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

[Horace Algier]

Can anyone name a single bit of functionality that is "on" iOS that isn't
already on Android?

NOTE: Functionality is not brand names.
This is not about jailbroken phones.
And the functionality has to be *on* the phone (not on a mainframe server
or a desktop computer).

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

Just one?

[Rod Speed]

Horace Algier <hor...@horatio.net> wrote

> Can anyone name a single bit of functionality
> that is "on" iOS that isn't already on Android?

Already did, repeatedly. Sandboxing.

And airdrop, continuity, handoff, only being able to
get apps from the store so you can be sure that it has
been checked by apple to ensure that it isnt malicious
and with a mechanism that allows apple to remove
it from your iOS device if it manages to slip thru the
checks and is discovered to be malicious later.

> NOTE: Functionality is not brand names.

All of the above are functionality.

> This is not about jailbroken phones.

None of the above has anything to do with jailbroken iOS devices.

> And the functionality has to be *on* the phone
> (not on a mainframe server or a desktop computer).

None of the above is.

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

> Just one?

All of the above are, and plenty more too.

[Alan Browne]

On 2016-09-07 01:04, Horace Algier wrote:
> Can anyone name a single bit of functionality that is "on" iOS that isn't
> already on Android?

- secure credit/debit card transactions (Android merely imitates NFC
with a copy of the card chip).
- Handover - continue a task on one device handed over from another
- Messages (deeper, much, than SMS, with complete, deep encryption,
end-to-end that is unassailable).
- Ability to pick up a phone call on one's desktop/laptop from the iPhone
- Secure enclave (fingerprint data, etc.)

More, I'm sure.

--
She hummed to herself because she was an unrivaled botcher of lyrics.
-Nick (Gone Girl), Gillian Flynn.

[M-M]

In article <nqo74b$1oo1$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Horace Algier

<hor...@horatio.net> wrote:

> Can anyone name a single bit of functionality that is "on" iOS that isn't
> already on Android?

Facetime, Airplay

--
m-m
http://www.mhmyers.com

[Horace Algier]

On Wed, 7 Sep 2016 15:57:45 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:

> Sandboxing.
> airdrop,
> continuity,
> handoff

> only being able to get apps from the store

> a mechanism that allows apple to remove
> it from your iOS device

Rod,
This is good input, and deserves a thread of its own, instead of being
buried inside some other thread.

Let's take "AirDrop® ad hoc services" first.

There is no such thing as "Airdrop".
Apple says so themselves.
http://www.apple.com/legal/intellectual-property/trademark/appletmlist.html

Just like RCA and ThinkPad are trademarks that are bought and sold among
companies (none of which are currently from the "original" RCA or IBM), the
word you use is merely a meaningless M-A-R-K-E-T-I-N-G "adjective" which
Apple *bought* on Thursday, July 08, 2010 from another company.

- Apple Officially Acquires ´AirDrop¡ Trademark
http://www.mactrast.com/2011/06/apple-officially-acquires-airdrop-trademark/
http://www.trademarkia.com/airdrop-85080406.html

Apple M-A-R-K-E-T-I-N-G also registered the *logo* on March 7, 2013
http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2013/03/apples-airdrop-logo-is-now-a-registered-trademark.html

Where the point is that it's a purely M-A-R-K-E-T-I-N-G tool that, in and
of itself, is entirely meaningless (just as "Tylenol", in and of itself, is
entirely meaningless and can be used for *anything* J&J wants to use it for
just as Techron is used for a ton of unrelated products).

It's M-A-R-K-E-T-I-N-G Rod.
Pure unadulterated (and very clever) M-A-R-K-E-T-I-N-G .

Which means it means nothing. It means whatever Apple MARKETING wants it to
mean. And they clearly say it means nothing in and of itself.

The fact is that Apple says you must "include an appropriate generic term
after the trademark the first time it appears. Thereafter, the generic term
should appear frequently with the trademark."

This is no different than any other M-A-R-K-E-T-I-N-G trademark much as
Adobe and Ford and Mercury and Techron and Tylenol, etc.

For you to succumb so readily to meaningless M-A-R-K-E-T-I-N-G is a
problem, because M-A-R-K-E-T-I-N-G's job is to feed you manure and your job
is to pay for that manure (while Apple corporate laughs all the way to the
bank).

OK. So we've shown that you must always follow the meaningless trademark
with meaningful generic functionality.

The generic term for what the AirDrop® "software feature" does is called
"ad hoc services":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AirDrop
- The AirDrop® software feature is an ad hoc service.

An ad hoc service is defined here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_ad_hoc_network
- Smart phone ad hoc networks leverage the existing hardware (primarily
Bluetooth and Wi-Fi) in commercially available smart phones to create
peer-to-peer networks without relying on cellular carrier networks,
wireless access points, or traditional network infrastructure. SPANs differ
from traditional hub and spoke networks, such as Wi-Fi Direct, in that they
support multi-hop relays and there is no notion of a group leader so peers
can join and leave at will without destroying the network.

*Clearly Android has ad hoc services.*

In fact, the Android ad hoc services work both inside and outside the
walled garden, whereas the AirDrop® brand ad hoc services only work
*inside* the walled garden.

So clearly, not only does Android have plenty of modern ad hoc services,
but Android had them before Apple ever bought the exclusive rights to use
the word "AirDrop®" as a legal trademark adjective for its limited
primitive brand of ad hoc services.

[Rod Speed]

Horace Algier <hor...@horatio.net> wrote

> Rod Speed wrote

>> Sandboxing.
>> airdrop,
>> continuity,
>> handoff
>> only being able to get apps from the store
>> a mechanism that allows apple to remove
>> it from your iOS device

> Rod,
> This is good input, and deserves a thread of its own, instead of being
> buried inside some other thread.

> Let's take "AirDrop® ad hoc services" first.

> There is no such thing as "Airdrop".
> Apple says so themselves.
> http://www.apple.com/legal/intellectual-property/trademark/appletmlist.html

And yet
https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204144

> Just like RCA and ThinkPad are trademarks that are bought and sold among
> companies (none of which are currently from the "original" RCA or IBM),
> the
> word you use is merely a meaningless M-A-R-K-E-T-I-N-G "adjective"

Wrong, as always.

> which Apple *bought* on Thursday, July 08, 2010 from another company.

It is in fact a useful one word name for a particular functionality.

> Which means it means nothing.

Wrong, as always.

> It means whatever Apple MARKETING wants it to mean.

Wrong, as always.

> And they clearly say it means nothing in and of itself.

They say nothing of the sort.

> The fact is that Apple says you must "include an appropriate
> generic term after the trademark the first time it appears.

Apple doesn’t in fact do that.
https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204144

> OK. So we've shown that you must always follow the meaningless
> trademark with meaningful generic functionality.

You have done nothing of the sort and Apple doesn’t even do that.
https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204144

<reams of your even sillier mindlessly repetitive shit flushed where it
belongs>

Now try that with sandboxing and then wipe that egg that is all over your
silly face.
With apple's approach to ensuring that apps are safe for your personal data
in spades.

[Frank Slootweg]

Horace Algier <hor...@horatio.net>... oops I mean "Aardvarks"... oops I
mean "Paul M. Cook"... oops I mean "VPN User"... oops I mean "Joe
Clock"... oops I mean "Marob Katon" ... oops I mean "Chris Rangoon"...
wrote:

> Let's take "AirDrop? ad hoc services" first.

>
> There is no such thing as "Airdrop".
> Apple says so themselves.
> http://www.apple.com/legal/intellectual-property/trademark/appletmlist.html
>
> Just like RCA and ThinkPad are trademarks that are bought and sold among
> companies (none of which are currently from the "original" RCA or IBM), the
> word you use is merely a meaningless M-A-R-K-E-T-I-N-G "adjective" which
> Apple *bought* on Thursday, July 08, 2010 from another company.
>

> - Apple Officially Acquires ?AirDrop? Trademark

> http://www.mactrast.com/2011/06/apple-officially-acquires-airdrop-trademark/
> http://www.trademarkia.com/airdrop-85080406.html
>
> Apple M-A-R-K-E-T-I-N-G also registered the *logo* on March 7, 2013
> http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2013/03/apples-airdrop-logo-is-now-a-registered-trademark.html
>
> Where the point is that it's a purely M-A-R-K-E-T-I-N-G tool that, in and
> of itself, is entirely meaningless (just as "Tylenol", in and of itself, is
> entirely meaningless and can be used for *anything* J&J wants to use it for
> just as Techron is used for a ton of unrelated products).
>
> It's M-A-R-K-E-T-I-N-G Rod.
> Pure unadulterated (and very clever) M-A-R-K-E-T-I-N-G .
>
> Which means it means nothing. It means whatever Apple MARKETING wants it to
> mean. And they clearly say it means nothing in and of itself.
>
> The fact is that Apple says you must "include an appropriate generic term
> after the trademark the first time it appears. Thereafter, the generic term
> should appear frequently with the trademark."
>
> This is no different than any other M-A-R-K-E-T-I-N-G trademark much as
> Adobe and Ford and Mercury and Techron and Tylenol, etc.
>
> For you to succumb so readily to meaningless M-A-R-K-E-T-I-N-G is a
> problem, because M-A-R-K-E-T-I-N-G's job is to feed you manure and your job
> is to pay for that manure (while Apple corporate laughs all the way to the
> bank).
>
> OK. So we've shown that you must always follow the meaningless trademark
> with meaningful generic functionality.
>

> The generic term for what the AirDrop? "software feature" does is called

> "ad hoc services":
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AirDrop

> - The AirDrop? software feature is an ad hoc service.

>
> An ad hoc service is defined here:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_ad_hoc_network
> - Smart phone ad hoc networks leverage the existing hardware (primarily
> Bluetooth and Wi-Fi) in commercially available smart phones to create
> peer-to-peer networks without relying on cellular carrier networks,
> wireless access points, or traditional network infrastructure. SPANs differ
> from traditional hub and spoke networks, such as Wi-Fi Direct, in that they
> support multi-hop relays and there is no notion of a group leader so peers
> can join and leave at will without destroying the network.
>
> *Clearly Android has ad hoc services.*

"Android"? WTF, is "Android"? "Android" is just some product/company
which *Google* bought!

So, "the word you use is merely a meaningless M-A-R-K-E-T-I-N-G "adjective"
which Google *bought* in 2005 from another company"!

I hope that shooting yourself in the feet doesn't hurt too much!

[...]

[Your Name]

And another braindead, know-nothing anti-Apple troll joins the
killfile. In fact anything cross-posted to Android newsgroup will also
be killfiled since it's only done by moronic trolls anyway.

[Jolly Roger]

Good idea.

--
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

[BobbyK]

On Thu, 08 Sep 2016 09:13:53 +1200, Your Name <Your...@YourISP.com>
wrote:

>
>
>And another braindead, know-nothing anti-Apple troll joins the
>killfile. In fact anything cross-posted to Android newsgroup will also
>be killfiled since it's only done by moronic trolls anyway.

But.......that would include you, and several others that actually
contribute here. :-)

[Your Name]

In article <2581tbldejmd9d83f...@4ax.com>, BobbyK

Except when replying to already cross-posted topics (because you don't
know which newsgroup the person you're replying to actually reads), I
have never posted anything to an Android newsgroup. I have absolutely
zero interest in Android crap.

[Frank Slootweg]

Hmmm, strange! I reckoned the foot in your mouth wouldn't prevent you
from typing/posting. So we have to conclude that you're too much of a
coward to admit your stupidity/defeat! Duly noted.

[Horace Algier]

On 10 Sep 2016 19:29:48 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:

> Hmmm, strange! I reckoned the foot in your mouth wouldn't prevent you
> from typing/posting. So we have to conclude that you're too much of a
> coward to admit your stupidity/defeat! Duly noted.

You've already proven my point with the lack of *anything* even remotely
meaningful.

Did you miss the ad-hoc services discussion, for example?

[MalcolmO]

On 2016/09/07 1:04 AM, Horace Algier wrote:
> Can anyone name a single bit of functionality that is "on" iOS that isn't
> already on Android?

Doesn't matter. Google tried to steal a PDF out of my Dropbox. Ergo,
Android is not to be used. If there were only Android phones in the
world, I would simply write letters. End of story.
--
Malcolm

[Horace Algier]

On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 21:12:44 -0400, MalcolmO wrote:

> Doesn't matter. Google tried to steal a PDF out of my Dropbox. Ergo,
> Android is not to be used. If there were only Android phones in the
> world, I would simply write letters. End of story.

Nothing wrong with you hating Android because it burned you, but how did
"google stealing a pdf out of dropbox" have anything to do with Android?

What's the connection of Dropbox to Android for you?

[Horace Algier]

On Wed, 07 Sep 2016 10:46:33 -0400, M-M wrote:

> Facetime, Airplay

Do you iOS people have *any* idea what "FUNCTIONALITY" is?

None of you?
Absolutely none?

Are you *all* saps to MARKETING drivel?
Every single one of you?

Have *none* of you ever taken a MARKETING class?
None of you know the difference between functionality and brand names.

Not one of you.
It's very sad how MARKETING-driven you are in every breath.
You wouldn't know FUNCTIONALITY if it hit you in the face!

[Horace Algier]

On Wed, 7 Sep 2016 15:57:45 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:

> All of the above are functionality.

You obviously never took a MARKETING class.

You can't even distinguish between a meaningless brand name and actual
FUNCTIONALITY.

[Rod Speed]

"Horace Algier" <hor...@horatio.net> wrote in message
news:nr39dq$ahl$1...@gioia.aioe.org...

> On Wed, 07 Sep 2016 10:46:33 -0400, M-M wrote:
>
>> Facetime, Airplay

> Do you iOS people have *any* idea what "FUNCTIONALITY" is?

Yep, and we know that single words are useful ways of naming functionality.

Just like you do when you use the word android yourself.

<reams of your bare faced lies/pathetic excuse for trolling flushed where it
belongs>

[Rod Speed]

"Horace Algier" <hor...@horatio.net> wrote in message

news:nr39gb$am5$1...@gioia.aioe.org...

Corse you never actually use that meaningless brand name android yourself,
eh ?

You're a terminal fuckwit and if you keep this shit up your shit will be
ignored.

[Alan Browne]

Can't you read simple English? His issue is Google, not Dropbox.

[Alan Browne]

You wouldn't know a distinct functionality if it was spoon fed to you.

[Frank Slootweg]

Horace Algier <hor...@horatio.net>... oops I mean "Aardvarks"... oops I
mean "Paul M. Cook"... oops I mean "VPN User"... oops I mean "Joe
Clock"... oops I mean "Marob Katon" ... oops I mean "Chris Rangoon"...
wrote:

> On 10 Sep 2016 19:29:48 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>
> > Hmmm, strange! I reckoned the foot in your mouth wouldn't prevent you
> > from typing/posting. So we have to conclude that you're too much of a
> > coward to admit your stupidity/defeat! Duly noted.
>
> You've already proven my point with the lack of *anything* even remotely
> meaningful.

You mean the part that you dishonestly, 'conveniently', silently
snipped, because your *own* words bit you in the bum? I.e. *this* bit:

<repeat>

"Android"? WTF, is "Android"? "Android" is just some product/company
which *Google* bought!

So, "the word you use is merely a meaningless M-A-R-K-E-T-I-N-G
"adjective" which Google *bought* in 2005 from another company"!

I hope that shooting yourself in the feet doesn't hurt too much!

</repeat>

> Did you miss the ad-hoc services discussion, for example?

Nope, of course I didn't miss your red herring. If we wouldn't read
your red herrings, we wouldn't/couldn't read anything from you, could
we?

So tell us, dear post-editor, how is that meaningless M-A-R-K-E-T-I-N-G
adjective/tool "Android" working for you? Why is Google's "meaningless
M-A-R-K-E-T-I-N-G" somehow magically better than Apple's?

[Horace Algier]

On Sun, 11 Sep 2016 11:22:08 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

>> What's the connection of Dropbox to Android for you?
>
> Can't you read simple English? His issue is Google, not Dropbox.

Woooooosh!
That was my point.

That's why I said it the way I said it.
He's connecting the wrong dots.

[Horace Algier]

On Sun, 11 Sep 2016 11:23:04 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

> You wouldn't know a distinct functionality if it was spoon fed to you.

The question was clear:
What functionality does iOS have that Android doesn't?

One answer was "Airdrop".
But, Airdop is merely a MARKETING term for "ad hoc services".

Bearing in mind that Android also has ad hoc services, how is the fact that
iOS has (cleverly branded) ad hoc services any different than the fact that
Android has (perhaps poorly branded) ad hoc services?

The only difference is in the MARKETING.
The FUNCTIONALITY is the same.

[Horace Algier]

On Sun, 11 Sep 2016 20:32:55 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:

> Yep, and we know that single words are useful ways of naming functionality.

Airdrop is a marketing term which isn't on Android.
But that's meaningless (since it's pure MARKETING).

What is the FUNCIONALITY you mean when you use the MARKETING term "Airdop"?

Airdrop is merely a set of ad hoc services.
Ad hoc services are on Android phones too.

So, to put what you said into perspective:
- You said iOS has ad hoc services which you said Android doesn't have
(because *that* was the question, after all, that you were answering).

Yet, clearly, Android has ad hoc services.

How does your saying iOS has ad hoc services mean that it's functionality
that Android doesn't have, when Android also has ad hoc services?

[nospam]

In article <nr496u$1vrg$2...@gioia.aioe.org>, Horace Algier

<hor...@horatio.net> wrote:

>
> > You wouldn't know a distinct functionality if it was spoon fed to you.
>
> The question was clear:
> What functionality does iOS have that Android doesn't?
>
> One answer was "Airdrop".
> But, Airdop is merely a MARKETING term for "ad hoc services".

it's much more than that.

> Bearing in mind that Android also has ad hoc services, how is the fact that
> iOS has (cleverly branded) ad hoc services any different than the fact that
> Android has (perhaps poorly branded) ad hoc services?

what android has is not even close to what airdrop is.

> The only difference is in the MARKETING.
> The FUNCTIONALITY is the same.

definitely not.

[Rod Speed]

Horace Algier <hor...@horatio.net> wrote

> Alan Browne wrote

>> You wouldn't know a distinct functionality if it was spoon fed to you.

He's right.

> The question was clear:
> What functionality does iOS have that Android doesn't?

> One answer was "Airdrop".
> But, Airdop is merely a MARKETING term for "ad hoc services".

Wrong. It’s a single word used to describe a particular ad hoc
FUNCTIONALITY.

Just like Android is a single word to describe one particular FUNCTIONALITY.

> Bearing in mind that Android also has ad hoc services,

We are discussing a PARTICULAR ad hoc functionality, fuckwit.

> how is the fact that iOS has (cleverly branded) ad hoc
> services any different than the fact that Android has
> (perhaps poorly branded) ad hoc services?

Android doesn’t that that PARTICULAR ad hoc functionality, fuckwit.

> The only difference is in the MARKETING.
> The FUNCTIONALITY is the same.

Wrong, as always. What iOS has is the FUNCTIONALITY that
allows bluetooth to be used to see what devices are close
enough to do ad hoc wifi to using that FUNCTIONALITY.

[Rod Speed]

Horace Algier <hor...@horatio.net> wrote

> Rod Speed wrote

>> Yep, and we know that single words
>> are useful ways of naming functionality.

> Airdrop is a marketing term which isn't on Android.

Airdrop is a single word that is useful to briefly
refer to a PARTICULAR ad hoc FUNCTIONALITY.

Just like Android is a single word that is useful
to briefly refer to a PARTICULAR FUNCTIONALITY.

> But that's meaningless (since it's pure MARKETING).

You can keep respewing those bare faced lies till you
are blue in the face if you like, that changes nothing;.

> What is the FUNCIONALITY you mean when
> you use the MARKETING term "Airdop"?

The use of bluetooth to see what devices are close enough
that can do that PARTICULAR ad hoc FUNCTIONALITY, and
to then setup the wifi ad hoc file transfer.

> Airdrop is merely a set of ad hoc services.

It is a PARTICULAR ad hoc service that Android does not have.

> Ad hoc services are on Android phones too.

That PARTICULAR ad hoc functionality is not.

You might as well stupidly claim that Android
phone have phone services just like iOS does
and stupidly claim that that means that there
is nothing that android phones have that iOS
phone don’t have and that would be just as
big a bare faced like with the PARTICULAR
phone service functionality, automatically
recording all incoming and outgoing cellular calls.

I just don’t believe you actually are that stupid,
and that you must be deliberately and flagrantly
dishonestly trolling and if you keep this shit up,
as I say, I will be ignoring your shit.

<reams of your bare faced lies/flagrantly
dishonest trolling flushed where it belongs>

[Horace Algier]

On Mon, 12 Sep 2016 06:52:49 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:

> Wrong, as always. What iOS has is the FUNCTIONALITY that
> allows bluetooth to be used to see what devices are close
> enough to do ad hoc wifi to using that FUNCTIONALITY.

Huh?

Bluetooth is required to find WiFi on iOS?

[Horace Algier]

On Mon, 12 Sep 2016 07:02:49 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:

> Airdrop is a single word that is useful to briefly
> refer to a PARTICULAR ad hoc FUNCTIONALITY.

In about a score of posts on this topic, this is the *first* time you've
actually said something that is correct.

> The use of bluetooth to see what devices are close enough
> that can do that PARTICULAR ad hoc FUNCTIONALITY, and
> to then setup the wifi ad hoc file transfer.

Are you saying Bluetooth is *required* in order for iOS to figure out WiFi
file transfer functionality?

On Android, Bluetooth file transfer ad hoc services work just fine without
WiFI and on Android WiFi file transfer ad hoc services work just fine
without Bluetooth.

[Horace Algier]

On Sun, 11 Sep 2016 14:55:12 -0400, nospam wrote:

> what android has is not even close to what airdrop is.

What is it that Airdrop ad hoc services does that can't be done on Android
since Android certainly has both trivial-to-use Bluetooth and WiFi file
transfer ad hoc services.

[nospam]

In article <nr9b0v$4f7$2...@gioia.aioe.org>, Horace Algier

whoosh.

[nospam]

In article <nr9b0t$4f7$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Horace Algier

<hor...@horatio.net> wrote:

>
> > Wrong, as always. What iOS has is the FUNCTIONALITY that
> > allows bluetooth to be used to see what devices are close
> > enough to do ad hoc wifi to using that FUNCTIONALITY.
>
> Huh?
>
> Bluetooth is required to find WiFi on iOS?

whoosh.

[Jolly Roger]

Horace Algier <hor...@horatio.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Sep 2016 07:02:49 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:
>
>> Airdrop is a single word that is useful to briefly
>> refer to a PARTICULAR ad hoc FUNCTIONALITY.
>>

>> The use of bluetooth to see what devices are close enough
>> that can do that PARTICULAR ad hoc FUNCTIONALITY, and
>> to then setup the wifi ad hoc file transfer.
>
> Are you saying Bluetooth is *required* in order for iOS to figure out WiFi
> file transfer functionality?

This, from the resident dimwit Apple-hating troll who constantly claims iOS
users are the dimwits...

[Rod Speed]

Horace Algier <hor...@horatio.net> wrote

> Rod Speed wrote

>> Wrong, as always. What iOS has is the FUNCTIONALITY that
>> allows bluetooth to be used to see what devices are close
>> enough to do ad hoc wifi to using that FUNCTIONALITY.

> Huh?

> Bluetooth is required to find WiFi on iOS?

Never said that, liar.

[Rod Speed]

Horace Algier <hor...@horatio.net> wrote

> Rod Speed wrote

>> Airdrop is a single word that is useful to briefly
>> refer to a PARTICULAR ad hoc FUNCTIONALITY.

> In about a score of posts on this topic, this is the *first*
> time you've actually said something that is correct.

You're lying thru your fucking teeth, as always.

>> The use of bluetooth to see what devices are close enough
>> that can do that PARTICULAR ad hoc FUNCTIONALITY, and
>> to then setup the wifi ad hoc file transfer.

> Are you saying Bluetooth is *required* in order for
> iOS to figure out WiFi file transfer functionality?

Nope.

> On Android, Bluetooth file transfer ad hoc
> services work just fine without WiFI

And it pitifully slow compared with wifi, fuckwit.

> and on Android WiFi file transfer ad hoc
> services work just fine without Bluetooth.

They work a hell of a lot better when airdrop
FUNCTIONALITY is used instead.

[Rod Speed]

Horace Algier <hor...@horatio.net> wrote

> nospam wrote

>> what android has is not even close to what airdrop is.

> What is it that Airdrop ad hoc services does that can't
> be done on Android since Android certainly has both
> trivial-to-use Bluetooth and WiFi file transfer ad hoc services.

The setting up of the ad hoc wifi file transfer is a lot more effortless
and elegant, particularly for the less technical users.

[Horace Algier]

On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 04:43:29 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:

>>> Wrong, as always. What iOS has is the FUNCTIONALITY that
>>> allows bluetooth to be used to see what devices are close
>>> enough to do ad hoc wifi to using that FUNCTIONALITY.
>
>> Huh?
>
>> Bluetooth is required to find WiFi on iOS?
>
> Never said that, liar.

If all AirDrop does is make something that is trivial to set up even more
trivial, I guess it's something that iOS users want and need.

But, um ... er ... I do Bluetooth and WiFi file transfer ad hoc services
all the time ... and , um, it's so trivial to set up that I would laugh if
you told me you *needed* to make it easier than it already is.

SO if that's all that Airdrop ad hoc services does, then um, ok, er ...
(you iOS guys sure are *needy* fellows)...

[Horace Algier]

On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 04:49:02 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:

> The setting up of the ad hoc wifi file transfer is a lot more effortless
> and elegant, particularly for the less technical users.

Ummmm.

I do WiFi (and Bluetooth) file transfer ad hoc services all the time.
Setting it up is trivial, just like setting up a router is trivial.

I wonder why iOS users seem to *want* and *need* all these crutches?

[Rod Speed]

Horace Algier <hor...@horatio.net> wrote

> Rod Speed wrote

>>>> Wrong, as always. What iOS has is the FUNCTIONALITY that
>>>> allows bluetooth to be used to see what devices are close
>>>> enough to do ad hoc wifi to using that FUNCTIONALITY.

>>> Huh?

>>> Bluetooth is required to find WiFi on iOS?

>> Never said that, liar.

> If all AirDrop does is make something
> that is trivial to set up even more trivial,

More of your lies.

> I guess it's something that iOS users want and need.

More of your lies.

> But, um ... er ... I do Bluetooth and WiFi file transfer ad hoc services
> all the time ... and , um, it's so trivial to set up that I would laugh if
> you told me you *needed* to make it easier than it already is.

> SO if that's all that Airdrop ad hoc services does,

More of your lies.

> then um, ok, er ... (you iOS guys sure are *needy* fellows)...

More of your lies.

[Rod Speed]

Horace Algier <hor...@horatio.net> wrote

> Rod Speed wrote

>> The setting up of the ad hoc wifi file transfer is a lot more
>> effortless and elegant, particularly for the less technical users.

> Ummmm.

Humming aint gunna save you bacon, liar.

> I do WiFi (and Bluetooth) file transfer ad hoc services all the time.
> Setting it up is trivial, just like setting up a router is trivial.

Not for the average user, liar. Even you should have noticed
that you had to help that other user to setup their router, liar.

> I wonder why iOS users seem to *want* and *need* all these crutches?

More of your lies.

[Horace Algier]

On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 20:24:40 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:

>> I do WiFi (and Bluetooth) file transfer ad hoc services all the time.
>> Setting it up is trivial, just like setting up a router is trivial.
>
> Not for the average user, liar. Even you should have noticed
> that you had to help that other user to setup their router, liar.

This is true that the average iOS user such as the couple that I had to
help, is relatively clueless about setting up a router.

By way of extension, that averqage iOS user is probably just as clueless
bout setting up ad hoc services for file transfer.

But it's still doesn't mean that Android doesn't have ad hoc services for
file transfer.

[Rod Speed]

Horace Algier <hor...@horatio.net> wrote

> Rod Speed wrote

>>> I do WiFi (and Bluetooth) file transfer ad hoc services all the time.
>>> Setting it up is trivial, just like setting up a router is trivial.

>> Not for the average user, liar. Even you should have noticed
>> that you had to help that other user to setup their router, liar.

> This is true that the average iOS user such as the couple that
> I had to help, is relatively clueless about setting up a router.

Just as true of the average android user. Far more likely to be true
in fact just because they are often those who can't afford the price
of the apple stuff, because they are more likely to be employed to
do unskilled work and that’s the reason they can't afford apple stuff.

> By way of extension, that averqage iOS user is probably just
> as clueless bout setting up ad hoc services for file transfer.

Just as true of the average android user. Far more likely to be true
in fact just because they are often those who can't afford the price
of the apple stuff, because they are more likely to be employed to
do unskilled work and that’s the reason they can't afford apple stuff.

> But it's still doesn't mean that Android doesn't
> have ad hoc services for file transfer.

No one ever said it didn’t. You demanded to know what iOS has that
android doesn’t and had your nose rubbed in the FACT that iOS has
that PARTICULAR functionality that is very useful for that type of user.

[Horace Algier]

On Wed, 7 Sep 2016 05:04:15 +0000 (UTC), Horace Algier wrote:

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

The topic came up today that Rod Speed feels that Apple Pay is functionality
that is on iOS alone, the response to which I wrote in another thread just
now:

On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 06:42:46 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:

> airdrop,
> continuity,
> handoff,
> sandboxing,
> applepay

We've long ago debunked the airdrop myth.

Let's take the Apple Pay (aka Google Virtual Wallet, PayPass, etc.)
suggestion, shall we?

And let's entirely forget that Apple Pay *requires* network computers on the
other end, which was not in the spirit of the question since the question
was what can the iOS device do all by its itty bitty self.

Not only does Apple Pay require other computers, but it also requires the
specific cloud, iCloud, which, as we said many times, is not in the spirit
of the question of what the mobile device can do all by its itty bitty self.

Nonetheless, let's look at this Apply Pay (Google Wallet, PayPass, etc.),
shall we.

What's the functionality outside the trademark bullshit?
It's the ability to pay for stuff using the phone.

You can also say it's the ability to pay for stuff using the phone without
the retailer having "direct access" to your credit card details.

Nice. But it's not iOS all by itself, and, even if we forget that it
requires both the iCloud specifically, and network computers, it's the same
functionality as Google Wallet or PayPass anyway.

All of which came well before Apple Pay, which is merely a copy of an
existing system. Nothing wrong with a copy, mind you, but it's nothing
unique.

Even worse, Apple reputedly gets a cut of the transaction, so, Apply Pay is
actually worse than Google Wallet in some ways; but the main point is that
it's nothing that wasn't already there, and besides, it's not something that
iOS has all by itself anyway.

As I said, Android does lots that iOS can't hope to do, and yet, there's
absolutely nothing that iOS does that Android doesn't already do.

[nospam]

In article <nv8rn9$1lv8$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Horace Algier

<Horace...@nowhere.com> wrote:

>
> We've long ago debunked the airdrop myth.

it's not a myth. it's something android cannot do. period.

> Let's take the Apple Pay (aka Google Virtual Wallet, PayPass, etc.)
> suggestion, shall we?
>
> And let's entirely forget that Apple Pay *requires* network computers on the
> other end, which was not in the spirit of the question since the question
> was what can the iOS device do all by its itty bitty self.

apple pay does not require anything other than the merchant's point of
sales terminal with contactless enabled.

android pay, on the other hand, *does* require internet connectivity
from the user's phone because android devices do not have a secure
enclave.

in other words, you have everything backwards.

> Not only does Apple Pay require other computers, but it also requires the
> specific cloud, iCloud, which, as we said many times, is not in the spirit
> of the question of what the mobile device can do all by its itty bitty self.

nope.

[Algeria Horan]

On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 22:33:55 -0400, nospam wrote:

>> We've long ago debunked the airdrop myth.
>
> it's not a myth. it's something android cannot do. period.

You Apple guys fall for meaningless trademarks every single time!
AirDrop is just ad hoc services, which were on Android first.

This is a post made with respect to your AirDrop claim.

------------------------------------------
Let's take "AirDrop® ad hoc services" first.

There is no such thing as "Airdrop".
Apple says so themselves.
http://www.apple.com/legal/intellectual-property/trademark/appletmlist.html

Just like RCA and ThinkPad are trademarks that are bought and sold among
companies (none of which are currently from the "original" RCA or IBM), the

word you use is merely a meaningless M-A-R-K-E-T-I-N-G "adjective" which

Apple *bought* on Thursday, July 08, 2010 from another company.

- Apple Officially Acquires ´AirDrop¡ Trademark
http://www.mactrast.com/2011/06/apple-officially-acquires-airdrop-trademark/
http://www.trademarkia.com/airdrop-85080406.html

Apple M-A-R-K-E-T-I-N-G also registered the *logo* on March 7, 2013
http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2013/03/apples-airdrop-logo-is-now-a-registered-trademark.html

Where the point is that it's a purely M-A-R-K-E-T-I-N-G tool that, in and
of itself, is entirely meaningless (just as "Tylenol", in and of itself, is
entirely meaningless and can be used for *anything* J&J wants to use it for
just as Techron is used for a ton of unrelated products).

It's M-A-R-K-E-T-I-N-G Rod.
Pure unadulterated (and very clever) M-A-R-K-E-T-I-N-G .

Which means it means nothing. It means whatever Apple MARKETING wants it to
mean. And they clearly say it means nothing in and of itself.

The fact is that Apple says you must "include an appropriate generic term
after the trademark the first time it appears. Thereafter, the generic term
should appear frequently with the trademark."

This is no different than any other M-A-R-K-E-T-I-N-G trademark much as
Adobe and Ford and Mercury and Techron and Tylenol, etc.

For you to succumb so readily to meaningless M-A-R-K-E-T-I-N-G is a
problem, because M-A-R-K-E-T-I-N-G's job is to feed you manure and your job
is to pay for that manure (while Apple corporate laughs all the way to the
bank).

OK. So we've shown that you must always follow the meaningless trademark
with meaningful generic functionality.

The generic term for what the AirDrop® "software feature" does is called
"ad hoc services":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AirDrop
- The AirDrop® software feature is an ad hoc service.

An ad hoc service is defined here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_ad_hoc_network
- Smart phone ad hoc networks leverage the existing hardware (primarily
Bluetooth and Wi-Fi) in commercially available smart phones to create
peer-to-peer networks without relying on cellular carrier networks,
wireless access points, or traditional network infrastructure. SPANs differ
from traditional hub and spoke networks, such as Wi-Fi Direct, in that they
support multi-hop relays and there is no notion of a group leader so peers
can join and leave at will without destroying the network.

*Clearly Android has ad hoc services.*

In fact, the Android ad hoc services work both inside and outside the
walled garden, whereas the AirDrop® brand ad hoc services only work
*inside* the walled garden.

So clearly, not only does Android have plenty of modern ad hoc services,
but Android had them before Apple ever bought the exclusive rights to use
the word "AirDrop®" as a legal trademark adjective for its limited
primitive brand of ad hoc services.

[nospam]

In article <nv8v7d$1pt6$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Algeria Horan

<algeri...@algeria.horan.net> wrote:

>
> >> We've long ago debunked the airdrop myth.
> >
> > it's not a myth. it's something android cannot do. period.
>
> You Apple guys fall for meaningless trademarks every single time!
> AirDrop is just ad hoc services, which were on Android first.

it's much more than 'just ad hoc services' and your repeated trademark
comments is not only grasping at straws but it displays sheer ignorance
about what's involved.

[Rod Speed]

Horace Algier <Horace...@nowhere.com> wrote

> Horace Algier wrote

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

>> Just one?

> The topic came up today that Rod Speed feels that
> Apple Pay is functionality that is on iOS alone,

The level of SECURITY you get with it certainly is.

With ApplePay you have to UNLOCK the phone
to do an *Pay transaction. With Android you don't,
so anyone who finds or steals your phone can do
*Pay transactions with it and loot your account.

> the response to which I wrote in another thread just now:

> Rod Speed wrote
>> Horace Algier <Horace...@nowhere.com> wrote

>>> There's nothing iOS can do that Android doesn't already do.

>> airdrop,
>> continuity,
>> handoff,
>> sandboxing,
>> applepay

> We've long ago debunked the airdrop myth.

Lie after lie after lies, as always, you silly little
pathological liar/pathetic excuse for a lying troll.

No myth, airdrop is MUCH more convenient to use because all you
have to do to share something is tap the share icon, see the list of
your contacts which it can currently see and tap the icon which
shows their photo etc to send whatever it is to their idevices.

And in big meeting room or conference etc you can see all
the airdrop capable devices that have said they will accept
airdrop from anyone too.

Nothing like that convenience with android.

> Let's take the Apple Pay (aka Google Virtual
> Wallet, PayPass, etc.) suggestion, shall we?

No thanks, the appropriate comparison is with AndroidPay.

> And let's entirely forget that Apple Pay *requires*
> network computers on the other end,

More of your bare faced pig ignorant lies, and even
if it did, that is completely irrelevant to the FACT that
the security of ApplePay is MUCH better because it
requires the idevice to be unlocked before the *Pay
transaction can be done. AndroidPay doesn't, you silly
little pathological liar/pathetic excuse for a lying troll.

> which was not in the spirit of the question

Another bare faced lie, you silly little pathological
liar/pathetic excuse for a lying troll.

> since the question was what can the
> iOS device do all by its itty bitty self.

You never said anything like that in your original
pathetic excuse for a troll, you silly little pathological
liar/pathetic excuse for a lying troll.

> Not only does Apple Pay require other computers,

Wrong, as always.

> but it also requires the specific cloud, iCloud,

It uses no cloud whatever when doing ApplePay
transactions, you silly little pathological liar/
pathetic excuse for a lying troll.

> which, as we said many times, is not in the spirit of the question
> of what the mobile device can do all by its itty bitty self.

There was no such thing in your original pathetic
excuse for a troll, you silly little pathological
liar/pathetic excuse for a lying troll.

> Nonetheless, let's look at this Apply Pay
> (Google Wallet, PayPass, etc.), shall we.

No thanks, the appropriate comparison is with AndroidPay.

> What's the functionality outside the trademark bullshit?
> It's the ability to pay for stuff using the phone.

The point is that with ApplePay you have to UNLOCK
the phone to do an *Pay transaction. With Android
you don't, so anyone who finds or steals your phone
can do *Pay transactions with it and loot your account.

> You can also say it's the ability to pay for stuff using the phone
> without the retailer having "direct access" to your credit card details.

Yes, but AndroidPay does that too.

> Nice. But it's not iOS all by itself,

Corse it is with a particular ApplePay transaction, you silly
little pathological liar/pathetic excuse for a lying troll.

> and, even if we forget that it requires both the iCloud specifically,

It requires nothing of the sort, you silly little
pathological liar/pathetic excuse for a lying troll.

> and network computers,

It requires nothing of the sort, you silly little
pathological liar/pathetic excuse for a lying troll.

> it's the same functionality as Google Wallet or PayPass anyway.

Just another bare faced pig ignorant lie, you silly little
pathological liar/pathetic excuse for a lying troll.

PayPass and PayWave do NOT virtualise the card
so the retailer has your card details, you silly little
pathological liar/pathetic excuse for a lying troll.

> All of which came well before Apple Pay,

The virtual card didn't, you silly little pathological
liar/pathetic excuse for a lying troll.

> which is merely a copy of an existing system.

Wrong, as always, you silly little pathological
liar/pathetic excuse for a lying troll.

> Nothing wrong with a copy, mind you, but it's nothing unique.

Wrong, as always, you silly little pathological
liar/pathetic excuse for a lying troll.

> Even worse, Apple reputedly gets a cut of the transaction,

Irrelevant to whether it is something androids can't do, you
silly little pathological liar/pathetic excuse for a lying troll.

> so, Apply Pay is actually worse than Google Wallet in some ways;

Irrelevant to what was being discussed, what iOS can do that android
can't do, you silly little pathological liar/pathetic excuse for a lying
troll.

> but the main point is that it's nothing that wasn't already there,

Wrong, as always, you silly little pathological
liar/pathetic excuse for a lying troll.

> and besides, it's not something that iOS has all by itself anyway.

That wasn't a requirement in your original pathetic excuse for a troll,
you silly little pathological liar/pathetic excuse for a lying troll.

[Rod Speed]

Algeria Horan <algeri...@algeria.horan.net> wrote
> nospam wrote
>> Algeria Horan <algeri...@algeria.horan.net> wrote

>>> We've long ago debunked the airdrop myth.

>> it's not a myth. it's something android cannot do. period.

> You Apple guys fall for meaningless trademarks every single time!

Nothing to do with any trademark, what is being discussed
is FUNCTIONALITY which is usefully succinctly described by
using the trademark as you have been told repeatedly, you

silly little pathological liar/pathetic excuse for a lying troll.

> AirDrop is just ad hoc services,

Wrong, as always. Airdrop is a PARTICULAR type of
ad hoc service which android can not do, you silly

little pathological liar/pathetic excuse for a lying troll.

> which were on Android first.

More of your bare faced lies given that iOS
showed up BEFORE android did, you silly little

pathological liar/pathetic excuse for a lying troll.

<reams of your trademark mindless repetition of your
lie after lie after lie, all flushed where they belong>

[Jolly Roger]

He's readily admitted right here In these groups that he's never used ad
hoc services on Android or otherwise; but that won't stop the dumb ass from
claiming he knows more about it than those of us who *do* actually use such
features routinely. The "Algeria Horan" troll is a complete ignoramus.

[Rod Speed]

"Jolly Roger" <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:e7qj7t...@mid.individual.net...

> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <nv8v7d$1pt6$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Algeria Horan
>> <algeri...@algeria.horan.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>>> We've long ago debunked the airdrop myth.
>>>>
>>>> it's not a myth. it's something android cannot do. period.
>>>
>>> You Apple guys fall for meaningless trademarks every single time!
>>> AirDrop is just ad hoc services, which were on Android first.
>>
>> it's much more than 'just ad hoc services' and your repeated trademark
>> comments is not only grasping at straws but it displays sheer ignorance
>> about what's involved.
>
> He's readily admitted right here In these groups that he's
> never used ad hoc services on Android or otherwise;

That's overstated. He stupidly uses bluetooth all the time.

> but that won't stop the dumb ass from claiming he knows more about
> it than those of us who *do* actually use such features routinely.

> The "Algeria Horan" troll is a complete ignoramus.

That's not correct either, a very incomplete ignoramus in fact, nothing
viable between the ears and a pathetic excuse for a lying troll too.

[Algeria Horan]

On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 14:30:07 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:

> With ApplePay you have to UNLOCK the phone
> to do an *Pay transaction. With Android you don't,
> so anyone who finds or steals your phone can do
> *Pay transactions with it and loot your account.

When you compare Apple Pay with Google Virtual Wallet, you find pros and
cons to each, but the FUNCTIONALITY is the same.

You knew that from the beginning.

You purposefully pick just one feature out of very many, where the only
thing you're saying is that in a feature to feature comparison, the
application has pros and cons to each side.

Yet you ignore tons of cons about Apple Pay (such as it only works with some
Apple mobile devices and that Apple likely increases the cost to you) just
as you ignored tons of Pros about Google Virtual Wallet.

The point is that there is zero FUNCTIONALITY on iOS that isn't already on
Android.

Period.

When we compare the FUNCTIONALITY, we're going to find pros and cons, but
the overall functionality is the main point.

Fact is, iOS has ZERO functionality that isn't already on Android.
None.

Both ad hoc services and virtual payments not only existed on Android well
before they ever worked on iOS, but when you do a faithful comparison of the
pros and cons, you find they're about the same overall.

Since the AirDrop/ApplePay myths have been soundly debunked, we should move
on to your other "claims" of the vaunted ability of iOS to do something
(anything) that Android doesn't already do.

[Algeria Horan]

On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 14:49:03 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:

> Wrong, as always. Airdrop is a PARTICULAR type of
> ad hoc service which android can not do, you silly
> little pathological liar/pathetic excuse for a lying troll.

We've already disproven that AirDrop is anything more than basic copycat ad
hoc services, which *all* platforms have, and with AirDrop, only work within
the walled garden, so, it's obviously and clearly substandard to the rest of
the ad hoc services.

Anyway, since Apple has no claim to ad hoc services, let's see what else is
on your list of what you perceived that iOS can do that Android doesn't
already do (all by its itty bitty self).

HINT: iOS can't do *anything* that isn't already on Android, while Android
does many things that you can't hope to do on iOS, e.g., torrenting.

[Algeria Horan]

On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 22:49:31 -0400, nospam wrote:

>> You Apple guys fall for meaningless trademarks every single time!
>> AirDrop is just ad hoc services, which were on Android first.
>
> it's much more than 'just ad hoc services' and your repeated trademark
> comments is not only grasping at straws but it displays sheer ignorance
> about what's involved.

Number one of the three musketeers has spoken...

We've already long ago debunked your AirDrop claims, and nobody came to your
rescue.

Just the fact you *call* it AirDrop means you don't have a clue what you're
talking about.

The word AirDrop is an utterly meaningless word, just like "Techron" is
utterly meaningless, or "Vibram" is utterly meaningless. It's just a
trademark. Apple bought it. They can use the word for anything they want.

They can use AirDrop to put on sneakers for heaven's sake.
And yet, you persist in calling basic ad hoc services by a meaningless word.

Fact is, you can't find *anything* that iOS can do that Android doesn't
already do (all by its itty bitty self), while I have listed numerous times
plenty that Android does that iOS can't hope to do.

You can't even load an advanced modern launcher, for heaven's sake, to
replace your primitive one-button-mouse launcher, for example.

iOS is for people who "just give up".

[Algeria Horan]

On 1 Nov 2016 04:15:57 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

> He's readily admitted right here In these groups that he's never used ad
> hoc services on Android or otherwise; but that won't stop the dumb ass from
> claiming he knows more about it than those of us who *do* actually use such
> features routinely. The "Algeria Horan" troll is a complete ignoramus.

Number two of the three musketeers has spoken...

[Algeria Horan]

On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 16:17:13 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:

> That's not correct either, a very incomplete ignoramus in fact, nothing
> viable between the ears and a pathetic excuse for a lying troll too.

Number three of the three musketeers has spoken...

[Rod Speed]

Algeria Horan <algeri...@algeria.horan.net> wrote

> Rod Speed wrote

>> With ApplePay you have to UNLOCK the phone
>> to do an *Pay transaction. With Android you don't,
>> so anyone who finds or steals your phone can do
>> *Pay transactions with it and loot your account.

> When you compare Apple Pay with Google Virtual Wallet, you
> find pros and cons to each, but the FUNCTIONALITY is the same.

Wrong with that SECURITY alone.

<reams of your desperate attempt to bullshit and lie your
way out of your predicament flushed where it belongs>

[Rod Speed]

"Algeria Horan" <algeri...@algeria.horan.net> wrote in message
news:nvadqv$1t91$4...@gioia.aioe.org...

> On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 14:49:03 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:
>
>> Wrong, as always. Airdrop is a PARTICULAR type of
>> ad hoc service which android can not do, you silly
>> little pathological liar/pathetic excuse for a lying troll.

[Rod Speed]

"Algeria Horan" <algeri...@algeria.horan.net> wrote in message

news:nvadr2$1t91$6...@gioia.aioe.org...

> On 1 Nov 2016 04:15:57 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> He's readily admitted right here In these groups that he's never used ad
>> hoc services on Android or otherwise; but that won't stop the dumb ass
>> from
>> claiming he knows more about it than those of us who *do* actually use
>> such
>> features routinely. The "Algeria Horan" troll is a complete ignoramus.

[Rod Speed]

"Algeria Horan" <algeri...@algeria.horan.net> wrote in message

news:nvadub$1teu$1...@gioia.aioe.org...

> On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 16:17:13 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:
>
>> That's not correct either, a very incomplete ignoramus in fact, nothing
>> viable between the ears and a pathetic excuse for a lying troll too.

[Rod Speed]

"Algeria Horan" <algeri...@algeria.horan.net> wrote in message

news:nvadr1$1t91$5...@gioia.aioe.org...

> On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 22:49:31 -0400, nospam wrote:
>
>>> You Apple guys fall for meaningless trademarks every single time!
>>> AirDrop is just ad hoc services, which were on Android first.
>>
>> it's much more than 'just ad hoc services' and your repeated trademark
>> comments is not only grasping at straws but it displays sheer ignorance
>> about what's involved.

[nospam]

In article <nvadr1$1t91$5...@gioia.aioe.org>, Algeria Horan

<algeri...@algeria.horan.net> wrote:

>
> >> You Apple guys fall for meaningless trademarks every single time!
> >> AirDrop is just ad hoc services, which were on Android first.
> >
> > it's much more than 'just ad hoc services' and your repeated trademark
> > comments is not only grasping at straws but it displays sheer ignorance
> > about what's involved.
>
> Number one of the three musketeers has spoken...
>
> We've already long ago debunked your AirDrop claims, and nobody came to your
> rescue.

you didn't debunk a thing and it ain't me who needs rescuing. the only
person who needs rescuing is you, which nobody bothered to do.

> Just the fact you *call* it AirDrop means you don't have a clue what you're
> talking about.

i call it airdrop because that's what it's called, and unlike you, i
understand exactly how it works internally.

> The word AirDrop is an utterly meaningless word, just like "Techron" is
> utterly meaningless, or "Vibram" is utterly meaningless. It's just a
> trademark. Apple bought it. They can use the word for anything they want.

just like 'bluetooth' is a meaningless trademark.

or 'android', for that matter, a word that's been around for *150*
*years*:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(robot)>
The term "android" appears in US patents as early as 1863 in
reference to miniature human-like toy automatons. The term android
was used in a more modern sense by the French author Auguste Villiers
de l'Isle-Adam in his work Tomorrow's Eve (1886).

> They can use AirDrop to put on sneakers for heaven's sake.

no they definitely can't.

more of your ignorance.

> And yet, you persist in calling basic ad hoc services by a meaningless word.

airdrop is not 'basic ad hoc services'.

even more of your ignorance.

> Fact is, you can't find *anything* that iOS can do that Android doesn't
> already do (all by its itty bitty self), while I have listed numerous times
> plenty that Android does that iOS can't hope to do.

fact is, i can and have, as have others.

any time anyone does, you resort to babbling about trademarks and other
completely irrelevant stuff instead of learning something new.

[nospam]

In article <nvadqt$1t91$3...@gioia.aioe.org>, Algeria Horan

<algeri...@algeria.horan.net> wrote:

>
> When you compare Apple Pay with Google Virtual Wallet, you find pros and
> cons to each, but the FUNCTIONALITY is the same.

completely wrong.

you continue to show just how ignorant you are.

the only thing that's the same is holding up a phone to a pos terminal.

beyond that, the entire payment processing with applepay versus google
wallet is *completely* different, along with security implications,
user benefits, card eligibility, fraud prevention, merchant acceptance
and more.

btw, google wallet is all but dead, having been replaced by android
pay, which is basically a copy of apple pay (although not as secure and
with additional limitations), and like applepay, works entirely
differently than google wallet.

[Alan Browne]

On 2016-11-01 00:15, Jolly Roger wrote:

> features routinely. The "Algeria Horan" troll is a complete ignoramus.

Which is why I wonder why you and others bother feeding it.

--
She hummed to herself because she was an unrivaled botcher of lyrics.
-Nick (Gone Girl), Gillian Flynn.

[Jolly Roger]

Alan Browne <alan....@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
> On 2016-11-01 00:15, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> features routinely. The "Algeria Horan" troll is a complete ignoramus.
>
> Which is why I wonder why you and others bother feeding it.

Ah, so you haven't ever participated in one of his many trolling threads? I
find that hard to believe. Or is this a pissing contest? Anyhow, he
regularly changes nyms to avoid kill filters. I'm pretty sure you know
that.

[Chris]

Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Alan Browne <alan....@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>> On 2016-11-01 00:15, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>
>>> features routinely. The "Algeria Horan" troll is a complete ignoramus.
>>
>> Which is why I wonder why you and others bother feeding it.
>
> Ah, so you haven't ever participated in one of his many trolling threads? I
> find that hard to believe. Or is this a pissing contest? Anyhow, he
> regularly changes nyms to avoid kill filters. I'm pretty sure you know
> that.
>

You're certainly not *helping* our kill files, however...

You know he's ignorant and a troll, so take a chill pill and ignore him.
Please.

[Jolly Roger]

Chris <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
>> Alan Browne <alan....@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>>> On 2016-11-01 00:15, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>>
>>>> features routinely. The "Algeria Horan" troll is a complete ignoramus.
>>>
>>> Which is why I wonder why you and others bother feeding it.
>>
>> Ah, so you haven't ever participated in one of his many trolling threads? I
>> find that hard to believe. Or is this a pissing contest? Anyhow, he
>> regularly changes nyms to avoid kill filters. I'm pretty sure you know
>> that.
>>
>
> You're certainly not *helping* our kill files, however...

Neither is anyone else who participates.

> You know he's ignorant and a troll, so take a chill pill and ignore him.
> Please.

Do you plan to ask this of each and every person who happens to reply to
such threads? What will you do the next time he changes his bum to avoid
your kill file and ten others reply to him? You've got your work cut out
for you. Let me know when that strategy actually works.

[Chris]

Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Chris <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>> Alan Browne <alan....@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>>>> On 2016-11-01 00:15, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> features routinely. The "Algeria Horan" troll is a complete ignoramus.
>>>>
>>>> Which is why I wonder why you and others bother feeding it.
>>>
>>> Ah, so you haven't ever participated in one of his many trolling threads? I
>>> find that hard to believe. Or is this a pissing contest? Anyhow, he
>>> regularly changes nyms to avoid kill filters. I'm pretty sure you know
>>> that.
>>>
>>
>> You're certainly not *helping* our kill files, however...
>
> Neither is anyone else who participates.
>
>> You know he's ignorant and a troll, so take a chill pill and ignore him.
>> Please.
>
> Do you plan to ask this of each and every person who happens to reply to
> such threads?

No. Only those who consistently argue the toss with uninterested trolls.

> What will you do the next time he changes his bum to avoid
> your kill file and ten others reply to him?

Let me know next time he changes his bum, I'm not close enough to notice ;)

I've updated my kill files before and I can do it again. Only takes a
minute and should only need doing once. Unless, that is, others keep
feeding the trolls.

> You've got your work cut out
> for you. Let me know when that strategy actually works.

Not really, it works pretty well. As it should, kill files have been part
of Usenet for decades.

[Jolly Roger]

On 2016-11-02, Chris <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
>> Chris <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>> Alan Browne <alan....@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>>>>> On 2016-11-01 00:15, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> features routinely. The "Algeria Horan" troll is a complete
>>>>>> ignoramus.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which is why I wonder why you and others bother feeding it.
>>>>
>>>> Ah, so you haven't ever participated in one of his many trolling
>>>> threads? I find that hard to believe. Or is this a pissing contest?
>>>> Anyhow, he regularly changes nyms to avoid kill filters. I'm pretty
>>>> sure you know that.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You're certainly not *helping* our kill files, however...
>>
>> Neither is anyone else who participates.
>>
>>> You know he's ignorant and a troll, so take a chill pill and ignore
>>> him. Please.
>>
>> Do you plan to ask this of each and every person who happens to reply
>> to such threads?
>
> No. Only those who consistently argue the toss with uninterested
> trolls.

Untrue. To date you've singled only *one* person out of several who are
in this thread. Either you expand your net or you're a liar.

>> What will you do the next time he changes his bum to avoid your kill
>> file and ten others reply to him?
>
> Let me know next time he changes his bum

It's "nym" - obvious typo.

> I've updated my kill files before and I can do it again.

As you will *continue* to do (as the rest of us have) as long as he's
around since he changes his nym on a regular basis.

> Only takes a minute and should only need doing once. Unless, that is,
> others keep feeding the trolls.

Dream on. It'll happen anyway since he changes his nym regularly.
Meanwhile, if you put *me* in your kill list, it will be permanent
because I don't change my nym since I don't habitually troll.

>> You've got your work cut out for you. Let me know when that strategy
>> actually works.
>
> Not really, it works pretty well.

Demanding that others refrain from participating in trollish threads
works well? That's laughable. Note that even if *I* were to refrain from
ever replying to a trollish thread, others would, as evidenced by this
very thread. Singling me out isn't going to stop me or anyone else.

The most effective solution to your problem is simply to create a filter
that kills any posts where the "Algeria Horan" troll's Message-ID
appears in the References header; that way even replies to his trolls
will be filtered regardless of who replied. ; )

[Algeria Horan]

On Wed, 2 Nov 2016 03:05:30 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:

>> On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 16:17:13 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:
>>
>>> That's not correct either, a very incomplete ignoramus in fact, nothing
>>> viable between the ears and a pathetic excuse for a lying troll too.
>
> <reams of your desperate attempt to bullshit and lie your
> way out of your predicament flushed where it belongs>

Heh heh ...

In your repeated trolling attempts, you actually responded to your own post
that you spew bullshit!

Please keep your mindless trolling cutting and pasting straight.

[Algeria Horan]

On Wed, 2 Nov 2016 03:05:09 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:

>> On 1 Nov 2016 04:15:57 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>
>>> He's readily admitted right here In these groups that he's never used ad
>>> hoc services on Android or otherwise; but that won't stop the dumb ass
>>> from
>>> claiming he knows more about it than those of us who *do* actually use
>>> such
>>> features routinely. The "Algeria Horan" troll is a complete ignoramus.
>
> <reams of your desperate attempt to bullshit and lie your
> way out of your predicament flushed where it belongs>

Heh heh ...

Yet again you failed in the simplest of tasks, which is to keep your

trolling cutting and pasting straight.

In this case, your cut-and-paste troll responded to the Jolly Troll...

[Rod Speed]

Algeria Horan <algeri...@algeria.horan.net> wrote

[Rod Speed]

Algeria Horan <algeri...@algeria.horan.net> wrote

[Algeria Horan]

On Wed, 2 Nov 2016 03:05:51 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:

>> On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 22:49:31 -0400, nospam wrote:
>>
>>>> You Apple guys fall for meaningless trademarks every single time!
>>>> AirDrop is just ad hoc services, which were on Android first.
>>>
>>> it's much more than 'just ad hoc services' and your repeated trademark
>>> comments is not only grasping at straws but it displays sheer ignorance
>>> about what's involved.
>
> <reams of your desperate attempt to bullshit and lie your
> way out of your predicament flushed where it belongs>

More trolls from Rod Speed?

You're now cutting and pasting your meaningless rant to nospam.

Do you stop at nothing just to troll?

[Rod Speed]

Algeria Horan <algeri...@algeria.horan.net> wrote

[Algeria Horan]

You guys are all fooled by Apple M-A-R-K-E-T-I-N-G, who turn commodities,
into specialty items, in your *mind* only!

Besides only working inside the walled garden, Airdrop ad hoc services are
nothing special, and Apple Pay isn't either, where Android not only has
everything that Apple has by way of functionality, but CHOICES too!

For example, here's a comparison of the FUNCTIONALITY between Apple,
Android, and Samsung Pay payment systems (which are all the same
functionality):
http://www.androidauthority.com/android-pay-vs-apple-pay-vs-samsung-pay-688041/

airdrop, == Android has plenty of ad hoc services such as ShareIt, FileDrop,
AirDroid, Google Cast, Google Bump, Google Copresence, Beam, etc.

applepay == Android has plenty of encrypted payment systems such as Android
Pay, Google Wallet, PayPass, Samsung Pay, Barclaycard bPay, EE Cash on Tap,
V.me, etc.

Besides... "NFC is inherently more secure than data transfers over Bluetooth
and Wi-Fi, even if encrypted, because of the short distance for making a
connection, which is very hard to intercept, several analysts and banks
adopting NFC have said. The NFC specification requires two NFC devices to be
less than 4 inches apart to transmit data."

[Algeria Horan]

On Tue, 01 Nov 2016 12:25:42 -0400, nospam wrote:

> btw, google wallet is all but dead, having been replaced by android
> pay, which is basically a copy of apple pay (although not as secure and
> with additional limitations),

Heh heh ... I love how you prove my point.

If Android Pay is a "copy" of Apple Pay, then the "Functionality" is there,
by your own admission.

All functionality has pros/cons to compare, but the functionality is there.

*It's a fact that there is no functionality on iOS that isn't on Android.*

It's another fact that there is plenty of functionality on Android devices
that iOS can't hope to have, including file system access & redirects,
installing modern launchers, downloading torrents, automatic call recording,
arranging & naming desktop icons, saving APKs easily for backup to SD cards,
bluetooth file transfer even outside the walled garden when no Internet or
WiFI is available, waterproofness, inductive charging, automatic answering
of calls, etc.

[Rod Speed]

Algeria Horan <algeri...@algeria.horan.net> wrote

<reams of your pathetic excuse for trolling
and bare faced lies flushed where it belongs>

[Rod Speed]

Algeria Horan <algeri...@algeria.horan.net> wrote

[nospam]

In article <nvgurl$155t$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Algeria Horan

<algeri...@algeria.horan.net> wrote:

> You guys are all fooled by Apple M-A-R-K-E-T-I-N-G, who turn commodities,
> into specialty items, in your *mind* only!
>
> Besides only working inside the walled garden, Airdrop ad hoc services are
> nothing special, and Apple Pay isn't either, where Android not only has
> everything that Apple has by way of functionality, but CHOICES too!

wrong

> For example, here's a comparison of the FUNCTIONALITY between Apple,
> Android, and Samsung Pay payment systems (which are all the same
> functionality):
>
> http://www.androidauthority.com/android-pay-vs-apple-pay-vs-samsung-pay-688041
> /

you might actually want to read what you link before you link it.

it states that apple pay has the largest number of supported banks and
available in more countries.

apple pay is also more secure than android pay and certainly *much*
more secure than samsung pay, which spoofs msd so therefore not
encrypted and not secure.

chase supported apple pay two *years* ago, while they just started
supporting android pay this past september.

> airdrop, == Android has plenty of ad hoc services such as ShareIt, FileDrop,
> AirDroid, Google Cast, Google Bump, Google Copresence, Beam, etc.

none of which are as seamless as airdrop, and bump was on ios long
before android.

> applepay == Android has plenty of encrypted payment systems such as Android
> Pay, Google Wallet, PayPass, Samsung Pay, Barclaycard bPay, EE Cash on Tap,
> V.me, etc.

android pay is the android equivalent of apple pay (but less secure).

google wallet is on ios:
<https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/google-wallet-fast-easy-free/id57592352
5?mt=8>

paypass is a trademark (which you claim doesn't matter) for contactless
credit cards.

samsung pay is *only* for samsung phones, not android, and is not
encrypted (it can't be).

once again, you're demonstrating how little you know.

> Besides... "NFC is inherently more secure than data transfers over Bluetooth
> and Wi-Fi, even if encrypted, because of the short distance for making a
> connection, which is very hard to intercept, several analysts and banks
> adopting NFC have said. The NFC specification requires two NFC devices to be
> less than 4 inches apart to transmit data."

nobody transfers files over nfc.

[Joerg Lorenz]

You are a troll.

--
Reclaim your inbox! Thunderbird makes emailing safer, faster, and easier
than ever before with the industry's best implementations of features
such as intelligent spam filters, built-in RSS reader, quick search, and
much more. http://www.mozilla-europe.org

[Joerg Lorenz]

Do you have something meaningful to say in these groups?

[Rod Speed]

Joerg Lorenz <hugy...@gmx.ch> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote

> Do you have something meaningful to say in these groups?

You clearly don’t, child.

[Joerg Lorenz]

You wanted it that way: Welcome in my killfile!

[Hankat]

Joerg Lorenz <hugy...@gmx.ch> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Joerg Lorenz <hugy...@gmx.ch> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote

>>> Do you have something meaningful to say in these groups?

>> You clearly don’t, child.

> You wanted it that way: Welcome in my killfile!

No one actually gives a flying red fuck what you do or do not read, child.

[Chris]

Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> On 2016-11-02, Chris <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>> Chris <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote:
.
>>>
>>> Do you plan to ask this of each and every person who happens to reply
>>> to such threads?
>>
>> No. Only those who consistently argue the toss with uninterested
>> trolls.
>
> Untrue. To date you've singled only *one* person out of several who are
> in this thread. Either you expand your net or you're a liar.

Why are so quick to call people liars when you don't have all the
information?

In *other threads* I've asked ppl.

>>> What will you do the next time he changes his bum to avoid your kill
>>> file and ten others reply to him?
>>
>> Let me know next time he changes his bum
>
> It's "nym" - obvious typo.

I know. Hence the smiley which you conveniently snipped.

>
>> I've updated my kill files before and I can do it again.
>
> As you will *continue* to do (as the rest of us have) as long as he's
> around since he changes his nym on a regular basis.

Clearly, you haven't as you keep replying to his threads...

>
> The most effective solution to your problem is simply to create a filter
> that kills any posts where the "Algeria Horan" troll's Message-ID
> appears in the References header; that way even replies to his trolls
> will be filtered regardless of who replied. ; )

Yes that would be ideal, except the only iOS newsreader available doesn't
have that capability :(. The only thing I can do is filter users or
specific threads.

Seeing this is an iPhone forum, your suggestion is moot.

[Jolly Roger]

On 2016-11-04, Chris <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
>> On 2016-11-02, Chris <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>> Chris <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> .
>>>>
>>>> Do you plan to ask this of each and every person who happens to
>>>> reply to such threads?
>>>
>>> No. Only those who consistently argue the toss with uninterested
>>> trolls.
>>
>> Untrue. To date you've singled only *one* person out of several who
>> are in this thread. Either you expand your net or you're a liar.
>
> Why are so quick to call people liars when you don't have all the
> information?

I have this entire thread as evidence; you haven't bothered to bitch
about anyone else but me in this entire thread.

> In *other threads* I've asked ppl.

Irrelevant since we aren't in *other* threads at the moment. We are here
now. You're just weaseling around trying to justify your behavior.

>>>> What will you do the next time he changes his bum to avoid your
>>>> kill file and ten others reply to him?
>>>
>>> Let me know next time he changes his bum
>>
>> It's "nym" - obvious typo.
>
> I know. Hence the smiley which you conveniently snipped.

And you *still* haven't answered the question - not that it really
matters. We know what you will do: create yet another filter for the new
nym - just as many of us have done from the start with this particular
troll. Join the club.

>>> I've updated my kill files before and I can do it again.
>>
>> As you will *continue* to do (as the rest of us have) as long as he's
>> around since he changes his nym on a regular basis.
>
> Clearly, you haven't as you keep replying to his threads...

Sure I have. You are replying to his threads as well - this is one of
them. Pot, meet kettle.

>> The most effective solution to your problem is simply to create a
>> filter that kills any posts where the "Algeria Horan" troll's
>> Message-ID appears in the References header; that way even replies to
>> his trolls will be filtered regardless of who replied. ; )
>
> Yes that would be ideal, except the only iOS newsreader available
> doesn't have that capability :(.

Another lie. The most popular iOS Usenet client, NewsTap, can filter by
any header you wish, including the References header as I suggested:

<http://i.imgur.com/wU2Fz3c.jpg>

> The only thing I can do is filter users or specific threads. Seeing
> this is an iPhone forum, your suggestion is moot.

Not even *close* to true.

I don't mind the fact that you dislike when people reply to trollish
threads. Just don't try to falsely claim you treat all people who reply
to trollish threads equally when the truth is you do not. You're
extremely inconsistent, and you seem to lie and weasel around in your
arguments about it.

[Algeria Horan]

On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 01:38:50 +0000 (UTC), Horace Algier wrote:

> On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 06:42:46 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:
> airdrop,
> applepay,
> sandboxing,
> continuity,
> handoff,


The iOS guys can't find a single bit of functionality that is on iOS that
isn't already on Android.

But, they suggested the following:
1. airdrop,
2. applepay,
3. sandboxing,
4. continuity,
5. handoff,

Noticing that Apple users can't think outside of Apple MARKETING trademarks,
we need to look at the FUNCTIONALITY that is described in the trademarks
above that the Apple users propose as "functionality" that is on iOS (all by
itself) that is not on Android (all by itself).

We have already debunked the Airdrop ad hoc file transfer services
functionality since they also abound on Android (e.g., ShareIt, FileDrop,
AirDroid, Google Cast, Google Bump, Google Copresence, Beam, etc.).

We also handily debunked the Apple Pay trademarked service which is just an
electronic payment system, which also abounds on Android (e.g., Android Pay,

Google Wallet, PayPass, Samsung Pay, Barclaycard bPay, EE Cash on Tap, V.me,

etc.).

What should we tackle next?

Sandboxing is a special case, since the power and flexibility of Android
file system access means that there is so much that the iOS user can't do
with respect to the file system, redirects, direct edits, links, direct
edits, saving files, saving APKs, direct copies, etc., that to say
sandboxing file system access is a "functionality" is to also say that
"having more complete access to the file system" is the same functionality,
only implemented differently.

So, that's a wash, in so much as nobody on Android would ever *want* to be
so restricted as iOS users are, with respect to lack of access to the file
system by themselves and all the apps.

So, we'll just call sandboxing/file-system-access the two sides of the same
functional coin. It's the same functionality, implemented with different
philosophies.

To be sure, there are pros to sandboxing, and there are utterly astoundingly
huge cons, just like there are pros to having access to the file system by
all apps and there are huge cons too.

This isn't the thread to debate pros and cons of the file system access
methods; it's merely a thread to find something (anything) that iOS does by
way of functionality that Android doesn't already do.

Both do file system access.

So we can't count the extremely limited access to the file system on iOS as
a functionality that Android doesn't have - because - there isn't anyone on
Android who would *want* to have their hands tied, their feet tied, and even
their fingers tied to each other, from the perspective of the apps.

It's just file system access done philosophically differently.

In summary, both iOS and Android have a method for file system access, where
iOS is supremely restricted by design, and Android is rather open by design,
which is to say they both have file system access functionality - but done
entirely differently.

So what we're left to look at are:
a. Continuity
b. Handoff

[Algeria Horan]

On Fri, 04 Nov 2016 00:15:10 -0400, nospam wrote:

> you might actually want to read what you link before you link it.

I did.

> it states that apple pay has the largest number of supported banks and
> available in more countries.

That's a non sequitur.

The question isn't who has the biggest installed base. The question is
whether or not there is *any* functionality on iOS, all by itself, that

isn't already on Android.

It's a simple question.
What you come up with is an Apple trademark, of all things!

Well, OK. That Apple trademark isn't on Android, and it never will.
But if you seriously think a trademark is functionality, then you should
stop trying to answer the question.

> apple pay is also more secure than android pay and certainly *much*
> more secure than samsung pay, which spoofs msd so therefore not
> encrypted and not secure.

Again, you're proving my point, by trying to argue the non sequitur that the
Apple functionality is better than the very many Android equivalents.

This isn't a thread about which approach is better, the Apple functionality
or the Google Functionality (or all the others that are also on Android).

Just the fact that you try to argue on features proves my point on Apple
Pay.

> chase supported apple pay two *years* ago, while they just started
> supporting android pay this past september.

Again, all you're doing is proving my point.
If Chase automatic payments are on both Android & Apple then, yet again, for
the umpteenth time, there is no functionality that iOS can do all by its
itty bitty self that Android doesn't do.

>> airdrop, == Android has plenty of ad hoc services such as ShareIt, FileDrop,
>> AirDroid, Google Cast, Google Bump, Google Copresence, Beam, etc.
>
> none of which are as seamless as airdrop, and bump was on ios long
> before android.

You keep proving my point.

>> applepay == Android has plenty of encrypted payment systems such as Android
>> Pay, Google Wallet, PayPass, Samsung Pay, Barclaycard bPay, EE Cash on Tap,
>> V.me, etc.
>
> android pay is the android equivalent of apple pay (but less secure).

Again, you keep proving my point.

There's nothing that iOS can do, all by its itty bitty self, that Android
doesn't do, yet, there's plenty that Android does that iOS can't hope to do.

All I'm looking for is one thing, just one thing, that iOS can do that
Android can't do, all by its itty bitty self.

Just one functionality (not trademarks, specific apps, or brand names).

[nospam]

In article <nvjgfl$1kg0$2...@gioia.aioe.org>, Algeria Horan

<algeri...@algeria.horan.net> wrote:

>
> > you might actually want to read what you link before you link it.
>
> I did.

then go ask someone to explain the big words, because you did not
understand a single thing you read (and why you snipped the link).

> > it states that apple pay has the largest number of supported banks and
> > available in more countries.
>
> That's a non sequitur.
>
> The question isn't who has the biggest installed base. The question is
> whether or not there is *any* functionality on iOS, all by itself, that
> isn't already on Android.

i didn't say anything about installed base.

the mere fact that apple pay is supported by more banks and available
in more countries is *critical* to being able to use it. if your bank
doesn't support android pay or if it's unavailable in your country, you
don't have its functionality. period.

put simply, there are a *lot* of people who can't use android pay even
if they wanted to, but if they simply switched to an iphone, they could
use apple pay in the very same stores, using the same credit cards.

> It's a simple question.

which has a simple answer, one which you are too stupid to understand.

> What you come up with is an Apple trademark, of all things!
>
> Well, OK. That Apple trademark isn't on Android, and it never will.
> But if you seriously think a trademark is functionality, then you should
> stop trying to answer the question.

who cares if it's trademarked. google has lots of trademarks, something
you ignore.

android pay and samsung pay are trademarked, so if you don't want
trademarks, then you can't include them. works both ways.

> > apple pay is also more secure than android pay and certainly *much*
> > more secure than samsung pay, which spoofs msd so therefore not
> > encrypted and not secure.
>
> Again, you're proving my point, by trying to argue the non sequitur that the
> Apple functionality is better than the very many Android equivalents.

nope. i'm not arguing. i'm *telling* you that apple pay has what you
call 'functionality' that android pay does not.

apple pay is more secure, can be used with more cards in more
countries, does not need an internet connection, does not even need a
phone and is also faster to use. that's a lot of functionality.

this is particularly true when compared with samsung pay, which is
unencrypted and isn't even an android feature. the fact you even
mentioned a *samsung* trademark means you're a hypocrite, as well as
being ignorant.

and if that's not enough, android pay is functionality you won't ever
use because it requires a valid and verified google id. apple pay does
not.

you keep harping on how 'apple requires the cloud' when it's actually
the other way around.

like i said, you're not only a hypocrite, but incredibly ignorant.

> This isn't a thread about which approach is better, the Apple functionality
> or the Google Functionality (or all the others that are also on Android).

it absolutely is about which approach is better.

> Just the fact that you try to argue on features proves my point on Apple
> Pay.

i'm not arguing. i'm telling you how it works.

> > chase supported apple pay two *years* ago, while they just started
> > supporting android pay this past september.
>
> Again, all you're doing is proving my point.
> If Chase automatic payments are on both Android & Apple then, yet again, for
> the umpteenth time, there is no functionality that iOS can do all by its
> itty bitty self that Android doesn't do.

i didn't say anything about automatic payments.

you haven't a clue what you're even arguing about.

> >> airdrop, == Android has plenty of ad hoc services such as ShareIt,
> >> FileDrop,
> >> AirDroid, Google Cast, Google Bump, Google Copresence, Beam, etc.
> >
> > none of which are as seamless as airdrop, and bump was on ios long
> > before android.
>
> You keep proving my point.

what i'm proving is how utterly stupid you are.

> >> applepay == Android has plenty of encrypted payment systems such as Android
> >> Pay, Google Wallet, PayPass, Samsung Pay, Barclaycard bPay, EE Cash on Tap,
> >> V.me, etc.
> >
> > android pay is the android equivalent of apple pay (but less secure).
>
> Again, you keep proving my point.
>
> There's nothing that iOS can do, all by its itty bitty self, that Android
> doesn't do, yet, there's plenty that Android does that iOS can't hope to do.

wrong.

> All I'm looking for is one thing, just one thing, that iOS can do that
> Android can't do, all by its itty bitty self.

that's a flat out lie. you're not looking for *anything*.

all you're doing is trolling and showing just how stupid you are.

> Just one functionality (not trademarks, specific apps, or brand names).

plenty have been described, including what's mentioned above. you
refuse to acknowledge any of it, let alone understand it, and blindly
keep on trolling.

just in case you missed it above, here's one thing you *can't* do on
android: being able to use apple pay without having a valid apple id.
android pay *requires* a google id.

given your insistence of using an android phone without a google id
(which is amazingly stupid) is something which greatly limits its
functionality. that alone means that any ios device can do quite a bit
more than your crippled android phone.

[Rod Speed]

Algeria Horan <algeri...@algeria.horan.net> wrote

<reams of your bare faced lies and pathetic excuse for a troll flushed where
it belongs>

[Joerg Lorenz]

Your postings ar more than useless, they are annoying.
Put this troll in a filter like I do and you won't see ist at all. The
more you feed him the more he writes the crap, stupid!

[Rod Speed]

Joerg Lorenz <hugy...@gmx.ch> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote

>> Algeria Horan <algeri...@algeria.horan.net> wrote

>> <reams of your bare faced lies and pathetic
>> excuse for a troll flushed where it belongs>

> Your postings ar more than useless, they are annoying.

Just as true of your shit, fuckwit child.

> Put this troll in a filter like I do

Go and fuck yourself, again.

> and you won't see ist at all.

Wrong, as always. That fuckwit keeps changing
his nick so no filter will ever produce that result.

> The more you feed him the more he writes the crap, stupid!

He'd keep trolling even if everyone ignored him, fuckwit child.

And you lied thru your fucking teeth about filtering me, fuckwit child.

[Algeria Horan]

On Fri, 04 Nov 2016 23:57:34 -0400, nospam wrote:

> then go ask someone to explain the big words, because you did not
> understand a single thing you read (and why you snipped the link).

First off, they're not "big words".
They're simply meaningless trademarks.

Without the description *after* the trademark, the trademark itself is
meaningless (because Trademarks can mean *anything* the owner wants it to
mean, which they can change at the drop of a hat).

Apple Pay is just a trademark just like Google Pay is.

If you think that the 'big words' mean that only iOS has an electronic
payment system, they YOU are the one fooled by the big words.

Likewise with trademarked ad hoc file transfer services, which abound on
Android devices.

The only way you think is the way APPLE MARKETING wants you to think.
You have zero independent thought processes whatsoever.

The big trademarked words only fool you.
Not anyone else.

[BobbyK]

On Sat, 5 Nov 2016 07:10:54 +0100, Joerg Lorenz <hugy...@gmx.ch>
wrote:

>Am 05.11.2016 um 06:20 schrieb Rod Speed:
>> Algeria Horan <algeri...@algeria.horan.net> wrote
>>
>> <reams of your bare faced lies and pathetic excuse for a troll flushed where
>> it belongs>
>>
>>
>Your postings ar more than useless, they are annoying.
>Put this troll in a filter like I do and you won't see ist at all. The
>more you feed him the more he writes the crap, stupid!

There's one way to not see his stupid one-liners like the above and
get rid of the many nym-ed troll too.

Kill file him.

[Algeria Horan]

On Sat, 5 Nov 2016 02:34:29 +0000 (UTC), Algeria Horan wrote:

> So what we're left to look at are:
> a. Continuity
> b. Handoff

Taking up "Continuity" next, I google for what the heck it is, since the
typical iOS user's mindset is only on what Apple MARKETING feeds them.

Interestingly, this is the first suggested functionality that iOS supposedly
has that isn't already on Android that is not a meaningless Apple trademark:
http://www.apple.com/legal/intellectual-property/trademark/appletmlist.html

So what is this Apple MARKETING thing they call "Continuity"?

"Continuity is an umbrella term Apple is using for a range of new features
that bring the iOS and Mac OS X devices closer than ever before. There are
four main parts of Continuity: Handoff, Phone Calls, SMS Text Messaging and
Wi-Fi Sharing".

Huh? An "umbrella term"?

Let's see what Apple Marketing has to say about what it actually "is":
https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204681
Use Continuity to connect your Mac, iPhone, iPad, iPod touch, and Apple
Watch
"Each of these features, together known as Continuity, allow your devices
to work together"

When we look at the list of things that is "supposedly" Continuity, we find
things such as "Make and receive phone calls without picking up your
iPhone", which, of course, is simply functionality that exists on Android
too.

Let's look at the *requirements* to "make cellular phone calls" with
"Continuity umbrella stuff":

Continuity only works when your devices are near each other and set up as
follows:
Each device is signed in to iCloud with the same Apple ID.
Each device is signed in to FaceTime with the same Apple ID.
Each device has Wi-Fi turned on.
Each device is connected to the same network using Wi-Fi or Ethernet.
On iPhone, go to Settings > Phone > Calls on Other Devices, then turn on
Allow Calls on Other Devices.
On iPad or iPod touch, go to Settings > FaceTime, then turn on Calls
from iPhone.
On Mac, open the FaceTime app, then choose FaceTime > Preferences. Click
Settings, then select Calls From iPhone.

Holy shit. All that, just to make a cellular phone call from a computer?

I haven't done it from Android, but a quick google found that it can be
done, and, I'll be the requirements aren't anything like what hoops the iOS
users have to jump through just to do something that simple.

Apparently one Android app alone gives almost all of the umbrella
functionality that Rod Speed and Apple Marketing collectively call
"Continuitity".
"AirDroid gives Android users most of Continuity's features and allows
some things that'll make Apple users jealous"
http://gadgets.ndtv.com/apps/features/how-to-make-calls-send-and-receive-sms-from-your-computer-using-an-android-phone-654766

Sheesh. Can't all the iOS users on this entire newsgroup come up with a
*single* bit of functionality that is on iOS (all by its itty bitty self)
that isn't *already* on Android?

[Rod Speed]

Algeria Horan <algeri...@algeria.horan.net> wrote

> Algeria Horan wrote

>> So what we're left to look at are:
>> a. Continuity
>> b. Handoff

> Taking up "Continuity" next, I google for what the heck it is, since the
> typical iOS user's mindset is only on what Apple MARKETING feeds them.

> Interestingly, this is the first suggested functionality that iOS
> supposedly
> has that isn't already on Android that is not a meaningless Apple
> trademark:
> http://www.apple.com/legal/intellectual-property/trademark/appletmlist.html

> So what is this Apple MARKETING thing they call "Continuity"?

> "Continuity is an umbrella term Apple is using for a range
> of new features that bring the iOS and Mac OS X devices
> closer than ever before. There are four main parts of Continuity:
> Handoff, Phone Calls, SMS Text Messaging and Wi-Fi Sharing".

> Huh? An "umbrella term"?

Use a dictionary, fuckwit troll.

> Let's see what Apple Marketing has to say about what it actually "is":
> https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204681
> Use Continuity to connect your Mac, iPhone, iPad, iPod touch, and Apple
> Watch

Something android can't do over that range of types of devices, fuckwit
troll.

> "Each of these features, together known as

> Continuity, allow your devicesto work together"

> When we look at the list of things that is "supposedly" Continuity, we
> find
> things such as "Make and receive phone calls without picking up your
> iPhone",
> which, of course, is simply functionality that exists on Android too.

Not from that range of devices it isnt, fuckwit troll.

> Let's look at the *requirements* to "make cellular
> phone calls" with "Continuity umbrella stuff":

> Continuity only works when your devices
> are near each other and set up as follows:
> Each device is signed in to iCloud with the same Apple ID.
> Each device is signed in to FaceTime with the same Apple ID.
> Each device has Wi-Fi turned on.
> Each device is connected to the same network using Wi-Fi or Ethernet.
> On iPhone, go to Settings > Phone > Calls on Other Devices,
> then turn on Allow Calls on Other Devices.
> On iPad or iPod touch, go to Settings > FaceTime,
> then turn on Calls from iPhone.
> On Mac, open the FaceTime app, then choose FaceTime > Preferences.
> Click Settings, then select Calls From iPhone.

> Holy shit. All that, just to make a cellular phone call from a computer?

Nope, to allow the handoff, fuckwit.

> I haven't done it from Android, but a quick google found that it can be
> done,

Like hell it can with all the capability that is included.

> and, I'll be the requirements aren't anything like what hoops the
> iOS users have to jump through just to do something that simple.

You've lost that bet. Feel free to pay using paypal.

> Apparently one Android app alone gives almost all of the umbrella
> functionality that Rod Speed and Apple Marketing collectively call
> "Continuitity".
> "AirDroid gives Android users most of Continuity's features

Even a terminal fuckwit such as yourself should
have noticed the difference between almost all
and most of, you pathetic excuse for a lying troll.

Even the most basic capability of answering an
incoming call on whatever device is most convenient
with an incoming cellular call isnt even available with
it, you pathetic excuse for a lying troll and it certainly
isnt available in android itself anyway, you pathetic
excuse for a lying troll.

> http://gadgets.ndtv.com/apps/features/how-to-make-calls-send-and-receive-sms-from-your-computer-using-an-android-phone-654766

That's JUST SMS, not cellular calls, you pathetic excuse for a lying troll.

<reams of your pathetic excuse for a lying troll flushed where it belongs>

<bares arse at some fuckwit kraut>

[Algeria Horan]

On Sun, 6 Nov 2016 03:05:12 +0000 (UTC), Algeria Horan wrote:

> Apparently one Android app alone gives almost all of the umbrella
> functionality that Rod Speed and Apple Marketing collectively call
> "Continuitity".
> "AirDroid gives Android users most of Continuity's features and allows
> some things that'll make Apple users jealous"
> http://gadgets.ndtv.com/apps/features/how-to-make-calls-send-and-receive-sms-from-your-computer-using-an-android-phone-654766

Rod Speed tells us that Continuity umbrella stuff and Handoff whatever-stuff
are different things, but, Apple tells us that Continuity is merely an
un-trademarked umbrella term for a bunch of stuff, one of which is Handoff.

So we can take Continuity umbrella stuff to include Handoff stuff.

Since the reference in the quoted text above says that AirDroid umbrella
stuff not only does most of what Continutity umbrella stuff does, we can
safely say that Android has "umbrella stuff" too.

But let's dig deeper into the details.
* Your phone, right on your computer, right now.
* Calls, SMS, & app notifications you allowed, mirrored to the computer.
* Type with full physical keyboard and control with mouse.
* Transfer things faster without looking for a cable.
* Your phone, Mac, and Windows computers work like one..
https://www.airdroid.com/

The two things inside of Continuity umbrella stuff that Airdroid umbrella
stuff doesn't do already are:
"AirDroid doesn't have anything like Handoff and doesn't let you receive
phone calls."

Of course, there are apps to do just the remote phone call stuff:
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=justPhone.remotePhone
"Use your Microsoft Windows PC as remote dialer for managing incoming and
outgoing calls and for writing and receiving SMS messages."

Yet, the devil will be in the details, because that article says:
"Continuity also has a feature called Handoff, which allows you to pick up
where you left off with apps... which is available in Chrome on Android".

Since we can safely say that Continuity umbrella stuff is also on Android,
let's just look at the Handoff part of the Continuity umbrella stuff next.

[Algeria Horan]

On Sun, 6 Nov 2016 14:26:41 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:

> Something android can't do over that range of types of devices, fuckwit
> troll.

I love how you prove my point every time, even as you troll...

All of a sudden, there is this "range of devices", which, interestingly,
doesn't include more than half the devices out there!

Heh heh ...

What you mean is that the Continuity "umbrella stuff" you speak about, is
extremely limited in the devices that it works with.

Meanwhile, the FUNCTIONALITY of your vaunted Continuity "umbrella stuff" is
almost completely matched with a *single* freeware app on Android:
"AirDroid is not perfect for Continuity like features, but it comes pretty
close."

Unlike you (who clearly just trolls), I'm actually trying to *answer* the
question posted in the OP, which is what functionality is in your vaunted
Continuity "umbrella stuff" that isn't already on Android.

I'm not going to get help from you or nospam or jollyroger because you don't
actually know anything (you even listed Handoff stuff as separate from
Continuity umbrella stuff, for heaven's sake), so you clearly don't know
what you're talking about.

All *you* do is troll.

But I'm trying to answer the question.

From the first google hit, it's clear that Android already has similar
"umbrella stuff" functionality, which is almost completely contained in the
very first app I looked at.

I think the only thing left to look for on Android is the functionality that
you Apple MARKETING-driven buffoons call "Handoff" stuff, which I'm doing
after I send this off.

> That's JUST SMS, not cellular calls, you pathetic excuse for a lying troll.

You prove my point, with every statement you make.
You can't find a single thing that iOS can do that Android can't do.

Android already has the functionality to do cellular calls also.

[Rod Speed]

Algeria Horan <algeri...@algeria.horan.net> wrote

> Rod Speed tells us that Continuity umbrella stuff
> and Handoff whatever-stuff are different things,

You're lying thru your fucking teeth, as always, you pathetic excuse for a
lying troll.

<all the rest of your pathetic excuse for a troll flushed where it belongs>