Putting the mostly US-centric payment-methods aside, and putting
things in a more global perspective, in our country we can do all of
that [1] with a smartphone.

But that has very little to do with the smartness of smartphones, but
everything with decades of electronic banking experience,
infrastructure, etc..

> not only can all that be done with a phone, but it can also be done
> with the apple watch. no phone required.

[Rewind:]

> you can't shop online at many stores using a web
> browser on your computer

You're joking, right!? Which third-world country is this about?

[1] Except the first two and that only because the/most vending machines
and public transport do - not yet - support paying by smartphone, not
the other way around.

[sms]

On 5/3/2017 9:34 AM, Tomos Davies wrote:

> The only one who claims that "being first" is a big deal seems to be
> nospam.

That makes no sense since even Apple has never claimed to be first with
important features, and that goes all the way back to the original
iPhone. So why would he claim that being first matters?

[nospam]

In article <oedm8j...@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg

not with a 2012 android phone, namely a galaxy s3, you can't.

plus, those aren't us-centric and your hatred for all things usa is
getting very stale.

b&h photo may be physically located in the usa, but they ship
worldwide. no issues there.

in fact, applepay/androidpay has wider acceptance *outside* of the usa
than within because contactless is more common outside the usa.

so much for the anti-usa argument and you can take your bigotry and
shove it up your ass.

> But that has very little to do with the smartness of smartphones, but
> everything with decades of electronic banking experience,
> infrastructure, etc..

you're referring to emv, and while both applepay and androidpay use emv
underneath, there's a *lot* more to applepay/android than just emv.

applepay/android pay bring a lot of *new* technology to the table,
which did not exist on 2012 phones. simple as that.

his claim that his 2012 android phone can do anything an iphone can do
is *false*, and it doesn't even need to be top of the line iphone
either. the least expensive iphone supports applepay.

> > not only can all that be done with a phone, but it can also be done
> > with the apple watch. no phone required.
>
> [Rewind:]

rewind it again, this time try to understand what was said.

> > you can't shop online at many stores using a web
> > browser on your computer
>
> You're joking, right!? Which third-world country is this about?

you're taking things out of context, as usual.

the entire list is about paying with applepay/androidpay.

i'll spell it out for you:

you can't shop online at many stores using a web browser on your

computer *and* *pay* *with* *applepay*.

applepay works in a browser on a computer, from an iphone, an apple
watch or from the computer itself if it has a touchid sensor.

<https://support.apple.com/library/content/dam/edam/applecare/images/en_
US/applepay/macos-sierra-safari-lululemon-applepay.jpg>

of course, both applepay & androidpay will work with apps on a phone or
tablet.

none of that is possible with his 2012 android phone. none of it.

keep in mind that androidpay does *not* work with a computer and likely
won't for a very long time. it's not even coming in 'o', so 'p' at the
earliest and it's also going to need partnerships with laptop makers.

> [1] Except the first two and that only because the/most vending machines
> and public transport do - not yet - support paying by smartphone, not
> the other way around.

a shitload of vending machines do, as does the london tube, which is
*not* usa-centric.

i didn't say *everywhere* and that isn't the point anyway.

the point is that his claim that his 2012 android phone can do anything
an iphone can do is completely false.

there's all sorts of things it can't do that even modern android phones
can do. it's not just iphones.

[nospam]

In article <oedfmg$vni$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

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

> > The only one who claims that "being first" is a big deal seems to be
> > nospam.
>
> That makes no sense since even Apple has never claimed to be first with
> important features,

sometimes they are, including retina display, wide gamut display, 64
bit processor and much, much more.

> and that goes all the way back to the original
> iPhone. So why would he claim that being first matters?

the original iphone was the first smartphone that didn't suck and which
turned the industry on its ass.

[Tomos Davies]

In <news:oed4r6$ngh$1...@dont-email.me>, Chris suggested:

> No. This thread is simply your attempt in instigating a flame war. It's
> notable that you've failed so far...

Chris. I have a very good point, in that I asked if there was *anything*
that iOS does that is photraphically useful over Android.

That's a valid question for the newsgroups.

I made an observation and I backed up my observation and I responded to all
valid counterpoints with facts.

If you have nothing to add to the discussion, why do you persist in drivel?

[Tomos Davies]

In <news:030520171722141133%nos...@nospam.invalid>, nospam suggested:

> the original iphone was the first smartphone that didn't suck and which
> turned the industry on its ass.

I have to admit the first iPod and first iPhone did change the industry,
IMHO.

Then again, being first on the Newton or Lisa didn't.

So I'm not sure what "being first" does for Apple.

Germany was first with rockets as weapons too, and look how far it got
them. Russia was first to put a dog in space, and look what happened to
them in the end.

[Tomos Davies]

In <news:oedfmg$vni$1...@dont-email.me>, sms suggested:

> So why would he claim that being first matters?

I see he responded as I've seen him also say that iOs is the first to get
apps, which, again, I see no value in given the state of apps today.

So we will have to get from him why "being first" is (a) even true, and (b)
if it's true, why it matters to him.

[Tomos Davies]

In <news:030520171356491622%nos...@nospam.invalid>, nospam suggested:

> as usual, you're lying about what that thread was about.

Except that all the quotes were verbatim.

[Tomos Davies]

In <news:030520171549407891%nos...@nospam.invalid>, nospam suggested:

> not only can all that be done with a phone, but it can also be done
> with the apple watch. no phone required.

Google Maps, Amazon, and eBay Drop Apple Watch Support
https://www.macrumors.com/2017/05/01/google-maps-amazon-ebay-drop-apple-watch-support/

Major apps abandoning Apple Watch, including Google Maps, Amazon & eBay
http://appleinsider.com/articles/17/05/01/major-apps-abandoning-apple-watch-including-google-maps-amazon-ebay

Google, Amazon, eBay and others drop Apple Watch support
http://www.powerpage.org/google-amazon-ebay-and-others-drop-apple-watch-support-for-some-of-their-apps/

[Carlos E.R.]

On 2017-05-03 18:16, nospam wrote:
> apple does *not* hold back features to encourage upgrades at a later
> time. the whole idea is ludicrous and makes *no* sense.
>
> no company would sit on a fully functioning feature just to make a sale
> in the future.

Oh, yes, they do. Quite often.

They first sell the current hardware in the stores, then they add the
new feature, then they sell the new gadget.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

[tlvp]

On Wed, 03 May 2017 12:16:49 -0400, nospam wrote:

> ios devices were first with a retina display, wide gamut dci-p3
> display, 64-bit processor, 3d touch, apple pencil, bluetooth le, full
> device encryption, applepay, airdrop, handoff & continuity, pip,
> splitscreen, haptics that actually work (not just a vibrator motor),
> portrait mode,

Apple has registered those trade or service marks. The actual hardware or
software is neither unique to nor even first with Apple. For example, the
technique resident in what Apple dubs Apple Pencil goes back to the passive
stylus incorporated with the 20th century NCR Pen Computing tablets, and
even well before that. And "retina display"? Mammals the world around have
used that for millenia. Bluetooth? Encryption? Their long history is a
matter of public record. Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

[nospam]

In article <oedmdp$luh$2...@news.mixmin.net>, Tomos Davies

<cariad...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > the original iphone was the first smartphone that didn't suck and which
> > turned the industry on its ass.
>
> I have to admit the first iPod and first iPhone did change the industry,
> IMHO.

it did.

> Then again, being first on the Newton or Lisa didn't.

those did too.

> So I'm not sure what "being first" does for Apple.

depends on what it is.

> Germany was first with rockets as weapons too, and look how far it got
> them. Russia was first to put a dog in space, and look what happened to
> them in the end.

whoosh.

[nospam]

In article <oedmdq$luh$3...@news.mixmin.net>, Tomos Davies

<cariad...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I see he responded as I've seen him also say that iOs is the first to get
> apps, which, again, I see no value in given the state of apps today.

no you haven't, since i've never said that. more of your made up
bullshit.

[nospam]

In article <oedmdt$luh$5...@news.mixmin.net>, Tomos Davies

<cariad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> > not only can all that be done with a phone, but it can also be done
> > with the apple watch. no phone required.
>
> Google Maps, Amazon, and eBay Drop Apple Watch Support
>
> https://www.macrumors.com/2017/05/01/google-maps-amazon-ebay-drop-apple-watch-
> support/
>
> Major apps abandoning Apple Watch, including Google Maps, Amazon & eBay
>
> http://appleinsider.com/articles/17/05/01/major-apps-abandoning-apple-watch-in
> cluding-google-maps-amazon-ebay
>
> Google, Amazon, eBay and others drop Apple Watch support
> http://www.powerpage.org/google-amazon-ebay-and-others-drop-apple-watch-support-for-some-of-their-apps/

as usual, you snip to alter context.

i mentioned the watch with regards to applepay. no apps are needed.

you're so desperate to find *anything* negative about apple that you
don't realize just how foolish you look in doing so.

you also don't understand *why* they're dropping support, for now.

meanwhile, apple watch sales doubled from last year, and apple is
currently the #2 watch maker in the world by revenue. that's rather
impressive, considering that rolex (who is #1) has been around for a
very long time, whereas the apple watch has been out just over two
years.

the wearables category is just beginning.

[nospam]

In article <1nbs0ftnlqf3f.1...@40tude.net>, tlvp

<mPiOsUcB...@att.net> wrote:

>
> > ios devices were first with a retina display, wide gamut dci-p3
> > display, 64-bit processor, 3d touch, apple pencil, bluetooth le, full
> > device encryption, applepay, airdrop, handoff & continuity, pip,
> > splitscreen, haptics that actually work (not just a vibrator motor),
> > portrait mode,
>
> Apple has registered those trade or service marks.

only a couple of them, but that's not relevant. a trademark doesn't
change the underlying technology.

> The actual hardware or
> software is neither unique to nor even first with Apple.

yes it is.

> For example, the
> technique resident in what Apple dubs Apple Pencil goes back to the passive
> stylus incorporated with the 20th century NCR Pen Computing tablets, and
> even well before that.

complete nonsense.

not even remotely close to true.

> And "retina display"? Mammals the world around have
> used that for millenia.

have they, now?

were the dinosaurs using retina displays too?

> Bluetooth?

le

> Encryption?

full device, in hardware, by default, without any degradation in
performance and for all intents, not crackable. assume roughly a
billion years to crack it with a good passphrase, on average.

> Their long history is a
> matter of public record.

then perhaps you should review just a little bit of it before you
embarrass yourself any more than you already have.

> Cheers, -- tlvp

you've had a few too many, and whatever it was, it's *way* too strong
that you're hallucinating.

[nospam]

In article <8s3qtd-...@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.

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

> > apple does *not* hold back features to encourage upgrades at a later
> > time. the whole idea is ludicrous and makes *no* sense.
> >
> > no company would sit on a fully functioning feature just to make a sale
> > in the future.
>
> Oh, yes, they do. Quite often.

oh no they don't. to do so would be incredibly stupid.

if anything, companies release features prematurely. sometimes they
even call it beta.

> They first sell the current hardware in the stores, then they add the
> new feature, then they sell the new gadget.

to an extent, but that's not what this is about.

the claim is that apple has new features ready but releases the new
gadget *without* those new features, so that the following year, they
can get people to buy the same product a second time.

no company would do that, especially in a highly competitive market.

if a feature is ready, it's included.

[Carlos E.R.]

On 2017-05-04 05:14, nospam wrote:
> In article <8s3qtd-...@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.
> <robin_...@es.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> apple does *not* hold back features to encourage upgrades at a later
>>> time. the whole idea is ludicrous and makes *no* sense.
>>>
>>> no company would sit on a fully functioning feature just to make a sale
>>> in the future.
>>
>> Oh, yes, they do. Quite often.
>
> oh no they don't. to do so would be incredibly stupid.
>
> if anything, companies release features prematurely. sometimes they
> even call it beta.

Yeah, sure :-P

>> They first sell the current hardware in the stores, then they add the
>> new feature, then they sell the new gadget.
>
> to an extent, but that's not what this is about.

It is about "companies" in plural, not specifically apple.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

[Frank Slootweg]

I didn't say, nor imply that.

> plus, those aren't us-centric and your hatred for all things usa is
> getting very stale.

Sigh! Most of those payment methods *are* US-centric. Like the last
time(s) you got your knickers in a twist, let other non-US citizens
confirm/deny whether I'm right or not. Any volunteers?

From previous (non-)discussions we know that your views, experiences,
etc. *are* very US-centric. That's fine if you would realize and
acknowledge that, but you don't.

>
> b&h photo may be physically located in the usa, but they ship
> worldwide. no issues there.
>
> in fact, applepay/androidpay has wider acceptance *outside* of the usa
> than within because contactless is more common outside the usa.

"outside the usa" we have actual working electronic banking
infrastructure which provides technology like the mentioned reinvented
wheels.

> so much for the anti-usa argument and you can take your bigotry and
> shove it up your ass.

It's not anti-usa or bigotry, it's just pointing out how much the US
is behind in electronic banking. If you can't handle that thruth, go
live in another country.

> > But that has very little to do with the smartness of smartphones, but
> > everything with decades of electronic banking experience,
> > infrastructure, etc..
>
> you're referring to emv, and while both applepay and androidpay use emv
> underneath, there's a *lot* more to applepay/android than just emv.

No, I'm - of course - *not* referring to EMV! Why on earth would you
think that? EMV is decades-old technology, smartphones are not.

> applepay/android pay bring a lot of *new* technology to the table,
> which did not exist on 2012 phones. simple as that.
>
> his claim that his 2012 android phone can do anything an iphone can do
> is *false*, and it doesn't even need to be top of the line iphone
> either. the least expensive iphone supports applepay.

Why do you think I give a toss about *his* claim?

> > > not only can all that be done with a phone, but it can also be done
> > > with the apple watch. no phone required.
> >
> > [Rewind:]
>
> rewind it again, this time try to understand what was said.
>
> > > you can't shop online at many stores using a web
> > > browser on your computer
> >
> > You're joking, right!? Which third-world country is this about?
>
> you're taking things out of context, as usual.
>
> the entire list is about paying with applepay/androidpay.

Nope, it isn't. It's about *many* electronic payment methods,
including ApplePay and Android Pay. But - as usual - when you see
"Apple" it works as a red flag and you can no longer read, understand,
think, etc..

[Straw men deleted.]

> > [1] Except the first two and that only because the/most vending machines
> > and public transport do - not yet - support paying by smartphone, not
> > the other way around.
>
> a shitload of vending machines do, as does the london tube, which is
> *not* usa-centric.

I did not say nor imply that other countries (than mine) don't have
them.

Bottom line: (Try to) Read and (try to) understand what was *actually*
written.

[Straw man deleted.]

[Carlos E.R.]

Indeed!

Apple Pay is being announced here (Spain) as supported by one of the
major banks just a few months ago. But I don't own any apple thing, nor
will I, hopefully.

I also heard of Google Pay (is it the same as Android Pay?) I don't
intend to confide my payment habits to Google, though, so not about to try.

A consortium of banks here have created a pay method called "Bizum",
which does payment from phone to phone number, after you contract it
with your bank. But it is not the only platform: it appears each bank
wants its own incompatible system.

So far I have not being able to effect any payment using it, as nobody
else has it.

I have not seen any vending machine that admits payment by phone.


For example, there are some city parking lots that can be paid by phone.
One that I looked you have to charge the account with some money first
from your visa card. Then you can pay the city parking space via
internet and geolocation. Problem: the machine on the street knows
nothing about that, you do not get a payment slip to put on the car, and
thus sometimes you get a fine. Some people complain of getting a fine,
and the app showing no log that they did in fact pay the parking slot.
And of course, there are several competing apps and companies. Even on
the same city, I heard.

I can pay my city bus fare using a proximity card. Works only on this
city. Has to be preloaded with money (which you can do on the same bus
with paper money).

Similarly in the city transport system of Madrid, the capital;
difference is that you pay for the entire month in advance. No phone.


I bought a phone with NFC on purpose. Most models here do not have it,
so I had to pay extra, and dismiss other features I wanted, like being
water proof. Talk about a feature that is refrained. To use it I need to
load an app from my bank, then I can pay at some supermarkets with it.
Seems more cumbersome than using the same bank card with NFC chip. At
least one major bank forces you to have the app open and login/pass
entered, which is contrary to specs from NFC consortium or whatever the
name is.

It doesn't seem to be possible to have several apps reading the NFC,
only one is registered, so some features of the NFC chip are lost. Like
payment / open a locked door.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

[nospam]

In article <oefdb8...@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg

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

> > > > In article <oed0qr$92u$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Tomos Davies
> > > > <cariad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Indeed. My circa 2012 Android phone (top of the line at that time),
> > > > > has
> > > > > more app functionality than the top of the line iOS phones have today.
> > > >
> > > > your 2012 phone, a samsung galaxy s3, does not support android pay or
> > > > samsung pay.
> > > >
> > > > the rest of that list won't work in very many places so they don't
> > > > count, plus they are on both platforms anyway.
> > > >
> > > > put simply, you can't walk up to a vending machine and buy a candy bar
> > > > or soda with your 2012 phone; you can't ride public transportation with
> > > > your phone; you can't buy food with your phone, either groceries or
> > > > meals in a restaurant; you can't shop online at many stores using a web
> > > > browser on your computer or an app on the phone, including b&h photo
> > > > and staples; you can't pay for home/auto insurance with your phone; you
> > > > cant pay rent/mortgage with your phone.
> > >
> > > Putting the mostly US-centric payment-methods aside, and putting
> > > things in a more global perspective, in our country we can do all of
> > > that [1] with a smartphone.
> >
> > not with a 2012 android phone, namely a galaxy s3, you can't.
>
> I didn't say, nor imply that.

the troll did:

> > > > In article <oed0qr$92u$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Tomos Davies
> > > > <cariad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Indeed. My circa 2012 Android phone (top of the line at that time),
> > > > > has
> > > > > more app functionality than the top of the line iOS phones have today.

> > plus, those aren't us-centric and your hatred for all things usa is
> > getting very stale.
>
> Sigh! Most of those payment methods *are* US-centric. Like the last
> time(s) you got your knickers in a twist, let other non-US citizens
> confirm/deny whether I'm right or not. Any volunteers?

none of them are us-centric.

> > > But that has very little to do with the smartness of smartphones, but
> > > everything with decades of electronic banking experience,
> > > infrastructure, etc..
> >
> > you're referring to emv, and while both applepay and androidpay use emv
> > underneath, there's a *lot* more to applepay/android than just emv.
>
> No, I'm - of course - *not* referring to EMV! Why on earth would you
> think that? EMV is decades-old technology, smartphones are not.

because the topic is applepay/androidpay, which use emv.

it is not banking.

>
> Bottom line: (Try to) Read and (try to) understand what was *actually*
> written.

take your own advice.

[nospam]

In article <21lrtd-...@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.

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

> Apple Pay is being announced here (Spain) as supported by one of the
> major banks just a few months ago. But I don't own any apple thing, nor
> will I, hopefully.
>
> I also heard of Google Pay (is it the same as Android Pay?) I don't
> intend to confide my payment habits to Google, though, so not about to try.

android pay is google's version of apple pay.

google wallet is older than both, but was a dismal failure. it was
non-standard, required linking a card with google who then used
google's own virtual card for the actual purchase and billed you, was
designed so that google could see everything you bought and where,
since it went through google's virtual card meant you didn't get any
credit card bonuses (all purchases are google, not travel, dining,
etc.), required merchant support (didn't use emv), had very little
security (as in none) and was a pain in the ass to use. it's no
surprise that it failed.

applepay and androidpay use the standard emv credit card protocol and
they work almost everywhere contactless credit cards can be used, as
well as other places. registering cards with either or both is done by
the relevant bank, not apple or google.

in the case of apple pay, apple has stated they do not get purchase
data nor do they even want it. all purchases are between you, the
merchant and the bank, as it always has been.

google is not as forthcoming about privacy and given that google lives
on mining user data, they are almost certainly tracking purchases.

> A consortium of banks here have created a pay method called "Bizum",
> which does payment from phone to phone number, after you contract it
> with your bank. But it is not the only platform: it appears each bank
> wants its own incompatible system.

there are various peer to peer payment companies, with more on the way.

> So far I have not being able to effect any payment using it, as nobody
> else has it.

then you haven't looked very hard, as contactless is *very* widespread
in europe.

> I have not seen any vending machine that admits payment by phone.

just about any vending machine that accepts contactless credit cards
will accept applepay/androidpay.

> For example, there are some city parking lots that can be paid by phone.
> One that I looked you have to charge the account with some money first
> from your visa card. Then you can pay the city parking space via
> internet and geolocation. Problem: the machine on the street knows
> nothing about that, you do not get a payment slip to put on the car, and
> thus sometimes you get a fine. Some people complain of getting a fine,
> and the app showing no log that they did in fact pay the parking slot.
> And of course, there are several competing apps and companies. Even on
> the same city, I heard.

the idea is to use the phone instead of the visa.

> I can pay my city bus fare using a proximity card. Works only on this
> city. Has to be preloaded with money (which you can do on the same bus
> with paper money).
>
> Similarly in the city transport system of Madrid, the capital;
> difference is that you pay for the entire month in advance. No phone.

those aren't a credit card and do not count.

> I bought a phone with NFC on purpose. Most models here do not have it,
> so I had to pay extra, and dismiss other features I wanted, like being
> water proof. Talk about a feature that is refrained. To use it I need to
> load an app from my bank, then I can pay at some supermarkets with it.
> Seems more cumbersome than using the same bank card with NFC chip. At
> least one major bank forces you to have the app open and login/pass
> entered, which is contrary to specs from NFC consortium or whatever the
> name is.

most android phones these days have nfc as standard.

[sms]

On 5/4/2017 5:20 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:

> "outside the usa" we have actual working electronic banking
> infrastructure which provides technology like the mentioned reinvented
> wheels.

The U.S. finally got chips in credit and debit cards, though some stores
still don't have chip readers. What we still don't have is chip and pin
for credit cards, only for debit cards. It's really annoying to be in
Europe and having to constantly explain that you don't have a PIN to
enter. In some cases you simply can't make the purchase, like at ticket
machines in train stations.

One of my credit cards from Capital 1 (the best U.S. credit card for
foreign travel since there are no foreign transaction fees and the cash
back is 1.5% to 2% depending on the card) told me that they could give
me a PIN for my credit card but it would cause every transaction to be
done as a cash advance with huge fees, rather than as a credit card
transaction with no fees.

[nospam]

In article <oefpq2$u3q$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

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

> The U.S. finally got chips in credit and debit cards, though some stores
> still don't have chip readers. What we still don't have is chip and pin
> for credit cards, only for debit cards. It's really annoying to be in
> Europe and having to constantly explain that you don't have a PIN to
> enter. In some cases you simply can't make the purchase, like at ticket
> machines in train stations.

get a pin-preferring card. better yet, get a contactless card.

> One of my credit cards from Capital 1 (the best U.S. credit card for
> foreign travel since there are no foreign transaction fees and the cash
> back is 1.5% to 2% depending on the card)

capital 1 is not even close to being the best card for foreign travel,
or domestic travel for that matter.

they're good for those with shitty credit though.

> told me that they could give
> me a PIN for my credit card but it would cause every transaction to be
> done as a cash advance with huge fees, rather than as a credit card
> transaction with no fees.

they are lying.

[Frank Slootweg]

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

You're totally falsifying the context by selective silent snipping.

So once more, it's:

QED

EOD. NK.

[nospam]

In article <8ggrtd-...@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.

the original claim was that apple held back features so that they can
sell the same item to the same person a year later.

that claim is nonsense. no company would do that. it's ludicrous.

[tlvp]

On Thu, 4 May 2017 10:53:09 -0700, sms wrote:

> On 5/4/2017 5:20 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>
>> "outside the usa" we have actual working electronic banking
>> infrastructure which provides technology like the mentioned reinvented
>> wheels.
>
> The U.S. finally got chips in credit and debit cards, though some stores
> still don't have chip readers. What we still don't have is chip and pin

How right you are!.

> for credit cards, only for debit cards. It's really annoying to be in
> Europe and having to constantly explain that you don't have a PIN to
> enter. In some cases you simply can't make the purchase, like at ticket
> machines in train stations.

Again, how right you are! To get on Amsterdam-bound light rail service near
Schiphol airport, once, I had to beg another prospective passenger to
accept my fare in cash and use his chip'n'pin card to buy me a ticket, as
my chip'n'signature card was useless there,m w/ no one to see my sig.

> One of my credit cards from Capital 1 (the best U.S. credit card for
> foreign travel since there are no foreign transaction fees and the cash
> back is 1.5% to 2% depending on the card) told me that they could give
> me a PIN for my credit card but it would cause every transaction to be
> done as a cash advance with huge fees, rather than as a credit card
> transaction with no fees.

What Capital One told me was they could only issue PINs for ATM cash
advances, not for use with the chip. Meanwhile, US Bank, issuers of the
Korean Air SkyPass chip-card, are willing to issue a PIN to go with their
chip, as are BarclayCard, for their Lufthansa Miles&More card. Those impose
annual fees, though, even if foreign transactions are surcharge-free.

Meanwhile, Chase assures me (but do I believe it?) that all Chase cards
will be both chip'n'pin and ForeignTransactionSurcharge-free by 2020 :-) .

[nospam]

In article <1rfn8gmqxfldi.1...@40tude.net>, tlvp

<mPiOsUcB...@att.net> wrote:

> >
> > The U.S. finally got chips in credit and debit cards, though some stores
> > still don't have chip readers. What we still don't have is chip and pin
>
> How right you are!.

he's not.

if it's a pin-preferring card and the merchant supports pins, it'll run
as chip&pin. that's not common, but it's also not zero.

> > for credit cards, only for debit cards. It's really annoying to be in
> > Europe and having to constantly explain that you don't have a PIN to
> > enter. In some cases you simply can't make the purchase, like at ticket
> > machines in train stations.
>
> Again, how right you are! To get on Amsterdam-bound light rail service near
> Schiphol airport, once, I had to beg another prospective passenger to
> accept my fare in cash and use his chip'n'pin card to buy me a ticket, as
> my chip'n'signature card was useless there,m w/ no one to see my sig.

he's not.

that also must have been quite a while ago, because nearly all current
cards will work without a pin when used where a pin would normally be
required, particularly for very low value transactions, such as a light
rail ticket.

> > One of my credit cards from Capital 1 (the best U.S. credit card for
> > foreign travel since there are no foreign transaction fees and the cash
> > back is 1.5% to 2% depending on the card) told me that they could give
> > me a PIN for my credit card but it would cause every transaction to be
> > done as a cash advance with huge fees, rather than as a credit card
> > transaction with no fees.
>
> What Capital One told me was they could only issue PINs for ATM cash
> advances, not for use with the chip.

they can, and it will have *no* effect whatsoever on purchases at
merchants. only a true cash advance (or equivalent) codes as a cash
advance. he was wrong on that too.

> Meanwhile, US Bank, issuers of the
> Korean Air SkyPass chip-card, are willing to issue a PIN to go with their
> chip, as are BarclayCard, for their Lufthansa Miles&More card. Those impose
> annual fees, though, even if foreign transactions are surcharge-free.

there are no-fee cards which support pins.

as for annual fees, those cards offer benefits which are often worth
more than the fees, sometimes dramatically so, making the cards a very
good deal if you can use the benefits.

> Meanwhile, Chase assures me (but do I believe it?) that all Chase cards
> will be both chip'n'pin and ForeignTransactionSurcharge-free by 2020 :-) .

who told you that? unless it was jamie, don't count on it.

chase already offers several cards without foreign transaction fees.

[Savageduck]

On May 4, 2017, sms wrote
(in article <oefpq2$u3q$1...@dont-email.me>):

In Dec-Jan I took a month long trip to South Africa via AMS, and returned via
AMS.

South Africa and the Netherlands both have “Chip & PIN” POS systems.
None of my cards is "Chip & PIN”. My most used card was my US issued,
“Chip & Sig” Amex, along with ApplePay with my iP6S+ using Amex Gold &
Amex Optima Platinum. I had no issues using either ApplePay or my “Chip &
Sig” Amex card at “Chip & PIN” POS kiosks or restaurants in South
Africa or AMS. If ApplePay was not available, the POS terminal required a
signature to complete the transaction. I didn’t get as much as a raised
eyebrow due to the lack of a PIN.
At Schipol (AMS) ApplePay was availabe throughout the terminal.

BTW: No foreign transaction fees from Amex.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

[nospam]

In article <0001HW.1EBC307900...@news.giganews.com>,

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

> >
> > > "outside the usa" we have actual working electronic banking
> > > infrastructure which provides technology like the mentioned reinvented
> > > wheels.
> >
> > The U.S. finally got chips in credit and debit cards, though some stores
> > still don't have chip readers. What we still don't have is chip and pin
> > for credit cards, only for debit cards. It's really annoying to be in
> > Europe and having to constantly explain that you don't have a PIN to
> > enter. In some cases you simply can't make the purchase, like at ticket
> > machines in train stations.
> >
> > One of my credit cards from Capital 1 (the best U.S. credit card for
> > foreign travel since there are no foreign transaction fees and the cash
> > back is 1.5% to 2% depending on the card) told me that they could give
> > me a PIN for my credit card but it would cause every transaction to be
> > done as a cash advance with huge fees, rather than as a credit card
> > transaction with no fees.
>
> In Dec-Jan I took a month long trip to South Africa via AMS, and returned via
> AMS.
>

> South Africa and the Netherlands both have łChip & PIN˛ POS systems.

> None of my cards is "Chip & PIN˛. My most used card was my US issued,

> łChip & Sig˛ Amex, along with ApplePay with my iP6S+ using Amex Gold &
> Amex Optima Platinum. I had no issues using either ApplePay or my łChip &
> Sig˛ Amex card at łChip & PIN˛ POS kiosks or restaurants in South

> Africa or AMS. If ApplePay was not available, the POS terminal required a

> signature to complete the transaction. I didnąt get as much as a raised

> eyebrow due to the lack of a PIN.
> At Schipol (AMS) ApplePay was availabe throughout the terminal.

yep.

people think it's an issue, but with rare exception, it is not.

> BTW: No foreign transaction fees from Amex.

no dcc either.

[sms]

On 5/4/2017 6:56 PM, tlvp wrote:

<snip>

> Meanwhile, Chase assures me (but do I believe it?) that all Chase cards
> will be both chip'n'pin and ForeignTransactionSurcharge-free by 2020 :-) .

There are a few Chip and Pin cards already available in the U.S.. But
the difficult thing is to find a card with all five of the following:

-Chip & Pin
-No Annual Fee
-No Foreign Transaction Fee
-1.5% to 2% cash rebate
-Visa or Mastercard, not American Express, since Amex is not widely
accepted outside the U.S. (or even in the U.S. at many places).

The only card with all of these that I've found is the PenFed Power Cash
Rewards Visa® Card. You get 2% rebate if you also open a checking
account with them (or if you were in the military, but not necessary to
have retired from the military), otherwise it's 1.5% rebate. Anyone can
join PenFed by a couple of methods, so I may do so prior to my next trip.

<https://www.penfed.org/power-cash-rewards/>
<https://www.penfed.org/emv-chip-technology/>

What's missing on this card is extended warranty coverage on items. So
use another card, like the Costco Visa, when buying items with
warranties like electronics, appliances, etc.

One other thing that you don't get with this card is rental car coverage
in a few countries such as Ireland. Only an extremely few credit cards
cover rental cars in Ireland, Israel, Jamaica, and Northern Ireland;
World MasterCard and Chase Sapphire Preferred are two (Australia and New
Zealand are also often excluded from coverage). The card issuers need to
provide a letter that they cover rental cars in Ireland for you to take
with you, but it's easy to get. I used a USAA World Mastercard when I
went to Ireland, and it was not a problem getting Avis to waive their
insurance requirement (which generally doubles the cost of the rental).

So far I've just used Capital 1 cards for foreign travel. They have no
foreign transaction fee and offer cash rebates from 1.5% to 2%. But they
don't support Chip & Pin.

For rental cars, it may make sense to use an Amex (except in Australia,
Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, or New Zealand) and pay the flat fee
per rental for primary coverage ($17.95 for California residents).

[nospam]

In article <oeh1c0$ms6$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

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

> There are a few Chip and Pin cards already available in the U.S..

that's what i said earlier.

> But
> the difficult thing is to find a card with all five of the following:
>
> -Chip & Pin
> -No Annual Fee
> -No Foreign Transaction Fee
> -1.5% to 2% cash rebate
> -Visa or Mastercard, not American Express, since Amex is not widely
> accepted outside the U.S. (or even in the U.S. at many places).

no need for all of those to be true.

only chip&pin and no ftf are required, but even if there is an ftf, a
chip&sig will work almost everywhere, so if it's used as a backup, any
fees would be negligible.

as for the rest, annual fees are often worth it, cash back is not as
valuable as points with the better cards, particularly for those who
travel, and amex is accepted at far more places than people think.

> The only card with all of these that I've found is the PenFed Power Cash
> Rewards Visa® Card.

hilarious.

> What's missing on this card is extended warranty coverage on items. So
> use another card, like the Costco Visa, when buying items with
> warranties like electronics, appliances, etc.

citibank offers 24 months additional warranty on just about all of
their cards (not just costco), but that only matters if they accept the
claim. if they say no, you're fucked.

historically, amex sides with the cardholder, so it may be better to
use amex even though the warranty extension is only 12 months, and
unlike other cards, they don't outsource their insurance, so the claims
process is much simpler and far quicker.

> For rental cars, it may make sense to use an Amex (except in Australia,
> Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, or New Zealand) and pay the flat fee
> per rental for primary coverage ($17.95 for California residents).

it doesn't, and you dissed amex above anyway.

several cards offer primary rental car coverage for no extra cost,
including chase sapphire preferred and reserve, along with no foreign
transaction fees and a wealth of other perks.

[Savageduck]

On May 4, 2017, sms wrote

(in article <oeh1c0$ms6$1...@dont-email.me>):

> On 5/4/2017 6:56 PM, tlvp wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Meanwhile, Chase assures me (but do I believe it?) that all Chase cards
> > will be both chip'n'pin and ForeignTransactionSurcharge-free by 2020 :-) .
>
> There are a few Chip and Pin cards already available in the U.S.. But
> the difficult thing is to find a card with all five of the following:
>
> -Chip & Pin
> -No Annual Fee
> -No Foreign Transaction Fee
> -1.5% to 2% cash rebate
> -Visa or Mastercard, not American Express, since Amex is not widely
> accepted outside the U.S. (or even in the U.S. at many places).

Strange, I have had little trouble with Amex being accepted in the USA, or
outside the U.S., most recently in the Netherlands and South Africa. Amex has
been my primary card in the US, and for travel for almost 40 years.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

[sms]

On 5/4/2017 10:49 PM, Savageduck wrote:

<snip>

> Strange, I have had little trouble with Amex being accepted in the USA, or
> outside the U.S., most recently in the Netherlands and South Africa. Amex has
> been my primary card in the US, and for travel for almost 40 years.

It's fine for chain stores and mid to higher-priced restaurants, but
most smaller stores and restaurants don't accept it because of the
higher fees.

[Frank Slootweg]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <oefpq2$u3q$1...@dont-email.me>, sms
> <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> > The U.S. finally got chips in credit and debit cards, though some stores
> > still don't have chip readers. What we still don't have is chip and pin
> > for credit cards, only for debit cards. It's really annoying to be in
> > Europe and having to constantly explain that you don't have a PIN to
> > enter. In some cases you simply can't make the purchase, like at ticket
> > machines in train stations.
>
> get a pin-preferring card. better yet, get a contactless card.

Again blaming the victim, instead of acknowledging the backward state
of (these) things in the US!

In our country - and probably in most of Europe (and other parts of
the civilized world) - it's not a question of "Get card X!" or "Get a
card with Y!", but "Get a card, any card!", period.

[More of the same deleted.]

[Frank Slootweg]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <1rfn8gmqxfldi.1...@40tude.net>, tlvp
> <mPiOsUcB...@att.net> wrote:

[...]

> > > for credit cards, only for debit cards. It's really annoying to be in
> > > Europe and having to constantly explain that you don't have a PIN to
> > > enter. In some cases you simply can't make the purchase, like at ticket
> > > machines in train stations.
> >
> > Again, how right you are! To get on Amsterdam-bound light rail service near
> > Schiphol airport, once, I had to beg another prospective passenger to
> > accept my fare in cash and use his chip'n'pin card to buy me a ticket, as
> > my chip'n'signature card was useless there,m w/ no one to see my sig.
>
> he's not.

I can assure you that *they* *are* right!

Who the heck do you think you are, that you deny the actual
experience(s) that people had, but you did not!?

> that also must have been quite a while ago, because nearly all current
> cards will work without a pin when used where a pin would normally be
> required, particularly for very low value transactions, such as a light
> rail ticket.

Note that they are talking about ticket *machines*. The machines will
require a PIN and there's no way to enter a signature. What would work
is a European direct-debit card, but that has a PIN anyway, so the issue
is moot.

[...]

[Andy Burns]

Frank Slootweg wrote:

> Who the heck do you think you are, that you deny the actual
> experience(s) that people had, but you did not!?

It seems standard procedure for 'nospam' to expect his/her narrow
experiences to apply identically everywhere and in all situations.

<plonk> and move on ...

[nospam]

In article <oehnj2...@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg

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

> > > > for credit cards, only for debit cards. It's really annoying to be in
> > > > Europe and having to constantly explain that you don't have a PIN to
> > > > enter. In some cases you simply can't make the purchase, like at ticket
> > > > machines in train stations.
> > >
> > > Again, how right you are! To get on Amsterdam-bound light rail service
> > > near
> > > Schiphol airport, once, I had to beg another prospective passenger to
> > > accept my fare in cash and use his chip'n'pin card to buy me a ticket, as
> > > my chip'n'signature card was useless there,m w/ no one to see my sig.
> >
> > he's not.
>
> I can assure you that *they* *are* right!

i can assure you they are not.

> Who the heck do you think you are, that you deny the actual
> experience(s) that people had, but you did not!?

i didn't deny their experience and you are assuming about my experience.

i said it had to have been a while ago.

the issue no longer occurs unless someone is using an older card, in
which case, it's about to expire and be replaced with one with an up to
date cvm list, at which point the problem *goes* *away*.

users can also request an actual chip&pin card, which most card issues
offer, although that's not required.

savageduck posted that he just returned from a trip using a chip&sig
card and had no issues with pins.

you're denying *his* experience and insisting yours is the only correct
one.

> > that also must have been quite a while ago, because nearly all current
> > cards will work without a pin when used where a pin would normally be
> > required, particularly for very low value transactions, such as a light
> > rail ticket.
>
> Note that they are talking about ticket *machines*. The machines will
> require a PIN and there's no way to enter a signature. What would work
> is a European direct-debit card, but that has a PIN anyway, so the issue
> is moot.

no need, since it likely will not require anything extra.

[nospam]

In article <oeh6rd$4ed$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

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

>
> > Strange, I have had little trouble with Amex being accepted in the USA, or
> > outside the U.S., most recently in the Netherlands and South Africa. Amex
> > has
> > been my primary card in the US, and for travel for almost 40 years.
>
> It's fine for chain stores and mid to higher-priced restaurants, but
> most smaller stores and restaurants don't accept it because of the
> higher fees.

nonsense. most places accept amex because it's a commonly used card and
merchants know that amex card holders tend to spend more than with
other cards.

as for the fees, they're not necessarily higher. it depends on the card
and the merchant agreement.

it's also not just amex with potentially higher fees. a visa infinite
card incurs higher fees than a plain visa and a merchant can't refuse
it if they accept visa.

[tlvp]

On 5 May 2017 09:27:39 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:

> I can assure you that *they* *are* right!

You can *try* to assure him, but, rest assured, he won't let himself be
assured :-) . Cheers, -- tlvp

[tlvp]

On Thu, 04 May 2017 21:00:57 -0700, Savageduck wrote:

> BTW: No foreign transaction fees from Amex.

Amex ftf structures vary with their cards. You evidently have zero ftf
cards. I have three sorts -- with 0 ftf, with 2.7% ftf, and with 3% ftf.
Conceivably there may be other sorts, as well, I'm not tracking it.

[nospam]

In article <1xd6qjrfvpu3i$.4389t32w...@40tude.net>, tlvp

<mPiOsUcB...@att.net> wrote:

>
> > BTW: No foreign transaction fees from Amex.
>
> Amex ftf structures vary with their cards.

same with every card issuer.

in general, low end cards have ftf fees (and those who get such cards
don't normally travel internationally with one so it doesn't matter),
while premium cards do not, particularly cards geared for travel.

> You evidently have zero ftf
> cards. I have three sorts -- with 0 ftf, with 2.7% ftf, and with 3% ftf.
> Conceivably there may be other sorts, as well, I'm not tracking it.

of course you aren't.

[Frank Slootweg]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <oehnj2...@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
> <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > > > for credit cards, only for debit cards. It's really annoying
> > > > > to be in Europe and having to constantly explain that you
> > > > > don't have a PIN to enter. In some cases you simply can't make
> > > > > the purchase, like at ticket machines in train stations.
> > > >
> > > > Again, how right you are! To get on Amsterdam-bound light rail service
> > > > near
> > > > Schiphol airport, once, I had to beg another prospective passenger to
> > > > accept my fare in cash and use his chip'n'pin card to buy me a ticket, as
> > > > my chip'n'signature card was useless there,m w/ no one to see my sig.
> > >
> > > he's not.
> >
> > I can assure you that *they* *are* right!
>
> i can assure you they are not.

You can assure all you want. We know what your opinions-presented-as-
facts, are worth, absolutely nothing.

> > Who the heck do you think you are, that you deny the actual
> > experience(s) that people had, but you did not!?
>
> i didn't deny their experience and you are assuming about my experience.

So exactly when (date, flight number, time, etc.) have you been to
Schiphol lately and exactly which light-rail service did you take (time,
destination, etc.)!? And none of your usual twisting and turning.

> i said it had to have been a while ago.
>
> the issue no longer occurs unless someone is using an older card, in
> which case, it's about to expire and be replaced with one with an up to
> date cvm list, at which point the problem *goes* *away*.

OK, so what you're saying is that you were *WRONG*, because that's
*not* the scenario/card they described. Thanks for clearing that up!

> users can also request an actual chip&pin card, which most card issues
> offer, although that's not required.

Yes it is. I use those very machines at that location. You don't.

> savageduck posted that he just returned from a trip using a chip&sig
> card and had no issues with pins.

But we were NOT talking about Savageduck's experience, were we!? We
WERE talking about sms's and tlvp's *specific* experience at *specific*
locations.

That is what you do all the time, bring in some stuff which is
irrelevant to the *current* discussion and then try to turn that into
some kind of counter argument. It's so bloody transparent that it's
pathetic.

> you're denying *his* experience and insisting yours is the only correct
> one.

I do nothing of the sort. Why would I try to deny something which is
irrelevant and very probably true?

> > > that also must have been quite a while ago, because nearly all current
> > > cards will work without a pin when used where a pin would normally be
> > > required, particularly for very low value transactions, such as a light
> > > rail ticket.
> >
> > Note that they are talking about ticket *machines*. The machines will
> > require a PIN and there's no way to enter a signature. What would work
> > is a European direct-debit card, but that has a PIN anyway, so the issue
> > is moot.
>
> no need, since it likely will not require anything extra.

Next time I'll ask those *specific* machines to refrain from asking a
PIN, because some sufferer from Dunning-Kruger effect, named 'nospam',
said it "likely" is not required.

QED.

EOD. NK.

[nospam]

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

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

> > > > > > for credit cards, only for debit cards. It's really annoying
> > > > > > to be in Europe and having to constantly explain that you
> > > > > > don't have a PIN to enter. In some cases you simply can't make
> > > > > > the purchase, like at ticket machines in train stations.
> > > > >
> > > > > Again, how right you are! To get on Amsterdam-bound light rail service
> > > > > near
> > > > > Schiphol airport, once, I had to beg another prospective passenger to
> > > > > accept my fare in cash and use his chip'n'pin card to buy me a
> > > > > ticket, as
> > > > > my chip'n'signature card was useless there,m w/ no one to see my sig.
> > > >
> > > > he's not.
> > >
> > > I can assure you that *they* *are* right!
> >
> > i can assure you they are not.
>
> You can assure all you want. We know what your opinions-presented-as-
> facts, are worth, absolutely nothing.

we know you're just an argumentative troll.

> > > Who the heck do you think you are, that you deny the actual
> > > experience(s) that people had, but you did not!?
> >
> > i didn't deny their experience and you are assuming about my experience.
>
> So exactly when (date, flight number, time, etc.) have you been to
> Schiphol lately and exactly which light-rail service did you take (time,
> destination, etc.)!? And none of your usual twisting and turning.

savageduck was there a few months ago and had *no* problems with his
chip&sig cards.

not only that, but *many* people on flyertalk have traveled the world
with chip&sig cards (or msd) without issue. this topic comes up rather
often.

> > i said it had to have been a while ago.
> >
> > the issue no longer occurs unless someone is using an older card, in
> > which case, it's about to expire and be replaced with one with an up to
> > date cvm list, at which point the problem *goes* *away*.
>
> OK, so what you're saying is that you were *WRONG*, because that's
> *not* the scenario/card they described. Thanks for clearing that up!

it is the scenario they described.

nearly all chip&sig cards will work in a kiosk that would normally
request a pin code because the card has a cvm for that very scenario.

> > users can also request an actual chip&pin card, which most card issues
> > offer, although that's not required.
>
> Yes it is. I use those very machines at that location. You don't.

not with us-issued cards, you don't.

post your cvm list. let's see what you're *actually* doing not what you
claim to be doing.

> > savageduck posted that he just returned from a trip using a chip&sig
> > card and had no issues with pins.
>
> But we were NOT talking about Savageduck's experience, were we!? We
> WERE talking about sms's and tlvp's *specific* experience at *specific*
> locations.

and savageduck's experience shows that the experiences of tlvp and sms
to *not* be a universal truth, certainly not a recent one.

the reality is that chip&sig cards work without issue in chip&pin
locations in almost every case.

> That is what you do all the time, bring in some stuff which is
> irrelevant to the *current* discussion and then try to turn that into
> some kind of counter argument. It's so bloody transparent that it's
> pathetic.

all i bring in is proof that a given claim is false.

[sms]

On 5/5/2017 2:27 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:

<snip>

> Who the heck do you think you are, that you deny the actual
> experience(s) that people had, but you did not!?

LOL, what do facts have to do with anything he says.

> Note that they are talking about ticket *machines*. The machines will
> require a PIN and there's no way to enter a signature. What would work
> is a European direct-debit card, but that has a PIN anyway, so the issue
> is moot.

I ran into this in Dublin Ireland in the metro station. I used my debit
card. It was no big deal for a small purchase, but they did charge a 1% FTF.

Charles Schwab Bank is apparently the only major bank that both charges
no FTF for cash withdrawals AND reimburses out-of-network ATM charges,
worldwide, though there are many banks that do one or the other.

And of course watch out for the biggest scam, DCC (Dynamic Currency
Conversion)
<http://frequentmiler.boardingarea.com/2016/08/12/fine-print-dynamic-currency-conversion/>.
It's even more of a scam then some people realize because credit cards
with an FTF will charge it on all foreign transactions, regardless of
the currency that transaction is charged in. If you combine a credit
card with a 3% FTF and the DCC fees, you could be paying 5% more than
you have to. On a big hotel bill that could be some real money.

For foreign travel I tend to avoid organized tours like the plague, so
having a credit card that works in places like metro stations is
important to me. I've been to China many times on my own for business
and then we were going on vacation my wife wanted to book a tour and I
told her to have a good time with the kids, but count me out. We went on
our own and of course it was just fine. And much less forced shopping,
though we did get caught in that scam once.

Bottom line is this:

Best Chip & Pin credit card for international travel: Penfed
<https://www.penfed.org/power-cash-rewards/>

Best ATM debit card for international travel: Schwab Bank
<http://www.schwab.com/public/file/P-6425867/SLS77378-01.pdf>

Cards for rental cars in high-risk countries: World Mastercard or Chase
Sapphire Preferred or Chase Visa Signature

[sms]

That depends on which Amex, so be careful. Many of their cards have a
2.7% FTF.

Chip and Signature does work most places, though it's a bit more hassle.
Where it doesn't work is at machines where there is no option for a
signature, such as ticket machines in train stations.

In England, I went online and bought tickets with a credit card and then
was able to use a code to pick the tickets up from the machine in the
station, but this does not work for every railway or for metro stations
in many countries.

[Frank Slootweg]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <oeipcm...@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
> <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > for credit cards, only for debit cards. It's really annoying
> > > > > > > to be in Europe and having to constantly explain that you
> > > > > > > don't have a PIN to enter. In some cases you simply can't make
> > > > > > > the purchase, like at ticket machines in train stations.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Again, how right you are! To get on Amsterdam-bound light
> > > > > > rail service near Schiphol airport, once, I had to beg
> > > > > > another prospective passenger to accept my fare in cash and
> > > > > > use his chip'n'pin card to buy me a ticket, as my
> > > > > > chip'n'signature card was useless there,m w/ no one to see
> > > > > > my sig.
> > > > >
> > > > > he's not.
> > > >
> > > > I can assure you that *they* *are* right!
> > >
> > > i can assure you they are not.
> >
> > You can assure all you want. We know what your opinions-presented-as-
> > facts, are worth, absolutely nothing.
>
> we know you're just an argumentative troll.

Yes, I 'argue, i.e. use arguments, that's what people do in
discussions. That I debunk *your* *bogus* arguments, doesn't make *me* a
troll, quite the contrary.

> > > > Who the heck do you think you are, that you deny the actual
> > > > experience(s) that people had, but you did not!?
> > >
> > > i didn't deny their experience and you are assuming about my experience.
> >
> > So exactly when (date, flight number, time, etc.) have you been to
> > Schiphol lately and exactly which light-rail service did you take (time,
> > destination, etc.)!? And none of your usual twisting and turning.
>
> savageduck was there a few months ago and had *no* problems with his
> chip&sig cards.

Nice try, but no cigar! Savageduck did NOT say anything about using
*ticket machines* in *Dutch* *train stations*, let alone the specific
one at Schiphol. And *that* is what is being discussed!

Which proves once more that you can't - or don't want to - read/
understand what is *actually* written.

QED.

EOD. NK.

[More straw men and other fabrications deleted.]

[Frank Slootweg]

sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
[...]

Earth to nospam:

> Chip and Signature does work most places, though it's a bit more hassle.
> Where it doesn't work is at machines where there is no option for a
> signature, such as ticket machines in train stations.
>
> In England, I went online and bought tickets with a credit card and then
> was able to use a code to pick the tickets up from the machine in the
> station, but this does not work for every railway or for metro stations
> in many countries.

Try to read/comprehend it a couple of times. Maybe, just maybe, you'll
get it this time.

Free clue-by-fours: "doesn't", "no", "not", "every" and "many".

[sms]

On 5/5/2017 1:03 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote:

<snip>

> Nice try, but no cigar! Savageduck did NOT say anything about using
> *ticket machines* in *Dutch* *train stations*, let alone the specific
> one at Schiphol. And *that* is what is being discussed!
>
> Which proves once more that you can't - or don't want to - read/
> understand what is *actually* written.

I get the feeling that nospam has never traveled outside the U.S. on his
own.

[nospam]

In article <oeilcc$623$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

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

> And of course watch out for the biggest scam, DCC (Dynamic Currency
> Conversion)

use amex and avoid dcc entirely.

> Bottom line is this:

that you're talking out your ass again.

> Best Chip & Pin credit card for international travel: Penfed
> <https://www.penfed.org/power-cash-rewards/>

definitely not.

numerous other cards have much better benefits and rewards,
particularly for those who travel internationally.

> Best ATM debit card for international travel: Schwab Bank
> <http://www.schwab.com/public/file/P-6425867/SLS77378-01.pdf>

among others.

> Cards for rental cars in high-risk countries: World Mastercard or Chase
> Sapphire Preferred or Chase Visa Signature

chase doesn't have a card called 'chase visa signature'.

visa signature is a *type* of visa card, as is visa infinite, which
adds assorted benefits over a plain visa.

it's comparable to world mastercard and world elite mastercard.

several of chase's cards are visa signature (unless the applicant's
credit is not good enough to qualify for signature), including sapphire
preferred, freedom and freedom unlimited.

currently, chase only offers one visa infinite card, the sapphire
reserve, which is one of the best cards for travel from any issuer.
it's so good that other card issuers are scrambling to compete.

sapphire preferred & reserve (plus a few other chase cards) offer
primary rental coverage and are worth it for that reason alone.

[nospam]

In article <oeilim$623$2...@dont-email.me>, sms

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

> Chip and Signature does work most places, though it's a bit more hassle.
> Where it doesn't work is at machines where there is no option for a
> signature, such as ticket machines in train stations.

it works just fine there.

[nospam]

In article <oeim7v$8n1$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

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

> > Nice try, but no cigar! Savageduck did NOT say anything about using
> > *ticket machines* in *Dutch* *train stations*, let alone the specific
> > one at Schiphol. And *that* is what is being discussed!
> >
> > Which proves once more that you can't - or don't want to - read/
> > understand what is *actually* written.
>
> I get the feeling that nospam has never traveled outside the U.S. on his
> own.

i get the feeling you're wrong once again.

[sms]

Careful. I was trying to explain to nospam where Chip & Pin is the only
option. Pretty sure he really does understand this fact, he's just doing
his usual schtick.

Chip & signature works okay though it's highly susceptible to fraud. It
doesn't work at places where there is no way to provide a signature, and
it's a pretty vital place if you want to purchase metro tickets or train
tickets at many stations. They don't have the system that's used in the
U.S. at mass transit machines, which is Chip and no pin and no
signature. Sometimes you're asked for the billing ZIP code.

Hopefully the U.S. will someday catch up with the ROW when it comes to
credit card security. I still go into some stores in the U.S. where they
don't have chip readers--it's like being in the last century.